Archive for the ‘US politics’ Category
From the FAIR blog:
Where media define the “center” or the “middle” tells you a lot about the worldview they are promoting. The “center” doesn’t usually indicate where most of the public is, but rather where elites have determined an appropriate middle between opposing arguments. Confusing the two concepts is common (and not an accident).
The Article in question is about the economic advice from two of the most prominent economists who have worked at the highest levels of government and academia. On the other hand, this is a fairly telling comment as I have been seeing a lot of political terms being misused, such as “socialism” and “conservative”. The last term being the most thoroughly brutalised of all of them.
“Conservatism”, from the Latin: conservare–“to retain”, is defined as a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative. Conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity. According to the 2nd Viscount Hailsham, a former chairman of the British Conservative Party, “Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself.”
To me to be a “Conservative” one must be strongly for social order and institutions while not accepting change to that order without good reason.
Of course, the definition is used about has this caveat:
There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world – each upholding their respective traditions – may disagree on a wide range of issues.
I am of the opinion that the precedent set in the US by its use of force to obtain independence from Britain (a decidedly non-conservative act) has left its mark on US politics to bring about what I call the “reality challenged right”. Although, one could also add that other factors are also afoot to create the “reality challenged right”.
The main characteristic of this is the belief in the use of force in politics, which is not found in most civilised nations. In fact, that is probably the most obvious characteristic of this movement.
Another characteristic is being fact adverse, with the most frightening aspect being the failure to address climate change as news comes that the atmospheric level of a carbon dioxide has reached a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years. Scientists believe the rise in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide portends large changes in the climate and the level of the sea.
“It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem,” said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the monitoring program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
I have to admit that I find this movement quite frightening and am not sure how it could have been allowed to arise, but the fact that such a disastrous political faction could be given any level of credibility, let alone called “Conservative”, boggles my mind.
I try to avoid US politics these days, but I have to admit that hearing someone who never served in the military call someone who was wounded in combat not a true hero really pisses me off.
During the First World War, women used to hand out white feather for cowardice, there was one woman who tried to hand someone a feather on a tram, but he couldn’t get up to accept it since he lost both legs in combat.
Of course, the woman was suitably chastened.
I only hope that a similar humiliation awaits Walsh.
I have to admit to supporting Duckworth now, not that it would have taken me too much of a push given that Walsh is offensive in more than one way to me.
Sure it’s a cartoon, but Ted Rall hits the nail on the head:
or why I hate US elections and am happy that I have somewhat insulated myself from them:
Nimrata, why are you ashamed of being Indian?
I look at this picture and you look like a Farangi (If I were using Cantonese, the word that comes to mind is “gweilo”). Did they lighten your skin up? Did they Photoshop you to change your looks?
Sikhism is a noble religion. Why did you give up the kirpan for guns? The symbolism of the kirpan is much more productive than the ridiculous chant of “gun rights” that people mindlessly chant as a mantra in your neck of the woods.
Isn’t ahimsa a better principle to live by?
Not to mention, I have a thing for Indian Food and music. Bollywood movies are over the top, but what the heck, they are fun. I seriously think you should choreograph your next speech as a Bollywood dance routine!
So, does your American Story mean that you have to renounce Indian Culture to fit in? Does it mean that you have to hide how you look and assimilate into the culture? Why can’t you be proud of your Sikh heritage? Or do you associate that with corner shops rather than being a governor?
Remember Margaret Thatcher was a grocer’s daughter when you think such thoughts! Not to mention that your father was a doctor.
I don’t know, Nimrata, but this picture scares me quite a bit about the US. Does one have to assimilate and lose their heritage to belong to that society? Is historic amnesia part of the American nightmare? Does one need to become a White, Christian to be a proper American?
Somehow, all that seems wrong. The US is headed in the wrong direction–not that I really need to care about that myself. The society I live in is working at living with its diversity and moving forward.
What I see in the US and from its media, shows that it is a society that is moving backward to a world that I don’t want to live in. I am glad to have left it.
You should say the Punjabi equivalent of “Jai Ho”, not “Can’t is not an Option”
I will add as a postscript that my copy of Flora Steel and Grace Gardiner’s The Complete Indian Housekeeper and Cook, which was a guide for British ladies living in Colonial India first published in 1888 on how to live in that society, just arrived today. That seems rather fitting to add that bit of the Empire to end this post. Maybe Nimrata is trying to be a Memsab!
There is an interesting interview on today’s Newshour about the rise of the religious right in the US. One of the interviewees points out that the number of evangelical Christians in the US is declining due to its involvement in religion.
I’ve found that gunloon comments tend to reinforce my belief that the US needs gun control due to the fact that these people are not responsible and have no idea of what right the Second Amendment was intended on protecting. Add in that the institution of militia is pretty much an anachronism. In fact, the militia was irrelevant at the time of the Revolution (see Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations).
Anyway, we have already seen that the Heller-McDonald decisions have nor resulted in much in roads being made in the field of gun rights. And as the word of Revolution go “if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t going to make with anyone anyhow”.
Perhaps saying that a variant of “Political Power comes from the barrel of a gun” will backfire on them as badly as failing to heed that religion and politics should not be intertwined.
I couldn’t have said it better:
Posted by Andrew B. on August 9, 2011
This is exactly the kind of development we need to get us out of the current One Party State:
Though many feel we are stuck with a two-party system after numerous attempts to elect a viable alternative candidate have failed, a new Internet-based political movement is emerging. The goal? To put a presidential nomination on the 2012 ballot derived completely from open voting on the Internet. Called Americans Elect, the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization isn’t a traditional new political party, although it must register as one. Instead, it’s a way to nominate candidates in a more democratic fashion. So far, the group has submitted the required number of signatures to put a nomination on the ballot in eight states and has plans to be on 18 by year’s end. Democratic representation is an old idea that modern technology is reinventing, and the movement has the potential to change American politics forever…and that means 2012 will be an even wackier election year than it is already shaping up to be.
So how does one vote for an Americans Elect candidate?
Visit Americans Elect to find out more.