Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Crazy People

theferrett started a fire in his blog recently by posting that he agreed with an article written by a concervative critising liberals.

Now I won't talk about the term liberal more than I already have, except to say this: Don't call anyone in the US left-wing. Please. The Democrats are, much like The Labour Party, still to the right of center in any political graph you care to draw. There is no such thing as a mainstream left-wing party in the US or UK. They are just more left than the right wing party.

Having said that -- I agree with the Ferret, the article is good. It shows how many stupid people there are on all sides.

Notice I said all -- This is not a two sided issue. There is not just two sides to chose from, you can disagree with both mainstream sides in politics and guess what? You can still be right. The point is more that extremism, whoever it is, is retarded.

The moment you say, mentally or otherwise, this is what is right because it is what I believe is right, and everyone else must be wrong: You're an idiot. You lose debating privilages. It doesn't matter if you thump a bible or call Rush Limbaugh worse than Hitler. You're an idiot, you are hurting your "side" and you are ignoring the posibility that you could be wrong, mis-informed, or just plain dumb.

There aren't two sides, stop acting like there are. I'm no more left-wing than I am right, and have views in both arenas, but I've been called a "liberal" before now. It is these people, be their religious right wing, or democratic liberal tree huggers that are dangerous -- not because they are wrong, but because they refuse to accept that they could be.


( 18 comments — Leave a comment )
15th Apr, 2005 21:55 (UTC)
By the way, you linked to the wrong journal. You want theferrett, not theferret

I agree with you, except for "Don't call anyone in the US left-wing." It's true that the Democrats are only left relative to Republicans, but be careful about making generalizations. There's plenty of die-hard, hardcore left-wing Americans, they're just not Democrats. In other words, you're saying two different things about American politics...
15th Apr, 2005 23:58 (UTC)
Corrected, thanks.

And true, its a sweeping generalisation, a lot of the post is. I think I could have phrased it better.. perhaps as "there is no such thing as a left wing in the US" because there isn't.. there are a few, very few, people who are left wing. Its not like right and left are the only directions anyway...
17th Apr, 2005 02:38 (UTC)
you could be wrong, mis-informed, or just plain dumb.

Most of the time they are just plain dumb. And, by "they" I mean most people on this planet.

I'm having an I hate people day. :(

17th Apr, 2005 02:43 (UTC)
How interesting that the article was written by Pat Sajak. They took me by surprise.
17th Apr, 2005 07:54 (UTC)
I've never heard of him before... so I have no baggage related to him, from reading some of his other stuff he seems to write well written, if slightly knee-jerk and slightly biased articles.

He would be a lot better if he didn't go for the cheap and easy "liberal" joke. Then again the same is true for many "liberal" writers.
17th Apr, 2005 16:14 (UTC)
He is the host of Wheel of Fortune.
21st Apr, 2005 23:23 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a mainstream left-wing party in the US or UK.

I beg to differ. You can't get any further left than the Green Party.
21st Apr, 2005 23:30 (UTC)
I wouldn't really call them mainstream, but point taken. It is a rather broad generalisation I admit.

However they aren't THAT left. Most of their policies are "left" but are only radically left compared to the other parties. Compared to the UK Green Party they are right wing ;)

Of cource that might explain why our Green Party's record number of seats is... one.
21st Apr, 2005 23:34 (UTC)
I consider Socialism to be radically left no matter what the composition of the mainstream parties in a nation (except, I guess, Russia). Our Greens are not just environmentalists, but totally full-blown socialists, at least on our college campus.
21st Apr, 2005 23:37 (UTC)
I think that might be mostly college. The Green Party people at my Uni were rabid (I nearly typed rabbit, theres a wierd image) sociallists too. The Green Party here tho isn't. Its more socialist than the others (well.. other than The Socialist Party), but not full blown.

From reading up on the Greens there they seem similar, not total socialists, but with some socialist policies.

Then again the fact we have government health care is seen as rampantly socialist by some people in the states... so it could be a perception issue.
21st Apr, 2005 23:58 (UTC)
The issue of socialized healthcare has many facets to it in the States. Being on a little island in the Big Pond, you don't have the influx of illegal immigrants that we do. They receive services, usually without paying for them, and do not funnel tax dollars back into the system from which they take. The intelligentsia on both sides of the debate have conceded that discussing a viable socialized healthcare plan is impossible until we can rectify the illegal immigrant problem, especially in the Southwestern states. Even if the illegals coming into the country do work and are not sucking up tax-payer resources in the form of welfare, WIC, free daycare, and prison incarceration, they are not subject to the annual income tax.

I am suspect of socialized healthcare for many reasons, but one of them is that Canadians on the border often come into the States in order to get the operations that they can not get because their system inteferes with the law of supply and demand.

Then there is the socialized healthcare that does exist for the poor and the eldery in our country. The poor (in my state) get this green card and even if a mother's kid has a sniffle, they take an ambulance to the emergency room of the hospital. The eldery get every single prescription paid for and then some. It has gotten to the point that there is no healthcare in this country, but sick care. Take my father for instance: he has a great insurance plan through his work, but instead of lowering his cholesterol by watching his diet, he was taking this med that caused him to have a neurological problem which affected his ability to walk. It took them forever to figure out what the deal was. Now he can't be on any cholestoral-reducing prescription and does watch his diet, but there are millions of citizens out there who take these pills as a one-stop solution, and it sucks up all of this tax-payer money. It's insane.

Personally, I don't really understand the whole deal about socialized medicine, but I am very conservative, so I am sure you can intimate my views. I have terrible allergies which result in asthma attacks, bronchitis about twice a year, walking pneunomia about once every other year, and sinusitis six to seven times a year. I am allergic to almost everything under the sun, so if I get sick, I pay $50 to go see the doctor, then pay another $100 for a course of antibiotics, and I am definately on a budget. If I can manage, I do not understand why it is argued that basic healthcare needs to be extended to every single citizen. We are a nation that does not save, but lives paycheck to paycheck, and I think that's where the mentality of entitlement comes from, that and the huge sums of credit card debt.

I know nothing about the socialized healthcare system in the UK, but I do know that the one in Canada is going top-heavy and many regions are without doctors because they just don't get paid enough for the work they do.

I would be curious to hear your opinion on socialized healthcare and would like to know how it works in the UK, if you feel like it. I don't usually get so political in another person's journal, especially someone I just discovered from a random comment in the customers_suck community, but you haven't torn my head off so far...
22nd Apr, 2005 00:11 (UTC)
Er.. we totally do have the same problem with imigrants. Man you wouldn't believe it. Its not the imigrants that are the problem -- its how a system deals with them. Poor imigration handling isn't an argument for or against a national health service, neither is a mis-managed one, its just an argument for better management.

As far as the US-Canada thing goes, I know a lot of Americans go to Canada for cheap meds. So it works both ways. I'm not sure how their system is set up, so I can't comment on the supply and demand issue, except that it seems to work here pretty damn well, for the most part. Its not perfect, but then again no system is.

Most of the issues you present sound like under-funding, and poor managment.

The US conservative view on health care is in interesting, and mostly closed door to me actually. Aside from "not good" I don't know the specifics. As to UK healthcare, I can tell you that there is not exactly a shortage of doctors, but it is more lucrative for doctors to specialise and so, in this way, privatised health care is actually bad for the country as a whole. Top-heavy I assume means too much red tape and management, we still have that, but it is lessening. Just about.

It IS a big drain on the government, but if they were to remove it there would be a revolt and, aside from education and immigration, healthcare is usually one of the top election issues (and we have one on May 5th.. fun *groan*).

Never fear getting political, or opinionated, its funny actually -- I was jsut writing a post about that. As long as people don't get crazy, and are rational I don't mind. Even just agreeing to disagree is fine :)

Overall my opinion is this tho: Its a good thing, if run properly. However it needs a system that supports it.
22nd Apr, 2005 21:09 (UTC)
The Democrats are, much like The Labour Party, still to the right of center in any political graph you care to draw.

Well, I suppose they are if you consider the status quo in both countries "center-right." That is, if you consider center-right the current adminstrative welfare states in the UK and America, with their federally sanctioned antidiscrimination laws, immigration policies which undermine their historical cultures, state-sanctioned homosexual marriage (a policy supported by most members of the Democratic party), Britain's hate speech laws and universal health care.

There is no such thing as a mainstream left-wing party in the US or UK.

I beg to differ. There is no such thing as mainstream right-wing party in the US.
22nd Apr, 2005 21:53 (UTC)
I beg to differ. There is no such thing as mainstream right-wing party in the US.

It depends on how right wing you call ring wing. The Republicans are more right wing than our most right wing party, and The Conservatives here (the right wing mainstream party) while in some cases center-right, are pretty solidly in the right wing camp.

Basically if you define right wing how it is defined in the majority of the world... the Republicans are right wing. Your statement is basically demonstratably false.
22nd Apr, 2005 23:03 (UTC)
Basically if you define right wing how it is defined in the majority of the world... the Republicans are right wing.

Consulting majority opinion and political graphs is not a good way to settle what constitutes right-wing.
22nd Apr, 2005 23:21 (UTC)
politcal graphs? You mean things drawn up by people who study politics? Who actually know about this sort of thing?

When the majority of academic political analysts say something about politics, I'd say thats a reason to take notice.

The Republicans are Right Wing. There is no argument here, by all definitions of the term "right wing" they are right wing. They aren't rabidly extremely right wing like say... the BNP are here, but they are still right wing.

There is no way you can justify saying that they aren't.
23rd Apr, 2005 00:23 (UTC)
The Republicans are Right Wing. There is no argument here, by all definitions of the term "right wing" they are right wing.

What a convincing argument...

Here's one of the main problems with calling the GOP "right-wing". FDR was considered to be a member of the political left, not only by everyone who identified themselves with the political right in the 1930's-1950's - William F Buckley, Russell Kirk (regarded by many as the founder of American conservatism and the author of an definitive text on conservatism), Robert Taft, etc, - but by individuals who were politically centrist or leftist. The policies created by FDR, for the most part, receive the full backing, or at least resigned acceptance, by the current GOP. There is no talk among Republicans (save for maybe Ron Paul) of dismantling or opposing the administrative state created by FDR, as there was in the 1940-50's. On the contrary, there are a great number of Republicans who consider preserving social security "conservative." And the massive federal spending of George Bush puts FDR to shame. If FDR were alive today, he could very, very easily be a Republican. So if the GOP is "right-wing", then so was FDR. With the way things are going, Ralph Nader will be considered a jaded reactionary in ten years time.
23rd Apr, 2005 09:55 (UTC)
Right, NOW I see your point.

Like I said, they aren't extreme right wing, or even totally right wing in all areas. Talking about individuals is pointless however, as personal politics is often dropped in favour of party politics.

Also talking historically is pointless, as we are living in the present. However this also brings to light the pointlessness of just talking about left and right, as there are more directions than that. The modern republican party isn't just right wing - its rampently authoritarian. That -- in the modern "I can't see any more than left or right" type world adds to its percieved "right" status. Indeed, that makes sense on a linear scale, it only doesn't when you give it more dimensions.

However that still doesn't change the fact that by the majority of political analysts opinion the Republicans (and the Convervatives here) are right wing.

Also.. to add a rather trivial and sematic point, the right wing just means the right side of the part struture. In that case you could say democrats were left, because they are to the left in the present government arms.

Political parties do change positions, sometimes radiacally (see our own labour party, or even the concervatives over a long enough graph). But to say there is no mainstream right wing party in the US is demonstratably wrong. Denying the data, or dismissing it because you don't think its right, is not the same as the data being wrong.
( 18 comments — Leave a comment )