Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
On Dec 5, 2004, at 3:12 PM, JDG wrote: At 09:50 AM 12/3/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: What John did was a textbook straw man. Easy to knock down, but just as easy to recognize for what it is. Tell me Dave, what precisely was the straw man?The part about so it begins?Or maybe the payback part? Neither, because those weren't straw men -- those were the content of the original message in the thread, in which the phrase So it begins... announced the commencement of minority Christian conservatives' demands for a payback for having reportedly swung the vote in GWB's favor. Let's review... On Thu Dec 2 19:16:14 PST 2004, you wrote: No... but I am also saying that the minority has no right to expect that their policies should remain in effect, and that the policies of participants in the majority coalition should not be effected. That process is not payback and it is not the Coming of Shadows, it is the natural outcome of the electoral process we just conducted. It was the addition of the *quoted* phrase the Coming of Shadows that had a strawmanly look to it. You used it in a way that both Warren and I (at minimum) interpreted as an attempt to pose it as a quote from the earlier discussion with which you disagred. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intentions. If so, I apologize. If not, I've already called it out for what it is. As to the substance of this debate, I disagree with your statement that the minority has no right to expect that their policies should remain in effect. We don't overthrow the government every four years. The minority has the right to expect that their policies will be given the same consideration as the policies of the majority coalition: if they look like they will lead to a better, safer life for more Americans than competing policies, then they should remain in effect. If they look like they will weaken and impoverish more Americans than competing policies, then they should be replaced with policies that improve our lot. Moreover, it's not as though Bush and company won by a landslide. They achieved the barest majority, which a reasonable person might view as an opening for reaching out to the minority, in order to widen one's majority next time out. They have won the privilege of setting the tone for the coming four years. Will they choose to reach out and invite the rest of the country to join them, or will they call them losers and toughen their resolve to become the winners next time? Do they want one America or two? Do they want an environment of conflict and retribution, or one of unity and cooperation? I think *that* is the concern of the originally-posted article. Blessings, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
At 09:50 AM 12/3/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: What John did was a textbook straw man. Easy to knock down, but just as easy to recognize for what it is. Tell me Dave, what precisely was the straw man?The part about so it begins?Or maybe the payback part? Oh wait. I didn't set any of the stuff up to knock down. I didn't have to. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
Gautam Mukunda wrote: For God's sake, Nick, what he's saying is pretty obvious. Indeed. I was trying to express that he didn't seem to be getting what I was saying. The United States didn't become the property of the Republican party on Election Day. All that was won was the political leadership, won by all who participated, not just the votes of the winners of the election. Anyone think this is a meaningful distinction? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
On Dec 3, 2004, at 8:57 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: For God's sake, Nick, what he's saying is pretty obvious. Indeed. I was trying to express that he didn't seem to be getting what I was saying. The United States didn't become the property of the Republican party on Election Day. All that was won was the political leadership, won by all who participated, not just the votes of the winners of the election. Anyone think this is a meaningful distinction? It appears to have escaped Gautam and John both that the Republican party has been running this nation into the ground since well before November. Let's not forget the conservative legislature under Clinton's tenure, or the conservative legislature that gave GWB carte blanche to press illegal, unjustified war and charge it off to our grandchildren. And the Republican slopfest hasn't stopped: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/opinion/03fri3.html?th 13 bills for spending, including funding that idiot groundhog day ceremony. While cutting the NSF budget. (These bills, BTW, have already passed.) Groundhogs are more crucial to the nation's future than the National Science Foundation? Sure, it makes sense -- with the recent upsurge in religiosity among conservative ranks it's no wonder they choose superstition over science. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
On Dec 2, 2004, at 6:43 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: JDG wrote: I must have missed the part where the 2004 election wasn't fair or are you buying into David Brin's Area-51 conspiracy theories as well? I haven't offered an opinion about whether not the 2004 election was fair. I wrote that in a fair election, there are no losers. I was hoping to imply that I stand behind these words only if the election was fair; otherwise, they are irrelevant. What I see is a minority that is apparently unwilling to concede defeat in the last election, and recognize that some policies of the majority will be enacted - and that indeed they should be enacted, by virtue of having participated in the winning coalition. Are you saying that about half the nation's people are now obligated to act as though the other half won *ownership* of the nation? In fact, what BushCo won was *responsibility* for leading the whole country: red, blue, and all the lovely shades of purple in between. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
On Dec 2, 2004, at 7:37 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 2, 2004, at 8:16 PM, JDG wrote: No... but I am also saying that the minority has no right to expect that their policies should remain in effect, and that the policies of participants in the majority coalition should not be effected. But the minority, which is nominal, does have the right to expect civil liberties to be retained, and for temperance to rule the day. After all, the nominal majority does claim to be conservative. That process is not payback and it is not the Coming of Shadows, it is the natural outcome of the electoral process we just conducted. As was stated quite clearly earlier, the payback reference is what fundamentalist religious kooks are expecting. THEY are expecting to be paid back for throwing to Bush. This was stated in the original news article. No one has said there's a Coming of Shadows except you. Using others' words to undermine their position is an effective rhetorical method, but you have to take care to actually use their words. What John did was a textbook straw man. Easy to knock down, but just as easy to recognize for what it is. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
JDG wrote: In a fair election, there are no losers. Sadly, it seems that hardly anyone is willing to look at it that way these days. In a fair election, there are no losers? Consider the case of a referendum we had three on the ballot here in Montgomery County, Maryland. One in particular was on term limits for the County Council. It was defeated.Very clearly, there was a winner and a loser. You really don't get the meaning I intended? Although some candidates lose the race, although some measures are defeated, if the election is fair, *we* win -- all of us. It's when the politicians who won their races imagine that they won *ownership of the nation* that we're in trouble, because then we really have a group of losers who are treated as if they no longer share in ownership of the nation... or state, county, city, whatever. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
At 09:25 AM 12/2/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: In a fair election, there are no losers. Sadly, it seems that hardly anyone is willing to look at it that way these days. In a fair election, there are no losers? Consider the case of a referendum we had three on the ballot here in Montgomery County, Maryland. One in particular was on term limits for the County Council. It was defeated.Very clearly, there was a winner and a loser. You really don't get the meaning I intended? Although some candidates lose the race, although some measures are defeated, if the election is fair, *we* win -- all of us. I must have missed the part where the 2004 election wasn't fair or are you buying into David Brin's Area-51 conspiracy theories as well? What I see is a minority that is apparently unwilling to concede defeat in the last election, and recognize that some policies of the majority will be enacted - and that indeed they should be enacted, by virtue of having participated in the winning coalition. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
JDG wrote: I must have missed the part where the 2004 election wasn't fair or are you buying into David Brin's Area-51 conspiracy theories as well? I haven't offered an opinion about whether not the 2004 election was fair. I wrote that in a fair election, there are no losers. I was hoping to imply that I stand behind these words only if the election was fair; otherwise, they are irrelevant. What I see is a minority that is apparently unwilling to concede defeat in the last election, and recognize that some policies of the majority will be enacted - and that indeed they should be enacted, by virtue of having participated in the winning coalition. Are you saying that about half the nation's people are now obligated to act as though the other half won *ownership* of the nation? Do you view the election as an attack and conquest or a conversation and decision? I'm hearing To the victor go the spoils about the election, which seems entirely inappropriate to the aftermath of an election. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
JDG wrote: At 09:25 AM 12/2/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: In a fair election, there are no losers. Sadly, it seems that hardly anyone is willing to look at it that way these days. In a fair election, there are no losers? Consider the case of a referendum we had three on the ballot here in Montgomery County, Maryland. One in particular was on term limits for the County Council. It was defeated.Very clearly, there was a winner and a loser. You really don't get the meaning I intended? Although some candidates lose the race, although some measures are defeated, if the election is fair, *we* win -- all of us. I must have missed the part where the 2004 election wasn't fair or are you buying into David Brin's Area-51 conspiracy theories as well? What I see is a minority that is apparently unwilling to concede defeat in the last election, and recognize that some policies of the majority will be enacted - and that indeed they should be enacted, by virtue of having participated in the winning coalition. Maybe you just didn't understand what is being said. I voted for Kerry. But Bush won. But since I participated in the election, I *elected* Bush even though I didn't *vote* for him. Nick is pointing at the subtle difference between electing and voting. I was making this same point elsewhere weeks before the election and didn't have any problem being understood. And the people I was talking to agreed that this is an important distinction to understand when performing ones civic duties. When one votes one is not just responsible for ones vote, one is also responsible for having participated in the election. xponent Civil Civics Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
At 06:43 PM 12/2/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: I must have missed the part where the 2004 election wasn't fair or are you buying into David Brin's Area-51 conspiracy theories as well? I haven't offered an opinion about whether not the 2004 election was fair. I wrote that in a fair election, there are no losers. I was hoping to imply that I stand behind these words only if the election was fair; otherwise, they are irrelevant. You aren't inspiring a lot of confidence here What I see is a minority that is apparently unwilling to concede defeat in the last election, and recognize that some policies of the majority will be enacted - and that indeed they should be enacted, by virtue of having participated in the winning coalition. Are you saying that about half the nation's people are now obligated to act as though the other half won *ownership* of the nation? No... but I am also saying that the minority has no right to expect that their policies should remain in effect, and that the policies of participants in the majority coalition should not be effected. That process is not payback and it is not the Coming of Shadows, it is the natural outcome of the electoral process we just conducted. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that about half the nation's people are now obligated to act as though the other half won *ownership* of the nation? Do you view the election as an attack and conquest or a conversation and decision? I'm hearing To the victor go the spoils about the election, which seems entirely inappropriate to the aftermath of an election. Nick For God's sake, Nick, what he's saying is pretty obvious. One of the the two parties won the election. That means it gets a chance to enact its policies. One of the two parties _lost_ the agenda. That means it loses the chance to enact its agenda. That is why people want to win elections. It would be a strange electoral process in which the _losers_ of the election are the ones who end up running the government. In general, the only people who suddenly come to that belief are the ones who supported the party that lost the election. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
At 06:32 AM 11/29/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: JDG wrote: Again, the only conclusion I can draw from using loaded language like so it begins is that religious conservatives either shouldn't be allowed to participate in the political process, or that if they are, they shouldn't ever be allowed to actually *win* and maybe enact some portions of their Agenda. Apparently the nation's social policy is supposed to be left to the *losers* of election, or better yet, to judges who were never even elected in the first place! I don't think this is about winning or losing elections. To me, it is about how the leadership views the nation. The party that wins the White House and Congress hasn't won the country in the way that the person with a winning lottery ticket wins the money. Elections are our way of making the best decision we can, not our way of deciding who was right and who was wrong. It is much more of a conversation than a contest; I think those who talk about it more as a contest than a conversation do us all a great disservice. In a fair election, there are no losers. Sadly, it seems that hardly anyone is willing to look at it that way these days. In a fair election, there are no losers? Consider the case of a referendum we had three on the ballot here in Montgomery County, Maryland. One in particular was on term limits for the County Council. It was defeated.Very clearly, there was a winner and a loser. I think that the same is true of any race. While there is a conversation, and this conversation often results in compromise, in other cases this conversation results in some sort of majority enacting a policy that some minority objects to. That's life. In this case, we have a post who's subject line I can only presume on a list like this was harkening back to Babylon 5 and Kosh's statement on the beginning of the Shadow War. We also had the apparently radical concept that members of the winning coalition in an election might have some portions of their policy agenda eventually enacted described as Payback by both the same subject header, and the headline of a MSM media article. Maybe you will disagree with me on this, but I don't consider the term Payback to be filled with positive connotations. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Next time, maybe the democrats should be encouraging democracy in the third world instead of whining about how bad Bush is for America. It worked for Bush. What they should really be complaining about is how bad of a republican Bush is! Great post! I agree with just about everything in there 100%. Also, it sounds remarkably like what Dr. Brin has been preaching in his postings on his website and his arguments with JDG and Gautam. At least, when you get past the rhetoric about frat-boys and Manchurian candidates and all... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
- Original Message - From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:16 PM Subject: RE: Won what? (was Re: So it begins) Also, it sounds remarkably like what Dr. Brin has been preaching in his postings on his website and his arguments with JDG and Gautam. At least, when you get past the rhetoric about frat-boys and Manchurian candidates and all... If you can get past that, Mrs. Lincoln, it was a wonderful evening at the theater, wasn't it. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
-Original Message- From: Horn, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 11:16 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Won what? (was Re: So it begins) Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Next time, maybe the democrats should be encouraging democracy in the third world instead of whining about how bad Bush is for America. It worked for Bush. What they should really be complaining about is how bad of a republican Bush is! Great post! I agree with just about everything in there 100%. Also, it sounds remarkably like what Dr. Brin has been preaching in his postings on his website and his arguments with JDG and Gautam. At least, when you get past the rhetoric about frat-boys and Manchurian candidates and all... Yes, Dr. Brin gave what I thought one of his best speeches at the Libertarian Party convention last year. He had stated that the roles of democrat and republican has become... Say Gender-confused? Bi-curious legislation? Too yangy or yingy? Alas even the libertarian party was confused this year about what their line was. There was a mighty large number of hard-core libertarians who voted for Bush this year (like me). The libertarians have become too kooky for most moderate libertarians. Thanks for your support! Nerd From Hell - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:32 AM Subject: Won what? (was Re: So it begins) JDG wrote: Again, the only conclusion I can draw from using loaded language like so it begins is that religious conservatives either shouldn't be allowed to participate in the political process, or that if they are, they shouldn't ever be allowed to actually *win* and maybe enact some portions of their Agenda. Apparently the nation's social policy is supposed to be left to the *losers* of election, or better yet, to judges who were never even elected in the first place! I don't think this is about winning or losing elections. To me, it is about how the leadership views the nation. How about how the direction in which the nation wants to go? The party that wins the White House and Congress hasn't won the country in the way that the person with a winning lottery ticket wins the money. Elections are our way of making the best decision we can, not our way of deciding who was right and who was wrong. It is much more of a conversation than a contest; I think those who talk about it more as a contest than a conversation do us all a great disservice. I've always thought of it as a contest of ideas...which model of running our nation gains predominence. For example, the concept of lassie faire small government lost out in 1932, and the whole nation benefited from FDR's actions. So, it does involve conversation, but it involves more. Unlike most Presbyterian committees, something is actually done after the conversation over what to do reaches a certain point. Certainly the conversation continues, but there is a point where decisions about actions are needed. In a fair election, there are no losers. Sadly, it seems that hardly anyone is willing to look at it that way these days. Well, the vast amount of payments to Congressmen makes me think that people are betting a lot of money that they will win with certain candidates. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
On Nov 29, 2004, at 10:47 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] JDG wrote: Again, the only conclusion I can draw from using loaded language like so it begins is that religious conservatives either shouldn't be allowed to participate in the political process, or that if they are, they shouldn't ever be allowed to actually *win* and maybe enact some portions of their Agenda. Apparently the nation's social policy is supposed to be left to the *losers* of election, or better yet, to judges who were never even elected in the first place! I don't think this is about winning or losing elections. To me, it is about how the leadership views the nation. How about how the direction in which the nation wants to go? 52% of those who voted do not constitute the nation. 18% of that 52% absolutely are not the nation. Which nation do you think you live in? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 12:58 PM Subject: Re: Won what? (was Re: So it begins) On Nov 29, 2004, at 10:47 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] JDG wrote: Again, the only conclusion I can draw from using loaded language like so it begins is that religious conservatives either shouldn't be allowed to participate in the political process, or that if they are, they shouldn't ever be allowed to actually *win* and maybe enact some portions of their Agenda. Apparently the nation's social policy is supposed to be left to the *losers* of election, or better yet, to judges who were never even elected in the first place! I don't think this is about winning or losing elections. To me, it is about how the leadership views the nation. How about how the direction in which the nation wants to go? 52% of those who voted do not constitute the nation. 18% of that 52% absolutely are not the nation. Which nation do you think you live in? The US, which is a democratic republic in which the government has long been contested between two parties that each represent coalitions of a number of interests. This contest is fought on a number of levels, from local government, to state legislators, to governors, congress, senators, and the president. The relative strength of each coalition is seen in the predominance of each party at each level. Right now, the Republicans have the majority in a number of areas. Thus, the nation's and the state's actions will tend to follow the wishes of those in the Republican coalition more than those in the Democratic coalition. I'm a Democrat, but I try to be a good loser. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Won what? (was Re: So it begins....)
I don't think this is about winning or losing elections. To me, it is about how the leadership views the nation. The party that wins the White House and Congress hasn't won the country in the way that the person with a winning lottery ticket wins the money. Elections are our way of making the best decision we can, not our way of deciding who was right and who was wrong. It is much more of a conversation than a contest; I think those who talk about it more as a contest than a conversation do us all a great disservice. In a fair election, there are no losers. Sadly, it seems that hardly anyone is willing to look at it that way these days. Hey... That's how I feel... But I did not think other list members agreed. Some additional thoughts I have had on the subject are: The closeness of the race is an indicator of how close we came to choosing the best candidate In a presidential election, a democracy will never pick the smartest or the greatest, but rather they will choose the candidate that is the best at influence. Its built into the nature of being president. Without influence, a democracy can't work. A country that can't change will decay. Influence is directly related to this change. I find it strange how people think the president has so much power that he can ruin a country. Both side pointed fingers at both candidate and stated vote for me, because he will ruin America. No president has that power, unless you count the fact he has a finger on the button. But for overall, everyday influence to our lives, the president has little to do with making change. While Bush has an advantage with a republican senate, it only goes so far. Kerry would have had a much worse time getting work done or pushing his new Agenda or what ever you call influence. So Bush is now president for a another 4 years. Just how far do you think he can go in that time? Was it any worse with Clinton? Both Presidents did more change that could be considered anti-thetical to their own party. Both did some pretty good things while president. Kerry fans should be glad for a few reasons: He can't be blamed when we see a economic decline in 2006-7. He can't be blamed if we lose the war in Iraq or the war on terror. And so on and so on... He can't be blamed. Bush may get some things right, or not. Regardless, the president now can push his agenda and perhaps a few things will change for the better - or not. The key in my mind is that without influence, there is NO chance for change. At least Bush has a better chance than Kerry would have for change. This is all that counts.. Without change, we stagnate. An lastly, as Americans, we pretty much get what we want as a majority regardless of who is in charge as president. What burns the democrats is that they are not a majority, and so they don't get what they want. Its no way to run a party. The democrat party is suppose to be the party of the people, yet it's a minority. The democrats would like to believe that somehow numbers don't matter and it's the rich that are screwing us. Again, if only 10% or so of Americans are considered very wealthy, why don't the democrats have the massive numbers to support the common belief that they represent the common man? The answer to this question is beyond my humble understanding of politics. It seems to me that the democrats have been out-democrated by the republicans, and thus the republican deserve control for now, since again, its about making change. The democrats should be happy that they have 4 more years to reach parity with the common man. Oh and one last dig at my favorite democrat - Michael Moore - who did more to help the republican party that any other person on this planet. No one comes close to building up a collective guilt about being an American. He preached that if you vote for Kerry, then you agree that the War is wrong, and you are not so dumb. He said if you vote for bush, you are an idiot, who is practically guilty of war crimes. He used collective guilt as a platform for voting for Kerry. A vote for Kerry is an admission of guilt for supporting the war. I generally believe that people would rather vote the self-righteous vote - a vote for Bush means we did the right thing in IRAQ. People prefer righteousness over guilt any day of the week. I would like to believe what we are doing in Iraq is right. Michael Moore would like you to believe otherwise. It was a strategic failure on the democratic side to support Michael Moore. The Bush Bashing got him nothing other than to be known as an anti-American sloganist. Instead, the democrats should have held to their traditional beliefs that the common man deserves freedom, even Iraqi's, and that its America's role to bring democracy to the world. When a hard-core republican like Bush acts like a democrat, the democrats act like isolationist republicans, the democrats will always lose. The democrats suck at being isolationists. That's why they gave up the
