Even though none of the high-profile election contests are close this year, there are a number of local races in King County where the winner and the loser are separated by a handful of votes.
Some of these close races could be swung by the "voter intent" determinations of the canvassing board.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 22, 2005 11:15 AM | Email ThisWe are nowhere without you.
Bless you.
You are the messiah for us....every night I pray to be more like you in the morning.
St. Stefan.
My hero, my light, my rock, my redeemer.
Posted by: Tommy Tutone on November 22, 2005 11:22 AMWhere would we be without the folks who post comments from public libraries?
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 22, 2005 11:26 AMMaybe he's a another bum surfing pron there.
Posted by: Steve_dog on November 22, 2005 11:31 AMWe nee to know that there is a consistent method of deterining voter intent.
PS. There are only 16 hours left for voting on the make-up of the deck of bloggers, and soundpolitics needs only 20 more votes to be included in the deck.
http://aarons.cc/category/memes/deck-o-bloggers-2005/
Imagine the picture of those phony vote counters peering at it....bug eye and all
Posted by: righton on November 22, 2005 01:34 PMBut, without that piece of paper, there is no certain way of knowing what message was left by each voter in the ballot box. Sure, the message may be indecipherable, but at least it's there for all to see.
Maybe we should let the canvassing board continue playing whimsical games with their interpretations of voter intent. Otherwise, people like Logan would have no entertainment as a relief from the "high burden" of enforcing voter registration laws.
Posted by: Micajah on November 22, 2005 02:44 PMJust wondering
C.
Posted by: Chris Brownell on November 22, 2005 04:53 PMSerious thought - since logan and company mark the original ballots (which is illegal); how easy would it be to mark up as many ballots as necessary to win any election. Since KSC always certifies their results after everyone else....Gee, what a novel way to have election fraud! (I am not saying this is what they are doing - but the potential is definitely there!)
There needs to be a rule change - (Much as the Papal elections) All counties need to certify their result simultaneously and all counties counts should be sequestered without communications or cell phones or other communications so that no one could possibly influence the results but the process needs to be open to both all parties to observe and challenge any discrepancies both during and after the process.
Discerning voter intent standards need to be codified into law. The canvassing board jobs should a simple application of the standards based on law.
The voter rolls need to be purged of the obvious defects that have been observed over the past year!
All results need to be fully open to public scrutiny.
The State law about not marking ballots needs to be enforced with penalities.
Elections depend on totally 'Open and Honest' communications during all stages. Any hint of problems need to be immediately resolved in open forums.
Posted by: timman on November 22, 2005 04:56 PMNot only is it easy - it's how Gregoire won the 204 election. How many ballots had the voter's intent 'divined'? To my knowledge the number is in the tens of thousands, for a race ultimately decided by 129 votes. This was outrageous a year ago, and nobody has lifted a finger to do anything about it.
Posted by: Larry on November 22, 2005 05:10 PMIn the November 2004 elections, there were over 55,000 ballots "deemed" in need of determining voter intent. In King County, a voter just needed to skip voting on one race on his ballot (intentionally or not)- leaving both ovals blank - for it to be sent up for determination of voter intent....
For instance, many voters chose not to vote for Governor last November - maybe they liked or disliked both candidates - so they left the ovals blank. This flagged the ballots for review by elections employees....One has to wonder what those employees did with those ballots and if they handled them (by filling them in) or sent them up to the canvassing board (to also fill them in)...?
NEVER leave blank ovals! Write in someone if you don't like the listed candidates...Otherwise, in King County, someone will fill them in for you....
Posted by: Deborah on November 22, 2005 07:20 PMNow, the question is are people going to continue belaboring it or is someone going to do something about it and start the petition going ? I would donate to such a cause...
Posted by: KS on November 22, 2005 07:50 PMApache foghat is a f***ing moron. Why did you eat the cheese?
Posted by: Danny on November 22, 2005 08:05 PMC.
Posted by: Chris Brownell on November 22, 2005 09:44 PMSo let's ban humans from counting votes. If it goes thru the machine and gets read as an overvote, an undervote, or whatever, that's the way it should be tabulated. Run the ballots thru the machines, and the final tally is the official count. Period.
Want a recount? Fine, then we run the ballots thru the machine again. That number is your official recount total. Eliminate all manual or hand recounts, and eliminate the canvassing boards too. If you can't follow directions and fill in an oval or punch a chad, too freakin' bad. The machines have a supposed error rate of 1 in 1,000,000 and they don't discriminate (rabid Diebold conspiracy theories aside.)
The only things that humans would still have to deal with are (1)write-in ballots, and (2)ballots for the disabled or special needs community. Does anybody know how to solve those problems?
Randy
Posted by: Randy Mueller on November 22, 2005 09:49 PMdumm·kopf Audio pronunciation of "dummkopf" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dmkôf, -kôpf, dm-)
n.
A stupid person; a dolt.
Posted by: timman on November 22, 2005 10:24 PMHmmm...
Bill Huennekens was demoted to head the Disabled and special needs voting department.....sigh...
He could make up the difference in a close race....
The AP and UPI reported that the French Government announced after the London bombings that it has raised its terror alert level from Run to Hide. The only two higher levels in France are Surrender and Collaborate. The rise in the alert level was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively disabling their military.
French Ban Fireworks at Euro Disney
> (AP), Paris, March 5, 2003
The French Government announced today that it is imposing a ban on the use of fireworks at Euro Disney. The decision comes the day after a nightly fireworks display at the park, located just 30 miles outside of Paris, caused the soldiers at a nearby French Army garrison to surrender to a group of Czech tourists.
> Steve Fredrickson
Stefan always seems to enjoy playing himself off as a populist fighting the powers that be - but comments like this one show his true colors.
Turns out, he's just another angry, rich, elitist Republican who is p!ssed he can't buy power with his money like all the other movement conservatives back in the other Washington (thank you, Brother Daniel Lapin!)
May I suggest a Central American oligarchy, where Stefan may have more luck carrying out his dark, obsessive, right wing social order?
Posted by: GregL on November 23, 2005 12:30 AMBaahaaahaaaaaa
Posted by: Misty on November 23, 2005 12:41 AMOh. Right. That would work. Very clever, Misty. You're a bright one.
We all know how much the Democrats want to start a "have you hugged a terrorist today?" campaign.
By the same token, I'm hoping you take this bizarre Talibangelist ideology right off the cliff. I'm thinking Bush's approval ratings could get down in the teens (right around midterm election time) if you can just keep this idiotic circus going!
I say "keep it up," Misty!
Here's a quick trivia question for you clueless right wing sheep:
how many jihadist suicide bombers blew themselves up in Iraq before Bush invaded?
Answer: 0
So much for the ridiculous "Islamofascist" argument. Look out, folks, waves of terrorist armies will be at our shores in no time, ready to take over the most powerful country on earth with their rusty Kalishnakovs and IED's!
Now, if they could only find an airplane to get them "all" over here.....heh heh.
As soon as we stop building military bases in Arab lands, stop running their oil fields, and stop occupying their countries, the big bad Islamofascist threat will probably disappear. Overnight. Then, they will just have to go back to killing eachother all over again - just like they have been doing for decades. And I, for one, don't have ANY problem with that. You see, I don't find I have a lot in common with the bleeding heart Neocon set.
Posted by: GregL on November 23, 2005 01:53 AMI think you will also find that you don't have anything in common with people who can engage in intellectually honest debate. Come back when the new pinhead talking points are published. You're obviously working from a very stale version.
Posted by: Danny on November 23, 2005 05:45 AMTry to at least rebut any of GregL's comments. How can you call yourself "intellectually honest" when you simply call him a pinhead?
Posted by: GreqQ on November 23, 2005 06:04 AMGregL hasn't said anything.
Posted by: South County on November 23, 2005 06:34 AMDid someone say he was a 'pinhead'
Please read it again.
Now Bush is trying to escape from the press through locked doors while the cameras roll and posing for pictures in front of Ghenghis Khan.
Coincidence? I think not.........
Posted by: Apache Fog on November 23, 2005 08:39 AMThat said, I prefer the suicide bombers blowing themselves up in Iraq, rather than here.
But back to topic: If someone isn't smart enough to figure out how to vote (or get a new ballot if they screwed one up), then I don't want them making decisions for me.
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on November 23, 2005 08:46 AMHow long did you say you were underwater without oxygen?
Posted by: Apache Fog on November 23, 2005 09:19 AMI'm glad you equate terrorists with violent criminals and drug dealers.
You, however, have used a terrorist conversation tactic to twist a message you didn't like. I invite you to go to: http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html
Have fun.
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on November 23, 2005 09:35 AMThat should steer you to constructive conversation and debate.
Let me know how it works out for you.
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on November 23, 2005 09:41 AMAs soon as we stop building military bases in Arab lands, stop running their oil fields, and stop occupying their countries, the big bad Islamofascist threat will probably disappear. Overnight. Then, they will just have to go back to killing eachother all over again - just like they have been doing for decades. And I, for one, don't have ANY problem with that. You see, I don't find I have a lot in common with the bleeding heart Neocon set.
Have you really studied the history of the current Islamic radical movement thorughly enough to make such blithe and pithy solutions?
You ask how many jihadists have blown themselves up in Iraq before we invaded and since. I ask you, how many jihadists have blown themselves up in America before we invaded and since. Your argument is ridiculous becuase you simply erect a strawman and knock him down in the same breath.
You say you are content with 'them" going back to killing each other like it was before. Who are they, precisely? Arabs, muslims, Arab-muslims? Do you realize that the vast majority of people killed by these islamists are indeed other islamists or at least Persian/Arabs (not counting the Darfur region which includes African muslims)? Do you know the difference between Arabs and Persians?
Do you know the stated goals of the radical jihadists? Do you think if we left Iraq they would leave us alone? Do you think that if we left all "their" contires they would leave us alone? Do you know that their stated goals include much more than you are willing to cede them? Once we retreat in that area, will they be mollified or emboldened to ask for more? Do you agree to give them Isreal? Do you think they should be allowed to kill the Isreali's first, or do you have a program to allow them to settle in other contries? Maybe you could give one of them your home?
Do you understand that to many muslims that once they have occupied a territory, no matter how briefly, no matter how long ago it is considered muslim territory? Are you willing to give them back Parts of Western and Eastern Europe?
And the final series: If a mob boss is killing cops who nose around his business, is the government supposed to heed his declaration that if they leave him alone he won't keep murduring cops? I'm sure you can see that this would be the safest course of action for the local police force. Would it be the best course in the long run for all citizens? Just let the thugs have their patch of dirt, and everyone will live happily ever after.
Posted by: Eyago on November 23, 2005 10:30 AMPlease, share some of your vast knowledge on how the enlightened ones are going to insure that America will not be attacked again by terrorists. All the while insuring that I will be able to go to safeway to buy my turkey and have the electricity to cook it in my heated home and have the gas or whatever to drive to Grandma's house to eat it. I won't even ask you to tell me how I'll get the money to pay for it.
We all know what happened in the past, we really need to see into the future! Let's hear your plans.
Posted by: put up or shut up on November 23, 2005 10:36 AMI question your statement that "There were no terrorists in Iraq until we invaded."
Also, I question your statement that "There has been MORE terrorism in the world since Iraq, not less."
I don't believe you are correct in either point. However, if you continue to personally attack me, I won't respond.
But if you wish to debate, by all means.
Wasn't Iraq basically a dictatorship under Saddam? Saddam promoted and helped provide training grounds for terrorists. Therefore, there were terrorists in Iraq before we invaded.
As to whether or not there is more terrorism, well, I will certainly concede that the terrorism now is well televised and documented, but that by no means proves that there has been more. Can you give me proof for your statement?
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on November 23, 2005 10:37 AMLost in the FOG, is just that. Very LOST.....Like a troll who lives under the bridge, never making it into Society.
Posted by: Chris on November 23, 2005 10:41 AMTerrorist Attacks(within the United States or against Americans abroad) See:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
1920
Sept. 16, New York City: TNT bomb planted in unattended horse-drawn wagon exploded on Wall Street opposite House of Morgan, killing 35 people and injuring hundreds more. Bolshevist or anarchist terrorists believed responsible, but crime never solved.
1975
Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.
1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)
One thing we can be sure of, because history has shown it, terrorism never works in the long run.
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on November 23, 2005 11:11 AMI think, Nancy, that you already know.
Posted by: Apache Fog on November 23, 2005 12:58 PMDo you want to debate, or rant?
You see it as a large chunk missing, I see other factors involved. Such as: WWII (those who would be terrorists were definitely in the thick of that), Vietnam, Korea, several other wars and police actions. How about broadcasting? Before news stations, there was little reason to cover happenings going on in different countries except for extremely major happenings, like---war. What about hijackings? Hijacking a plane to Cuba could be construed as a terrorist act. What about the Cold war? I'm sure we didn't learn of several terrorist activities because of the news clampdown by Russia during the Cold war. We certainly hear about them now.
Terrorism tactics have been used throughout history, probably ever since the first government sprouted into existence. There will always be people who view others as pawns in their reach for power and control.
If you want to limit your label of terrorism to just the middle-east, besides being narrow-minded, you still could search back through history to find terrorists and their activities. I believe, and I could be wrong, that the word "assassin" has its roots in the middle-east.
Come on, Apache Fog, either debate or just rant. I think you already know how both Democrats and Republicans feel about ranters.
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on November 23, 2005 01:12 PMHGL: Can you name some countries that engaged in pitched wars against terrorists? How did those wars end? Who prevailed in the American Revolution? Who prevailed in Afghanistan: the Russians or the Taliban? Who prevailed in Vietnam? Did Toissant l' ouverture beat the French?
If we want to fight terrorism we should invade Saudi Arabia. And, HGL, if I'm engaging in conversational terrorism then you are engaging in fascistic repression.
Posted by: Apache Fog on November 23, 2005 01:43 PMEvery country that tried to put an end to terrorists has engaged in pitched wars. I don't understand this point of yours.
There is a difference between terrorist tactics and patriotic tactics. Re: American revolution: I'm sure England saw us as terrorists until we declared our Independence. However, I don't know of Gen. Washington killing children and other innocents on a consistent basis, or as a policy. Do you?
The Russians pulled out of Afghanistan, and we all know how that ended up. Would you have enjoyed living in Afghanistan under the Taliban rule, Apache Fog?
Vietnam. Both the French and the US pulled out of there. I admit my ignorance in this subject. I know enough to know that I don't know enough. Could you make your point on this for me in another way?
Again, I don't know who or what Toissant l'ouverture is. Could you give me a brief background?
Thanks for replying.
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on November 23, 2005 02:04 PMThink of it as a dress rehearsal for what is going on in Paris today.
Posted by: huckleberry on November 23, 2005 02:13 PMHowever, invading a nation that at least is trying to help does not make sense.
I do not wish to get into a debate involving invasion of Iraq at this time, let's save that for later.
As I understand it, there is a large group of the Saudi Arabia that lives in poverty, and is only taught hate. That's simplistic, I know, but I weary of typing today.
I believe we won't have an end to middle-eastern terrorism until these countries spawn religious teachers that interpret the Koran in peaceful terms, and preach the peace as well. I don't think that's going to happen, if at all, for years to come. Sad to say.
What do you think can be done to end terrorism?
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on November 23, 2005 02:16 PMNancy - I beg to differ on you on part of your post. Liberals use history as must as Conservatives do, but just like in politics, both closes their eyes (for the main part) to the evidence presented by the other, choosing to spin it to their own views. Boy, do I sound condescending! Don't mean to, and I apologize. What I guess I'm trying to say is: America is a great country, still full of promise. We can do anything we want as a country if we can get behind the idea. Republicans and Democrats (and Independents) need to step back from the He said, She said stuff, and find common elements to work toward. Instead of putting all our efforts in bringing down the other, perhaps we can pool together and DO things that generations after us will look on with respect.
The only way I see for something like that to happen is for both sides to open their minds to the fact that there really are different sides to every issue, and probably a dozen times more different ways to handle them.
We all want to eradicate crime, poverty, disease, but both sides have their own agendas for doing so, and their pet projects to put forth. But by focusing on the objective, and giving a little here and there, perhaps we can reach it.
We will have Democrats and Republicans together for the rest of our lives, do we really want to spend it arguing? I assume Apache Fog is, what, 60? (I'm guessing here, sorry) So Apache Fog will be around for a good twenty years with his/her vote. I would like to know what ways he/she has that can fix problems, and maybe that viewpoint wasn't something I had thought of, which might cascade into lots of people changing their minds and who knows what could happen? Or vice versa.
Whew! Getting off my soapbox now.
I know I'm a little naive, but still, there's always hope.
Plus, not all Democrats are stupid, much like not all Republicans are stupid. And if they're not stupid, there has to be a good reason why they think the way they do.
Why not find out how and why they view the world differently?
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on November 23, 2005 02:34 PMThe interesting thing is that the French had an opportunity to live up to their commitment to the universal rights of man, and chose to go with the wealthy, white plantation owners instead of the underclass who were in the majority. It was rather hypocritical.
My apologies for confusing the issue.
Posted by: huckleberry on November 23, 2005 02:52 PMYou are expressing optimism in the form of the semi-rhetorical question "Why can't we all just get along?" We all share that sentiment with you, and I am sorry you are wearying of the debate. But understand, the debate is not nearing an end but is just starting. America has been ignoring so many issues for about 40 years. A lot of good has occurred since 1965, but mostly it has been a period of traditionalists accomodating the wishes of the liberationists... i.e., the 60's kids. Large numbers of us former moderates are just now coming to terms with the notion that this has been a revolution, a war if you will, and we are joining in that war against the liberationists. It will get uglier before it gets pretty again.
The two sides might be able to find political compromise, but doubt it. The right is waking in America, and apparently in Europe, and the left must either accomdate that politically, or risk irrelevancy should the right be successful.
But don't be sad. We'll work it out. But it will take time.
By the way, Happy, are you a traditionalist or a liberationist?
Huckleberry - I guess I am saying that, however cliched. But I still mean it.
I meant was weary of typing, not debate. I like debate, it broadens the mind, and you just might pick up an elegant turn of phrase, no matter how down and dirty.
France. Love their fries. Sorry for the riots. They're going to have to pick a side pretty soon, there will be no neutrals coming up. (Right, Nancy?)
I do think America's been hijacked by a small minority of skewed thinking, and I agree with you, America is beginning to wake up to it. How bad it gets will be up to the other side. Compromise, compromise.
Traditionalist or a liberationist? I don't know the definition of those words as you are using them. I do believe in family values, that America lets you choose your own religion but shouldn't divorce itself from it, and that we as a people have a moral imperative to help those who need it around the world. Might doesn't always make right, but it can sometimes. And lastly, help shouldn't always be materialistic in action.
Have a good weekend.
You are a traditionalist. Now stop voting for D's and maybe your political agenda will start to progress.
OK, whose next in line?
Posted by: huckleberry on November 23, 2005 04:50 PMNow, I am being quite short here as this topic, to be fully explaiend would need a 300 page thesis, but in general these things hold and define the two sides of the debate. It is true that you can find myriad examples that run counter to the generalizations I am making, but if you want to debate the exceptions, you are missing the point.
The Democrats, the liberals, and the left, all seem to want to focus on equality and fairness for everybody in the end. That means they don't care how someone got into their current state of advantage or disadvantage so much as they prefer to focus on how to get them to the ideal state of equality. This may not always hold true for these three groups who are currently politically aligned, but they all fall under the category of idealist in that they see the ideal world and feel that few means are inappropriate in acheiving that ideal world. Their value of a person is based on intrinsic equality that deserves extrinsic representation.
The republicans, the right, and the conservatives seem to want to focus on structure, and procedure, insuring that everyone has the same rules to live by and that the rules are followed, even to the exclusion of equality in the end. Again these groups are currently aligned, but they all fall under the category of pragmatist and value order. They believe the means are critical and that to subvert them is to create chaos. They value a person based on their willingness to earn their way and understand that not everyone starts with the same opportunities and only those who put forth the effort deserve the reward.
Neither side is perfect in their approach. Each one in the extreme results in abuse. But, if you do not understand the underlying motivation of the other side, you are doomed to call them leftist pinhead or rightwing nut respectively when neither is entirely accurate. It is true there are examples of both, but usually you can tell they are an extereme example when they use invective and name calling rather than engage in acutal debate.
Unfortunately, those who ARE leftist pinheads are the ones who post here regularly, and the reasoned idealists are chased away by our own cadre of rightwing nuts. I am rather frustrated at the lack of actual debating opportunities on this board which is why I post so infrequently. But that is a good thing as my DW gives me the evil eye every time she catches me posting here, so all you leftist pinheads and rightwing nuts are actually doing good things for my marriage, I guess.
Posted by: Eyago on November 23, 2005 04:53 PMI think you have captured the essence of what the fighting's all about. You may have undersold the silliness of the idealism of the left, but you came close. I would try to amplify what you said, but I think it's probably better to just let your words soak in for a while.
Posted by: huckleberry on November 23, 2005 05:09 PM