Wait a second... a hippie from the 60's that's geeky enough to post on
Wait a second... a hippie from the 60's that's geeky enough to post on
I live in a small village, its considered one of the most conservative villages in the Aegean region. The Anatolian region has 'more conservative' people, but they are still very tolerant. For the most part, from my local experience and in my travels around the country, I find that a majority are tolerant people. There are exceptions, in the southeast (near Iraq/Sryian borders) there are still honor killings, for example. However, this country tends to almost worship Ataturk and Ataturk's vision was of a tolerant, secular nation.
There are extremists, but that's far from the majority. even the people that have continually voted for AKP have been moderates, AKP did a lot of good things when coming to power and have only slowly begun to exert more and more authoritarian control... even so, its still tolerant. No one tries to force you to be Muslim, or to wear conservative dress or not drink. The government doesn't tolerate dissent, but it never has under any administration since it became a Republic. Even Ataturk wasn't very tolerant of people that wanted to backslide into a religious/ottoman style system.
The Turkish people just don't have a party that rides the middle... its either religious conservatives, a military coup or extreme secularism/nationalism. Its sad, because the people are really fantastic.
I love the people of this country more and more as I live here. The protests gripping the country now, are really because their fellow countrymen were attacked unjustly (and a litany of other complaints have found a voice in the protests). Here, the language as spoken almost forces a familial connection. People your age are Brother, older men are Uncle, older women are Mother or Grandmother... even if you don't know them. If there's any truth to the Sapier- Worf Hypothesis, the language seems to have a direct impact on how these people feel about each other (or vice versa).
I live in Turkey currently (American living abroad) and its not at all an "Islamic" country. The people are very tolerant of pretty much everything and most (not all) of the Muslims are extremely liberal/secular when compared to many other Islamic social groups. For example, I've seen Imam's, Christian ministers and Jewish rabbis sharing coffee and conversation with each other and a couple of gay men that had nowhere else to sit in the coffee house. Maybe 20% of the women in my area wear headscarves, no burkas or anything like that... and they'll happily have conversations with women in mini skirts and bikinis (hey its a beach town
That being said the AKParty acts much like the GOP in the US. They stay in power because there is a strong Anatolian middle class of conservatives and the AKP constantly make noises to maintain their support. A few months ago they made a lot of noise about outlawing abortion, nothing came of it, but the AKP poll numbers went up. The same for the recent anti-alcohol law... "no shop sales after 10 PM and before 6 AM" but you can still go to restaurants and bars with no problem until 5 AM or whenever they finally close.
While the CHP (the left wing, secularist) party is setting itsself up as the 'secular' alternative to the AKP... they tend to be ultra nationalists. The military has, more than once overthrown the government via a coup and taken control of the country, because the military didn't like the way the government was acting. The CHP tend to be Kemalists (following Ataturks views), but they have a pretty poor track record with other kinds of human rights. Kurds, for example, were treated worse under the CHP and military lead governments than under the AKP. The CHP would have no problem jailing people for speaking against Ataturk or Turkey... and actually kicked an author out of the country for writing a book that included support for the claim that the Ottomans in the beginning off the 20th century were responsible for the Armenian genocide (the nationalist position is that it was a war and lots of people on both sides died).
For some the AKP has provided more freedom. For example, until recently, women were not allowed to wear the headscarf in public institutions (schools, colleges, etc.) and women who kept the headscarf had many fewer job options.
Basically the situation in Turkey is a question of balancing extremism on both sides of governance with the more moderate public. There is no simple answer.
I distrust government quite a bit... However, I don't ask questions about the Bilderburgers, or the Masons or the Priory of Scion or Bohemian Grove.
Or Obama's secret Muslim/Kenyan birth... or 9/11 being a secret government conspiracy.
I find MSNBC to be as unwatchable as Fox, personally. However, FOX is far more directly involved in political gaming than MSNBC.
FTR - I tend to be a rational anarchist in the sense used by Heinlein.
There lies a large difference between his personal political philosophy, which he did not compromise and his actions as a publicly elected figure.
That is, he might have campaigned heavily against Nationalized Healthcare... but once the people voted a pro-healthcare administration and congress in... he would have worked to find a compromise, giving what he felt he had to, and taking where he thought he could. A half a loaf of bread is better than no bread at all.
Jefferson's view of government was from the people. As he once said, the Revolution had happened in the minds of the people long before it was a reality. The same for his party and election... it came from the people. His statement that the tree of liberty had to be watered with blood was directed to the People rising up if the government ignored the People.
Consider though now and here. President Obama campaigned heavily on health care. The democrats campaigned heavily on health care. Almost every poll shows that the Majority WANT some kind of health care reform. The Will of the People beats the philosophy of the politician... if you learn nothing else from Jefferson you should learn that. I have little doubt that while he would have disliked the concept, he would have worked hard to find some kind of compromise, rather than simply stand in opposition and defy the electorate. He would have found a half a loaf of bread in that bill, rather than standing there with empty hands.
Compared to the current crop of politicians... well none of them deserve to sit in the same building as many of the historical figures that once worked there.
Yeah, I saw some of that... then I saw one of his bits on national healthcare.
In the former, he seemed mildly upset. In the latter, he seemed about ready to explode. To me, that seems like some seriously confused priorities.
Either that, or he just plays to his audience and doesn't give a shit either way, as long as he makes money...
Or, at least, thats how it appears to me.
I am not saying that we should do nothing. Let me clarify what I am saying. The people/groups I listed are creating extreme hyperbole because they are interested in POWER not in Freedom. There is NO legitimate way to support the statement by Rep Bohner that the healthcare bill is the
There is NO EXCUSE for the extreme exaggerations that fill the Tea Parties (and I am speaking as someone who showed up to the first three in my area because, I mistakenly thought they were sorta Libertarian, instead of just crazy). Health Care is like Nazi Death Camps. There will be Death Panels. Obama is from Bangkok (or wherever they want to claim this week). Obama is a secret commie/muslim/black panther who wants to enslave the white man.
No... you don't get to claim thats patriotism. Not after those same assholes still get teary eyed when someone says W... not when they sat on their asses while the PATRIOT ACT passed. It's taking a piss on the Americans that died for real freedom, rather than the manufactured bullshit that these jerks are using to pretend righteous indignation.
IF the tea party or Glen Beck made substantive claims... if they were focused on actual issues rather than bullshit fluff like Acorn... if they spoke about the reality of nationalized healthcare instead of imaginary eugenics and the nonsense that somehow healthcare will destroy democracy... then I would be right beside you defending them.
But they don't. They don't make good arguments. They don't focus on real issues. They don't care about America, they care about getting the Dems out of office (much like the dems from the past 8 years... and they were full of shit too).
It is absolutely relevant, especially if we're talking about the "direction" of the western world. The "direction" necessarily includes the past as well as the present.
Corrupt? If Bush had done a tenth of the things Obama has??
Are you on the same planet? Are you actually alive and breathing? Do you have working synapses?
Shall we compare corruption, shall we compare restrictions of freedom? Do YOU really want to take a real look at the past 8 years?
Or do you want to watch Fox News and pretend to have righteous indignation?
I am not a liberal, but I am NOT part of any political philosophy that could possibly condone the Bush administration. Obama is acting like a liberal, Bush acted like a King.
I think there's a huge difference between smart people doing dumb things and where this conversation started. ALL PEOPLE do dumb things... having more education generally just means that you're likely to have more information on some topics than a person that was not educated in that particular area. It neither increaes nor decreases the likelihood of a person doing something dumb.
Like dropping a frog into boiling water (LOL)
I think you might need to step back and seriously consider your perceptions. If you believe that he is honestly trying... GO look again... go stick your head in a different mindset for just awhile and think critically.
Beck has charisma and makes a good stage show, but in the end, its an empty performance.
And the entire concept of "parroting talking points" isn't also parroting talking points?
I mean, do people actually think about politics anymore, or just find their favorite group to hate?
I see them lean left on some topics but Fox News is solidly red and that is a problem. Generally, news stations/reporters reflect their own personal bias, while trying to report something objectively. FOX reflects their own personal bias and doesn't bother to aim for objective at all... therein lies the difference.