Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
25 March 2019
I do believe that reporters/journalist...
...believe that they represent the general public when they are covering politicians and candidates for public office and tend to act on that believe.
I also believe that politicians and candidates for public office also believe that they represent the general public and tend to act on that believe.
As a member of the general public, why do I feel left out?
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farrwest.
13 October 2016
Pick your Poison...
...would you like arsenic or cyanide?
Is that a crazy question or does it seem reasonable? Would you like more information? Is the poison for a big animal or a small animal. Is the poison meant for me or perhaps for someone else? If the poison is meant for me or for those I love and respect, why am I facing this question? Why is it an either/or question in the first place? Surely there must be an alternative answer.
There should at least be an alternative question such as which ice cream would you like, vanilla or chocolate? Who cares either way it is still ice cream. (The correct answer to that one is of course yes.) And in case you hadn't noticed it by now, ice cream comes in way more than two flavors and with very few exceptions they are all ice cream and you have a high probability of having an enjoyable experience with any choice you make.
So how in the world did our country get itself into this mess? Like most of our sporting events we reduce the competitors to two teams for the finals but this time we really did get the two biggest losers. Sad part is we knew this about them before we got to this point. The signs were all there long before anyone even decided to start campaigning. How could a reasonable person not see them for who and what they are?
And as for the original question, how could a reasonable person be expected to answer it? How do you make a logical choice in an illogical world?
Perhaps it would be better to change the question entirely. Perhaps we would be better off changing the way the game is played and refuse to be stuck in a lose lose proposition.
In track and field the final race is not between two individuals but between a field of the fastest and best individuals. Here is an idea worth pursuing, open up your field and let the others in. I mean really open up the field and go beyond the few side shows the media has been willing to mention a few times in the effort to appear to be journalist.
I am saying that this is the year to stand for something and not just take action to be against something. If you honestly like one of the choices you have been given that take it and bare the consequences. But, if you like one of the earlier candidates then write them in. If you didn't like any of the candidates at all and would much rather have someone else you know would represent you better then write them in. If you think that a dead comedian would do a better job than the current bunch then write them in. (I am sure that Pat Paulsen would love the attention and always showed more common sense than the average politician.) Just make sure you know the rules for write in candidates for your voting area or the rules of the game will get you thrown out.
'But Ed, doesn't that mean I will just be throwing away my vote?'
You don't think it is thrown away already?
What better time than now to make a statement and stand for something? In the movies when the good guy is presented with a 'pick your poison' question he usually reacts by spitting in the questioners face. You can at least respect him for that.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farrwest.
Is that a crazy question or does it seem reasonable? Would you like more information? Is the poison for a big animal or a small animal. Is the poison meant for me or perhaps for someone else? If the poison is meant for me or for those I love and respect, why am I facing this question? Why is it an either/or question in the first place? Surely there must be an alternative answer.
There should at least be an alternative question such as which ice cream would you like, vanilla or chocolate? Who cares either way it is still ice cream. (The correct answer to that one is of course yes.) And in case you hadn't noticed it by now, ice cream comes in way more than two flavors and with very few exceptions they are all ice cream and you have a high probability of having an enjoyable experience with any choice you make.
So how in the world did our country get itself into this mess? Like most of our sporting events we reduce the competitors to two teams for the finals but this time we really did get the two biggest losers. Sad part is we knew this about them before we got to this point. The signs were all there long before anyone even decided to start campaigning. How could a reasonable person not see them for who and what they are?
And as for the original question, how could a reasonable person be expected to answer it? How do you make a logical choice in an illogical world?
Perhaps it would be better to change the question entirely. Perhaps we would be better off changing the way the game is played and refuse to be stuck in a lose lose proposition.
In track and field the final race is not between two individuals but between a field of the fastest and best individuals. Here is an idea worth pursuing, open up your field and let the others in. I mean really open up the field and go beyond the few side shows the media has been willing to mention a few times in the effort to appear to be journalist.
I am saying that this is the year to stand for something and not just take action to be against something. If you honestly like one of the choices you have been given that take it and bare the consequences. But, if you like one of the earlier candidates then write them in. If you didn't like any of the candidates at all and would much rather have someone else you know would represent you better then write them in. If you think that a dead comedian would do a better job than the current bunch then write them in. (I am sure that Pat Paulsen would love the attention and always showed more common sense than the average politician.) Just make sure you know the rules for write in candidates for your voting area or the rules of the game will get you thrown out.
'But Ed, doesn't that mean I will just be throwing away my vote?'
You don't think it is thrown away already?
What better time than now to make a statement and stand for something? In the movies when the good guy is presented with a 'pick your poison' question he usually reacts by spitting in the questioners face. You can at least respect him for that.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farrwest.
31 January 2008
Limbaugh taught me wrong.
Rush Limbaugh did us all a great disservice. Before I name this vast blunder to the English language let me blather on about Rush for just a moment. I was once a fan, listening when I could and even making the journey the great bake sale in Colorado. I enjoyed his frank criticism of the politics of the time and his ability to make sense at a time when so few where even trying to. Does anybody even remember the silliness of the Hightower report?
But somewhere along the way Rush became famous and then his ego was courted and from the sounds of this listener became little more than a mouth piece for the Republican Party. All his attacks were directed at the Clintons and very little criticism was leveled against the Republicans even though they were still making the same kind of bone headed moves that Rush used to thrive on. I got tired of the same old grind and tuned out for some time simply catching a tidbit here and there at lunch time or on a very long road trip. I must admit I did hear him this past week making a point against a Republican though I couldn’t tell you what or who. The fact that he did was enough to catch my attention.
So what was the big Rush faux pas of which I speak? Rush broke the sum total of his us versus them argument into two labels, Liberals and Conservatives. This would have been fine except for two things. First, his agenda broke down over time to be a Republicans versus Democrats discussion and not much more. Second, Rush created a new definition for what a Liberal and a Conservative is and because of his popularity his faulty definitions took hold on the American people.
http://www.wikipedia.com/ has many wonderful articles including much subject matter on just these kinds of definitions. I suggest a surf over there to explore in depth Liberalism, Conservatism as well as many other ism’s to understand why I am so disappointed with Rush’s new dictionary creations. From Wikipedia I will take a portion of the definitions for both.
“Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.”
“Broadly speaking, Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.”
The definition given conservatism seems to fit Rush’s position in many ways so maybe his use of it is not so far off though it doesn’t seem to fit across the board for his depiction of the Republican party.
His labeling of Democrats as Liberals is far from valid. He has given the name Liberal a bad conotation using it in a derogative manner but according to the classical definition of Liberalism, the ideals are similar to the definition he associates with that of a conservative. In fact, by the above definition I would consider myself a Liberal though I think I am much too diverse to be limited by a label.
So what label should be used to best describe the Democrats policies and platforms? There is only one that comes to mind time and again and that is Socialism. As I have listened to the political debates of the Democratic party, I can’t help but worry what this country has come to. The founders of this great nation must be tossing and turning too realize that all of their efforts to create a nation based on liberty and freedom and to be protected of the people, for the people, and by the people has spiraled into the political processes we find ourselves today.
To borrow another definition “Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.”
With the exception of state ownership the definition is pretty close. If you consider that control through taxation and legislation provides pretty much the same results as direct ownership, the definition becomes very close indeed.
Listening to the debates, the common theme I hear from Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee and such is ‘Put me in charge and I will take care of all your problems’. It seems like such an easy solution to just turn over all your responsibilities to them and they will take care of all your problems and provide all your solutions. Trouble is, their plans don’t seem very thoroughly thought out and what they have done in the past hasn’t really solved anything let alone provided any confidence that this time will be different.
The real problem is that I am not willing to give in just yet thank you very much. I want to solve my own problems. I want to be my own person and come to my own conclusions. I want to make my own mistakes and my own successes. ‘When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man I put away childish things.’ 1 Corinthians 13:11.
Maybe that is why I am liking Ron Paul. He doesn’t have the solution to all mankinds problems, and he doesn’t always have a good understanding of what the problems entail as evidenced by his answers in the debates. By the way, none of the other candidates do either. What he does have is an understanding of the Constitution as a guiding principle. It is that fundamental principle that tells him that the government is not supposed to be the nurse maid for every passing whim of the people. It defines the role of government in very limited terms beyond which it should not venture. Though he is not as polished in his presentations, his message is still getting through to many people who are looking for the one thing that is missing in this run up to the 2008 presidential election, balance.
He won’t be allowed to make it to the finals but wouldn’t be grand if some of the basic principles this nation was founded upon did. May we not forget the past as we work on building a better tomorrow. A lot of effort was made to give us that opportunity.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
But somewhere along the way Rush became famous and then his ego was courted and from the sounds of this listener became little more than a mouth piece for the Republican Party. All his attacks were directed at the Clintons and very little criticism was leveled against the Republicans even though they were still making the same kind of bone headed moves that Rush used to thrive on. I got tired of the same old grind and tuned out for some time simply catching a tidbit here and there at lunch time or on a very long road trip. I must admit I did hear him this past week making a point against a Republican though I couldn’t tell you what or who. The fact that he did was enough to catch my attention.
So what was the big Rush faux pas of which I speak? Rush broke the sum total of his us versus them argument into two labels, Liberals and Conservatives. This would have been fine except for two things. First, his agenda broke down over time to be a Republicans versus Democrats discussion and not much more. Second, Rush created a new definition for what a Liberal and a Conservative is and because of his popularity his faulty definitions took hold on the American people.
http://www.wikipedia.com/ has many wonderful articles including much subject matter on just these kinds of definitions. I suggest a surf over there to explore in depth Liberalism, Conservatism as well as many other ism’s to understand why I am so disappointed with Rush’s new dictionary creations. From Wikipedia I will take a portion of the definitions for both.
“Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.”
“Broadly speaking, Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.”
The definition given conservatism seems to fit Rush’s position in many ways so maybe his use of it is not so far off though it doesn’t seem to fit across the board for his depiction of the Republican party.
His labeling of Democrats as Liberals is far from valid. He has given the name Liberal a bad conotation using it in a derogative manner but according to the classical definition of Liberalism, the ideals are similar to the definition he associates with that of a conservative. In fact, by the above definition I would consider myself a Liberal though I think I am much too diverse to be limited by a label.
So what label should be used to best describe the Democrats policies and platforms? There is only one that comes to mind time and again and that is Socialism. As I have listened to the political debates of the Democratic party, I can’t help but worry what this country has come to. The founders of this great nation must be tossing and turning too realize that all of their efforts to create a nation based on liberty and freedom and to be protected of the people, for the people, and by the people has spiraled into the political processes we find ourselves today.
To borrow another definition “Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.”
With the exception of state ownership the definition is pretty close. If you consider that control through taxation and legislation provides pretty much the same results as direct ownership, the definition becomes very close indeed.
Listening to the debates, the common theme I hear from Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee and such is ‘Put me in charge and I will take care of all your problems’. It seems like such an easy solution to just turn over all your responsibilities to them and they will take care of all your problems and provide all your solutions. Trouble is, their plans don’t seem very thoroughly thought out and what they have done in the past hasn’t really solved anything let alone provided any confidence that this time will be different.
The real problem is that I am not willing to give in just yet thank you very much. I want to solve my own problems. I want to be my own person and come to my own conclusions. I want to make my own mistakes and my own successes. ‘When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man I put away childish things.’ 1 Corinthians 13:11.
Maybe that is why I am liking Ron Paul. He doesn’t have the solution to all mankinds problems, and he doesn’t always have a good understanding of what the problems entail as evidenced by his answers in the debates. By the way, none of the other candidates do either. What he does have is an understanding of the Constitution as a guiding principle. It is that fundamental principle that tells him that the government is not supposed to be the nurse maid for every passing whim of the people. It defines the role of government in very limited terms beyond which it should not venture. Though he is not as polished in his presentations, his message is still getting through to many people who are looking for the one thing that is missing in this run up to the 2008 presidential election, balance.
He won’t be allowed to make it to the finals but wouldn’t be grand if some of the basic principles this nation was founded upon did. May we not forget the past as we work on building a better tomorrow. A lot of effort was made to give us that opportunity.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)