| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
 Posted - 10/22/2006 : 08:25:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
The Byrds in your record collection is worth two Bushes in the White House.
Do you still vote? If so where are you registered - same question for Chocky?
I was registered in Evanston, Illinois and although I could still vote from that address (my brother still lives in Evanston), I haven't voted for US Presidential elections since I moved to Israel (although I was tempted last time). The main reason is that the candidates that are good for the USA are usually bad for Israel and visa versa. And for the most part, the ones that are good for the USA but bad for Israel are the ones I agree with politically in general. So I usually find myself torn between wanting to vote for a candidate I think is the better one in general or thinking I should vote for someone I disagree with in general, because I know he would be more helpful to Israel. My loyalties are split and that's why I feel I can't vote in US Presidential elections anymore.
|
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 09:16:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
The Byrds in your record collection is worth two Bushes in the White House.
Do you still vote? If so where are you registered - same question for Chocky?
Well, I hope you're not asking to conclude that ex-pat Americans shouldn't have/publicize opinions about global politics  
That said, you've actually asked an extremely complicated question, so please forgive the following mini-essay.
My attitude toward the whole mechanism of politics is very radical - note I did NOT say violent, nor do I advocate harming anyone for any reason. It is also ludicrously idealistic and leads others to brand me as naive, which I don't believe I am.
As you might expect from someone whose heroine is Emma Goldman, my guiding theory is that even in a complex global context, party-political adversarial systems are one of the least effective ways of helping people solve problems, both personal and collective. I believe we are capable of more constructive, more lateral ways of arranging our lives and that no political theory that's ever held power has truly helped the majority.
I believe we're an amazing species in whom coincide a phenomenal aggregate of skills and abilities evolving from:
1. our physically convoluted brain structure, which allows us to process both external and internal stimuli, evaluate it, and choose whether or not to act
2. our omniverous digestive system, allowing us to survive wherever we are in the world [unlike, for example, the koala]
3. our binocular vision, binaural ears and opposable thumbs
4. our supreme ability for empathy, so we may extrapolate
I believe as a species we're more similar to each other than different from any exponent of it, but that to benefit both self and others we must both acknowledge the dichotomy and celebrate it.
I believe that bureaucratic entities are a priori structured to encourage dominion of some over others, and that makes them open to abuse. This has probably been the cause of all organized conflict throughout the history of the species.
I believe as a society we are led to believe we cannot
- think
- accomplish specialist tasks
- take responsibility for both ourselves and others
but that we should devolve these to others. I fundamentally disagree with this sad assessment of our species and that exceptions are abundant which back me up.
I believe because of the above we are encouraged to remain in ignorance about the consequences of political and economic action, and thereby to justify activities destructive to our long-term personal health and the integrity of our planet.
I believe existing political mechanisms do not allow for intelligent dissent. The legal systems of every nation were engendered and maintained to protect the status quo. There is no way to challenge the very agenda of those in power or those seeking power. No electoral system welcomes real examination of the system itself, whether contained within a dictatorship or a representative democracy. Slaves throughout history were never allowed to question the concept of slavery within a political context.
There are never electorial choices which allow the registering of such a challenge. No electorial choice which says: I do not agree with any of your choices, and I do not agree with the system and want a real public debate about potential alternatives. Abstention is simply not registered, it is ignored, not counted. Voting participation keeps falling; the politically disaffected keep increasing while politicians -- eager to keep the status quo which keeps them in power and nicely-paid employment with phenomenal social benefits -- while they focus insularly on explanations about the presentation of policies, even policies themselves, or the face of so-called leadership.
I believe that whoever people think is running things is almost never the one/s who actually are.
For all these reasons one of my favorite graffiti is: If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal. 
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 10/22/2006 11:13:05 |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 12:12:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
...my guiding theory is that even in a complex global context, party-political adversarial systems are one of the least effective ways of helping people solve problems, both personal and collective.
I don't like the system either, but we've had hundreds or thousands of years to think up better systems and test them out and I haven't heard of a better one than what we call 'democracy'.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
- Winston Churchillquote:
I believe we're an amazing species
I have to disagree with this. Although many of my best friends are human I think there are 'better' species on the planet than homo-sapiens. Species that don't overeat, that appear happy with what they have, that don't attack each other to get more than their fair share, and work cooperatively for the benefit of their group. So I think whales, dolphins, penguins, meerkats etc are all better species than us. We're a B-grade species. I certainly don't subscribe to the self-glorification that most humans seem to afflicted by. I.e., that we're amazing, we can achieve anything (seriously, many people think this), that we're the reason for the existence of the entire universe etc.
No other species has ever told us that we're the greatest species ever to have existed, although many species have submitted to our self-appointed dominion over them. Our 'greatness' is self-declared.
quote:
in whom coincide a phenomenal aggregate of skills and abilities evolving from:
1. our physically convoluted brain structure, which allows us to process both external and internal stimuli, evaluate it, and choose whether or not to act
True, but this doesn't mean we get the 'action' right though. Many get the action wrong much of the time.
Not to mention that many of these brains regularly form the most preposterous delusions and seriously struggle to cope with the most basic realities of existence.quote:
2. our omniverous digestive system, allowing us to survive wherever we are in the world [unlike, for example, the koala]
Agreed, it's a handy trait we share with many other species. I love being omnivorous.  quote:
3. our binocular vision, binaural ears and opposable thumbs
4. our supreme ability for empathy, so we may extrapolate
Supreme? Errmmmm... this ability for empathy is limited, allowing people to do bad things to other people without remorse if they believe it's in their personal interest to do so. I believe other species (mentioned above) have a greater capacity for empathy than humans.
I hope I don't appear to be picking on you, BB.  I agreed with most of the rest of your post. I like these kinds of conversations, and it looked like a good opportunity for a good rant.  Looking forward to your return rant.
Incidentally, I have a good friend who refuses to cooperate with the system. He's been to prison a few times, and the nut-house once (the system doesn't know what to do with those who refuse to acknowledge the right of the system to tell them what to do). It's usually been for contempt of court. E.g., he's pulled over by cops for going 10km/h over the speed limit (as do many of us, me included), refuses to acknowledge their right to interfere with him, doesn't give his name, is arrested, sits in court and refuses to acknowledge the court's right to exist and does a rag-doll impression. Then gets 28 days, reduced to 14 for good behaviour.
Right, bedtime here.  |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 13:07:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
...my guiding theory is that even in a complex global context, party-political adversarial systems are one of the least effective ways of helping people solve problems, both personal and collective.
I don't like the system either, but we've had hundreds or thousands of years to think up better systems and test them out and I haven't heard of a better one than what we call 'democracy'.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
- Winston Churchillquote:
I believe we're an amazing species
I have to disagree with this. Although many of my best friends are human I think there are 'better' species on the planet than homo-sapiens. Species that don't overeat, that appear happy with what they have, that don't attack each other to get more than their fair share, and work cooperatively for the benefit of their group. So I think whales, dolphins, penguins, meerkats etc are all better species than us. We're a B-grade species. I certainly don't subscribe to the self-glorification that most humans seem to afflicted by. I.e., that we're amazing, we can achieve anything (seriously, many people think this), that we're the reason for the existence of the entire universe etc.
No other species has ever told us that we're the greatest species ever to have existed, although many species have submitted to our self-appointed dominion over them. Our 'greatness' is self-declared.
quote:
in whom coincide a phenomenal aggregate of skills and abilities evolving from:
1. our physically convoluted brain structure, which allows us to process both external and internal stimuli, evaluate it, and choose whether or not to act
True, but this doesn't mean we get the 'action' right though. Many get the action wrong much of the time.
Not to mention that many of these brains regularly form the most preposterous delusions and seriously struggle to cope with the most basic realities of existence.quote:
2. our omniverous digestive system, allowing us to survive wherever we are in the world [unlike, for example, the koala]
Agreed, it's a handy trait we share with many other species. I love being omnivorous. quote:
3. our binocular vision, binaural ears and opposable thumbs
4. our supreme ability for empathy, so we may extrapolate
Supreme? Errmmmm... this ability for empathy is limited, allowing people to do bad things to other people without remorse if they believe it's in their personal interest to do so. I believe other species (mentioned above) have a greater capacity for empathy than humans.
I hope I don't appear to be picking on you, BB. I agreed with most of the rest of your post. I like these kinds of conversations, and it looked like a good opportunity for a good rant. Looking forward to your return rant.
Incidentally, I have a good friend who refuses to cooperate with the system. He's been to prison a few times, and the nut-house once (the system doesn't know what to do with those who refuse to acknowledge the right of the system to tell them what to do). It's usually been for contempt of court. E.g., he's pulled over by cops for going 10km/h over the speed limit (as do many of us, me included), refuses to acknowledge their right to interfere with him, doesn't give his name, is arrested, sits in court and refuses to acknowledge the court's right to exist and does a rag-doll impression. Then gets 28 days, reduced to 14 for good behaviour.
Right, bedtime here.
Hiya sleepy one
Nope, you won't get a rant from me ... merely a polite reminder to re-read what I actually said, not what you think I said. I never said that we were the 'best' species, merely an amazing one. Perhaps I should have added, 'among others.' Nor did I ever say we were supreme, nor that we should behave anthropocentrically, nor that our ability for empathy means we always use it. I really did try to be neutral, stacking up ingredients why our modern political systems don't accommodate the most for the best ... maximum/optimal.
I don't buy the "we tried everything else but nothing works better than democracy" argument, and yes, I'm well familiar with Churchill's quote. In fact the social arrangements we evolved before about 10,000 years ago -- structured as they were on principles of gender and role equality among many other benign features you may or may not wish to discuss -- served the species wonderfully well for about 990,000 years. No, I'm not suggesting we dump the good stuff that's developed since then. Merely that based on our own history we 'dare' to address what might supplant the faulty socio-political environment we all accept without true question. I believe the 'democracy is best' dictum falls smack into that predictable trap.
Your turn again
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 23:25:59
|
So what's the 'model' then? I.e., the model for a society that works better than our current one? I haven't heard of one.
The way I see it, large numbers of people are confused about the most basic aspects of reality, and need to be told what to do and think. And there are others who believe it is their duty to tell others what to think and do and make their decisions for them. I think this is the case whatever socio-political model a society has. E.g:-
- Totalitarianism (fascism, communism etc) - power-hungry manipulators run the show for personal benefit and tell the masses what to think and do.
- Democracy - rival groups of power-hungry manipulators battle each other for the power to run the show and tell the masses what to think and do.
- Communes - eventually a power-hungry manipulator (possibly/probably a sociopath) takes over and runs the show for his/her own benefit by controlling the weak/confused/indecisive.
etc. I don't like it, but I haven't seen any model where the strong, selfish manipulators don't end up controlling the weak, confused masses for their own benefit. I suppose the best analogy would be pack animals, e.g., lions, African hunting dogs etc, where the toughest individual leads, the others submit and they collectively prey on the weakness of other species (or rival groups of their own species).
Call me a cynic, but I think any social utopia is a pipe-dream, as we're a B-grade species. But I'll repeat, some of my best friends are human. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 19:29:58
|
Sorry I derailed the original conversation - I just wanted to get the view of a couple of very bright ex-pats.
I think that Democracy actually is a good foundation for the ideal system, but with checks. I think the American system is a good one with one huge fault - the need for campaign finance reform. We are so influenced by special interests that it is really hard for the average citizen to know which candidates are ideal for their personal ideals. The need to "get in bed with" lobbyists force a lot of good potential candidates from the game leaving egomaniacs who want power at any cost - so we not only get a substandard group of candidates but we can't tell where they come out on issues that are important to us.
I am an optimist, but I believe that we could get a good system - certainly not utopia (not sure I'd want to live in one) but a truly representative government and politicians that serve their constituents and country first before influential lobbies.
But I would definitely ask that all ex-pats participate - because we could use the help here. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 19:33:02
|
Back on topic - action movies are filled with strange tough-guy idioms one that I really don't think makes any sense (though I understand where they are going) is:
Your mouth is writing checks your ass can't cash!
Usually when you write a check you don't cash it yourself. So if the meaning is that you are getting in over your head or your promising more than you can deliver, etc. then it should be your mouth is writing checks that your ass can't cover - or something like that - it doesn't sound as tough - but it makes sense. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 23:23:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
Back on topic - action movies are filled with strange tough-guy idioms one that I really don't think makes any sense (though I understand where they are going) is:
Your mouth is writing checks your ass can't cash!
Usually when you write a check you don't cash it yourself. So if the meaning is that you are getting in over your head or your promising more than you can deliver, etc. then it should be your mouth is writing checks that your ass can't cover - or something like that - it doesn't sound as tough - but it makes sense.
You mean as in: talk with the mouth cause the  ain't listening! 
PS: Turrell and Se�n
I'm gonna save the political blue-sky-ing for another time when I'm not so reeling with BAFTA screenings. See appropriate thread for today's reviews
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/24/2006 : 07:16:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
Back on topic - action movies are filled with strange tough-guy idioms one that I really don't think makes any sense (though I understand where they are going) is:
Your mouth is writing checks your ass can't cash!
Usually when you write a check you don't cash it yourself. So if the meaning is that you are getting in over your head or your promising more than you can deliver, etc. then it should be your mouth is writing checks that your ass can't cover - or something like that - it doesn't sound as tough - but it makes sense.
Wait a minute... this appears in action movies? The first time I heard it was when Rina Sofer's character said it to Thomas Cavanagh's character in the TV series "Ed".
|
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 10/24/2006 : 21:52:31
|
| NOt sure of its origin but its one of those silly trying-to-sound-tougher-than-you-really-are phrases. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Poorly worded idioms
