Job Discussion Forums

[thelmadatter]

While I disagree with a good bit of what you said Scott, it was really refreshing to read a well-thought-out post.

However, I do believe that the Democratic (or "left") has a lot of work to do to make itself a viable alternative to the Republicans. Kerry was nominated precisely as he seemed to be the most viable alternative to Bush (remember the Iowa caususes that propelled him forward? most of the Dems participated repeated over and over how he seemed the best bet against Bush). I dont believe that an extreme Left is an answer to an extreme Right. An extreme Left is most often associated with Hollywood and professors in academia. The average man-in-the-street (including my own mostly-working-class family) think both these groups are filled with nutjobs.

I think I agree with you Scott on one thing. We will have to suffer with right-wing extremism before we swing back left. Just as we suffered with leftist extremism to get where we are now (violence in the 60's/70's, racial quotas, and political correctness). (I should also mention that the failure of communism in Russia and the problems many socialist countries have have made a large impact in many American's minds.) The left had huge power and did this country a lot of good but too much relatively unchallenged power for too long causes totalitarianism. Are we seeing/going to see it with the right? Maybe - probably. But I have to say that much of what we are seeing now and have seen in the past 30 years is much a reaction to the excesses of Left as they are something that has always existed in the American psyche.

Right now I think the Democratic Party is too fractured to be a real alternative. It (or any other party) wont be a real opponent until the American people suffer and get fed up with the Right. Dont know what will make us do that but a protracted war in Iraq is a good start, esp. if/when GWB needs to reinstate the draft.

FWIW - I consider myself left-of center socially but center/right-of-center economically, meaning I support things like gay marriage but I also support things like NAFTA

[moonraven]

I see you aren't wearing underpants, again. Or any infrastructure in your post.

What could you possibly mean by the following: (??????!!!!)

"The left had huge power and did this country a lot of good but too much relatively unchallenged power for too long causes totalitarianism. Are we seeing/going to see it with the right? Maybe - probably. But I have to say that much of what we are seeing now and have seen in the past 30 years is much a reaction to the excesses of Left as they are something that has always existed in the American psyche. "

The left had WHAT huge power? WHEN? WHO are you talking about?

WHAT have we seen in the past 30 years? If I am not mistaken, that takes us back to 1974--when the most significant news was the resignation of NIXON! Was his resignation a reaction to the "excesses of the left"? The presidents before Nixon were: Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Hoover; WHO in that group was a leftist? Or do you consider Nixon a leftist and 1974 the moment of turning away from leftist domination?

After Nixon there were 2 unmemorable years of Gerald Ford. Then 4 years of Jimmy Carter--is Carter now a symbol of right-wing reaction?

After Carter there were 12 years of George Bush Padre, 8 of them in the name of someone dozing in an Alzheimer's dream. Now this IS right wing territory.

Oh oh--8 years of William Clinton. Whose excesses was he reacting to when he decided fiscal prudence was better than a huge deficit?

And finally, 4 haplessly destructive years of Baby Bush. He reacted so strongly to the excesses of his predecesor that he went through a huge fiscal surplus accumulated in 8 years in record time: 8 months.

Precisely which "excesses of the left" are you talking about that the past 30 years has supposedly been a homogenous reaction to?

[Guy Courchesne]

see subject line. Repeat again for previous posts.

[scott wilhelm]

Looks like you guys think about politics as much as I do. If I could make a few more comments here.
Moonraven, I think and hope you're incorrect that Chavez wants the military to be the sole bearer of arms in Venezuela. Most of what I have read in the mainstream press and what I have heard from one pro-Chavez and one anti-Chavez Venezuelan here in St Louis indicates that he has made a serious effort to arm his supporters. After a coup attempt he would have been a fool to do otherwise. President Chavez has to be aware of what happens when elected leftists like himself disarm-they get themselves killed or overthrown. Allende agreed to disarm his supporters in an ill-conceived move to show the Right that he didn't want revolutionary violence in Chile. Pinochet and the other conservatives saw an opportunity to shoot fish in a barrel 2 months later. Chavez knows how Latin America and much of the rest of the world works. Democracy that challenges entrenched powers has to be defended by an armed populace. And Chavez is shaking things up in Venezuela. No, he's not a Marxist. Maybe he's not even a pure socialist. But his program has enough of a socialist orientation to it that it threatens right wing interests. If he supports the kind of gun control Allende got lured into, he's political dead meat. I sure hope you're wrong about this.
Guy, I somewhat hope you're right about Bush moving toward the middle in a second term. His program, if fully enacted, would be rough on the country to say the least. My hunch is that he will move right from his first term. No, he won't attack North Korea. They have nukes and Bush won't take on a country with real power. And I doubt he'll hit Iran in a serious way. They have a very heavily armed civilian population. My concern isn't that he is going to try another Iraq. I suspect he'll move right on the domestic front-a national sales tax, lower income taxes on the rich, a mushrooming national debt, gutted environmental laws, more free trade agreements, dramatic cutbacks in needed social programs, and if we're hit with another big terrorist attack-a real attempt at internal repression on a much more dramatic scale than what we saw in his first term. Time will tell.
Thelma, I'm not sure about leftist excesses here in the U.S.. We just don't have much of a Left. I suppose you could argue that the liberalism of the 60s and 70s could seem a little bit sappy at times, and what's left of liberalism has a thing for politically correct speech. But when I think of leftist excesses, I think of Mao, the Shining Path, Stalin and the other real monsters that the Left has produced. We just haven't had that here in the U.S.. I doubt we ever would. If we ever do have a seriuos Left in the U.S. I hope it does distance itself from some professors and a fair # of Hollywood types. A movement that wants to appeal to ordinary working people can't have as its most prominent activists people who come off as wierd or snobish. Many of the activities of the new Left of the Vietnam era were pretty stupid and excessive. But these people were never close to power. They actually inadvertently elcted Nixon in '68. I think a lot of these people have wised up. The U.S. doesn't need a flamboyant, politically correct, snobish Left any more than it needs an extreme Left. Something down to Earth and populist (maybe politely nationalist on the trade issues) is what I think would play here.
As for 2008, my crystal ball isn't that accurate. I don't see McCain. Too moderate. I don't see Powell. He's pro-choice and apparently very cautious about using the military. And I don't see Hillary either. I doubt the party would go with someone who represents a state that we'll carry no matter who we nominate. I suspect the Republicans will stay hard right but try to put a gentle face on it. The Democrats are divided. A lot does depend on the economy. If it is in decent shape, I would think the party will stay center to center-right on economics and center-left on social questions. If the economy is as bad as I think it will be, the party may get up th nerve to go left on economics and play down the social issues. While I'm a Democrat, I know my party lacks nerve at its highest levels. It won't go left on trade and other economic issues unless it is sure that people are hurting so badly that a Humphrey-style labor democrat would fly. Anyway, that's how I see it.

[scott wilhelm]

Looks like you guys think about politics as much as I do. If I could make a few more comments here.
Moonraven, I think and hope you're incorrect that Chavez wants the military to be the sole bearer of arms in Venezuela. Most of what I have read in the mainstream press and what I have heard from one pro-Chavez and one anti-Chavez Venezuelan here in St Louis indicates that he has made a serious effort to arm his supporters. After a coup attempt he would have been a fool to do otherwise. President Chavez has to be aware of what happens when elected leftists like himself disarm-they get themselves killed or overthrown. Allende agreed to disarm his supporters in an ill-conceived move to show the Right that he didn't want revolutionary violence in Chile. Pinochet and the other conservatives saw an opportunity to shoot fish in a barrel 2 months later. Chavez knows how Latin America and much of the rest of the world works. Democracy that challenges entrenched powers has to be defended by an armed populace. And Chavez is shaking things up in Venezuela. No, he's not a Marxist. Maybe he's not even a pure socialist. But his program has enough of a socialist orientation to it that it threatens right wing interests. If he supports the kind of gun control Allende got lured into, he's political dead meat. I sure hope you're wrong about this.
Guy, I somewhat hope you're right about Bush moving toward the middle in a second term. His program, if fully enacted, would be rough on the country to say the least. My hunch is that he will move right from his first term. No, he won't attack North Korea. They have nukes and Bush won't take on a country with real power. And I doubt he'll hit Iran in a serious way. They have a very heavily armed civilian population. My concern isn't that he is going to try another Iraq. I suspect he'll move right on the domestic front-a national sales tax, lower income taxes on the rich, a mushrooming national debt, gutted environmental laws, more free trade agreements, dramatic cutbacks in needed social programs, and if we're hit with another big terrorist attack-a real attempt at internal repression on a much more dramatic scale than what we saw in his first term. Time will tell.
Thelma, I'm not sure about leftist excesses here in the U.S.. We just don't have much of a Left. I suppose you could argue that the liberalism of the 60s and 70s could seem a little bit sappy at times, and what's left of liberalism has a thing for politically correct speech. But when I think of leftist excesses, I think of Mao, the Shining Path, Stalin and the other real monsters that the Left has produced. We just haven't had that here in the U.S.. I doubt we ever would. If we ever do have a seriuos Left in the U.S. I hope it does distance itself from some professors and a fair # of Hollywood types. A movement that wants to appeal to ordinary working people can't have as its most prominent activists people who come off as wierd or snobish. Many of the activities of the new Left of the Vietnam era were pretty stupid and excessive. But these people were never close to power. They actually inadvertently elcted Nixon in '68. I think a lot of these people have wised up. The U.S. doesn't need a flamboyant, politically correct, snobish Left any more than it needs an extreme Left. Something down to Earth and populist (maybe politely nationalist on the trade issues) is what I think would play here.
As for 2008, my crystal ball isn't that accurate. I don't see McCain. Too moderate. I don't see Powell. He's pro-choice and apparently very cautious about using the military. And I don't see Hillary either. I doubt the party would go with someone who represents a state that we'll carry no matter who we nominate. I suspect the Republicans will stay hard right but try to put a gentle face on it. The Democrats are divided. A lot does depend on the economy. If it is in decent shape, I would think the party will stay center to center-right on economics and center-left on social questions. If the economy is as bad as I think it will be, the party may get up th nerve to go left on economics and play down the social issues. While I'm a Democrat, I know my party lacks nerve at its highest levels. It won't go left on trade and other economic issues unless it is sure that people are hurting so badly that a Humphrey-style labor democrat would fly. Anyway, that's how I see it.

[scott wilhelm]

Sorry!!! I don't know how this happened. But as you can tell, it printed twice. Just read it once.

[Guy Courchesne]

Read it twice anyway. I liked it better the second time, but then I had popcorn, so I might be just full of butter.

Good points...I think I agree. Too much can happen anyway in 4 years, and China could come to dominate all economic issue to really through a monkey in the wrench.

One point here...'dealing' (4 u moonie) with NK and Iran doesn't need to be armed assualt. You reacted almost like a good 'ole Republican there to that term... Bush paints himself in a corner - after the axis of evil comments - staking his pride, self, and administration on this meaning the issues will be addressed, be it alone by the barrel of a gun, through negotiations, or with help from recently lost friends abroad.

NK, Iran, New Iraq, Palestine, issues that won't go away, regardless of who's in power. Everything gets dealt with...that's the way the game works. Imagine what the world would be like if there were no enemies, no problems, no crisis. How the h*ll would anything function? There'd be nothing to watch on TV!

[thelmadatter]

We agree there, Scott. You are right when you say that we have not seen in the US the kinds of horror produced by "real" extremists (heck, left OR right) ... one of the reasons I still have faith in our system. If it were really as broken as some believe, we would be seeing a lot worse. Neither party as the kind of absoute power to do those kinds of things and Thank Goddess! MR, you support this idea by showing that we have not had a overwhelming string of Dem or Rep presidents and since you make a distinction, I suspect you believe that at least at one time, there is/was a difference between the Dems and the Reps.

BTW, I know of a lot of older people that believe FDR was a socialist and some even thought he was a communist. I know of a lot of older teachers that bemoan the deterioration of the US public school system to the "liberal and/or socialist" (their terms) policies of Truman. I cant comment on either since I wasnt alive at those times. What I meant by dominate was that the US was much more sympathetic to the left 30 some-odd years ago (when I was a kid, listening to my parents/grandparents talk, heck my grandfather made me watch Nixon's resignation - something I now thank him for) I wanted to be a hippie so bad back then, but I was born too late for that.

The pendulum swings back and forth, I believe. It swung way left (OK by US standards at least) and now it is swinging right.. Will we go back to the "good old" (bad old) 1950's? I doubt it. Too many genies let out of the bottle, so to speak (civil rights, birth control, divorce, women's rights (e.g. credit in own name) etc) Nothing short of a violent rightist revolution will really negate those. But when it goes too far right the pendulum can swing again. But it wont until the Left shows something viable for it to swing back to. And it cannot be an imitation of Europe. We arent Europe. It must be something that takes into account our culture and our history.

Clinton is right when he says that the Dem Party needs to take a good, hard look at itself.

[gregd]

I dont want to offend anyone, but I that we could lighten up the debate with the following... PLEASE DO NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY!!

Subject: THE REVOCATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE

To the citizens of the United States of America:-

In the light of your failure to elect a suitable President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Liar, MP, for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour'; skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters.

You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise".

You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation.

Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels.

Look up "vocabulary".

Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

Look up "interspersed".

There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.

There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize".

You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to Cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents - Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles.

While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon". If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.

Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters.

British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.

You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen".

You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is not a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005.

You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders" which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde.

The 97.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. Merde" is French for "*beep*".

You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2nd will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Yanks Day".

All modern American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you proper cars that go round corners, you will understand what we mean.

All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect.

At the same time, you will adopt proper imperial weights and measures. US Imperial does not exist - the clue is in the title - Imperial = empire, the British Empire. You Americans do not have an empire, you are part of ours. This will have immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and imperialisation will help you understand the British sense of humour.

You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French Fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps". Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat.

The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be servedwarm and flat. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer", and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager". The substances formerly known as "American Beer" will henceforth be referred to as "Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine", with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as "Weak Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine". This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.


From December 1st the UK will harmonise petrol (or "Gasoline" as you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2005) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon - get used to it).

You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should be handled only by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your cooperation.

Regards,

Cuthbert Fairweather
Home Office
HM Government

[gregd]

ok, i know i am an idiot... no need to tell me this!

[moonraven]

Scott, when Ch�vez talks about the Bolivarian Revoluci�n being armed, he is referring to the active participation in social programs on the part of the military (for a description of Ch�vez' use of the military, see Marta Harnecker's book, Hugo Ch�vez. Un hombre, un pueblo--it came out in the spring of 2003--and I believe it's now available in English. It is a transcript of about 13 hours of interviews she made with Ch�vez during the summerof 2002.) He is NOT advocating that every Chavista run out and buy a handgun. The folks who advocate arming themselves are the remnants of the opposition--who were even selling handguns through websites a few months ago.

As some folks contributing to this forum know very little about US history, I am going to recommend a book which I borrowed a couple of years ago from the Original Poster of this thread, and which several of my friends read last month while I was in the US: Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. You will find that history is not so symmetrical as Ying turning into Yang, nor is it governed by a "spirit" embodied by certain prominent figures as Hegel proclaimed in the 19th century--but that it moves forward based on some folks' interests imposing themselves on others.

[thelmadatter]

gregd .. I enjoyed your post. Gonna forward it to a couple British folks I know here in Mexico who'll get a kick out of it.}

MR, yes the will of some gets imposed on others ... thats true of every country's history. Heck, the idea of democracy is the imposition of the will of the majority.

As I said before, if you believe that US politics is so simplistic as a few people controlling everything (using a huge, complicated conspiracy to make roughly 260 million people think they are living in a democracy) then you either revolt or you escape. If you escape and call another country "home," I dont believe you have much to say about the US any longer.

Your sources of wisdom btw are mostly diatribes written by nuts who are mostly discredited by more mainstream historians. If you dont believe me, I give you the same advice you give others... go look at sources other than those that agree with what you already believe and google it yourself.

[moonraven]

So much for trying to be polite to you, thelma.

You have a lot of nerve telling me that I don't have the right to say anything about the US because I have lived for 12 years in another country. I just spent a month there specifically because I am a US citizen and my civic duty includes speaking out when I see that country diving into an abyss of fundamentalist intolerance that emperils the future of the entire planet.

I am appalled that you call yourself an educator and yet anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR absolutely miniscule knowledge of US history you call a "nut". "Mainstream historians" do not exist, but shills for the system certainly do.

Some of us do not aspire to the level of mediocrity that you advocate and represent.

[Julieanne]

Everyone seems to see everything after it happens. On September 13th 2001 I was suspicious of this administration, people of course thought I was crazy to think they might be involved and then slowly there agenda was being shown.
Does anyone remember Pat Robertson, the other Christian Evangelist running for President. That was only about 15 years ago and Americans laughed at him, thought he was a joke. So how did this guy get in? Sure 2000 election was a cheat but some people did vote for him because they didn't realize what a "born again" really means. All "born agains" are people with a million skeletons in their closets, from lying, stealing, cheating, drinking, that have now somehow seen the light. Ya, well a tiger does not change his stripes. Evangelists are a scam. Remember Jim Bakker?? Now they are full force in power and they have decided to team up with Jews calling it all of sudden Judeo-Christian values, first time I have heard this in my life, and I don't know why Jews are falling for this marketing scam.
So no more Monday quarter-backing, Americans need to realize that if they don't take a stand now then their country will become a backward, non-democratic, totalitarian state. It is not too late but it is definitely 9th inning.
Right now there is a website that is raising money to print Bibles in Arabic for the Iraqi people. I hope they are only collecting the money and not actually printing bibles and trying to convert desperate people. How disgusting for them to think their religion is better than someone else's Especially Evangelists hate everyone, including Catholics. Yet Catholics voted for Bush. How stupid of them!
I am sure people won't like my blunt comments but I bit my tongue for 4 years and now I see what a mistake that was.
We need a Watergate badly!

[moonraven]

Interesting you mention Watergate. Folks' historical consciousness is so abbreviates that I would be willing to wager that at least 75% of the folks on this forum would not be able to tell you what the Watergate scandal was without doing an Internet search!

This afternoon a Mexican friend and I were sitting in the main plaza in Cuautla, Morelos, talking about the state of the world. He just happens to be a History professor, and like this poster writes theater pieces based on Latin American history to inculcate historical consciousness in the audience. I think it was he who brought up Nixon--and we both agreed that what Nixon was run out of the presidency for was peanuts compared to what the current president has done. In 30 years that "reaction against leftist excesses" (thelma dixit, hahaha) has reduced the US citizenry to a bunch of ignorant, unethical lemmings--willing to go over the cliff in the name of "morals and values", but from which ethics, compassion, charity, a sense of justice and minding one's own business are conscpicuously absent.

Bush should have been impeached for either creating 9/11 or facilitating it. That's just for starters! How about impeached for abrogating international law? For killing at least 100,000 Iraqui civilians since March of 2003 so that when he leaves the presidency he'll be rolling in ill-gotten petroleum? And how about for killing more than 1,000 US soldiers in an illegal war? And for trashing votes (by virtue of his brother) to steal the 2000 election?

I'd take Clinton's cigar in the Oval Office antics any day over the wanton disregard for law and human lives that the current Oval Office tenant has advocated. Better that he go back to falling off barstools in Texas.