posted
Since the Inauguration thread has now transformed to the the First 100 days thread and we never really moved beyond talking about the music to the substance of Obama's address I thought I'd start a new thread to talk about the speech.
If you missed it, you can see it here and/or read the full text here.
Here are some of my favorite excerpts.
quote:, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the worlds resources without regard to effect.
quote:The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
quote:For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers.
quote:those values upon which our success depends hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
quote:know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
quote:The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Translation: I don't care how big government gets, so long as it does the things I want it to do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Translation: I don't care how big government gets, so long as it does the things I want it to do. "
Yup. Good government=/small government. Quite a few government programs are both successful in fulfilling the intent of the program, while simultaneously being more efficient and effective then private sector alternatives.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Translation: I don't care how big government gets, so long as it does the things I want it to do.
Why do you see this as a problem? I recognize that you don't want government to do what Obama wants government to do, but if you can put that aside -- why is size the issue? Isn't the real question whether government programs do what you want efficaciously and not whether they are big or small?
Isn't a small police force that can't stop crime lords from terrorizing the streets every bit as bad as a police state that tramples peoples rights?
Size is a red herring. The real issues are whether our government is doing what we want it to do and whether it is doing that efficiently. If we ensure those questions are properly addressed, government will end up being the right size.
[ January 21, 2009, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What we want government to do is usually far more than it should do - for the simple reason that we often want things that aren't actually good for us or that aren't worth the costs.
Thus, I think it is fair to say that our government should be smaller than a government that does whatever we want it to do.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's why we have a conversation on what we want the government to do. It seems pretty clear that, this election cycle, the majority of voters would like the government to do more.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Size is a tricky measure anyways. Say the government pulls out of Iraq and thus doesn't have to pay for fighting that particular war. But say the US then goes for nationalised healthcare, a more concrete measure like cost would probably be lower but people's perception of "size" may very well be higher.
So it really depends on what your measure of "size" is.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, that's why we have a conversation on what we want the government to do. It seems pretty clear that, this election cycle, the majority of voters would like the government to do more.
I'd say the majority of voters would like the government to do something different, not necessarily do more.
After all, those Obama signs said "CHANGE" on them, not "MORE".
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case, I think "different" fits the popular conception of "more".
Or, what Mucus said.
I do think the public ought to question its desires, but "Government ought to be smaller than we think it ought to be" just doesn't seem like a very useful maxim to me.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually related to the big government small government quote. I felt it summarized my political leanings very well.
I'm generally very conservative, fiscally and socially, because I don't think that government is ever very successful in it's programs. But if Obama can convince me otherwise, he has my vote.
Sometimes we needs to step back and consider why we are Democrats or Republicans, and if the situation ever changes, perhaps our loyalties should as well. I'm surrounded by people who treat their politics like they do their sports teams. If someone can show me the logic, I hope I'm open minded enough to follow truth and success wherever it is presented.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, that's why we have a conversation on what we want the government to do. It seems pretty clear that, this election cycle, the majority of voters would like the government to do more.
I'd say the majority of voters would like the government to do something different, not necessarily do more.
After all, those Obama signs said "CHANGE" on them, not "MORE".
Thepollingdisagreeswith you. It's pretty clear even from a cursory glance over recent surveys that the majority of Americans are in favor of a "bigger government" approach to fixing the economy in general, and the stimulus package specifically.
I was highly impressed with Obama's inaugural address. People seemed dismayed that he avoided the usual lofty words and uplifting language, but it was important for him to emphasize that he is planning on being more than an inspirational speaker - that he is deadly serious about doing the work to which we have appointed him.
I particularly liked the line that has been the focus of discussion here, because it demonstrated what I have always considered Obama's most important attribute: his pragmatism. Despite the media's portrayal of Obama as a naive child, or Republicans' attempted portrayal of Obama as a radical pinko commie, Obama's defining trait is his refusal to adhere to any classical ideology. Instead, he sets out goals in terms of clear or measurable outcomes ("How can we get cameras into police interrogations?" "How do we get the most caucus votes in Iowa?" "How can we use the Internet to make federal spending more transparent?"), and then methodically sets out a strategy to achieve those goals as efficiently and effectively as possible. In the process, he inevitably brings in a diversity of opinion, and synthesizes their collective advice into as pragmatic a policy approach as possible.
This approach to governance is what I was hoping to get from an Obama presidency, and his actions throughout the transition as well as yesterday have convinced me that my hopes are about to become reality.
Along similar lines, I *loved* that he spent time talking about the importance of science to America's intellectual and economic prosperity. I had zero doubts that his administration would be immeasurably better than Bush's with regards to scientific research and dissemination of scientific findings, but I was really not expecting him to put that aspect of the agenda into the inaugural address. I think this indicates more than that revitalizing American science is a policy priority for Obama's administration. I think this is further evidence that Obama values the scientific approach to truth-finding and problem-solving, and intends to use it in all aspects of his governance.
And that, to re-use a well-worn phrase, is change I can believe in.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Translation: I don't care how big government gets, so long as it does the things I want it to do.
Translation: I don't like him regardless of how he seems, so just ignore my posts in this thread.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Isn't the real question whether government programs do what you want efficaciously and not whether they are big or small?
Not when you're the type of person who wants to do away with practically all taxation, government and government programs, including police, roads and highway maintenance, and schools.
For the rest of us, that is the question, since many systems are by their very nature huge in order to be able to be effectual at all, such as interstate upkeep, public schools, the military ...
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What we want government to do is usually far more than it should do - for the simple reason that we often want things that aren't actually good for us or that aren't worth the costs.
How do you determine what a government should do? This is something that philosophers have debated for millennia. There is no accepted consensus on this issue.
Democracy is founded on the presumption that the government should do the will of the people, which is very difficult to reconcile with the idea that the government should do far less than what the people want it to do.
Frankly, I find the implication that most adults want more than is good for them to be a bit insulting. I think few of us really know exactly what is good for us, but the idea that some elite group may know better than I do what's good for me is offensive to say the least.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The polling disagrees with you. It's pretty clear even from a cursory glance over recent surveys that the majority of Americans are in favor of a "bigger government" approach to fixing the economy in general, and the stimulus package specifically.
That poll you linked to doesn't say anything about favoring bigger government. It says people are in favor of a stimulous package that includes increases in spending (bigger government) AND tax cuts (smaller government). It also doesn't say anything about whether voters think more government is better when it comes to military spending, regulating moral behavior (banning gay marriage for instance), health care, education, welfare, etc. It doesn't say whether voters prefer big government in general, as opposed to favoring big government to solve one particular issue.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
I've got to admit, my interpretation of this wasn't exactly like Lisa's, but it was similar.
It's kind of like if you heard Dick Cheney say, "The question we ask today is not whether our interrogation techniques are too severe or not enough, but whether they work-- whether they help us obtain reliable intelligence as efficiently as possible to stop terrorist attacks."
An optimist might hear this and think, "torture been shown to be extremely ineffective in recovering reliable intelligence, so perhaps he's going to examine the evidence and stop torturing American prisoners."
A realist would probably hear that and think, "well, it looks like he's getting us ready to crank up the torture program."
I'm not saying that increasing the size of government is as unambiguously evil as torture, but I think there's some clear political double-talk in either statement.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Democracy is founded on the presumption that the government should do the will of the people, which is very difficult to reconcile with the idea that the government should do far less than what the people want it to do.
But this is why the Founding Fathers put so many distinctly undemocratic checks on the government - because they knew that what the people want is not always what the government should do. That's why the Supreme Court is not subject to elections, for instance. And why it is so hard to change the Constitution. We are not intended to be a nation where the government bends always to the will of the people. Instead we are intended to be a nation where an elite group of people are elected or appointed to figure out what we should do, within limits provided by the Constitution and other rules.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Isn't the real question whether government programs do what you want efficaciously and not whether they are big or small?
Not when you're the type of person who wants to do away with practically all taxation, government and government programs, including police, roads and highway maintenance, and schools.
Perhaps if you really want no government at all, but if you want the government to do anything, even something very very minor -- the question shouldn't start with "how big should it be"", but "what do I want it to do?".
I'm fairly certain that if you start by defining what you want government to do and then create ways of assessing whether the government is doing that effectively and efficiently -- you will end up with the right size government to achieve your aims.
I think that's true whether what you want from government is grandiose or extremely minimal. Even if what you really want the government to do absolutely nothing, starting by defining that leads to a pretty clear answer about what size government you want-- you want no government.
I think politicians put the size discussion first because its much easier to get people to rally around the idea of small government as an abstract principal then it is to get people to agree on which eliminate programs we should eliminate. Its much easier to say you want smaller government and issue across the board cuts than it is to evaluate and decide which programs really could be done more efficiently.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
I've got to admit, my interpretation of this wasn't exactly like Lisa's, but it was similar.
It's kind of like if you heard Dick Cheney say, "The question we ask today is not whether our interrogation techniques are too severe or not enough, but whether they work-- whether they help us obtain reliable intelligence as efficiently as possible to stop terrorist attacks."
An optimist might hear this and think, "torture been shown to be extremely ineffective in recovering reliable intelligence, so perhaps he's going to examine the evidence and stop torturing American prisoners."
A realist would probably hear that and think, "well, it looks like he's getting us ready to crank up the torture program."
I'm not saying that increasing the size of government is as unambiguously evil as torture, but I think there's some clear political double-talk in either statement.
Correct. Both statements are "whatever it takes" statements. Both are all about the ends justifying the means, whatever those means might be.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Democracy is founded on the presumption that the government should do the will of the people, which is very difficult to reconcile with the idea that the government should do far less than what the people want it to do.
But this is why the Founding Fathers put so many distinctly undemocratic checks on the government - because they knew that what the people want is not always what the government should do. That's why the Supreme Court is not subject to elections, for instance. And why it is so hard to change the Constitution. We are not intended to be a nation where the government bends always to the will of the people. Instead we are intended to be a nation where an elite group of people are elected or appointed to figure out what we should do, within limits provided by the Constitution and other rules.
If our founding fathers really intended a government of the people, by the "elite" who know better, for the masses who are childlike fools -- then they were wrong. While I am pleased to have some checks against the tyranny of the majority, I find the tyranny of "a small elite group" to be far more common, far more likely to happen, and typical far more tyrannical.
The founding father's weren't gods. The constitution isn't divinely revealed truth. Need I remind you that the constitution had to be ratified by a supermajority of the people and can be changed if a supermajority agree that it does not establish the kind of government we want. The ultimate power in our government does not reside in the constitution or in any of the three branches -- it resides with us, the people. We are the government and we are negligent if we forget that or allow those we've have chosen to represent us to forget it.
[ January 21, 2009, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama did say that if he found programs that weren't working, they would be scrapped. That doesn't sound like only increasing the sound of government to me, it sounds like there'll be some increases and some decreases, depending on what's working and what's not.
Government can be more efficient but have more impact, or it can be huge and sprawly and totally inept.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Rabbit on this one. There is no perfect government, but ours is pretty darn good. The will of the majority may not always be in our best interests but the only real alternative is to allow for the will of the minority and I'm afraid that's worse.
In fact, the more I've come to understand this, the less inclined I am towards extremist philosophies of what the government should do. The government should do what the people want it to do. Since the people are all saying different things, then the people should do what the majority of people want it to do.
The minorities, meanwhile, retain the right and even the responsibility to try to persuade others than their view is correct.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Correct. Both statements are "whatever it takes" statements. Both are all about the ends justifying the means, whatever those means might be.
I don't have a fundamental disagreement with the idea that the ends justify the means. I think that the problems generally arise because we disagree about what are truly desirable ends and whether the means discussed are capable of achieving those ends.
So if we look at the hypothetical statement on terrorism -- my biggest problem is that it incorrectly assumes that our ultimate desire is to stop terrorism. Its shouldn't be. Our ultimate desire should be to promote and protect human rights. Stopping terror attacks is a means to that end -- it is not the end. Once we've correctly identified the end (promoting and protecting human rights)-- its not hard to see that some means (like torture) are fundamentally at odds with achieving the desired end.
I suspect that people who disagree with Obama's statement, don't really disagree with the first part -- its the second part they take issue with. They don't agree that helping families find jobs with decent wages, care they can afford and a retirement that is dignified should be the goals of government. In fact, they likely find those goals to be at odds with what they believe constitutes good government.
I'm fairly confident Lisa would object to any government program that had those aims, regardless of how big or small, efficient or efficacious the program was because she disagrees with the fundamental idea that these should be the aims of government. I can't imagine her approving of any means the government would use to that end.
I don't think the issue here is a question of means justifying ends-- the question truly at issue is whether or not you desire the same "ends" from government.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I'm with Rabbit on this one. There is no perfect government, but ours is pretty darn good.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." -attributed to Winston Churchill
There are some things that are just too important to be left to a private sector that regards money as the only true measure of efficiency or worth.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see Obama's text as advocating "whatever it takes;" rather, he says the question we ask today isn't whether government is of a particular size, but whether it works.
As it stands, that is a matter of focus and priority, not of exclusive consideration.
---
Edited to add: Citing it as an exclusive consideration requires an added axiom or qualification which just isn't there -- e.g., "the only question at all relevant..."
Would make sense to me to argue that one would prefer he had added some sort of qualification, but not to claim that he had restricted it to another qualification. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that The Rabbit is right, but I think that the means matter, too. "The means justify the ends" implies that the means themselves are bad to need justification.
I don't think that a reasonable amount of taxation requires the same degree of justification as torture.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tresopax: [qb] [QUOTE] We are the government and we are negligent if we forget that or allow those we've have chosen to represent us to forget it.
That's true, but when you choose someone to represent you, you are in fact admitting that they know better than you. Look around you at the people in this world, in this country, do you see very many people capable of governing even their driving habits? Their misbehaving children? Their empty bank accounts? In a country where the majority of people are vacant, unmotivated sensualists, who can't even take a real interest in who runs their country (just voting doesn't count, one should know who they vote for and why, not just vote for the candidate they were told to vote for the most times on T.V. spots.), don't you think someone a little more "elite" should run the country? Competent, educated, responsible people, like you and I, and alot of people on this board, while being a minority, should run this country, because we want whats best for it we don't though because there are not enough of us to win a damned election.
That being said, great speech, and I hope my new president has abounding success.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." -attributed to Winston Churchill
There are some things that are just too important to be left to a private sector that regards money as the only true measure of efficiency or worth.
That's ... pretty much it, yes. Often I argue as an advocate of government regulation over markets under the principle that there is a sensical 'sweet spot' between state and private, and that extremes and near-extremes on both sides are fundamentally unworkable.
This sort of argumentation is outmoded, now. I'm saying this as equitably as possible. After the cash crunch, I've noticed that communists are more liable to be taken seriously in economic debates than freemarketeers. Communists.
So people are by and large not arguing the near-absolute abolition of government or markets, post-crash.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm with Rabbit on this one. There is no perfect government, but ours is pretty darn good. The will of the majority may not always be in our best interests but the only real alternative is to allow for the will of the minority and I'm afraid that's worse.
Our current government does not follow the will of the majority or the will of the minority. Instead, it follows the result of a somewhat complicated system that balances different minorities against eachother - some of which are selected by the majority, but others of which are appointed. It does work pretty darn well - but that's because it doesn't just give the people what they want, but also doesn't just give any single group whatever they want. American government, both in the way the founders conceived it and how it functions today, relies both on the idea that power rests in the hands of the people AND the idea that people can't be trusted to know what's best.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I don't have a fundamental disagreement with the idea that the ends justify the means. I think that the problems generally arise because we disagree about what are truly desirable ends and whether the means discussed are capable of achieving those ends.
So if we look at the hypothetical statement on terrorism -- my biggest problem is that it incorrectly assumes that our ultimate desire is to stop terrorism. Its shouldn't be. Our ultimate desire should be to promote and protect human rights. Stopping terror attacks is a means to that end -- it is not the end. Once we've correctly identified the end (promoting and protecting human rights)-- its not hard to see that some means (like torture) are fundamentally at odds with achieving the desired end.
I suspect that people who disagree with Obama's statement, don't really disagree with the first part -- its the second part they take issue with. They don't agree that helping families find jobs with decent wages, care they can afford and a retirement that is dignified should be the goals of government. In fact, they likely find those goals to be at odds with what they believe constitutes good government.
I'm fairly confident Lisa would object to any government program that had those aims, regardless of how big or small, efficient or efficacious the program was because she disagrees with the fundamental idea that these should be the aims of government. I can't imagine her approving of any means the government would use to that end.
I don't think the issue here is a question of means justifying ends-- the question truly at issue is whether or not you desire the same "ends" from government. [/qb]
QFT. Whenever I've had a problem with a person saying "The Ends Justify the Means," it was never because that philosophy led them to commit bad acts. It was because that person was so blind to the consequences of their actions that they didn't see how bad the end result actually was.
Also:
quote:That poll you linked to doesn't say anything about favoring bigger government. It says people are in favor of a stimulous package that includes increases in spending (bigger government) AND tax cuts (smaller government).
Smaller governments require fewer taxes, but tax cuts don't equate to smaller government automatically, just a government that'll be in more debt.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's true, but when you choose someone to represent you, you are in fact admitting that they know better than you.
Not necessarily. I have at many times in various organization given my proxy vote to someone else. It was never because I thought they knew better than I. In every case it was because other commitments conflicted with my being present for the vote and I trusted the person who I chose as my proxy to accurately represent my views.
I think this is a more accurate explanation of why we have a representative democracy. It is not that we presume our representatives know more than we do. It is that dealing with all the nitty gritty details of each piece of legislation requires a substantial time commitment. Most of us have lives that prohibit us from putting in that much so we select someone we trust will accurately represent our views to act as our proxy. If our representative isn't doing what we want, we may give him a chance to persuade us, after all this person has been working full time on the issue and may have seen things I haven't yet seen, but after all the persuading is done, if he/she really isn't doing what I want, he shouldn't be allowed to represent me.
At least, ideally thats how representative democracy ought to work. Our representatives should represent us.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
If it becomes a pattern, then it's troublesome. And if he acts in such a way as to make the words empty, then it's troublesome.
If Bush had actually acted in a way that made his rhetoric believable or true, he wouldn't have taken crap for it, but when it constantly looked like he was talking about an alternate universe which no one else could see, people started to get skeptical, and then people just stopped listening because he gave the same speech every time he opened his mouth using some sort of Freedom and Liberty Mad Libs.
So, if this was a one off speech to try and both reassure his detractors or spook his enemies, then that's fine. The next speech is more important than this one in that sense.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My take on this was much like Lyrhawn's. These bits gave me pause when I first heard the speech. The optimist in me, sees them as an attempt to reassure his detractors, particularly those who keep claiming he will invite terrorist attacks. The pessimist in me sees more of the same misguided rhetoric. I shall wait to see which one is more valid.
It is however worth noting that other parts of his speech did indeed show a dramatic contrast with the Bush administration approach.
For example contrast;
quote:As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.
with this
quote:America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
and this
quote:Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorist.
with this
quote:America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers.
At last- a president who recognises the legitimacy of we Agnostics/Atheists and, I hope, Humanists! I LIKE this man, even beyond the respect already owed the President of the USA.
Already, he has closed Guantanamo Bay as a gulag- an illegal outpost of the USA in a sovereign territory even before made into a prison camp for the dissapeared of the USA empire... I can only wish (undevoutly, as an agnostic)that the whole blasted base will follow soonj.
Imagine the fun when Fidel finally dies. The best engineers in the American continent, finally free to sell their skills! Marvellosity, sheer marvellosity!
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: At least, ideally thats how representative democracy ought to work. Our representatives should represent us. [/QB]
Yes, but with an important(vital?) proviso: We must each accept our own ultimate responsibility to ensure that our representatives do indeed represent us. We cannot simply shrug our shoulders, say, as in the UK we so often do, that they " are all corrupt so what can be done" - and then not even vote. Like blastewd sheep, making no noise even as we are slaughtered.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
[QUOTE]America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
and this
This concept was referred to by one Mr Hitler as "Lebensraum", alas. I'm afraid that at some point you either accept that others will not try to hurt you, or you start acting as though you believe that they are people too... Wonder what Mr Card's feelings are on this matter, given that we are in his Eyard after all ?
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
Mr Card does post here occasionally but if you are interested in his feelings on these matters, I suggest you read his WorldWatch essays. You can find the link to them on the Hatrack home page.
I should, however, warn you first. Based on your last 3 posts I suspect you will find Mr.Card's opinions on these matters to be highly disappointing (to put it mildly).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mark, can you use the preview button? Or at least practice a little with the UBB Code? You're leaving tags all over the place, and there really isn't any need for it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I should, however, warn you first. Based on your last 3 posts I suspect you will find Mr.Card's opinions on these matters to be highly disappointing (to put it mildly).
Rabbit, that was not a very polite way of putting it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I should, however, warn you first. Based on your last 3 posts I suspect you will find Mr.Card's opinions on these matters to be highly disappointing (to put it mildly).
Rabbit, that was not a very polite way of putting it.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I should, however, warn you first. Based on your last 3 posts I suspect you will find Mr.Card's opinions on these matters to be highly disappointing (to put it mildly).
Rabbit, that was not a very polite way of putting it.
Are you serious?
How would you suggest she could have put it more politely?
Oh, i guess it could have gone like this:
"If you would be so kind as to indulge me in a bit of speculation, I suspect that you and our esteemed host might chance to disagree in small ways, however I'm sure that won't prove an impediment to fruitful exchange of perspectives."
But is that really an improvement?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I should, however, warn you first. Based on your last 3 posts I suspect you will find Mr.Card's opinions on these matters to be highly disappointing (to put it mildly).
Rabbit, that was not a very polite way of putting it.
Are you serious?
How would you suggest she could have put it more politely?
Oh, i guess it could have gone like this:
"If you would be so kind as to indulge me in a bit of speculation, I suspect that you and our esteemed host might chance to disagree in small ways, however I'm sure that won't prove an impediment to fruitful exchange of perspectives."
But is that really an improvement?
Yes I am serious. And yes, your way of putting it while overly wordy and registering a positive on my sarcasmometer could be a better way.
How about, "Based on your previous three posts though I suspect you and Mr. Card will disagree on a great many things."
The quality of Mr. Cards' opinions is not something I think should be derided in this place.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is saying that someone will be disappointed by OSC's opinions a judgment on the quality? If I say
quote:BlackBlade would be disappointed if the end of the world came tomorrow and he found out his religious beliefs were actually false and he was now damned to eternity for not being Catholic
am I somehow being impolite or expressing an opinion regarding how the world actually works or what I think of your religion?
(Sorry for bringing up religion - it was the only thing I could think of where I know you would be disappointed, to put it mildly.)
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The quality of Mr. Cards' opinions is not something I think should be derided in this place.
In all the years I have been here, I have never gotten the impression from Mr. Card or the moderators that criticism of his political opinions was unwelcome or inappropriate here. Particularly not criticisms as tame as the one I just made.
It is no secret that many of the left leaning fans of OSCs fiction, are disappointed and even shocked when they read his political essays. I thought iI was being polite to Mark to issue a warning before when sending him off to read World Watch.
I suppose it would have it might have been better to say "I should warn you that Mr.Card is an outspoken and enthusiast supporter of Bush and has been highly critical of Obama in his essays." That would have been less speculative but I thought my way allowed more leeway for Mr.Card to speak for himself.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai: Those are not very equivalent. There's a difference between saying, "You will find this person's opinions disappointing," thus indicating a negative quality, and, "Reality when it entails ill is disappointing."
Also I would be disappointed in that scenario yes, but more because of the hell business, the fact my religious beliefs were wrong would not be the problem.
I certainly hope you aren't disappointed if it turns out that Jesus was actually right about everything he actually said. -----
The Rabbit: I don't mean to say Mr. Cards' opinions are above reproach. I just felt your were perhaps unintentionally putting a negative bias on Mr. Cards' opinions. I agree that later way is less speculative, I don't think Mr. Card would mind it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Rabbit was saying she thought MarkE's and OSC's political views would be different to the extent that MarkE would find them disappointing.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, I'll come out and say it: Mr. Card's opinions are frequently bad ones. Ooo. The frisson! *rolls eyes* Seriously, I think his skin is a little thicker than that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Jhai: Those are not very equivalent. There's a difference between saying, "You will find this person's opinions disappointing," thus indicating a negative quality, and, "Reality when it entails ill is disappointing."
Also I would be disappointed in that scenario yes, but more because of the hell business, the fact my religious beliefs were wrong would not be the problem.
I certainly hope you aren't disappointed if it turns out that Jesus was actually right about everything he actually said.
They're pretty much the same: "If you do x/If x occurs, then you will be disappointed." It's just a conditional statement which is either true or false, and really doesn't tell you anything about the speaker's beliefs or feelings about x.
And, actually, I would be extremely disappointed if it turns out that Jesus, as reported in the Bible, was right about everything. That's because I don't believe that (the Biblical) Jesus was right about all of what he was talking about, morally.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
