quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I don't even reread his older work as much, love it though I do, because hints of future attitudes are starting to show through for me on rereadings and I don't want to give up those memories.
Do you have any specific examples?
I wrote a post a year ago about Ender's transformation from a deeply empathetic, flawed but beautiful character in Ender's Game to a sort of self-righteous know-it-all in Ender in Exile (which sort of starts showing up with his Messiah complex in War of Gifts) and noted his protagonists seem to veer more and more in this direction, especially when it comes to lecturing others on morality. I have yet to see it in his earlier works, though it's been 2 years now since I last read EG.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've reread some of the short stories in the Worthing series recently, and for me at least it hasn't begun to peek through that far back. Hints, maybe, in some of the later first Ender book. Strong hints in the later Ender books. Not a peep for me in the really early stuff that I love so much, though now I'm worried.
It's a very strange flavor of nostalgia for me. I came across an interview of Fred Rogers (of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood), and it was fascinating enough that I watched some of the old shows on YT. What a powerful vintage of nostalgia that was, both because of its ties to my earliest childhood but also because he's been dead for over ten years now. But also because by the time I watched him when I was a child, I think he had been on the air for over twenty years. I still haven't been alive as long as he was on television on MRN.
This conversation about Card made me think of it by contrast because I came to him in junior high, where his work was instantly very powerful to me and in odd ways similar as well, in the way it emphasized the dignity and personhood of everyone and also eschewed traditional male icons of action and violence in favor of insight and empathy, the latter being rather a cornerstone of MRN.
But the odd way these two nostalgias mesh for me is that Fred Rogers is gone and has been for more than half of my adult life-his work was important to me when I was very young, but he was also very, very consistent in his style and messaging. I suppose if it hadn't been such a very unusual style and message it would've gone stale decades ago. Whereas for Card I also feel a nostalgia in that even though he is still alive and producing written works, both he and his work seem so profoundly changed to me that on an emotional level, at that first instinctive reaction, my mental response is not so different than if he were dead or completely retired. It's been years since I had any serious hope that he might write works of the strength and dignity and pain and empathy of Hart's Hope or Ender's Game or the short stories in Maps in a Mirror, and it's been longer than that since he stopped writing such works. It makes me sad and nostalgic. Those works were very meaningful to me, and I think they enhanced the culture and humanity as a whole. The world was made better by their having been written and shared.
Now? Now we have an OSC who publishes flimsy, disproven lies about politicians he has lied about in the most transparent, partisan ways for years. Now we've got an OSC who turns reviews about animated movies about dragons and Vikings and relationships between animals and people and nonviolence into a rant about how awesome Dubya was and how awful Obama was. Who has strayed so far from the empathy that made his earlier work so powerful to me that he skips over a whole host of very real, powerful criticisms that could be made to go with...a disproven, stupid story about how Obama supposedly decided to alienate our biggest ally for...reasons, I guess.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's been years since I had any serious hope that he might write works of the strength and dignity and pain and empathy of Hart's Hope or Ender's Game or the short stories in Maps in a Mirror, and it's been longer than that since he stopped writing such works. It makes me sad and nostalgic. Those works were very meaningful to me, and I think they enhanced the culture and humanity as a whole. The world was made better by their having been written and shared.
posted
The parts I like the best OSC posts are his reviews of trivial things like enjoying Cashew nuts or watching old blockbusters on tv for the first time and enjoying them ( which is something I do ) , or extolling the gastronomic and healthy qualities of olive oil, his reminiscent fond memories of the life in Brazil ( OSC was a missionary in my hometown Ribeirao Preto around the same year I was born), his humorous disdains of tv shows I love ( like Fringe right after watching the first episode ) and to realize OSC likes and loves the same films and shows I like.
I honestly have always taken the politics in essays from every author I admire and read with a grain of salt, specially people like self proclaimed communist China Mieville which is a monstrous and brilliant author but whose work is quite often driven by his social conceptions and political views( like on the impressive modern science fiction classic Embassytown where children are raised collectively or on YAs post modern classic Railsea which depicts non traditional families ) which I do not agree but I don't think the author tries to destroy and condemn the concept of family in a more conservative connotation which I endorse but that I don't want to make or think it must be made mandatory.
I have not read any of his later OSC 90s books or anything after that. But I have read most of his columns from this period and I admit that OSC has been quite bitter and critical towards the American politics and the liberal agenda.
While this might not be valid to USA I must confess I find that these criticisms are valid and real for the local Brazilian political and social context.
My conservative principles are related to giving the proper value and importance to traditional families and not considering them just an evil and old fashioned way of raising children or my absolute respect for safety and rights of regular people having decent lives and my fundamental values against rights of rapists, murderers, child molesters and robbers of public money which the Left and Liberal here in Brazil have defended more often that the rights of the common person and the poorest.
So it is very difficult to me not to feel sympathy for OSC opinions on Liberals and the Left because in my context they are real.
IP: Logged |
quote:My conservative principles are related to giving the proper value and importance to traditional families...
Get over that. Seriously. It is a personality flaw rooted in a failure to properly engage in examination of your principles. It is pretty much impossible to defend this position logically once you begin to explore it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
zlogdanbr
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:My conservative principles are related to giving the proper value and importance to traditional families...
Get over that. Seriously. It is a personality flaw rooted in a failure to properly engage in examination of your principles. It is pretty much impossible to defend this position logically once you begin to explore it.
I am not sure to which part of you refer, but I will assume both:
In regard to my traditional families support: I cannot dismiss the fact I was born in a family with a father and a mother and I am also a father and I expect my children to have their own children and families, what is so bad about it that should make you urge me to stop saying it?
as for calling my self conservative: I understand that you infer that my description as conservative as derogatory, so please discard that. I am a Liberal person. Conservative does not say I tie hands with Mussolini or admire the KKK or I am against gay marriage ( which you know I am not )
IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak for Tom, but he might mean something like dropping the sort of aggressive defensiveness that is often seen in America when 'traditional families' are a topic of discussion. I can't speak to you either, but in our political system there are a number of pundits and many voters who either make a living or genuinely believe in the idea that the traditional family is under attack. Which if true would actually be pretty alarming.
But when the idea is examined, it more or less always turns out that 'the traditional family is under attack' actually means 'some people are trying to expand the legally and culturally accepted definition of family to do things like accept homosexual relationships and avoid shaming unwed parents'.
It's not a zero-sum game, is my point anyway. Someone trying to legalize homosexual marriage and adoption is not making an attack on traditional families. But if we pivot back to Card, the mere act of attempting to do so means one hates America, hates families, and almost literally sneers at anything good and pure in the world.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
zlogdanbr
unregistered
posted
Thanks, I understand it. From my part I was not and I am not trying to say traditional families are under threat.
IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't a "traditional" marrage one super rich guy & his hundreds of wives? I mean if we go by the vast majority of human of existance to establish "traditional".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Isn't a "traditional" marrage one super rich guy & his hundreds of wives? I mean if we go by the vast majority of human of existance to establish "traditional".
No, your example really isn't representative of the the vast majority of human existence.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: His team’s analysis reflects all of human history, and modern monogamy has not even left a blip in our genomes. “I don’t know how long monogamy has been with us,” Hammer says. “It seems it hasn’t been around long, evolutionarily.”
quote:My conservative principles are related to giving the proper value and importance to traditional families...
Get over that. Seriously. It is a personality flaw rooted in a failure to properly engage in examination of your principles. It is pretty much impossible to defend this position logically once you begin to explore it.
Don't listen to Tom. There is certainly value in wanting to safeguard and protect monogamous heterosexual relationships.
Just don't go a step further in thinking that crushing other forms of families somehow makes that model stronger.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Polygamy and polyamory does not mean "one rich dude and his hundreds of wives." Nor does having multiple sexual partners - even at the same time! - mean you have multiple wives. For example, there are pretty good odds that every single person in this conversation has had multiple sexual partners in their lifetimes, and I can think of at least one person who has even upped their game and had children with multiple partners, but nobody here is a polygamist.
The vast majority of marriages in human history have either been monogamous, or "mildly" polygamous. (One man with 2-4 wives) The case you mentioned - one rich man who actually marries several hundred women - is exceedingly rare, and is generally only found with royalty in certain countries. (political marriages, or to show off a king's wealth, etc.)
quote:Even within societies which allow polygamy, in actual practice it generally occurs only rarely. To take on more than one wife often requires considerable resources: this may put polygyny beyond the means of the vast majority of people within those societies. Such appears the case in many traditional Islamic societies and historically within Imperial China. India has an occurrence of polygamy about four percent of the Hindu population and about three percent within the Islamic population. The practice of polygamy within the various cultures of Africa is traditional, with either Islamic (supportive) or Christian (prohibitive) colonial influences. However, even within those countries with both Islamic and traditional support for polygamy, the majority of the population never practice such relationships.
Or in other words, most people simply don't have the resources to support more than a spouse or two.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Don't listen to Tom. There is certainly value in wanting to safeguard and protect monogamous heterosexual relationships.
Safeguard and protect them against what, exactly? (I think that was more what Tom was getting at, FWIW)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are referencing the last 6k years...I'm talking the last 200k. YES hundreds is rarer than less than a hundred wives...that part was a humorous exaggeration.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I read it. And directly addressed it in my reply to you. It makes no mention of most marriages - traditional or otherwise - being "one guy and his hundreds of wives." It talks about human sexual reproduction.
You are wrong, and the article you posted does not make you any less wrong.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The vast majority of the over 200,000 years of human history, humans have grouped for marital purposes in the organization of one male and many (not one or two) females, as supported by the article I provided.
Damn! You got me lawyer talking DB
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is marriage a concept that can be had prior to civilization? Serious question. Do we say of lions and lionesses that they are married, or just mating? Not that humans in the 12000 BCE ish range of I'm remembering correctly were as primal as lions, but still.
In any event given how different marriage is now-a legal, social, and religious custom with precise practices and traditions-and 'marital purposes' of a group of pre-literate new-to-agriculture people were, it doesn't seem unfair to want to pin down the terms.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: The vast majority of the over 200,000 years of human history, humans have grouped for marital purposes in the organization of one male and many (not one or two) females, as supported by the article I provided.
Damn! You got me lawyer talking DB
The article you linked makes no mention of "marital purposes", nor does it use the word "marital" at all. Where did you get that word from, and how would you define it?
Nor does it mention them grouping in organizations of "one male and many females" at all, let alone for "marital purposes." What's your source for this?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Long tradition Hammer’s team discovered more genetic differences in the X chromosome than would be expected if equal numbers of males and females tended to mate, over human history. The only explanation for this pattern is widespread, long-lasting polygyny, he says."
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm cool bro...you can have the most argumentative person on Hatrack award uncontested.
The reason I'm asking you what your source is is because this topic (social and sexual behavior in prehistoric hunter/gatherer societies) is actually something I wrote a research paper on in college, and I can say pretty confidently that the "one alpha man with lots of wives" concept has no basis whatsoever in reality.
Early human social groups had multiple men and women in roughly equal numbers, with the men hunting together in groups and the women gathering nuts and berries as well as fishing and scavenging. There little no evidence of social stratification based on gender, and the concept of male superiority/leadership with submissive women appears to have come about after the agricultural revolution and the development of cities and warfare. (Where a man's greater physical strength would translate to increased social status and value compared to a woman) And indeed, the hunter/gatherer tribes we can still observe today appear to largely egalitarian.
The reason why you might see relatively fewer male ancestors compared to female ancestors is that prehistoric women were the selective sex when it came to picking makes, meaning that men who made better mates were selected first, and thus had a better chance of impregnating more women than their lesser counterparts. The responsibility of raising children was shared by all members of the social group or "tribe."
Marriage itself - along with the concept of the family - appears to have come into existence roughly 5000 years ago, as human societies grew to the point where organization and stratification became necessary. There's evidence that in prehistoric times, after a woman became pregnant her mate and her would bond for 2-4 years (to help increase the child's chances of survival), but these pairings were in and of themselves were monogamous and not "one guy and many wives."
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: "Long tradition Hammer’s team discovered more genetic differences in the X chromosome than would be expected if equal numbers of males and females tended to mate, over human history. The only explanation for this pattern is widespread, long-lasting polygyny, he says."
Bolding mine. Jesh.
Again,
The article you linked makes no mention of "marital purposes", nor does it use the word "marital" at all. Where did you get that word from, and how would you define it?
Nor does it mention them grouping in organizations of "one male and many females" at all, let alone for "marital purposes." What's your source for this?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm playing along but I want you to know in no uncertain terms that talking to you is like a cambatitive dentist experience.
Long lasting polygyny...for the purpose of raising offspring...cohabitation...shared resources...possibly a shared name...marital.
I'm not introduceding a new study here...it was a quip about how "wide spread, long lasting polygyny" was the human norm for humans over the last 200,000 years.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm playing along but I want you to know in no uncertain terms that talking to you is like a cambatitive dentist experience.
I don't know what that means.
quote:Long lasting polygyny...
"Long lasting" meaning "it was practiced for an extended period of time", not "these were long term relationships."
quote:for the purpose of raising offspring...cohabitation...shared resources...possibly a shared name...marital.
None of those things are mentioned at all in the article you provided.
quote:I'm not introduceding a new study here...it was a quip about how "wide spread, long lasting polygyny" was the human norm for humans over the last 200,000 years.
No, you said "Isn't a "traditional" marrage one super rich guy & his hundreds of wives? I mean if we go by the vast majority of human of existance to establish "traditional"."
Then you said you were "joking" and you really meant:
"humans have grouped for marital purposes in the organization of one male and many (not one or two) females"
What evidence do you have of that?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Don't listen to Tom. There is certainly value in wanting to safeguard and protect monogamous heterosexual relationships.
Safeguard and protect them against what, exactly? (I think that was more what Tom was getting at, FWIW)
Things that suppress or break them up. Poverty, irresponsible parental and spousal behavior, crime, overwork, policies that make it harder for families to thrive.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Things that suppress or break them up. Poverty, irresponsible parental and spousal behavior, crime, overwork, policies that make it harder for families to thrive.
*nods*
Would you say any of those things are unique in that they don't affect polyamorous and/or homosexual relationships or family units?
It seems to me that specifically talking about "defending and protecting monogamous heterosexual relationships" implies that those relationships are under attack - or that the struggles people in those relationships face are ignored - at a noticeably greater rate than others. It's why you, for example, see "black lives matter" being said - because of the implication that we live in a society that does not value black lives. Would you say something similar is going on that warrants specifically defending and protecting heterosexual monogamous relationships?
To clarify, since I know you might assume otherwise: I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be defended. I'm just saying it seems equivalent to forming a "White Lives Matter" matter movement. Asking why isn't saying white lives don't matter, nor is it saying white lives are never disregarded, but rather asking why they need to be defended in particular in a society that is already set up to give them the highest level of comparative value. I mean, if racism and police brutality against blacks didn't exist, then wouldn't "black lives matter" seem sort of odd?
But we see that a lot with rhetoric saying "we need to defend the traditional family!" that seems to imply that traditional families are facing adversity and hardship at a much greater rate than non-traditional families are. Or if they are not, then why not just "we need to defend families"?
posted
Cause heterosexual relationships produce offspring. And monogmist relationships are goid for those offspring. To a large extent protecting "heterosexual monogamy" is actually protecting mothers & children from dead beat dads.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jesus stone wolf you really have to give that whole drama queen schlock up someday
Okay anyway.
Dogbreath: wasn't aware of the whole Churchill bust story. Is excellent addition to a case study in orson Scott card being impressively serially deluded on the subject of obama or the left. Or uh global warming. Or Iraq and Afghanistan. Or gay marriage. Or environmentalism. Or feminism. Or a bunch of other things I guess
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Jesus stone wolf you really have to give that whole drama queen schlock up someday
Okay anyway.
Dogbreath: wasn't aware of the whole Churchill bust story. Is excellent addition to a case study in orson Scott card being impressively serially deluded on the subject of obama or the left. Or uh global warming. Or Iraq and Afghanistan. Or gay marriage. Or environmentalism. Or feminism. Or a bunch of other things I guess
The bust thing was also discussed on page 11 of this very thread.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a shame that his slow but inexorable descent into crack-pottery has so damaged my ability to enjoy his writing.
It's also had a tangible affect on this site (and sister sites, some of which are now defunct) and his brand.
But I guess the crack-pottery is worth it. Or more likely it's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think there *are* forces that destabilize/undermine stable relationships and family households, but of course they aren't actually specific to monogamous heterosexual marriages. One of the ironies of the SSM debate, from my point of view, is that same sex marriages ought to bring similar benefits to society to those provided by heterosexual marriages - not erode them.
Another thing that happens is that sometimes being on high alert for THINGS THAT WILL DESTROY FAMILIES turn relatively minor problems into bigger ones - self fulfilling prophecies.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Cause heterosexual relationships produce offspring.
It's not the relationship that produces the offspring, though. It's a woman. The extent of the "relationship" could be (and often is) intercourse, or not even that in the case of artificial insemination.
And that seems like a somewhat strange distinction: heterosexual relationships are better or more deserving of protection because the partners in them are capable of reproducing.
A) That's not always true. Many heterosexual couples cannot reproduce.
B) The ability to reproduce seems to have no impact on how good that couple is at raising children. Which is why we allow married folks who can't have children (whether because they are unable to, or happen to both be the same sex) to adopt, incidentally.
I would say the ability to raise offspring is a lot more important than the ability to produce it.
quote:And monogmist relationships are goid for those offspring.
There is no reason "2" is the magic number of parents necessary for good parenting, and that any more is somehow harmful. Consider my sister - she and her husband have 3 daughters. On Saturdays, when they both work, those daughters go to my parents house during the day, on Mondays and Tuesdays they go to my brother-in-laws' parent's house. My wife grew up with her grandparents *living* in her house, and they were in many ways her primary caretakers. I grew up with adult sisters who would watch me when my parents were away.
My point is that many - even most - people grow up with more than two parental figures who are a source of authority, stability, and guidance. There is no reason to think that, say, if someone had 5 parents instead of 2 they would be at a disadvantage. Probably the opposite. (And in every way except the parents having sex together, which is something children generally do not know about or understand anyway, many children (especially those in multi-generational homes) effectively do have more than 2 parents already)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Cause heterosexual relationships produce offspring. And monogmist relationships are goid for those offspring. To a large extent protecting "heterosexual monogamy" is actually protecting mothers & children from dead beat dads.
That didn't really answer his question, though. DB and myself aren't asking 'what makes heterosexual, monogamous marriage worthy of defending?' but rather accepting that it *is* worth defending but then thinking about the next question 'is it being defended well enough?'
Is it being defended well enough against the 'threats' of gay marriage and forms of polyamory? Well, I think the answer there if one accepts that they pose a threat is that even with gay marriage legal, heterosexual marriage is still the barely-dented juggernaut in that particular bout. Proponents of gay marriage don't seek to make more people gay, they seek to make more people think it's OK to be gay, basically. Which isn't the same thing. Unless you (general 'you' here) are jealously guarding a position of power and respect, and derive satisfaction from knowing that 'deviants' are kept shunned. That unquestionably describes some opponents-such as, frankly, Card in some respects. Or one might think that gay marriage actually does some sort of real harm to families, in which case my response is the same as it ever was: show me some evidence, and if you don't, don't expect your position to be afforded the kind of respect you're insisting on.
Or someone might think that religious implications for marriage are something the government needs to take an interest in. In which case my response is that while you (general 'you') have and should have the right to vote your conscience for your own reasons, again, don't expect me or anyone else to give respect to your theocratic leanings, however mild they may seem to you.
As to Brazil, I can't speak to that as I hope I've said? But I can offer a parallel experience of sorts, to a degree. People who have been here awhile might remember that I didn't always take such a harshly critical stance of conservatives and republicans and particularly conservative republicans as I do now. Of course it's impossible for me to gauge how much that change is truly based on a fair-minded assessment of how politics has changed or not changed in my country, but one thing I have noticed over the years is that I have to remind myself more often 'they don't actually hate minorities or homosexuals' or 'they actually think they do respect the US Constitution'. And I am unsuccessful in that reminder than I should be and that I once was. I think that like your experience as you described of Brazilian politics, though less dire, is that dislike and contempt has steadily built in me for conservative republicans in my country. Part of it I 'know' is fair, but it also blinds me sometimes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was explaining the logic behind it...not expousing its virtues. I'm all for any kind of marrage...I've often longed to be a part of a line marage like the main character in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress by RAH.
It is possible to be pro straight and not be anti gay. I try and be pro human.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From my part I was not and I am not trying to say traditional families are under threat...
Who, then, is considering them an "evil and old-fashioned way of having children," per your earlier observation, in Brazil?
I don't think "traditional families" are threatened in any way, either. But you explicitly called out a contrast -- that you hold "conservative" values that do NOT consider "traditional families" to be "evil."
And this is where the self-examination bit comes in. Because in my experience, most people who dig in their heels and proclaim their "conservative values" in opposition to some (presumably) newfangled cultural bugbear have not actually paused to identify whether that bugbear EXISTS or is in fact a threat to their society that exceeds the danger posed by overreacting to the change.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The modern political culture has confused the meaning of conservatism as it had been (irony abounds), traditionally understood.
Conservatism in the time of Lincoln meant essentially a form of progressive incrementalism. It sought to solve problems using existing political processes, rather than to tear down and rebuild from new blueprints.
The democratic party of that era was much more "traditional," in the sense that they wished to preserve the cultural and social status quo by rewriting the foundations of the government to maintain the existing economic structure under new terms- including expanding slavery westward. Many democrats abhored slavery, but did not believe that the state and presidency should grow in power as it had under Lincoln- largely because its base favored the status quo ante, despite the economic disaster that slavery had become.
As always, Democrats were a coalition of interest groups- not a philosophical center. Those groups dominated the democrats in the senate and house for decades before the Republicans elected Lincoln.
This is all to say, when people say they are "conservative," in the sense that they believe in an older set of values, this is rather misleading. Real conservatism is and was based not on preserving the status quo, but on altering the status quo, while employing the existing political apparatus.
Real economic conservatives, for example, are mostly all democrats, because the democratic party generally favors an approach to economics which softens the leading edge of change, in an attempt to keep society from becoming too stratified too quickly. GOP economics is starkly liberal, in favor of demolishing the existing state apparatus, and letting the market run rampant, in the pursuit of growth overall.
So in the sense of which party really wants change the most, it's an open question. "Conservatives," in the modern incarnation appear to want to maintain a standard of living (or at least the appearance of that standard), through extreme mortification of the state. Democrats want to maintain a plural society with distributed growth, using existing political institutions to do so.
Of the two, the GOP is truly the non-traditionalist organization. What they want to preserve largely never existed, and what they want to destroy, is largely what is traditional and in long practice.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: there was so much unintentional hilarity in that article
Is that what I'm going to be like when I'm old and I lose my final marble
What is interesting to me is this is the second or third time he's printed the lie about Obama and the Churchill bust:
"Considering that President Zero’s first act in office was to insult Britain by returning a bust of Churchill – a man who accomplished more to benefit civilization even when he was wrong than Obama has accomplished in his entire tenure in office – that had been given to the White House as a gift many years before.
Yeah, that’s right, slap our best ally in the face by, in effect, spitting on their prime minister who led"
Because this is such a blatantly false (and easily fact checked) claim.
" Lately, there’s been a rumor swirling around about the current location of the bust of Winston Churchill. Some have claimed that President Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and sent it back to the British Embassy.
Now, normally we wouldn’t address a rumor that’s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column. He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.”
This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room."
I mean, there are frigging pictures of it. It's still there. Aren't there better lies to repeat? It's gotten to the point where you can't trust anything he writes because he's liable to be quite literally just making shit up. Or at least, willfully choosing to believe and repeat whatever outlandish claim he hears about Obama without doing even cursory fact checking.
The bust that's still there was not the one that was loaned; PM Blair had loaned another to Bush after 9/11 and that one was indeed returned. It says so in the update to the link you posted. So it's not technically 100% false, just awfully misleading.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It is possible to be pro straight and not be anti gay. I try and be pro human.
Would you please explain what this means exactly? How does it practically work? If your goal is to be pro human, why add the "straight" at all?
Would you suspect a group that identifies as pro white as being a tad racist? If someone was wearing a "white power" t-shirt, for example, would you think that he meant power for everyone?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
