Political Satire

[Barry Eller]

For those who aren’t very familiar with human history ... here is a condensed version:
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundations of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals
2. Conservatives
Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative Movement.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing This was the beginning of the Liberal Movement.
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Miller or Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, fisherman, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in world history:
It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.
A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to tick them off.
And there you have it.

[zelatore]

I recall last year when I commented that the conservatives as a group seemed to be basically angry bullies.

People tried to deny it then. Thanks for the confirmation.

[DonziJon]

:rlol: :rlol: :rlol: Totally True. I just forewarded this to my friends who are Retired Military....AND a copy to my sister in Seattle. :bighug: John

[mattyboy]

hanz and franz here to pump you up wit da gov


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XCr3JdMF-o

[mattyboy]

oh don't forget this guy he was governor too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHAQvZCQcXU

[DonziJon]

From Wiki...

Political Satire is a significant part of satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics; it has also been used with subversive intent where political speech and dissent are forbidden by a regime, as a method of advancing political arguments where such arguments are expressly forbidden. Historically, the public opinion in the Athenian democracy was remarkably influenced by the political satire performed by the comic poets at the theaters.

Political satire is usually distinguished from political protest or political dissent, as it does not necessarily carry an agenda nor seek to influence the political process. While occasionally it may, it more commonly aims simply to provide entertainment. By its very nature, it rarely offers a constructive view in itself; when it is used as part of protest or dissent, it tends to simply establish the error of matters rather than provide solutions.

I think it means... Try and Smile. :) :) John

[Barry Eller]

From Wiki...
Political Satire is a significant part of satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics; it has also been used with subversive intent where political speech and dissent are forbidden by a regime, as a method of advancing political arguments where such arguments are expressly forbidden. Historically, the public opinion in the Athenian democracy was remarkably influenced by the political satire performed by the comic poets at the theaters.
Political satire is usually distinguished from political protest or political dissent, as it does not necessarily carry an agenda nor seek to influence the political process. While occasionally it may, it more commonly aims simply to provide entertainment. By its very nature, it rarely offers a constructive view in itself; when it is used as part of protest or dissent, it tends to simply establish the error of matters rather than provide solutions.
I think it means... Try and Smile. :) :) John


Thanks for explaining my intent on posting this...I try to NOT take things TOO seriously here...I seriously TRY...:biggrin.:

[justleft]

Jesse was the best gov Mn ever had.

Jesse got into politics when his city told him no boats or RVs in the driveway.

But then Mn also had Hubert Humphrey :rolleyes:

[mattyboy]

i think rick flair would make a good gov or hacksaw jim duggan


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtf1FrYNOJo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCzm4vNWcVA

[rustnrot]

I will leave the "how great Jesse was" or "how not great Jesse was" to others. But one thing I respect him for is he served and then got out. Career politicians was NOT what the founders had in mind!!

[DonziJon]

I recall last year when I commented that the conservatives as a group seemed to be basically angry bullies.
People tried to deny it then. Thanks for the confirmation.

Actually: I prefer the term Neanderthals...It's much more Manly. :biggrin.: :biggrin.: :biggrin.: John

[Cuda]

I recall last year when I commented that the conservatives as a group seemed to be basically angry bullies.
People tried to deny it then. Thanks for the confirmation.

Now my sensibilities have been hurt. :(

I will neither confirm, nor deny, being a conservative. Last thing I need is to be on the news for thrashing an unruly mob of purse wielding liberals, taking away their lipstick, and writing grafite challenging their sexual preference............not that there's anything wrong with it

[gcarter]

I recall last year when I commented that the conservatives as a group seemed to be basically angry bullies.

People tried to deny it then. Thanks for the confirmation.

I deny any truth to the above atatement, instead, I think it's stated in jealousy.
But if my good friend Don from the LEFT COAST, insists that he is correct, then I declare that Liberals to be whiners.
That's because all they do is whine!
WHINE, WHINE, WHINE!
They whine that all the vegetables were used in making the beer.
They whine that not enough beer was brewed for all the relatives from all the surrounding villages.
They whine that the barbeque was seasoned to be too hot.
They whine that it was overdone.
They whine that animals had to be killed to make the barbeque.
They whined that the stories that were told while drinking beer and eating barbeque were insensative.
They whined that the fires used for making the barbeque were dirty things that shouldn't be allowed to burn.
They whined that the village dwellers that chose to do nothing to contribute to the making of beer and barbeque weren't allowed to participate anyway.
They whined it was too hot.
They whinedd it was too cold.
They whined so much and so loudly, and were so completely ignored by the Conservatives that the Liberal Whiners invented the overly litigeous society the we find ourselves in today.
It's obvious the Liberal whiners want to be listened to, and if you don't listen to them, they'll sue you.

[roadtrip se]

Just trying to see how much whining comes from the other side now...
I don't think the left has a monopoly on the whining factor... have you looked around here lately?

Geesh. And yes, I did attempt to make every three series actually drive their cars on the way south Friday in the SRT8.
Most can't, including the ones with the cute little "M" on the trunk lid... Why have it, if you dont' know how to use it???

Now, I'm going back to the bar... we got a drink special, so c'mon over... Oh, and I like cats, so I must not be a true conservative...

[Cuda]

They're like this guy next to me in the hospital, he'd b!tch if you had his nutz in a golden vise. You know the type, you could have free p%$#y and banana's, and he'd whine about no ice cream.

[Ghost]

I think most will agree that the original piece that started this thread was by its very nature divisive, even if they thought it was funny. I thought it was funny, as I see and appreciate the truths it states. But the truths it ignores are real as well, as are the truths it overstates. And this is doubtless not new information to the poster, or those who have expressed an opinion about it either way.

What is really odd is the difference between those strange creatures of the modern political left and right, in comparison to their core ideals. Most of us who are considered "conservatives" by the casual observer look laughably at Don's characterization of the San Francisco attitude:


To summarize, Californian, and San Francisco specifically, has a very 'if it makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone, why should I make you stop?' sort of attitude.

To many of us this seems utterly ridiculous. Opening the floodgates for illegals to rip the bottom rungs off the ladder of the American dream. Mandatory ethanol in gas causing millions in damages to private property while dropping our gas mileage about as much as it offsets in gasoline purchased. Crushing businesses and imposing hardship on whole communities for an owl here or a toad there. Racial preferences for college admissions in publically-funded universities. Preventing citizens from carrying arms simply to protect themselves, while taking our dollars for larger and larger legions of armed men to protect politicians. Borrowing recklessly and damaging our economy. Subsidies for big-business cronies. Liberalism, in the form of the Democratic Party and many of its supporters, is an incredible, destructive bully. And the modern left in power makes ridiculous claims about what is damaging to others, or even, "the public good", to impose horribly tyrannical measures against us, the citizens.

But then we need to look at the "other" (as if there are only two) perspective for a minute. Jailing gays for public kissing. A difficult-to-shed, long-past but real legacy of creating legal barriers to prevent blacks from voting. Prosecution of flag burning. Treating marijuana like a it was a far more damaging or dangerous substance than alcohol. Protecting businesses that dumped PCBs into the water, and lots of other environmental disasters. Subsidies for big business cronies. Opening the floodgates for illegals to rip the bottom rungs off the ladder of the American dream (recall the 80s when conservatives snickered about this, as it undercut labor). And so on. Both of the big parties have done and continue to do incredible harm. Why should "liberals" not distrust "conservatives" or worse, Republicans, of the last 20 years?

This is why I think a lot of people's party allegiances are based not on the behavior of "THEIR" party, but mostly on what they don't like about the philosphy or behavior of the OTHER party. Both sides deserve to distrust the other. Both ought be more cognizant of "their" own party's behavior.

So, I think it is high time for some self-examination. When this happens, a lot of old divides start to blur, and a new one readily appears. That one is the divide between those who favor the rights of the individual over the state, versus those who favor the state over the individual. The latter group believes it is possible to select some set of people to choose the "common good" (inevitably their cronies) at the expense of the rights of the individual. Rootsy's video links (http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?p=494455&post494455) that he posted are about exactly this. The Founding Fathers were VIRTUALLY ALL, IF NOT ALL, in the first camp. The Constitution they wrote, and much of the reason this country was the biggest success in history, stem from that principle.

Positive stability versus negative stability: a marble in a bowl is positively stable. The further it moves from the center, the more the force to move it back. A pencil balanced on its point is negatively stable. The further it falls, the more force to make it continue to fall.

In a way, it is this simple. The laws anyone should want are the laws that make sense when HIS FRIENDS ARE OUT of power for the moment. I want laws that protect dissent, protect free assembly, prohibit search without probable cause, protect my right to defend myself, my family, my property, and the rights of others, maintaining a true, armed force oc citizens that the state has no power to conquer.

By definition, laws which favor the state over the rights of the individual are the opposite of the ones above. The laws favoring the state give more power to those in power already. They are negatively stable, like the pencil balanced precariously on its point, sending it falling off in whatever direction it happens, by hook or by crook, first to go.

So, to the extent anyone wants to reflect on "liberals" and "conservatives" and Democrats and Republicans, I am all for self-examination. Frankly, I think the good news is that MOST of us, regardless of where we've voted historically, fall into the category that favors the individual's rights over the state. Those who do not are the real political enemy. Those who favor the state over the individual may as well be ants, or jackals, or bees. For when this happens, the only principle that matters is who has power. Whatever those in power say, goes. And whether that means cleaning up streams or polluting them, whether it means gas guzzlers or electric cars, whether it means race-blind laws or race-based ones, is all a matter of the whims of the powerful and their chosen descendents, because the people they rule will have less and less say, until they have no say.

Both of the major parties have for years, through their actions if not their rhetoric, favored the state over the individual. The good news is they are breaking what remains, legally, our highest written authority: The Constitution. So we don't need to overcome the hurdle of CREATING the right constitution. We just need to vote in people who will actually obey the words on the paper, and start dismantling the lesser laws which violate the master.

So, I would ask those people everywhere who are sick of "the other guys" to think about how their "own guys'" $hit stinks. As citizens, we have far more in common with our fellow regular citizens than we do with the crooked elite in Washington, in our state capitals, and in executive boardrooms on Wall St and other places. We, the little guys, need to concentrate on what we agree on. And that SHOULD BE our Constitution. God help us if it is not.

[zelatore]

Wow. I go away for a few hours and things just get crazy...

For what it's worth, I'll clarify a bit on my original post. The 'bully' comment was based on this story of evolution being nothing more than another way to for the right to call the left a bunch of names. The best part of course was the end where it basically says 'if you agree with me we're both right, if you disagree and don't say so it proves I'm right because liberals are too wimpy to do anything about it, and if you disagree with me and do argue about it it also proves I'm right because you're just whining'. Nice.

And although it may well be my own bias, it seems like this sort of thing comes down from the right far more than the left. I will readily admit that may be simply a matter of me only noticing it when it comes from the right

That's where the bully part came from. This strikes me as nothing more than belittling somebody else to make yourself feel big. 'Liberals are wimpy, gay slackers while we good conservatives are manly honorable good people'.

I actually enjoy the political postings on the digest when they are making a point. What I don't enjoy is simple name calling.

I call myself a liberal, at least when compared to the majority of this board. I have to believe anybody who gives careful consideration to all sides of an argument would find they too get branded a liberal from time to time. Some parts of the liberal ideal I heartily endorse, while others I reject, and yet others I'm neutral on. I suspect any thinking person would do the same.

And in the spirit of checking the smell from my own side of the road as mentioned above, I will readily admit the Democratic party is running amok these days. George, you may recall I expressed concern before the election that just that might happen if they got control of everything.

BTW, my comment about San Francisco's attitude above......that must have taken some digging to find! I believe that was from a gay marriage debate - must have been a good year ago! However, I still think it holds true: why should I force you to live by my opinions if you're not hurting anyone? That's a liberal point of view I suppose, and one I think any society would do well to embrace. Tolerance. It's a good thing. Both sides could stand a little more of it.

I think it's past my bed time now...I've got to get up for work in less than 5 hours and clearly we've all expended far too much energy on this topic.

-your token liberal

[Cuda]

You're right, it's just your bias.

[boxy]

Don, I finally read the entire first post, :D Ghost I just read your last post, and I am glad I finally read them.

I think certain people on this board confuse Democratic policy with small L liberal ideals.

Don's quote -- "Why should I force you to live by my opinions if you're not hurting anyone? That's a liberal point of view I suppose, and one I think any society would do well to embrace. Tolerance. It's a good thing. Both sides could stand a little more of it."

I don't believe that is a Democratic viewpoint, (Democrats, like big L Liberals in Canada, seem to want to be involved in everything) and I think it's a viewpoint the Republican's and the big C Conservative's have moved away from in order to appease certain special interest groups in both our Countries.
I don't have an answer, but I do know that the traditional lines have been blurred.

[Cuda]

I was taught that my rights end, right where the other guy's nose begins.

[gcarter]

Tolerance. It's a good thing. Both sides could stand a little more of it.



My problem is, and always has been is;
"Where do you draw the line?"
Not everything is OK in the name of "tolerance".

And not only that, the folks that push "tolerance", are very "intolerant" of the rules I lead my life by.

[boxy]

Why should I force you to live by my opinions if you're not hurting anyone?


My problem is, and always has been is;
"Where do you draw the line?"
Not everything is OK in the name of "tolerance".

And not only that, the folks that push "tolerance", are very "intolerant" of the rules I lead my life by.

George, I ask this question without malice or a hidden agenda...
Why does Don's quote bother you so much?
If someone embraces an idea that conflicts with your own personal compass, but has no bearing on your personal life, why is that so wrong?

[gcarter]

George, I ask this question without malice or a hidden agenda...
Why does Don's quote bother you so much?
If someone embraces an idea that conflicts with your own personal compass, but has no bearing on your personal life, why is that so wrong?

Steve, I don't think everything that has happened in the US sinced WW-II when I was born is good for the country.
Things creep along in the name of tolerance.
A lot of them aren't goood things.
A little here, a little there, and at some point society breaks down.
I don't want to see that happen.

[Ghost]

BTW, my comment about San Francisco's attitude above......that must have taken some digging to find! I believe that was from a gay marriage debate - must have been a good year ago! However, I still think it holds true: why should I force you to live by my opinions if you're not hurting anyone? That's a liberal point of view I suppose, and one I think any society would do well to embrace. Tolerance. It's a good thing. Both sides could stand a little more of it.


I think I agree with your sentiment, though I would offer a couple of refinements, having to do with definitions. That may seem small and picky, but I ask that people consider how different the political implications become, relative to the present state of affairs, if the distinctions are made per my wording and definitions.

2 Points of Language
The first one is to do with the "why force you to live by my opinions if you're not hurting anyone?" philosophy. Funny thing is, I don't find that to be a liberal or conservative philosophy, per se. Both "traditional" liberals and "traditional" conservatives have their places where they have a live and let live philosophy, and places where they get needlessly intrusive. And they often cherrypick these choices.

Flag burning is an easy example. Many conservatives wanted to ban it, liberals said it was fine, just free speech. APPLY RULE: "if it isn't hurting anybody..." Traditional liberals win!

Now how about racial preferences in college admissions. Conservatives want race-blind admissions, liberals want preferences. APPLY RULE: "if it isn't hurting anybody..." Traditional conservatives win!

Standing back, and doing this with lots of issues, I think most people will see, on both sides of the aisle, what I would call "selective tolerance." More of a philosophy of "if I don't dislike it, I am tolerant of it" than any principled approach, in the examples I gave. This is my first linguistic point. 'Tolerance', applied in this unprincipled fashion, is a useless and misleading and abused word. In the same way that 'discrimination', without more information, is a useless and misleading and abused word. Tolerance of murderers and thieves is no good. Discrimination on the basis of test results or grade point average is not bad. So, I think any time you hear someone encourage or discourage either, without more definition, alarm bells should totally go off and bitchslap somebody. (Oops, lost my inner monologue again.)

My second linguistic point is who can claim as his own the "if it isn't hurting anybody..." rule (which I think is a pretty good rule). To me, it is not a liberal or conservative point of view, at least in the sense of liberals and conservatives in their currently understood political definitions. Rather, it is very much a libertarian point of view. The whole essence of libertarianism is that people should be as free as possible, with only as much restriction as needed not to trample the liberty of the next guy. Further, government must be limited to allow this, as government is by definition a limitation on liberty, a necessary evil, to be kept to the absolutely needed fundamentals upon which all agree. (Defense, police, judiciary, etc.)

The Significance and Implications of this Thinking
God knows what the principles of the modern conservative and modern liberal, embodied in the two parties, even are. I think in reality, they are simply collections of strange bedfellows, largely devoid of principle. So, while the points about the definitions of "tolerance" point and "libertarian" may look like they are just language, think about the implications if people properly embrace those definitions.

There are plenty of people who consider themselves liberals, who probably do so based on social issues. Gay marriage and flag burning and the legacy of racism are the sorts of things they simply cannot stand in the "other" party. But many don't have an issue with asking people to pull their own weight, and many would favor fiscal responsibilty in government.

Likewise, there are plenty of people who consider themselves conservatives, who don't give a damn whether gays marry, and understand the free speech associated with flag burning, no matter how despicable they find it. They understand that social ostracism is the proper punishment, as it is for many things, but no legal prosecution is merited.

Get these folks together, educated on their common libertarian leanings that they don't even know how to define, and get them out of the traditional D vs. R unprincipled nonsense of today, and I think you have the basis for the party that can save this country.

This leaves out, of course, the true collectivists. The opposite of libertarians. Sorry, but they HAVE TO lose. The Constitution is 180 degrees from their true beliefs. It is right. And they are wrong. And that is just that. Free speech is better than not. Free assembly is better than not. An armed citizenry is better than not. Government being prohibited from search without real cause is better than not. Individual property rights are better than not. Keeping government from being above the law is better than not. Collectivists say the common good trumps such things. (Well, only when the common good is what THEY define it to be.)

I know I go on about this all the time, but I try to apply my thoughts to different contexts. It's just that all roads lead to Rome. This is, to my thinking, the breakthrough of political thinking that needs to happen. And I think it is happening, in our current mess.

The 2 BIG challenges to really doing this, in my book, are:

Right now we subsidize practically everything. So everyone is afraid of losing his subsidy. If we could kill them all at once, people would be more willing. But try it one at a time and nobody wants to go first. (And BTW, subsides include tons of useless government jobs, and what look like private sector jobs, but actually paid with tax dollars.)
Abortion: Aside from Siamese twins, it is the gnarliest, most personal, touchy, you-couldn't-invent-a-more-convoluted-problem issue about where one person's liberty stops and the next person's starts.
Regards,

Mike

[zelatore]

Well put Mike. I have to agree pretty much right down the line.

And if pressed to name a party, I would say I do indeed fall most readily into the Libertarian camp. As always, I don't march in lock-step with all the Libertarian beliefs, but they are the closest match to my own.

And George, I do understand your point about the slippery slope. There is certainly an argument to be made. I don't however fully embrace the idea. There does indeed have to be a line drawn, we both agree on that. The age old question of course is where to draw it.

As for those that push an agenda of Tolerance but are intolerant of your choices, well those people are in fact more aligned with Mike's definitions above. They are tolerant of certain things but not of letting others choose not to be.

And lastly, I'd like to say I'm pleased with the way this thread turned. What started out as little more than name calling (I plead guilty) has become a much more productive conversation. This is the sort of thing I would be looking for in a political section.

But I'm not ready to get into the abortion issue just yet. Too hot for me!

[gcarter]

A couple of things from an observer;

In last year's (it was last year, wasn't it?) California referendom on gay marriage, there was a 25% vote against it in the Bay area. And while the pro gay folks blamed the defeat on the LDS Church, the 25% vote in the Bay area was largely black voters, that while very liberal politically, are very conservative socialogically.

The second thing is a growing trend to force doctors who oppose abortion to perform them anyway, and a refusal to do so would require arrest.
Is that a line that has gone too far in the name of tolerance?