|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Go to Vince's reply to my reply
My final reply to Vince
Hi Vince...
It's okay if it takes you some time to respond.
Anyway:
> >Again, this is exactly what I was talking about. I
> >myself am strongly anti-patriotic, but I also realize
> >that, say, William Pitt is not much less patriotic
> >than Jim Robinson, if at all. Patriotism, too, is a
> >thing that needs to be reclaimed. The danger is that
> >if you talk too much about one thing then it can be
> >spun against you, for example with patriotism,
> >Sensenbrenner might try and paint it as collectivism.
>
>Sensenbrenner might TRY anything. He's not going to
>get a free pass from me, though. I will run a clean
>campaign, but will pull no punches in my ongoing
>mission to speak truth to power. I will not play
>dirty, but I WILL put forth the truth (confronting
>Republicans with the truth is often confused with
>mudslinging, as the truth tends to be unflattering to
>them).
>
>As an aside, the reason that I am a patriot is
>precisely because you have the right not to be one.
>Patriotism is not the same thing as nationalism, no
>matter how the pukes try to paint it.
Confronting people with the truth is a pretty good strategy, but the problem is that often people say "the truth" and mean "my ideology." Generally, when you use the rhetoric of "speaking truth to power," the line between the gentle truth that's sought and the raped "truth" that fanatics rely on has been crossed.
As for patriotism, in history classes I learned that it meant love of and loyalty to a country. My position on that is this: I drive a Honda Civic, and in fact think that Honda is the best auto maker in the world, given my needs; however, you won't catch me loving Honda or being loyal to it or regarding it as anything other than a means to get from point A to point B. The USA, in fact every country, is the same - a tool to help the people, a tool that should be sacrificed the moment it clashes with individual interests.
> >Actually, there is an excellent motive why someone
> >might want to participate in a government of a
> >coutnry he doesn't thing it is very good: to make it
> >better. I don't understand why to partake in the
> >administration of a country you have to love it,
> >really.
>
>I guess I see your point, but that's not the way I
>operate. If I didn't love the U.S., I'd probably
>leave. I certainly would NEVER say "love it or leave
>it" to anybody else, but that's probably what I'd do.
>I hated my old job, so I quit. It's not a hard
>decision for me.
I agree with you, but with one reservation: what if I don't love any country? I am too much of an internationalist to love a country.
> >I agree, apart from the part about a revolution every
> >two years (in pol-sci 101 I learned that revolutions
> >are defined as radical changes in countries and are
> >almost always violent; in that sense not even the
> >Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 can be
> >classified as a revolution). The USA does indeed have
> >a high potential of greatness, probably more than any
> >other country in the world. The problem is that
> >potentiality and actuality are not the same thing.
> >The USA has many structural problems and liabilities,
> >and unfortunately it doesn't do enough to mend them.
> >On the other hand, sometimes they are strengths,
> >which give the USA its potential: for instance, its
> >size on the one hand creates huge problems of
> >regionalism, but at the same time makes it an
> >economic powerhorse and is also the reason why
> >Harvard and Princeton are what they are.
>
>Definitions are tricky things. I don't see a
>revolution as inherently violent; but yes, they are
>radical departures. I should have said that we have
>the POTENTIAL for bi-annual revolution.
>
>As far as greatness, I look at the whole package.
>Harvard and Princeton? Oxford and Cambridge are just
>as good, but don't think for a second that the U.K.
>doesn't look up to us as guiding example.
First, Oxford and Cambridge are worse than Harvard and Princeton. Second, Britain doesn't really look at the USA as its role model; Blair does but he's in the minority. As for a revolution in Congress, I think that the current two-party system prevents anything like that; it seems to me that Congress reflects the majority opinion in the USA pretty accurately, so it won't budge unless there's a revolution in the people's opinions.
> >Exactly. It seems that we only disagree regarding the
> >effect of the qualifier "when we act as a beacon of
> >freedom."
>
>Well, that's what I'm here to work on.
>
> >That's one reason why there is hunger along with food
> >surpluses overall, but it's also the thing about
> >which that the USA can't do much, or at least not
> >near as much as Europe with its crop-destruction
> >programs can. But then again, note that even in the
> >third world, there is enough food - the problems are
> >that subsistence farmers often face famine and that
> >non-subsistence farmers can't sell their crops at a
> >sustaining price. The only solution to the former
> >problem that will work in the long term that I can
> >think of is birth control, but it will take it at
> >least 6 years to take effect. The latter problem,
> >however, has a more immediate solution: increasing
> >demand for third-world crops by making first-world
> >crops less competitive. But then again, it won't work
> >everywhere, and the only way to help in, say,
> >Somalia, is crop distribution.
>
>Well, I do believe that the first obligation of a
>Representative is to his or her own country; but I
>also recognize the moral imperative to ease suffering
>everywhere, when possible. This is a much more
>complicated issue than the others in your letter,
>frankly, and involves much more than simply ag.
>subsidies and food distribution. I'll tell you now
>that I take seriously my duty to my constituents and
>my countrymen and countrywomen, but I also take
>seriously the awesome power held by the United States
>to ease the suffering of impoverished people globally.
Okay, let me ask you this: what will you do, if elected, to eliminate or at least substantially reduce death from hunger?
> >As far as the huge majority goes, think of it this
> >way: 14% of Americans are atheists, and thus you'd
> >expect that 14% of the members of Congress (61
> >members) would vote against the condemnation. In
> >practice, only 5 did. If a similar thing recurs and
> >you vote against such a popular but unconstitutional
> >measure, then in essence you'd be representing the
> >people, just not those in your district. But that's a
> >completely different debate - proportional
> >representation vs. districts - that we shouldn't get
> >into.
>
>You're right, we shouldn't get into it, because I
>support PR in theory as an electoral standard, but
>saying so publicly would cost me more than a few votes
>(if you post this letter on your website, please
>replace the preceding paragraph with "la la la la la
>la la la la").
My site has 8 unique visitors, of whom at most 3 are potential votes to lose [I don't count your wife among those 3 because I presume that she'll vote for you no matter what ;-) ]. And besides, my site advocates electoral reform anyway. Don't worry :-) *.
>> >Good point, actually. One small counterpoint,
> >however: some Democrats, such as Lieberman and
> >Miller, are pretty fundamentalistic - Lieberman
> >ensured that I'd never vote for him by saying
> >"atheists have no morals," and Miller said he'd only
> >approve judges if they believed in god.
>
>Well, I'm not running for the Senate, so I have little
>power over Lieberman and the
>soon-to-be-departed-and-replaced-with-a-Republican-but-who-will-be-able-to-tell-the-difference-anyway
>Miller. I'll just say that I've known plenty of
>atheists with very strong moral standards, and I've
>known plenty of religious folks who were immoral. And
>vice versa, for good measure.
Right... However, you can bet that there exist Lieberman equivalents in the House - people who are pretty liberal on the issues that are considered the ones that differentiate the two parties, but in practice are completely Republicratic.
> >I'm sorry if my letter looked like throwing darts at
> >you. The only point that was really intended to be a
> >dart was 3) :-).
>
>Not darts? Damn! I was hoping to use the "attacked
>from the left" angle as a "see, I'm not too liberal
>for my district" strategem. Oh well.
If you ask me, the best way to garner moderate credentials is to talk about business-labor relations and emphasize the importance of class peace, which you do in your site except for the use of the words. That position will secure your class-warfare flank and will enable you to attack Sensenbrenner as a corporate class warrior.
>Cheers,
>Vince
>
Cheers,
Redeye.
* I'm glad to report that I have many more than 8 unique users now - I estimate the number at 2 per day, because my overall average over the last month or so is 3 per day, of whom I am almost always one, and who seldom return to the site, unfortunately. About 700 people will see this site by Election Day 2004, of whom maybe 100 will see my correspondence with Vince. Vince's district has about 650,000 people out of about 650,000,000 possible visitors to this site; hence, chances are that none of my visitors will be from the district, and even if they are, they probably won't be involved with any campaign. Back.
This site has gotten
hits since 2003-12-25.