|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
smogdonkey
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| So... not a big fan of those political pundit shows? |
Well, clever quips (or at least attempts at wit) at one's weak points or reputation are more entertaining to me and conversationally admirable than simple name-calling. I got over the whole, "you poopiebutt!" thing a long time ago. That said, I do still have a man-crush on Jon Stewart.
By the way, I'm not saying everyone in this conversation is acting all 'America's Next Top Model' contestant. Some of you are very Tyra.
Anyway, not trying to change the topic. Carry on! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gopher:
| Quote: |
| Why are you so sure that Boxer did not descend into pettiness simply for pettiness's sake? |
Good question. Could it possibly be that the poster's own liberal bias makes him unable to discern this distinct possibility?
bum:
| Quote: |
Boxer cut her off.
"Madam Secretary, please," she said. "I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions." |
First, I doubt Rice would ever intentionally cut off one of the Senators, so Boxer's rudeness stands out. Second, can you not see the audacity in her pointing out the obvious to Rice, namely, that her decisions impact the troops and their families? And third, when has ANY politician ever paid the price for sending and keeping us in a war? Or have you forgotten the Creedence Clearwater Revival song "Fortunate Son?"
Mr. Peanut:
Thanks for the pseudo psycho-analysis. The first part of what you said is mostly correct; the latter part, mostly incorrect and/or incomplete. Anyway, what does it matter, really? You and your team of taunters on this thread should take my original post on its own merits and speculate rather than decide that you're entitled to be dismissive simply because you doubt the objectivity of the messenger.
And when is there ever objectivity in politics? The entire notion of a political science is a misnomer, an offshoot of the feeble attempt to create a field of social science from history after the big war. Try as they might with their statistics, the political scientists fall far short of objectivity in determining patterns of thought and action.
Hope you were able to read by previous post before it was deleted along with two or three obviously irate responses.
By the way, on the other hand, you can rationalize Boxer's snide remark until the cows come home but it's still a quacking duck.
Indeed, I will wager that if it were possible to keep a scorecard over the past five years of which party has made more sarcastic, mean-spirited statements in public about members of the other party, the Democrats would win hands down. And that, I'd say, is sufficient to seriously call into question their claim of greater sensitivity and civilty than the Republicans.
By the way, I am not a Republican and I never vote party line on either side for a slate of candidates. But all in all, if I was forced to choose, I would say that in the main the Republicans have demonstrated a greater degree of old-fashioned common sense and public decency, genuine respect for those in the military and the military life, and more backbone that most Democrats in the past half century. There are of course exceptions to the rule on both sides. Joe Lieberman and the late Henry "Scoop" Jackson come to mind, for instance.
Reagan voted for Truman. And he once famously claimed, "I didn't leave the Democrat Party; it left me." I have felt the same way since the late 1970s. That said, I'm uncomfortable with the self-righteousness of the far Right too. My essential point is that extremism from either party is bad for America; the far Left is just as strident, and more intellectually arrogant. And who can deny that the mainstream media has leaned left for decades now?
Last edited by stevemcgarrett on Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Could it possibly be that the poster's own liberal bias makes him unable to discern this distinct possibility? |
| Quote: |
| And when is there ever objectivity in politics? |
Perhaps the OP is unable to discern that statements such as these also apply to him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "Who pays the price?" Boxer repeatedly demanded...Boxer cut [Rice's response] off. "Madam Secretary, please," she said. "I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions." [emphasis added] |
Sounds exactly like the soap box I describe above, no? In any case, not a question-answer session and at the very least: a lecture from the other side of the aisle.
Good for Boxer. Perhaps the other Democrats will high-five her over cocktails.
But still the politics of the usual, I am afraid.
Both Rice and Boxer (and many others in Washington) have been in office or in the bureaucracy long enough to know quite a lot about the Iraqi War and its multiple costs. We do not need lectures punctuated by snide commentary. We do not need Senators to take advantage of committee hearings to make partisan cases against the other side. We need constructive advice and criticism and most of all: we need leadership.
Wikipedia offers a nice discussion on these phenomena...
| Wikipedia wrote: |
Constructive criticism is a form of communication, in which a person tries to correct the behavior of another in a non-authoritarian way, and is generally, a diplomatic approach about what another person is doing socially incorrect. It is 'constructive' as opposed to a command or an insult and is meant as a peaceful and benevolent approach. Participatory Learning in Pedagogy in based on these principles of constructive criticism.
Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others with the intention of helping the reader or the artist, rather than creating an oppositional attitude...Criticism can also be a tool of an anti-social behavior, such as a passive-aggressive attack. [empahsis added] |
We are not getting constructive advice, criticism, or leadership from the White House. Apparently we will not get it from the Senate, either. This is one of the consequences I feared when I learned that the Democrats would take the legislature last election. Thank you for posting more details on the exchange, Bucheon. I am more disappointed than before, however. All I see are two groups of people falling all over themselves to preposition themselves on the war issue for November 2008.
Meanwhile, the situation on the ground in the Middle East continues to deteriorate... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher,
You take the same view towards "decorum", "paint by numbers" , "let's not ask questions but obey", believe in "song and dance" as that scoundrel Reich who said, " "Some Dem�ocrats, want to expose the malfeasance and nonfeasance of the Bush Administration - find out who really knew what and when with regard to weapons of mass destruction, Abu Ghraib, Katrina, payoffs to Abramoff, and all the other rot. That's understandable, but it would be far bet�ter if Democrats used their newfound power to lay out a new agenda for America. There's no point digging up more dirt."
I totally disagree with heart and soul and mind. You cannot just let the transgressions and lies be forgotten. Every farmer knows that you don't plant in fallow and poisoned soil. Rice for one, lied, lied point blank, stare them in the face, lied. (about specifically the issue of foreign prisons and torture).
Further, democracy is about dissent. It is not politess and keeping everything clean and tidy and under the pillow of Pandora. America is at a watershed and we need leadership YES, loud leadership and people who will take America off the path of military adventure and empire building and into something more sustaining. I agree with Laphman who addressed this question , this way,
| Quote: |
| Democracy is born in dirt, nour�ished by the digging up and turning over of as much of it as can be brought within reach of a television camera or a subpoena. We can't "lay out a new agenda for America" un�less we know which America we're talking about, the one that embodies the freedoms of a sovereign people or the one made to fit the requirements of a totalitarian state. We owe it to ourselves to know the difference. Seldom in our history have we been offered a better chance to learn a more useful civics lesson, and by holding up to the light the malfea�sance, nonfeasance, and "all the oth�er rot" embedded in the character and conduct of the Bush Adminis�tration, we might discover what we mean by America the beautiful. Like it or not, and no matter how un�pleasant or impolitic the proceed�ings, the spirit of the law doesn't al�low the luxury of fastidious silence or discreet abstention. |
I think the greatest feature of America is her individualism, her questioning, the freedoms inspirited in the individual to check those with so much power.............let them speak louder and raise the roof!
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
