Interesting article written by Pat's brother Kevin. Equally as interesting comments (1816 of them) found below the article.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/

Vote people.

While I disagree with many of his conclusions, I do think that this line was particularly important:

"Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance."

Sadly, I find that this particularly applies to a great many people who are politically active to a greater or lesser extent and especially with young people. Active ignorance is a serious and grave issue as our country further divides itself along ignorant parties lines, ignoring issues and casting aspersions rather than deal with reality and actually come together to solve problems.

Vote, and before you vote make sure you know who and what you're voting for.

so true.........i like to think when people vote they have taken the time to know who they are voting for, others wont always agree with each others political stand point but you would hope those voting have done their homework have done so carefully and are voting for what they feel are the right reasons. What i personally consider a major problem on both sides of the pond is the voter apathy with many just not bothering, and then when the party they dont want gets in they complain.....i dont think some people realise just how hard some worked to earn our rights to vote in a free world and its a right we should use at every opportunity.

anyway thats my soapbox for the day lol

I agree this is a major problem. People are obviously persuaded by the litany of TV ads that smear "the opponent" and his party.

People need to read, talk, type, research, yell, argue, discuss, and scream; Whatever helps that person do their best to dig up the most facts possible.

Hearing that ?Joe Candidate doesn?t take special interest money, because he?s for the little fish?, while you?re between your taco salad and your slice of German chocolate cake, has to be the most absurd way to base any decision; Other than deciding that you might want to eat more healthfully.

If you listen to the commercials, and feel swayed when the music changes from grim to happy, while the picture goes from blurry to clear, as one candidate is replaced with another, repeat the following mantra: Must read more. Must read more. Must read more.

People need to treat political TV ads like they treat anybody trying to sell them something. Question the source. Question the agenda.

I'll tell you sommat, one of the TV programs over here did a article on the US campaign and its use of smear campaigns, i was gobsmacked to say the least as was everyone else watching (apart from those who already knew this was the norm for the US)

I never realised they spend much of their campaign funds slating the other side, just seems a bit pointless but then we are reassuringly informed this is perfectly normal and how the americans like doing things

I think your all mad

Yelling and screaming won't do anything to help someone learn. (taco salad and German chocolate cake? *shudder*)

The attack ads are effective because people remember negatives more than positives. Unfortunately, as the world becomes more and more polarized we see more and more of this garbage. Of course, we're still better than Galloway... Some of the ads are even true, but for those people who are less informed a resource like factcheck.org is invaluable.

Attack ads are also effective because people have the attention spans of spider monkeys.

So I'll keep this post short.

If you're upset with the current administration, this is your opportunity to punch the bully in the mouth.

If you're afraid of your party losing power, and the weenie tree huggers taking their seats, do something about it.

Today is the day people. Polls are open from 7-7. This is your opportunity to make a difference. If you don't vote today, you have no right to b|tch tomorrow.

Where do I go to vote?

I think that was fair and unbiased.

So what's the attention span of a spider monkey?

I ask because I've only put electrodes into the brain of other monkeys but never a spider monkey...Is it longer or shorter than that of a mayfly?

In all seriousness though (in response to what I think was a joke), I don't think that trying to insult two parties makes one fair and unbiased. There seems to be a prevailing assumption that proportional dislike somehow equates into a lack of bias. It does not, and even assuming proportionality (which in all fairness I think was lacking; bully>weenie tree huggers, but not nearly as funny) that merely means that a person's negative opinions are what they care to share and exhibit. Usually it indicates a lack of true knowledge and a strong bias or set of biases.

I'll revise my last post so as to be as politically (no pun intended) correct as possible.

If you're upset with the current administration, this is your opportunity to (ENTER DISRESPECTFUL ACTION VERB HERE) the republican party.

If you're afraid of your party losing power, and the (ENTER DISRESPECTFUL PLURAL NOUN - WITH OR WITHOUT DISRESPECTFUL ADJECTIVE - HERE) taking their seats, do something about it.

Better? Everyone approve?

- Disclaimer - The author feels that a noun with an adjective is no > than or < than one healthy action verb. But the author cautioned towards one side, by adding the adjective option, considering the audience. Nevertheless, the author welcomes varying opinions, and suggestions.

More modifications done upon request.

Truly yours,

- An unbiased observer

(Not really!)

LOL.

Of course, there still remains the danger that people upset with the current administration actually think they're voting Bush out of office today. Frankly, that idea wouldn't have occurred to me if three of my students hadn't asked about it - now I know why they have multiple days off to vote.

Danger will always remain. As everyone on this board is well aware of.

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
I'll revise my last post so as to be as politically (no pun intended) correct as possible.

If you're upset with the current administration, this is your opportunity to (ENTER DISRESPECTFUL ACTION VERB HERE) the republican party.

If you're afraid of your party losing power, and the (ENTER DISRESPECTFUL PLURAL NOUN - WITH OR WITHOUT DISRESPECTFUL ADJECTIVE - HERE) taking their seats, do something about it.

Better? Everyone approve?

- Disclaimer - The author feels that a noun with an adjective is no > than or < than one healthy action verb. But the author cautioned towards one side, by adding the adjective option, considering the audience. Nevertheless, the author welcomes varying opinions, and suggestions.

More modifications done upon request.

Truly yours,

- An unbiased observer

(Not really!)

Your true colors really show here. While I don't agree with everything Bush has done, he had done one thing no one else has done recently and that is take the fight to those who wish to attack us. Look back to 93 when a Democrat was in office. Did you call for him to attack those who tried to bring down the WTC then or did you just want him to keep doing what he did and ignore the problem? This is one of the reasons why we had 9-11.

As a liberal Danger, what do you propose to keep further attacks against the US mainland from happening? How do you keep those of us who live in the States safe?

Of course, one should vote to be able to complain or even voice his/her elation at how their elected officals are doing. I voted last week (absentee).

How do I propose we keep ourselves safe? I propose we work with other nations instead of taking it upon ourselves to do as we wish, ignoring world opinion.

I agree with you. Bush took the fight to those who wish to attack us. I approved of that action. Then he took us to Iraq.

Our military is stretched too thin. We are becoming hated and ridiculed for our actions. We can't continue as we have been.

P.S. I'm glad my true colors finally came out.

We're hated and ridiculed, this is just another excuse.

Like it or not this is an existential conflict, and a vague plan such as "work with other nations" is effectively useless. World opinion isn't a valid method of setting policy, unless of course you would prefer the legalize the oppression and subjugation of women and minorities to formally create second and third class citizens. Much of the world isn't a very nice place.

We can be a strong and righteous force, without being a rogue and obstinate nation. Right now, we're the latter, and it's making us hated. It?s not an excuse. It?s a fact.

We?re not the only civilized country in the world. If world opinion is not important, then why do we claim to want to bring democracy to all of the ?not very nice places? in the world? Why do we bother with these not so nice places?

Maybe it?s because we do care about the rest of the world, and what they think. And that?s the way it should be. If it sounds vague to you, then maybe you need to make some sense of it. Maybe you need to speak about it, and write about it, until people get it through their thick skulls that the world does not revolve around the United States.

By the way, anyone want to comment on the topic of the thread? Or shall we go back a few threads and discuss the horse that has been beaten to death.

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
We can be a strong and righteous force, without being a rogue and obstinate nation. Right now, we're the latter, and it's making us hated. It?s not an excuse. It?s a fact.

We're certainly not any more rogue and obstinate than most other nations, and far less so than most. One of the chief differences is that our ideology isn't a repressive one and actually requires both personal and collective responsibility. That's frightening to many of the other nations since they are repressive regimes that abrogate responsibility in order to maintain power. They cultivate ignorance among their people in order to continue to forge them into a useful tool. That's not our way.

The simple fact remains that we've been hated for a very long time and it has absolutely nothing to do with the current administration. Claiming that Islamists for example hate us because of what we do is simply an excuse.

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
We?re not the only civilized country in the world. If world opinion is not important, then why do we claim to want to bring democracy to all of the ?not very nice places? in the world? Why do we bother with these not so nice places?

World opinion and spreading democracy are two separate things. Democracy also isn't the solution for all the world's ills but can be a positive step if properly implemented in good faith. However, the reality is that we're dealing with serious cultural deficits in that regard. Democracy cannot function properly when baksheesh is the order of the day.

While generally less efficient, democracies tend to be a hell of a lot nicer than facist dictatorships. But they tend to have somewhat messy births. We bother with some of those not so nice places because American idealism still isn't dead and it is generally seen as being in our national interest to have more friendly governments in charge, or at least ones who don't actively work against US interests and support our enemies.

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
Maybe it?s because we do care about the rest of the world, and what they think. And that?s the way it should be. If it sounds vague to you, then maybe you need to make some sense of it. Maybe you need to speak about it, and write about it, until people get it through their thick skulls that the world does not revolve around the United States.

Again, you're conflating things unnecessarily and in a way that clouds the issue. The world is in fact heavily controlled by the US, either standing with it or in opposition to it. That's the general polarity of the world and has been since the end of World War II. Now it is more pronounced since there is no other heavyweight opposed in the role the USSR had. China is working on it, but they have no interest in pursuing an active military agenda against US interests with the exception of Taiwan.

Caring about world opinion is fine, but being ruled by it is suicide for any nation since national interest rules the day. To suggest other wise is naive and shortsighted at best. It's not a foreign policy, it's a talking point and still not a very good one. Attacking the US is the same as pointing to the mud on someone else's swim fins - it does nothing to help your own swimming but sure does distract from it. So when De Villepin assails US foreign and domestic policies he doesn't comment on the many internal and external problems that France has. After all, that might require doing something about that, and he'd hate to appear to be confrontational or risk offending anyone else. And that is precisely why he is ineffective and ignored. Making the hard choices isn't always nice, but putting it off just makes things worse.

The rest of the world gave Czecheslovakia to the Germans. That the kind of caring you're interested in?

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
By the way, anyone want to comment on the topic of the thread? Or shall we go back a few threads and discuss the horse that has been beaten to death.

This is the topic of the thread.

Is the current administration dividing the country more than it has been in recent years or not? Is the current administration making us more safe or less safe?

The more people that hate us around the world equates to how safe we are. The more people who side with us (world opinion) equates to how safe we are. Stating that we've been a big contributor to the world, and have had an effect on the world, for the last 50 years, doesn't address the question of what type of job the current administration has been doing with foreign policy.

The San Francisco 49ers have won 5 Superbowls. That doesn't mean they're a Superbowl caliber team this year (or for the past 10 years really - pout - ). I'm talking about right now. Right now, we could be choosing our battles, and preserving our alliances more intelligently.

I'm not comparing the Unites States to other nations. I'm comparing the United States to what we could and should be.

We are the most powerful nation in the world. It is my opinion that we are not acting like it. I understand that other people feel that we are acting like it by showing force and not bothering with world opinion, I simply do not agree with those people.

Nobody is right. We all simply look at the world differently.

And you still do not give any idea how you keep those who wish to do us harm offshore. Do you need a family memeber killed by a suicide bomber at your local mall to realize that it is better if we fight them elsewhere than here. Once here, it will be much more difficult to root them out. People are complaining about losing rights right now, imagine what would be needed to find out who or where they are once embedded here.

The biggest problem we have is instant communication. We would never have won WW2 if images of hundreds of B-17s or B-29s were seen dropping thousands of bombs on Dresden or firebombs on Tokyo by those who dislike war so much. They would be protesting on every street corner.

Why is it that liberals seem to think that only talking will keep us safe. IT was tried back in the early 20th Century until the Lusatainia was sunk by Germany and again in 41 (we tended to be isolationist back then) when Japan attacked up. Being isolationists didn't work then and will not work now.

Answer the straight forward question. What would you do to keep those who wish to harm us from attacking on US soil again?

Please correct your statement. I did say, I was for going to Afghanistan and hunting down the people behind 9/11.

How is that only talking?

The current administration seems a lot less hated that Nixon, Ford or LBJ were if you're looking for a point of comparison. In recent years? Clinton and Bush are both very polarizing Presidents, the difference is the way that their respective partisans respond. Republican partisans went after Clinton based on his moral failings leading to policy failings, Democratic partisans go after Bush pretty much the exact same way with a different tone. It feels a lot like payback, and is often addressed that way - "Oh, but it's okay when they went after Clinton?" Is not an uncommon response. It's a playground game writ large. Is the current administration making us more or less safe? They're taking steps to make us safer, steps that are in fact years overdue. But that's not enough. Given the rapidly dropping level of discourse in this country, which is not the fault of the current administration, things are getting better anytime soon in that regard. Our safety will be compromised by a withdrawal from Iraq as well, so the new Congress may try and make us less safe.

People hating us or liking us around the world does not equate to our safety. It's a nice populist thought, that is "if only people liked us we'd be safe." Doesn't actually work though. The Islamists will never like us unless we become like them or are subjugated by them, and in the latter case we will only be tolerated. The fact that the administration is at least vaguely recognizing that is a very positive step, and that does help make us a little but safer. More honesty about it would be even better, and we're slowly moving in that direction.

Your football analogy is entertaining, but not relevant here (sorry, but your team sucks) since it doesn't transfer to politics where you don't get a new season every year. Every President is judged best from posterity, and even then not well enough until enough things are declassified. The job of the US President is to take care of the US and US citizens first and foremost. If a foreign government doesn't care for it, no matter how "friendly" the government, that's unfortunate but it's also their concern - because they have the same self-interest that we do. As for choosing out battles, they've been chosen for us and we've simply been reacting for the last few decades.

It's nice that you're comparing the US to some idealistic vision that you have, but that's by no means a fair or reasonable benchmark. Reality is what it is, and that's a better benchmark. The US better than most other nations on multiple levels, but the real issue is what makes a nation "better." Without a common set of benchmarks it's a series of separate and effectively internal conversation.

We are indeed the most powerful nation in the world. There has never been a comparable modern scenario and therefore this isn't a frame of reference for how things should be. The reality and the idealistic view of it simply don't mesh, just look at a typical UNGA session.

Despite differences in viewpoint, people certainly can be right and wrong here. Not fighting the Islamists is wrong by any reasonable Western standard. Not sending effective troops to the Sudan is wrong as well as not being politically viable (especially if you have a problem with Iraq).