Since we are a democracy its whatever the voters decide at election time.
Did either of you two wiseguys bother to read the links 😉
The media once boasted about how they could swing an election (something like 20 points?) Now they’ve gotten to the point they can smear a decent person to the point that they can claim complete control of elections.
This is beyond the pale. It is more than indecent. More than corrupt.
It makes our republic a joke.
Losing an election?
Nope. They just become a lobbyist until eventually being assigned a cabinet position or at least a member of the national security team.
More and more I’m realizing there is no one else that can stand in Sarah Palin’s place. Everyone else seems to want to play the democrats game, afraid of media spin. She’s been inoculated.
We need her to clean house. The fact that she drives the left over the edge is just bonus. We need a president that doesn’t apologize or bow down.
The left has made her president as far as I’m concerned. These genius celebrities and media pundits need someone that can put them in their shameful place. No retreat. Reload. Aim with care and take out the windbags that have been running the show for too, too long.
Learn from past mistakes. Bush got in trouble for selective firing. Clinton fired everybody, then hired back those he wanted. Sarah, if we give her the chance, should do the same with all those she lawfully can, then hire no one without a clean bill of health from the FBI. Anyone with questionable entanglements or loyalties we don’t need.
It’s time a lot of unelected political careers end.
If one looks at the historical record, there’s some very extreme cases. For example, Alcibiades of the Athenian democracy (450-404 BC) ended up switching sides several times during the Peloponnesian War (serving Athens, Sparta, Persia, and then Athens again during the last couple of decades of his life before being assassinated, supposedly by the Spartans).
(serving Athens, Sparta, Persia, and then Athens again during the last couple of decades of his life before being assassinated, supposedly by the Spartans).
Whatever could have moved some scoundrel to kill poor Al? Were the Spartans the Tea Party of the day?
I nominate Shame. If you have a sense of shame you can be convinced to step down outside of the electoral process or not include yourself in that process. If you do not have a sense of shame there is nothing short of the election that can get you removed. Guess which side seems to have a distinct lack of shame.
Whatever could have moved some scoundrel to kill poor Al?
I imagine breakfast in the morning. Al seems to have a legendary talent for making enemies that exceeded even his extremely flexible loyalty. For example, he was apparently the prime backer of the Athenian invasion of Syracuse, which ended badly (total Athenian loss, the whole army surrendered) and set the stage for an eventual though narrow Spartan victory (which he first helped enable when he became a Spartan general and later helped forestall when he rejoined the Athenian side).
I nominate Shame.
It’s worth noting that only a relatively honest politician can be done in by scandal. The scoundrel is expected to collect scandal. This is one of the most mystifying things about democracy as I see it. Why do people expect their politicians to be crooked and ignore, forgive, or even boast of their sometimes ridiculously corrupt activities?
I can never figure if these clowns are attempting to just push an ‘idea’, or if they actually believe this kind of (propagandist) crap. To me, it’s unbelievable that THEY believe ‘it’, and (IMHO) near criminal to say ‘it’ if they DON’T.
The ‘it’ being whatever the ‘it’ is that day that they are pushing as the anti-conservative, anti-American, pro-liberal ‘it’ of the day.
I don’t know who I feel sorrier for, the lefty loons pushing it, or the poor simple beasts who listen and believe ‘it’.
We often hope they are venial men, Karl. Men who can be bought — by money or by votes — and who have the self-interest and plain horse sense to stay bought.
The problem with the “principled” politician (I am paraphrasing Heinlein here) is that he can sell you out six ways before lunch if the interests of “The People” require it. You can’t trust a damn thing he says, because he’s got religion — the worship of some sacred abstract principle — and the little voices inside his head, the voices he thinks are from his God, might tell him anything.
We judge politicians based on how good they are at lying, and getting away with it – a true test of competence. Not be accident, it is a trait we value very highly in those we elect to negotiate on our behalf. The US is far from peculiar in this.
Being a Republican and implicated in a scandal. If you’re a Democrat you can get away with murder, literally.
At the risk of quoting myself:
Expecting better of someone who draws a taxpayer-funded salary for the profession of talking people into doing things is a recipe for the poorhouse.
The context was that while we hope the new class of elected officials will be better than the old, we shouldn’t expect it.
Ron Reagan Jr. says that his dad had Alzheimers while still in office…so that certainly is not a reason to end a political career. What it takes to end a political career, voting your conscience and doing it in the guise as an independent. Maybe I am thinking of the fastest way?
Ron Reagan Jr. says that his dad had Alzheimers while still in office…so
…so take it with a pound of salt because Junior is an avowed Left-winger.
Reagan probably did already have Alzheimer’s before he left office. It can have an extraordinarily insidious onset, and he lived many years after diagnosis. Clearly in his case the disease was slow-moving.
But so what? Reagan’s gifts were never his memory for names, or his speedy and brilliant understanding of complex 11-dimensional mathematics. They were rather his steadfast, clear view of basic principle, his ability to inspire loyalty, and his ability to convey conviction and sincerity to a TV audience. It’s only the fatuous Modern Left that imagines that sheer CPU power is the key element of leadership. They would choose to be ruled by a supercomputer if they could.
Ron, Jr. is a strange and sad case. Apparently Reagan did not number among his gifts the quality of being a superb father.
Reagan probably did already have Alzheimer’s before he left office.
Since Alzheimer’s starts 10 years before it can be detected, this could be true, but it’s a somewhat misleading statement, as though his job performance was impaired by it while in office. Did it significantly affect his cognitive abilities? Not necessarily — that’s why it take so long to detect.
(Tangent: a friend of mine patented a technique for simply early detection of this disease. Sadly, it’s going unused.)
Apparently Reagan did not number among his gifts the quality of being a superb father.
What about Michael?
I have no idea whether it affected his cognitive abilities, Titus, and, as I said, it doesn’t matter. His ability to lead the nation was insufficiently impaired to matter. Indeed, for all we know, Alzheimer’s improved it. After all, common sense suggests there is an evolutionarily-honed purpose to the tendency of older people to forget stuff — that it somehow improves their ability to function in their usual role, as leaders of the tribe.
I make the statement about Reagan’s fathering with great caution. It’s one of the very hardest aspects of a man to judge, from the outside. That’s what I meant by “apparently” and saying, at the least, he doesn’t seem to have been a superb father, one beyond any question even by philistines and boors such as myself. He may well have been a good father, even above average. I have no way of knowing, really.
I only noted it because it’s a curious fact: here he was world-famous for his ability to connect to strangers, through his voluminous correspondence, as well as through the TV camera. And yet, it was also reported that his ability to connect with his own children was…limited. It’s a strange paradox about the man. Or perhaps it’s not a paradox — perhaps there is some conservation law at work, a price to be paid for leadership. That, too, would be interesting.
I have seen the latter thing in my own life, also. I have a colleague whose father was quite famous in his field, well regarded by many, widely considered selfless in his devotion to the public good (and he probably was). But he related to his own children very poorly, so much so that my colleage although middle aged (and his father now old and disabled) still struggles with being “good enough” for dad. I know a woman who teaches high school and is universally regarded as selflessly giving and empathic with her students — but whose children are barely on speaking terms with her, because she treats them with coldness and impatience. I’m not attaching blame per se, just noting that sometimes it seems the qualities of caring about strangers and caring about your family are mutually exclusive, for some mysterious reason.
Is that a general rule of parenting, CP? Perhaps. It’s “standards” vs. ”compassion” dilemma — a person whose strong suit is conveying standards and helping others reach them may have trouble turning around and bestowing unconditional love on a child off-duty.
I’ve read that Reagan, as a man, was very aloof — that’s not necessarily bad. Some kids are also aloof and appreciate the space. Others crave constant attention (at least until they’re teenagers.)
Also, let’s not forget how complex parenting is: it should be the most humbling of tasks because, regardless of how effort-driven a parent may believe the task is, the end-product may or may not reflect the general application of those efforts.
If I had to guess, T, I’d say the distinction is rooted in one’s comfort with one’s own narcisisstic needs. If you’re comfortable with them and can make the required transactions easily and repeatedly with the same people — family — in an open and low-stress way, then you probably prefer parenting your own. On the other hand, if you aren’t and you can’t, probably “parenting” strangers is more satisfying: you can re-invent yourself with each new contact, which allows you to conceal the transactions you need in various disguises acceptable to your own (probably unbearable) superego.
My feeling is that those who fall into the latter category tend to be attracted to politics, nontechnical law, journalism, teaching, acting, and therapy. These are all fields where you can be a pseudo-parent, but to an endless success of strangers, to whom you can re-invent yourself over and over again. Intellectuals are probably particularly prone to it, because most have real difficulty getting their narcissistic needs appropriately met when young, for obvious reasons (e.g. no one speaks their language).
Also, let’s not forget how complex parenting is
I am in no danger whatsoever of that. I have teenagers.
In fact, if I could I would re-assemble the entire Greco-Roman philosophical pantheon and kick their asses, for failing to initiate a centuries-long rigorous research program on How To Turn Out Young Adults Who Aren’t Miserable Or Insufferable Without Driving Yourself To Drink. What the hell good are theories of democratic governance and the nature of physical reality when we don’t know that? Time-wasting oafs.
Losing an election? I mean, that’s just a guess.
Since we are a democracy its whatever the voters decide at election time.
Did either of you two wiseguys bother to read the links 😉
The media once boasted about how they could swing an election (something like 20 points?) Now they’ve gotten to the point they can smear a decent person to the point that they can claim complete control of elections.
This is beyond the pale. It is more than indecent. More than corrupt.
It makes our republic a joke.
Losing an election?
Nope. They just become a lobbyist until eventually being assigned a cabinet position or at least a member of the national security team.
More and more I’m realizing there is no one else that can stand in Sarah Palin’s place. Everyone else seems to want to play the democrats game, afraid of media spin. She’s been inoculated.
We need her to clean house. The fact that she drives the left over the edge is just bonus. We need a president that doesn’t apologize or bow down.
The left has made her president as far as I’m concerned. These genius celebrities and media pundits need someone that can put them in their shameful place. No retreat. Reload. Aim with care and take out the windbags that have been running the show for too, too long.
Learn from past mistakes. Bush got in trouble for selective firing. Clinton fired everybody, then hired back those he wanted. Sarah, if we give her the chance, should do the same with all those she lawfully can, then hire no one without a clean bill of health from the FBI. Anyone with questionable entanglements or loyalties we don’t need.
It’s time a lot of unelected political careers end.
If one looks at the historical record, there’s some very extreme cases. For example, Alcibiades of the Athenian democracy (450-404 BC) ended up switching sides several times during the Peloponnesian War (serving Athens, Sparta, Persia, and then Athens again during the last couple of decades of his life before being assassinated, supposedly by the Spartans).
Whatever could have moved some scoundrel to kill poor Al? Were the Spartans the Tea Party of the day?
I nominate Shame. If you have a sense of shame you can be convinced to step down outside of the electoral process or not include yourself in that process. If you do not have a sense of shame there is nothing short of the election that can get you removed. Guess which side seems to have a distinct lack of shame.
Whatever could have moved some scoundrel to kill poor Al?
I imagine breakfast in the morning. Al seems to have a legendary talent for making enemies that exceeded even his extremely flexible loyalty. For example, he was apparently the prime backer of the Athenian invasion of Syracuse, which ended badly (total Athenian loss, the whole army surrendered) and set the stage for an eventual though narrow Spartan victory (which he first helped enable when he became a Spartan general and later helped forestall when he rejoined the Athenian side).
I nominate Shame.
It’s worth noting that only a relatively honest politician can be done in by scandal. The scoundrel is expected to collect scandal. This is one of the most mystifying things about democracy as I see it. Why do people expect their politicians to be crooked and ignore, forgive, or even boast of their sometimes ridiculously corrupt activities?
I can never figure if these clowns are attempting to just push an ‘idea’, or if they actually believe this kind of (propagandist) crap. To me, it’s unbelievable that THEY believe ‘it’, and (IMHO) near criminal to say ‘it’ if they DON’T.
The ‘it’ being whatever the ‘it’ is that day that they are pushing as the anti-conservative, anti-American, pro-liberal ‘it’ of the day.
I don’t know who I feel sorrier for, the lefty loons pushing it, or the poor simple beasts who listen and believe ‘it’.
We often hope they are venial men, Karl. Men who can be bought — by money or by votes — and who have the self-interest and plain horse sense to stay bought.
The problem with the “principled” politician (I am paraphrasing Heinlein here) is that he can sell you out six ways before lunch if the interests of “The People” require it. You can’t trust a damn thing he says, because he’s got religion — the worship of some sacred abstract principle — and the little voices inside his head, the voices he thinks are from his God, might tell him anything.
We judge politicians based on how good they are at lying, and getting away with it – a true test of competence. Not be accident, it is a trait we value very highly in those we elect to negotiate on our behalf. The US is far from peculiar in this.
Being a Republican and implicated in a scandal. If you’re a Democrat you can get away with murder, literally.
At the risk of quoting myself:
The context was that while we hope the new class of elected officials will be better than the old, we shouldn’t expect it.
Ron Reagan Jr. says that his dad had Alzheimers while still in office…so that certainly is not a reason to end a political career. What it takes to end a political career, voting your conscience and doing it in the guise as an independent. Maybe I am thinking of the fastest way?
…so take it with a pound of salt because Junior is an avowed Left-winger.
Reagan probably did already have Alzheimer’s before he left office. It can have an extraordinarily insidious onset, and he lived many years after diagnosis. Clearly in his case the disease was slow-moving.
But so what? Reagan’s gifts were never his memory for names, or his speedy and brilliant understanding of complex 11-dimensional mathematics. They were rather his steadfast, clear view of basic principle, his ability to inspire loyalty, and his ability to convey conviction and sincerity to a TV audience. It’s only the fatuous Modern Left that imagines that sheer CPU power is the key element of leadership. They would choose to be ruled by a supercomputer if they could.
Ron, Jr. is a strange and sad case. Apparently Reagan did not number among his gifts the quality of being a superb father.
Since Alzheimer’s starts 10 years before it can be detected, this could be true, but it’s a somewhat misleading statement, as though his job performance was impaired by it while in office. Did it significantly affect his cognitive abilities? Not necessarily — that’s why it take so long to detect.
(Tangent: a friend of mine patented a technique for simply early detection of this disease. Sadly, it’s going unused.)
What about Michael?
I have no idea whether it affected his cognitive abilities, Titus, and, as I said, it doesn’t matter. His ability to lead the nation was insufficiently impaired to matter. Indeed, for all we know, Alzheimer’s improved it. After all, common sense suggests there is an evolutionarily-honed purpose to the tendency of older people to forget stuff — that it somehow improves their ability to function in their usual role, as leaders of the tribe.
I make the statement about Reagan’s fathering with great caution. It’s one of the very hardest aspects of a man to judge, from the outside. That’s what I meant by “apparently” and saying, at the least, he doesn’t seem to have been a superb father, one beyond any question even by philistines and boors such as myself. He may well have been a good father, even above average. I have no way of knowing, really.
I only noted it because it’s a curious fact: here he was world-famous for his ability to connect to strangers, through his voluminous correspondence, as well as through the TV camera. And yet, it was also reported that his ability to connect with his own children was…limited. It’s a strange paradox about the man. Or perhaps it’s not a paradox — perhaps there is some conservation law at work, a price to be paid for leadership. That, too, would be interesting.
I have seen the latter thing in my own life, also. I have a colleague whose father was quite famous in his field, well regarded by many, widely considered selfless in his devotion to the public good (and he probably was). But he related to his own children very poorly, so much so that my colleage although middle aged (and his father now old and disabled) still struggles with being “good enough” for dad. I know a woman who teaches high school and is universally regarded as selflessly giving and empathic with her students — but whose children are barely on speaking terms with her, because she treats them with coldness and impatience. I’m not attaching blame per se, just noting that sometimes it seems the qualities of caring about strangers and caring about your family are mutually exclusive, for some mysterious reason.
Is that a general rule of parenting, CP? Perhaps. It’s “standards” vs. ”compassion” dilemma — a person whose strong suit is conveying standards and helping others reach them may have trouble turning around and bestowing unconditional love on a child off-duty.
I’ve read that Reagan, as a man, was very aloof — that’s not necessarily bad. Some kids are also aloof and appreciate the space. Others crave constant attention (at least until they’re teenagers.)
Also, let’s not forget how complex parenting is: it should be the most humbling of tasks because, regardless of how effort-driven a parent may believe the task is, the end-product may or may not reflect the general application of those efforts.
If I had to guess, T, I’d say the distinction is rooted in one’s comfort with one’s own narcisisstic needs. If you’re comfortable with them and can make the required transactions easily and repeatedly with the same people — family — in an open and low-stress way, then you probably prefer parenting your own. On the other hand, if you aren’t and you can’t, probably “parenting” strangers is more satisfying: you can re-invent yourself with each new contact, which allows you to conceal the transactions you need in various disguises acceptable to your own (probably unbearable) superego.
My feeling is that those who fall into the latter category tend to be attracted to politics, nontechnical law, journalism, teaching, acting, and therapy. These are all fields where you can be a pseudo-parent, but to an endless success of strangers, to whom you can re-invent yourself over and over again. Intellectuals are probably particularly prone to it, because most have real difficulty getting their narcissistic needs appropriately met when young, for obvious reasons (e.g. no one speaks their language).
Also, let’s not forget how complex parenting is
I am in no danger whatsoever of that. I have teenagers.
In fact, if I could I would re-assemble the entire Greco-Roman philosophical pantheon and kick their asses, for failing to initiate a centuries-long rigorous research program on How To Turn Out Young Adults Who Aren’t Miserable Or Insufferable Without Driving Yourself To Drink. What the hell good are theories of democratic governance and the nature of physical reality when we don’t know that? Time-wasting oafs.