View Full Version : Parallels
Brent
05-12-2004, 11:47 PM
Why is everything worse today than yesterday? Worse in 2004 than 2003? Worse this decade than the last?
All possibilities are reflected in a myriad of parallel universes. Events that unfold in one, don't in another. The drunk driver that died in a car accident in Universe 87-100xY is sipping margaritas in Universe 87-100xZ. And when he decides to drive home after those Universe 87-100xZ drinks, he's calling a Universe 87-100yA cab. Meanwhile, his roommate in Universe 87-100xY mourns his death; forgets to attend his funeral in Universe 87-100xYY. And in Universe 82-99cR, no one cares at all because the guy never existed because his would-be mom had an abortion.
All these exist at the same time. If you ever saw "Sliding Doors (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120148/plotsummary)," it's like that, but with splits occuring at every possiblity.
We happen to be in a very, very bad parallel. The crap possibilities that could have happened, did.
Personally, I think we slipped into this parallel when most people got used to calling the illegitimate occupier of the Oval Office "Mr. President." I mean, at least count the votes before you do that, you know? Since then, everything's just gotten... worse.
When I'm sick of what's going on with this country and in the world, I like to think that, somewhere beyond this place, Bush didn't send troops into Iraq to torture the natives and expose American contractors to brutal deaths because the Supreme Court never selected Bush in the first place by invalidating a legally mandated recount of the Florida votes in 2000.
I need to check out for awhile.
Why don't you come here? We could hang out and get drunk and go swimming and catch some rays. It's quite warm here in the summer, and I'm about to quit school for this term soon, anyway. You're welcome, if you should so desire. All of you other guys are free to escape your fascist dictatorship country and come visit me in the summer too, if'n you want to. Even Ahab. And DICK. Come on over. I'm serious. We'll have a fun-fun time.
You know, living inside an evil parallell universe isn't really that bad. Not as long as there are still citizens who are nice to each other, even if their leaders aren't. I think there's a line about that in the Constitution. Something about "We the people".
Anyway, feel free to come over!
This is my 1000:th post, by the way.
It's nice to imagine parallel universes and dimensions and stuff. But there's just this one, baby. No matter what the schizophrenics, science fiction writers and quantum physicists say!
Also, every year isn't worse than the year before. Except that your one year closer to death. Hmm, okay, I guess every year is worse.
You know what I hate? I hate the youth. Fucking youth. And you know why I hate the youth? Cause I'm bitter. My time in that standing wavelength is over. Fuckers!
Also, I hate that I'm expected to fit in and do what a responsible adult is supposed to do. I didn't ask to be born in this stupid societal system. Fuckers.
Also, I hate myself in Universe Iroc-32. He's such a happy go lucky panty waste. Or is it panty-waist?
I need free money!
And this isn't my 1000th post. How the hell did I let zer0 get to 1000 before me? Man, I just wasn't paying enough at-- Ken's gay!
Speaking of parallel universes . . . I'm still afraid to go to St. Louis or even think about going to St. Louis for fear that I'll be incinerated. Stoopid Jeff.
The Grinch
05-13-2004, 12:47 PM
Jesus Horatio Christ, where to begin...
So Zero's citing the only 3 words of the Constitution he knows, and we all know how he hates America and wishes Stalin won the Cold War, but dammit Brent I know you're smarter than this! There are more than three words in the Constitution, and some of them say how Presidents are elected. A bunch of Democrat reporters went to Florida in 2001 and recounted the ballots and Bush still won. A more valid "what if" might be a parallel universe where Democrats weren't too stupid to fill out a ballot? Too much of a stretch? Then we could talk about President Gore curled up in a fetal position on 9/11/2001 and finally responding by lecturing Al Qaeda about all the greenhouse gasses they released into the atmosphere bringing down the WTC. Then we could talk about another 20,000 Iraqis dead in Saddam's torture chambers for FY 2003-2004, terrorist attacks in the US instead of Iraq; and maybe we could talk about Saddam with nukes, maybe Al Qaeda with nukes, and maybe about how they're using 'em. Yep, that would be pretty cool parallel universe alright.
On second thought, why fucking bother? I came in here to get away from this kind of bullshit - in fact I came here for an entirely different kind of bullshit. I'll try back in another 6 months. :rolleyes: I wish I had the last three minutes of my life back...
Pshaw! Now that's just nonsense! We ALL know the election process is run by the Freemasons and controlled by the Illuminati. Who in turn are in cohorts with the greys in Area 51, Nevada. See? It all fits together! !!!GO STALIN!!! !!!GO SAUSAGEDOG!!! !!!GO CANDY!!! Man, candy rules.
Yay! I'm glad Grinch stopped in just in time to not come back in 6 months! Woohoo! Keep regurgitating all of that right wing radio rhetoric with your super duper free-thinking individual mind!*
*This message brought to you by bully Jeff who likes to take potshots at The Grinch.
Actually, I must agree with Jeff. Grinch; if you're so conservative and darn-gosh-proud-of-good-ol'-America-and-apple-pie, why do you post your political opinions on a forum where the viewpoints are pretty heavily stacked on the liberal side? Seems like inviting aggression and conflict to me...
Also, I really think you should try to travel abroad and see how other countries views America. Oh, and be sure to switch on a televison while you're gone. Then you might be able to catch some free and unbiased reporting from Iraq. It's pretty cool to compare the way CNN reports the war with the way the rest of the world reports- and views it. I can assure you that your country is the only country in the whole world who thinks you are fighting a good fight, or even a so-called "War on Terror". And the only reason your country still thinks that is because of the pro-American propaganda you're being fed every time you switch on a TV. That, and a general unwillingness to even find out more about foreign affairs.
America is no longer a "land of the free". I can only paraphrase "Easy Rider"; you used to have one hell of a good country. I just can't understand what's happened to it.
Just my two cents.
Brent
05-13-2004, 03:27 PM
Grinch, I love ya, but you lost me at "A bunch of Democrat reporters went to Florida in 2001 and recounted the ballots and Bush still won."
Even the results published by those papers showed that Gore won the vote. The spin they put out in an attempt to legitimize Bush's election still showed there was a very good chance that Gore had won.
I was amazed -- reading the NY Times that day -- that they buried the numbers in the last paragraphs of that story, especially because they know those paragraphs are the least read in any story. Those numbers effectively contradicted the story's lead paragraphs which stated Bush had "definitely" won.
Anyway -- ANYWAY -- it didn't matter what votes were cast in Florida in whose favor, because the Supreme Court's action usurped the state's right to run its own election and conduct a legally mandated recount. (A decision that should have enraged you, you States Rightist, you.) The Supreme Court invalidated the votes and thus picked the president.
If Gore had loss, I still wouldn't be a fan of Bush, I admit. But I don't think I'd absolutely loathe him right off the bat, either (though everything he's done since occupying the office would probably lead me to the same conclusion I came to back in 2001).
And I'd probably be willing to call him "president."
But he's not. He's not my president.
Media/propaganda is as messed up as the two-party system. Any ragsheet or legitimatized paper can say whatever they want without having the actual facts. As long as they can point to another source that says the same thing.
Problem is, this becomes circular proof. And it is often started in the most extreme places which are lying or 'spinning' the story. No accountability.
Again, this goes back to a two-party adversarial system. It's nothing more than a niners fan arguing with a raiders fan. Neither is going to sway the other and both can offer up whatever proof they need to show one team is better or worse.
And you rarely get actual debate. It's more like, 'Bush did this. I think this is wrong.' 'Oh yeah, but look what Clinton did?' As opposed to concentrating on the 'what Bush did' matter in discussion. Deflection is the lead argument in politics. Especially with the talking radio heads.
Americans rarely seemed concerned about the truth anymore. Just about how well their side is beating the shit out of and humiliating the other side.
Of course, there's always been a large amount of this. But throughout American history, at least we saw some progression and evolution of political parties and ideas. Now it's a Concrete Two-Party system that throws the least extreme candidates into the ring to hope for the critical swing votes from the opposite party.
I really don't care who won the election. The democratic system was broke long before the Supreme Court took control of the 2000 selection. That was just an arrogant, blatant and public display of just how useless our votes really are and what the powers that be think of us as citizens.*
*This message brought to you by funny Jeff.
King Mongo
05-13-2004, 11:59 PM
You sound like you need to start making and distributing bombs.
Er, I mean, getting involved in a voter registration drive.
King Mongo
05-14-2004, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by zer0
Actually, I must agree with Jeff. Grinch; if you're so conservative and darn-gosh-proud-of-good-ol'-America-and-apple-pie, why do you post your political opinions on a forum where the viewpoints are pretty heavily stacked on the liberal side? Seems like inviting aggression and conflict to me...
****
America is no longer a "land of the free". I can only paraphrase "Easy Rider"; you used to have one hell of a good country. I just can't understand what's happened to it.
Just my two cents.
We're liberal here? I thought we were just Marxists. I'm very conservative in my Marxist beliefs and don't leave much room for dissenting opinions, so I dunno if I'm liberal...
I'm an Individual Situationalist with Anarchist tendencies. And I, too, am conservative in those beliefs.
Voter registration? Dude, my state kicked me OUT of the voting pool. I rule.
King Mongo
05-14-2004, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Jeff
I'm an Individual Situationalist with Anarchist tendencies. And I, too, am conservative in those beliefs.
Voter registration? Dude, my state kicked me OUT of the voting pool. I rule.
Is that anything like a situational ethicist?
That's an awesome way to make an ironic statement. you could get together with other folks who can't vote, say, illegal immigrants and felons, and run a massive vote drive. It'd be awesome.
I don't think it's anything like a title with the word 'ethics' in it. It's basically like being Chaotic Neutral.
Man I'm a dork.
King Mongo
05-14-2004, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by Jeff
I don't think it's anything like a title with the word 'ethics' in it. It's basically like being Chaotic Neutral.
Man I'm a dork.
Unfortunately, I know what being Chaotic Neutral means, so I think I must be a dork, too.
I like to think of myself as Chaotic Good, personally.
So, George Bush--Lawful or Chaotic Evil? I tend to think of these top-down economics proponents as Lawful Evil. But he's a Texan, so...
Yeah, he's Lawful Evil.
I'm actually Chaotic Good also. But that sounds too pansy. I wanna believe that I don't care what happens to other people as long as I get mine.
I'm like Fox! I want to believe!
Although, Bush is verging on Chaotic Evil with his out of control attack whoever I decide is evil foreign policy. So, he may actually be the first person working from a powerful position to do evil that I would consider Chaotic Evil. Pretty big feat, that.
We're liberal here? I thought we were just Marxists.
Yeah, you're probably right. Considering all the time we spend calling each other gay, we couldn't possibly be liberal. After all, if we called someone the name of a minority group we might end up hurting someone's feelings. Hmm, but Brent lives in Berkely, so I think he HAS to at least be at least a _little_ liberal. Otherwise he might end up violating some of their local laws and get kicked out, right? :)
I think Marx was stoopid. Communism doesn't work, so why still bother about it? Anarchism _might_ work, but only within a small enough society. And it would still have to be guided by certain set parameters to prevent there ever being a leader, so I guess it wouldn't be real anarchism but something else.
I dunno what I am. You guys with your fancy-schmancy political titles and designations seem to have it all worked out. I can't make up my mind weather or not I'm "chaotic" or "neutral" -anything. And I don't know what political theories I do or do not support with my opinions. What a bummer. :)
A small enough society for anarchy to work would have to be one person. As soon as you get a second person in there, someone starts putting up boundaries and then the other one is forced to cross those boundaries just for the sake of proving a point and then the first guy kills the second guy. And while some may think that is a good representation of anarchy, it isn't. Because people acting differently because there are other people around makes for something other than anarchy. Um, Rule by Peer Pressure, maybe? Popularity Cohersion? Rebelling Against the Majority (herein the majority being the person who thinks they can set boundaries)?
Geez. What the fuck am I even talking about? I think I'm going to drink some alcohol and do some drawrings.
Naw, I think a form of watered-down anarchy could be implemented in real life. Remember; the trick would be eliminating all leaders. I think some form of contract, which you'd have to sign upon joining this anarchic society, would be the ideal option. In it, there would be some basic rules about how the society would function. Like, say, that no-one would be or try to make himself leader, that everyone would be entitled to their own view and ideology about what the anarchic society would represent and that you could exclude members who violated the contract, and so on. Of course, it'd still not be anarchy. But it'd be pretty interesting.
King Mongo
05-14-2004, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by zer0
Yeah, you're probably right. Considering all the time we spend calling each other gay, we couldn't possibly be liberal. After all, if we called someone the name of a minority group we might end up hurting someone's feelings. Hmm, but Brent lives in Berkely, so I think he HAS to at least be at least a _little_ liberal. Otherwise he might end up violating some of their local laws and get kicked out, right? :)
I think Marx was stoopid. Communism doesn't work, so why still bother about it? Anarchism _might_ work, but only within a small enough society. And it would still have to be guided by certain set parameters to prevent there ever being a leader, so I guess it wouldn't be real anarchism but something else.
***
Berkeley is a good example of why a pure democracy is a bad idea; give people a voice and they will NOT shut the fuck UP.
Hey, Marxism *includes* communism, not the other way around. Marxism simply flips the pyramid of class rule upside down, so that the worker class is on top, not the elite ruling class. You should give it another look, it's a theory of analysis with a great deal of explanatory power.
King Mongo
05-14-2004, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Jeff
A small enough society for anarchy to work would have to be one person. As soon as you get a second person in there, someone starts putting up boundaries and then the other one is forced to cross those boundaries just for the sake of proving a point and then the first guy kills the second guy. And while some may think that is a good representation of anarchy, it isn't. Because people acting differently because there are other people around makes for something other than anarchy. Um, Rule by Peer Pressure, maybe? Popularity Cohersion? Rebelling Against the Majority (herein the majority being the person who thinks they can set boundaries)?
Geez. What the fuck am I even talking about? I think I'm going to drink some alcohol and do some drawrings.
It could work if you change the scale of the anarchy--for example, the absence of a centralized government that rules the world (at least, in an obvious way) is global anarchy. If we were to wipe out the Executive & Legislative branches, then we'd certainly have an anarchic relationship between the 50 states.
Hey, Marxism *includes* communism, not the other way around. Marxism simply flips the pyramid of class rule upside down, so that the worker class is on top, not the elite ruling class. You should give it another look, it's a theory of analysis with a great deal of explanatory power.
Problem here is (as has already been proven in Soviet Russia and the so-called "Communist" China), that once the pyramid actually is flipped, the leader(s) of the revolt against the previous ruling class takes over their vacant slot and becomes the new ruling class. Take Lenin for example. Or Mao. The working class ruling as a whole is an impossibility. Someone will always step forward and take charge as their "leader", simply because the rest of the people doesn't have the drive, or will, or know-how to lead their new "working-class" society.
So now you have a new ruling class, created by "the people/workers" when they tried to wipe out the old one. The only difference now is that the new leader claims to be a "man of the working people" and uses that excuse to keep the people against revolting once more. For all they know, the "glorious revolution" has come and gone, and the tyrants that kept them in check has fallen. Problem is, now they have a new tyrant, who once led them in combat against the previous tyrants.
The problem is, basically, that communism doesn't work in reality. One could show the problems graphically like this:
1: Capitalist society (Before revolution) :
oooo<----Wealthy upper ruling class
ooooooo<----Middle Class(es)
oooooooooo<------Workers
---------------------
2: New, chaotic society (Directly after revolution) :
oooooooooo<------Workers (led by a few ringleaders)
ooooooo<----Middle Class(es)
-----<----Former wealthy upper ruling class (ELIMINATED)
-----------------
3: Post-revolutionary, so-called "Communist" society:
XXXX<----New, upper ruling class (former ringleaders)
^
^
oooooooooo<------Former workers
ooooooo<----Former middle Class(es) (REPRESSED)
-----------------
Now, don't get me wrong! Communism is a great idea! But it simply does not work in reality. Someone will always want to lead other people, and thus a NEW tyrant will be born. Like Stalin. Like Lenin. Like Mao.
Sad but true. I wish it _did_ work, though. Honest I do.
King Mongo
05-14-2004, 09:10 AM
Ah, but those are failed applications--the Soviet Union gave no voice to the people, the elements of communism implemented in that state were only those of state-ownership of industry and resources.
Granted, no form of government is "pure." There is no pure communism, socialism, capitalism, etc.
Marxism as a theory of analysis is more of a form of a criticism of neoliberal beliefs, such as that free and open markets are a collective good that "lifts all boats," taking the position that free and open markets remove necessary protections from weaker nations, leading to the exploitation of the poor and the labor force; global imperialism, in other words, such as is practiced in any third-world country where the main kinds of foreign investment are exploitative of the worker base, such as garment/manufacturing industry, "dessert" crops, etc.
The Marxist viewpoint thus has a great deal of explanatory power when examining world events.
The Marxist viewpoint thus has a great deal of explanatory power when examining world events.
Sure it does. I've studied it myself, only within psychology and litterature instead of politics, and I must confess it has many interesting points. It also has an interesting place within the field called "Culture Studies", which springs from Marx's opinion that all forms of cultural expressions created by a society were of equal importance in determining the underlying culture as a whole.
It's just completely impossible to actually use for the basis of a society, is all. It's impossible to give a voice to the people as a whole as long as there are still "leaders" who'll put themselves in power without being controlled and monitored by everyone else. All people must be "equal", and the only way to do that, I think, is to implement the "contract" -principle I wrote of earlier. That way, the people would be a self-monitoring entity where all forms of centralised leadership would be crushed before it had a chance to prosper. Also, there could be no coherent centralized national identity. Very important, that last part.
Brent
05-14-2004, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Jeff Voter registration? Dude, my state kicked me OUT of the voting pool. I rule.
Being required to re-register after moving is not the same as being "kicked OUT" of the voting pool.
Brent
05-14-2004, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Jeff
Although, Bush is verging on Chaotic Evil with his out of control attack whoever I decide is evil foreign policy. So, he may actually be the first person working from a powerful position to do evil that I would consider Chaotic Evil. Pretty big feat, that. Yeah, I think the whole outing of a CIA agent because her husband dissed him put him on the CE path. At least, publicly.
Brent
05-14-2004, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by King Mongo
Berkeley is a good example of why a pure democracy is a bad idea; give people a voice and they will NOT shut the fuck UP. As if Berkeley were ruled by a different set of rules than other cities. Most cities have the same kind of access to the government. There's just more people willing to use it here, I think.
King Mongo
05-14-2004, 09:50 AM
Well, that's my point--the level of involvement demonstrated by the populace of Berkeley demonstrates the impracticality of a fully participant democratic process. The possibility of getting anything done decreases in direct relationship to the number of active voices.
Brent
05-14-2004, 11:22 AM
I guess I'm confused because you say "The possibility of getting anything done decreases in direct relationship to the number of active voices."
Berkeley gets more done than other cities. You hear about the crazy stuff in the "liberal" media -- like the push to ban coffee that isn't "fair trade" (which got defeated, but no one heard that part) -- but you don't hear about the stuff that actually works, and a lot of it is due to the participation of the community.
Heh. When I first moved here, I was amazed that Berkeley actually picked up recycling. Every city seems to have a "recycling service," but I'd put it out and no one would take it.
Council meetings are actually interactive, the politicians have to answer to the public, and they can't operate in secret to the extent other city councils can because of the attention of the public.
Living in a town where people "shut the fuck up" isn't good for the town.
Berkeley sounds pretty cool. All we Swedes ever do is STFU about everything happening in our country, so living in a place where voicing your opinions is in fact encouraged sounds nice. Maybe i should move to Berkeley?
Just to make sure; they do pass out free marijuana to all the hippies, right? ;)
Portland is a lot like Berkeley but without the legendary status. A lot of people active in the whole political process, from city all the way to federal. And they're very vocal about it.
Also, proving my point on anarchy, zer0, your very first statement says, 'a watered-down version'. Of course, it's unfair to singlt out anarchy. As y'all have discussed with Marxism and Communism, all political theories are actually sound as a theory. The problem is enacting them in the face of the human ego. Obviously, Marxism looked really good in theory during the Bolshevik (however Russians spell) revolution. Even American Anarchists were all for it. Yay! Power to the worker! Kick them russian power hungry asses out of office!
And then it happened.
And then the country sucked harder. What was really interesting was how quickly the working class leaders squashed dissenting views and closed down public debate.
Also, proving a point about how government is retarded and sucks. I was kicked out of the voting pool. Why really becomes semantics. Especially since I'd moved two times before this and the government continued to send me my voting stuff at the new addresses.
Besides, registering to vote? Like I need the government to have more tabs on me. SSN, car registration, license, voter registration, birth certificate, fingerprints from the scam they pull in elementary school when they scare parents about how hard kids are to find if they're kidnapped unless the police have their fingerprints but you know they're just getting your fingerprints to catch you when you eventually become a hoodlum, W-2.
I differ from liberals and conservatives in that I don't believe our government works. They just differ on how it does.
'It was the shot heard round the world, the start of the revolution...'
Also, yeah, I'd rather not live a town where people shut the fuck up. Portland is damn entertaining. And I'm surprised every time Bush makes it out of here alive.
Portland does look very cool. Of course, I've learned all I know about it from "Drugstore Cowboy". Aaah. Sweet, sweet Drugstore Cowboy! :)
So they do that fingerprint thing in the 'states too, huh? Heh, yeah, here as well. I had mine taken when I was in fifth grade by a fat cop named "Håkan Lantz". The funny part is how you, at the time, buy into all that bullshit they tell you about why they want your prints. Of course, i was 10 or 11 years old at the time...
Jeff, you may be kicked out of the voting pool, but I don't even vote! It really doesn't make any difference in Sweden whom you vote for. It's economic interests that decide the future of my country anyway. All the politicians can do is just smile and nod.
"A watered down version", indeed. See, I'm not so naïve that I actually think that pure, unadulterated anarchism would actually work. You'd need rules. Not laws, but rules. Rules forcing people to self-police and stop others from taking power. Hence the contract.
I actually have an idea for a new kind of society, but I'm loathe to write about it here. If anyone's ever interested; feel free to drop me a line. The whole thing's on the planning stage right now, anyway.
And it's spelled "Bolsjevik", BTW. :)
It is so not spelled that way! Americans don't stijck Js in words like that! Sheesh.
Also, yeah, that's why anarchy as a theory must stay in that realm. Due to human nature.
But if you outlaw rules, only criminals will use rules.
Can't outlaw rules when there is no law.
Can't be a criminal when no laws exist.
Brent
05-14-2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Jeff
Also, proving a point about how government is retarded and sucks. I was kicked out of the voting pool. Why really becomes semantics.
You think the process is broken, voting isn't worth anything -- so yeah, to you it's semantics.
Registering to vote should prevent voter fraud. Not to say it always works. But it's a good enough reason for making people register and re-register.
But at least you're out of jury duty. Unless Oregon has some other way of getting you to report. And actually, I don't know that you're actually out of jury duty, and so you might be summoned and never get the notice and then you could get in trouble with the judge, mister!
King Mongo
05-14-2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Brent
I guess I'm confused because you say "The possibility of getting anything done decreases in direct relationship to the number of active voices."
*****
Council meetings are actually interactive, the politicians have to answer to the public, and they can't operate in secret to the extent other city councils can because of the attention of the public.
Living in a town where people "shut the fuck up" isn't good for the town.
Well, I should clarify, because I'm not suggesting that everyone roll over and quietly submit to the will of their representatives. However, the Berkeley, to me, exemplifies the self-important ego-driven "my issue is of paramount import" liberal extremism that has turned people off to left-leaning positions just like the impressionable electroate used to get turned off to rancid squawling from conservatives.
Don't get me wrong--I fully recognize that this is in no small part due to corporate ownership of media outlets, lousy education, etc, etc. But my position is that former bastions of populist liberalism--like Berkeley--have squandered their good names by adopting an elitist intellectual attitude about their beliefs which excludes the less well-informed from participation, and plays directly into the increasingly effective strategy of conservatives (that is, portraying liberals as elitist pin heads).
Some of this is obviously coming out of my ass, as I've never even been to a city council meeting. I'm working on it, tho, and I reserve the right to have opinions about things that I know next-to-nothing about. Yay!
Hey, whether or not I'm out of jury duty, I can throw away the jury duty envelope and pretend I never got it. Not that I have. Really. But, you know. If they can fuck me, I'm fucking them. It's mutual good sex, baby.
Brent
05-14-2004, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by King Mongo But my position is that former bastions of populist liberalism--like Berkeley--have squandered their good names by adopting an elitist intellectual attitude about their beliefs which excludes the less well-informed from participation, and plays directly into the increasingly effective strategy of conservatives (that is, portraying liberals as elitist pin heads).
Fuck "good names," and stop being weird. You don't dislike Berkeley at all. The only thing you're not down with is the picture that conservatives paint. An "elitist intellectual attitude" is found in any setting -- you are an elitist intellectual whenever you the stupid shit the majority of this country allows to happen. I know this because we've ripped on the rednecke Red States a million times together
Meanwhile, Berkeley has better public schools than most Northern California cities (that aren't rich). It has extensive public services -- such as escorts for people who don't want to walk in the dark from BART, and a library for tools (where else are you going to find this stuff?). When it passes laws regarding important matters, like the ban on McDonald's styrofoam burger containers, other cities follow suit.
You're not down with the holier-than-thou people who go around saying we shouldn't drink anything that's not fair trade, wear anything that's sold by Gap, eat anything that's genetically modified, et cetera. Most people in Berkeley aren't down with them, either.
I am not a fan of those people, either. But despite their apparent prominence in Berkeley, they're not the majority. Moderation really does prevail.
And you know that, because you, unlike most people, have been here enough to know better. You are only repeating what anyone who listens to AM radio would say.
Some of this is obviously coming out of my ass, as I've never even been to a city council meeting. I'm working on it, tho, and I reserve the right to have opinions about things that I know next-to-nothing about. Yay!
Duh. That's what NA!P is. Then again, I'm drunk.
King Mongo
05-14-2004, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Brent
Fuck "good names," and stop being weird. You don't dislike Berkeley at all. The only thing you're not down with is the picture that conservatives paint. An "elitist intellectual attitude" is found in any setting -- you are an elitist intellectual whenever you the stupid shit the majority of this country allows to happen. I know this because we've ripped on the rednecke Red States a million times together
Meanwhile, Berkeley has better public schools than most Northern California cities (that aren't rich). It has extensive public services -- such as escorts for people who don't want to walk in the dark from BART, and a library for tools (where else are you going to find this stuff?). When it passes laws regarding important matters, like the ban on McDonald's styrofoam burger containers, other cities follow suit.
You're not down with the holier-than-thou people who go around saying we shouldn't drink anything that's not fair trade, wear anything that's sold by Gap, eat anything that's genetically modified, et cetera. Most people in Berkeley aren't down with them, either.
I am not a fan of those people, either. But despite their apparent prominence in Berkeley, they're not the majority. Moderation really does prevail.
And you know that, because you, unlike most people, have been here enough to know better. You are only repeating what anyone who listens to AM radio would say.
Duh. That's what NA!P is. Then again, I'm drunk.
Sigh, i suppose so. My frustration is really that the loudmouthed politically correct have become the representatives of my own belief system--in part because of better media manipulation by conservatives, but also in part because they're the squeakiest wheel on this rickity carriage.
Hey, does rickity have one "t" or two?
Anyway, it's not like I'm subscribing to the conservative position, naturally, nor buying into that brand of rhetoric. I just wish we had better spokespeople.
Likewise, the abandonment of traditional liberal values by the most highly placed members of democratic leadership is another distressing trend.
However, I am growing an opinion that there's gotta be a better way to evangelize liberal values than harping on the dumbass rednecks. Although I derive a great deal of pleasure from that particular pasttime, I think I might be growing a little soft in my old age...
King Mongo
05-14-2004, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Brent
You think the process is broken, voting isn't worth anything -- so yeah, to you it's semantics.
Registering to vote should prevent voter fraud. Not to say it always works. But it's a good enough reason for making people register and re-register.
But at least you're out of jury duty. Unless Oregon has some other way of getting you to report. And actually, I don't know that you're actually out of jury duty, and so you might be summoned and never get the notice and then you could get in trouble with the judge, mister!
I think I heard that jury duty is based on DMV records somewhere...
King Mongo
05-14-2004, 11:32 PM
The thing about the raving liberals is that on a position paper, we see eye-to-eye, but in practice, I think they're fucking idiots.
Brent
05-14-2004, 11:45 PM
Ugh. There's too much. No wonder people hate politics. I hate politics now.
King Mongo
05-14-2004, 11:47 PM
Politics is like a big fight, and then you die.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.