Okay, before we begin let me point one thing out that's really been bugging me. You know that $700 billion in "taxpayer" money that's going to be used at some point to "bail out" the financial industry? Well, guess what. It's not taxpayer money, unless you're talking about the taxpayers who own Chinese and Western European banking conglomerates. They will be giving the US government the money to "bail out" or otherwise entitled buy out parts of the financial industry. This isn't money that has ever come from the taxes of you or I. If we had that kind of money, why are we financing two wars with foreign money? Why is the national debt expected to hit $11.4 TRILLION (that's $11,400,000,000,000 for those keeping track) because of this buy out? Because it's not money that we own. It's money that own us to them. That's all.
-----------------------------------------
And on to what I really wanted to talk about tonight...
Politics is a polarizing entity. It fashions large divides out of tiny differences and makes issues out of differences that can coexist. It seems now that we are more polarized than ever. Yet this may not be true. A particularly insidious aspect of politics is that we things are happening for the first time every time. Or that there have never been such political gaps between the people of this nation. I beg to differ. We forget things too quickly and cannot accurately make such determinizations.
There is another interesting aspect to politics. When one is getting their way, they always claim that the other is a radical. Day to day as polls change each side of this election process alternates accusations of radicalism. In fact, on a larger scale for much of the past decade we've been calling the radical the Republican Party and through its "Rovian" techniques, it gained power for the first time in decades in Congress and the first time in 8 years in the Oval Office. As they gained power, the left ascribed their techniques as being radical.
Now the tide is turning again. Barack Obama is leading the Democratic ticket and gaining power in this nation. He proposes change and a new style of politics, and so it seems to his followers, because he is winning. Likewise, his opponents assail him as a radical, because they are losing.
It must be asked then if this "radical" ends justify the means (or "Rovian") mentality that each losing side claims the winner uses even exists at all. On the contrary, if one can only gain power by actually using such techniques then perhaps their followers are only blind to its usage.
-----------------------------------------
In politics does the end justify the means? To the aggressor, yes, to the loser, no. The same rings true for everyone in every aspect of discord. I believe that in all realistic applications getting my way does justify my means. In politics I will smear and I will go for the jugular. Why? Because I can't live with myself if I don't try every avenue. To me this is war and I intend to be on the winning side. I cannot accept the policies of Bush II. Such acceptance would be more destructive to me than would be my means to my end.
-----------------------------------------
And on to what I really wanted to talk about tonight...
Politics is a polarizing entity. It fashions large divides out of tiny differences and makes issues out of differences that can coexist. It seems now that we are more polarized than ever. Yet this may not be true. A particularly insidious aspect of politics is that we things are happening for the first time every time. Or that there have never been such political gaps between the people of this nation. I beg to differ. We forget things too quickly and cannot accurately make such determinizations.
There is another interesting aspect to politics. When one is getting their way, they always claim that the other is a radical. Day to day as polls change each side of this election process alternates accusations of radicalism. In fact, on a larger scale for much of the past decade we've been calling the radical the Republican Party and through its "Rovian" techniques, it gained power for the first time in decades in Congress and the first time in 8 years in the Oval Office. As they gained power, the left ascribed their techniques as being radical.
Now the tide is turning again. Barack Obama is leading the Democratic ticket and gaining power in this nation. He proposes change and a new style of politics, and so it seems to his followers, because he is winning. Likewise, his opponents assail him as a radical, because they are losing.
It must be asked then if this "radical" ends justify the means (or "Rovian") mentality that each losing side claims the winner uses even exists at all. On the contrary, if one can only gain power by actually using such techniques then perhaps their followers are only blind to its usage.
-----------------------------------------
In politics does the end justify the means? To the aggressor, yes, to the loser, no. The same rings true for everyone in every aspect of discord. I believe that in all realistic applications getting my way does justify my means. In politics I will smear and I will go for the jugular. Why? Because I can't live with myself if I don't try every avenue. To me this is war and I intend to be on the winning side. I cannot accept the policies of Bush II. Such acceptance would be more destructive to me than would be my means to my end.
Comments