The Great Debate, LLC (Liberals vs Libertarians vs Conservatives)

[Paul McKenna]

I've been putting off this debate for a long time now. I dread discussing this topic because of the fact that its probably the hardest one.
Lately America seems to be ripping apart just where it should hold together. People are being polarized over their political thoughts leaving no room for a middle ground. Each group proudly exclaims that its their way or the highway. Proof of this is the 2000 presidential elections when the country was almost exactly split in the middle. Conservatives judge each other in their social circle by seeing how much liberal bashing they are capable of. Liberals on the other hand have become so rudderless due to silencing any form of debate for several years that they have lost their voice. Silencing the opposition didnt allow liberalism to grow, it killed liberalism. As for libertarians.. you dont really hear much of them do you? Enough said about them then..
A Look at Conservatism
Dictionary Definition of a Conservatism :
1. Disposition in politics to preserve what is established
2. A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3. The tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
Lets not get misled by dictionary meanings, for political agendas always pose many hidden surprises behind the curtain of words.
The real meaning of Conservatism:
1. Conservatism is a political view that lays emphasis on the fact that tradition and faith are greatest source of wisdom
2. Conservatism believes in working towards the ideals of majority while accomodating minority perspectives where suitable
3. Conservativsm advocates strong and fascist like loyalty to community/ country. Conservatives believe that a certain degree of segregation based on ethnic and cultural lines is acceptable and should be enforced.
4. Conservatives believe in individual freedom but they attach responsibility with freedom. Freedom is useful only when it serves the greater part of society.
5. Conservatives typically are not fans of pure laissez-faire capitalism, although they view economic liberty as one of the traditional liberties of the American people that has served that people well. They favour restraints on immigration and are skeptical of free trade.
6. Conservatives believe in traditional roles for women and hence are very skeptical of their role beyond the house.
7. Conservatives believe very strongly against Federal regulations and play more emphasis on individual freedom. But again freedom as long as it is within accepted moral boundaries.
What is good about conservatism and conservatives?
For starters, conservatism builds a strong and coherent nation. It encourages people to take pride in who they are and provides them with essential fabric of nationalism thus helping to advance society. Conservatism's emphasis on tradition and its values help in preserving order and respect in society. This is especially significant in today's society where politeness is "uncool" and vulgar "c"rap music is cool. Conservatives believe in less taxation which can be economically beneficial without affecting society's needs. A conservative society is bound by strong moral code of conduct and hence pulls together on its own to furbish money required for its goals without the need for taxation.
While conservatives are not adverse to autonomous thinking they are skeptical about its autonomity.
What is bad about conservatism?
While the notion of preserving traditional values is a good one, it can be question to what extent? Any thought of questioning society's values is branded as a crime and is liable for persecution. Conservatives off-late have been rampagntly persecuting liberals and moderates for "thought-crimes"
The biggest drawback in a conservative society is the fact that you are likely to have the moral book thrown at you often. The problem arises when people begin questioning the book itself. Conservatism promotes strong loyalty to community. And the communities people grow up in are normally bound together by a single ethnicity. Ethnicity is not the same as race, it is important to note this fact. However communities are rarely multi-racial. Communities are ethnically homogenous and thus racially homogenous. Accordingly conservatives do believe in seperation of races in order to preserve their communities.
A Look at Liberalism
Dictionary Definition of a Liberalism:
1. Movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
2. A theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
3. A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
The real meaning of Liberalism:
In the case of Liberalism, the dictionary meaning comes close but not quite close. Much of the above definition would be accurate with the addition of those listed below. (I am unable to verify if Liberalism is really a part of modern Protestantism so if someone wants to comment on this aspect please do!)
1. Liberalism doesnt not hold the society together on any common ground like conservatism uses tradition.
2. Liberalism believes in lesser restraints in immigration and greater federal authority. While people confuse federal authority with the right to impose the governments will, liberals believe in federal authority to regulate the stifling of free speech, freedom of religion etc.
3. Conservative law is likely to be drawn from society's traditions, which in turn is likely to be linked to religion. Liberalism believes in establishing laws on ethically acceptable practises rather than basing them around traditions. (The fact that tradtions may also emphasize on the very same laws is a different case)
4. Liberalism believes in debating every aspect for the development of a strong society.
The Case against Liberalism:
Liberalism is not bound by a moral high ground as in the case of conservatism. While some may argue that moral high ground is usually the whim and fancy of unscrupulous individuals it does help society in the long run to adhere to certain values and ethics, even if they are based on traditions. Liberalism does not specifically encourage loyalty but does not denounce it either, the choice is left to the individual.
Liberalism believes in debating all ideas within a society before accepting any. This may be hard to do for an evolving society because the world and its people being as complex as they are, is too much for any society to understand in one go. Hence it is preferrable to attach oneself to a base of established principals and build over them. Finally, Liberalism is the only ideology I have come across that has allowed its own name to turn against itself
Ok!! Enough said so far, what am I trying to do here?
Coming back to the main intention of this post, I hate the way America is being polarized today. When did liberal become a dirty word? Isnt a democracy liberal? By the definition of liberalism I would assume that any democracy would have to be liberal unless it was a democracy void of free speech, freedom of religion, intolerant etc. Kinda sounds like the democracy Saddam had in Iraq.
I am not a liberal, but I'm not a conservative either. I frankly didnt know where I belonged until I took a political test at this link
I came out being dead center!! (A true moderate or a person who is utterly confused?? )
I dislike the way Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and gang keep blaming the liberals for every woe in America. Someone forgot to tell them that they can do that because of the "liberal freedom" of speech. If one would like an example of life in a conservative society I would suggest they take a good hard look at Saudi Arabia. Excellent example of conservative society.
1. Bound together by strong tradtional ties
2. Loyalty to community and country are strongly encouraged
3. Freedom is available but as long it is defined in the tradtion of Saudi Arabia (which is the Quran)
4. Almost non-existent taxation. Keep what you earn.
5. Womens role is restricted to household.
6. They are not racially motivated but believe in certain amount of segregation between locals and foreigners. This inspite of the fact that they host a large number of foreigners.
7. Religion/Tradition is linked with governance
Now!! Seriously, do you want America to become like that? Sure if America adopts traditions they would be more along the lines of Judaio-Christianity and hence a conservative America would appear to be much different than Saudi. But deeper examination proves that America would turn up almost the same.
Ok! So do we swing totally opposite and build a liberal America? Do we experience another 9/11? No! But lets admit that if the 9/11 hijackers were liberal muslims they wouldnt have comitted the heinous act in the first place. The very fact that they were extremely conservative muslims with a strong commitment to preserve their traditions and way of life motivated them.
Enough said, give a way out of this debate:
I view conservatism and liberalism as integral components of a society. Liberalism should be practised internally but conservatism should be employed to shield the society from outsiders. That is borrow the concept of nationalism from conservatives and borrow everything else from Liberals. The problem with Liberalism is not any of its core values but the fact that it does not encourage loyalty to itself. Thus liberalism just about allows even the most radical of conservatives to sneak in and kill it from within.
I have often seen instances where someone would claim that the "left" is guilty of silencing any conservative voice. Very often left is automatically assumed to mean liberal. Think about it, the "left" is not liberal alone. Left is comprised of communists, socialists and liberals. Just like the "right" is made up of racists, facists and conservatives. Lets not club communists and socialists under liberalism if we dont believe in clubbing conservatives with racists and facists. Yes, in the recent past liberal America has been guilty of silencing opposing voice but just as in the case of any ideology it evolves. Liberalism has learnt a lesson the hard way. Now when it needs a voice to counter the innumerable Limbaugh's, Oreilly's and Hannity's it cant find one!
Ok I have written enough, now time for you people to sling the dung or fling the garlands!
[ April 19, 2003: Message edited by: Sriraj Rajaram ]

[Mapraputa Is]

I was going to start a thread about this!!! But did not feel ready enough.
Is this "conservatives" vs. "liberals" opposition a unique American phenomenon, or is it common for any country with long traditions of political freedoms? I am asking because nothing like this was formed in Russia even after "freedom" was proclaimed, according to my observations. There are several political parties now, but even their leaders aren't judged based on what party they belong to. It's all individual, and damn, I like it. If guy XYZ said it, it only means that guy XYZ said it. Here in the USA you cannot say anything without promptly being put into "conservative" or "liberal" category.

Amount of animosity in political and cultural life was also a shock for me. Communists simply prohibited any form of politial disagreement, and life was really easy, nice, polite and peaceful. But even after communists, I did not feel that the society is so much divided, almost at state of war, as I feel it here. But these can be only my personal misperceptions, I am not going to insist on this thesis...
What's interesting, I did not have any problem with integrating into liberal frame of mind (except that I did not even know it's liberal). The town where I lived is profoundly liberal (they managed to ban M.Savage's program, by the way ), and for some time I believed that this is just what America is. The opposite POV, when I finally discovered it, shocked me because of what I perceived as a total lack of empathy. And I still think this is the main dividing point. Conservatism is a religion of "strong" and "privileged", which basically boils down to "white male" types. I did not realize how this "privileged" status affects all our perceptions, until I moved here. I was a privileged member of society (females aren't as much oppressed in Russia as they are in the USA ) and I did not understand 1/10 of what I understand now and I was just as arrogant, blind and dumb as a good American conservative is. Ok, this was a provocation, so feel free to attack me.
Well, I guess the problem is, until something kicked you out of your comfortable privileged status, you do not realize what this status does to you and what you are *without* this status. I do not think, I would understand anything if I read this my post a few years ago. This is the problem with "conservatives" vs. "liberals" war, it's not that they represent two extremes on the same level. We all are naturally born as selfish conservatives, and to become a liberal is a question of personal growth.

[John Smith]

I was just as arrogant, blind and dumb as a good American conservative is.
I would say "proud, self-centered, and practical", -- all good qualities.
We all are naturally born as selfish conservatives, and to become a liberal is a question of personal growth.
... or a question of personal downfall. Selfishness is good, that's where you are confused.
Eugene.
"Your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness". -- Ayn Rand
[ April 20, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Paul Stevens]

The town where I lived is profoundly liberal (they managed to ban M.Savage's program, by the way

That is something to be proud of? I thought the left was the defender of the 1st ammendment. Just another example of the left saying one thing but doing another.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
As for libertarians.. you dont really hear much of them do you? Enough said about them then..

Then why mention libertarians in the thread title and here again??? They have the most logically consistent principles of any group, maybe thats a reason to say something about them. Libertarian type views were extremely influential in the early history of the United States and even recently within the Republican party, especially during the Reagan years. Maybe that's a reason to say something about them.
Their major guiding principle is simple and can be summed up it one word, "Liberty". Strange how you just couldn't say that since they are so much easier to discuss than the other groups who are often so extremely self-contradictory.

A Look at Conservatism
Lets not get misled by dictionary meanings, for political agendas always pose many hidden surprises behind the curtain of words.
3. Conservativsm advocates strong and fascist like loyalty to community/ country.

"fascist like" ? Is that an example of name calling or that your vocubulary is so limited that you can find no other way to express yourself. Such terms, which have associations with Naziism in many people's minds, are extremely prejudicial. You started off this discussion in a very commendable way, but this mars it somewhat and reveals a bias. Now other people (like me) will feel free to sling the dung as well...

The real meaning of Liberalism:
In the case of Liberalism, the dictionary meaning comes close but not quite close. Much of the above definition would be accurate with the addition of those listed below. (I am unable to verify if Liberalism is really a part of modern Protestantism so if someone wants to comment on this aspect please do!)

I think the dictionary meaning may be including what scholars call classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is almost the same as libertarianism in its emphasis on liberty, including economic liberty (Nobel economist Milton Friedman, a free market advocate, called himself a classical liberal). Yet, modern American liberalism is an entirely different beast.
Modern liberals are distinguished by their zeal in restricting and regulating economic matters - the exact opposite of classical liberals. Modern liberals typically favor higher tax rates (especially on the rich), and regulations/restrictions of every type on business. Modern liberals also typically favor a governmental solution to problems rather than allowing a free market approach(e.g privitization).

3. Conservative law is likely to be drawn from society's traditions, which in turn is likely to be linked to religion. Liberalism believes in establishing laws on ethically acceptable practises rather than basing them around traditions.

Is "Ethically acceptable" so different than "society's traditions" ? Now we enter into the most interesting/crucial realm, but one that you have failed to shed real light on. What is ethical? Nazi society felt it "ethically acceptable" to cook 2-3 million people. Modern liberals are collectivists(as were Nazis), the exact opposite of libertarians who are individualists. To clarify a subject it is helpful to contrast it with its opposite which you have not done. Again, shame on you for leaving libertarians out.

Finally, Liberalism is the only ideology I have come across that has allowed its own name to turn against itself.

Libertarianism allows the same amount of free speech and debate, if not more, within its ranks.

When did liberal become a dirty word? Isnt a democracy liberal?

It became dirty when it betrayed its classical roots and began to advocate restrictions on broad categories of freedom, especailly in economic matters.

I dislike the way Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and gang keep blaming the liberals for every woe in America. Someone forgot to tell them that they can do that because of the "liberal freedom" of speech.

Again you confuse classical liberal with modern American version.

Ok! So do we swing totally opposite and build a liberal America? Do we experience another 9/11? No! But lets admit that if the 9/11 hijackers were liberal muslims they wouldnt have comitted the heinous act in the first place. The very fact that they were extremely conservative muslims with a strong commitment to preserve their traditions and way of life motivated them.

So the conservative/traditional way of muslims to to indescriminately kill thousands of unarmed civilians, women , children, and even other muslims?? Even Savage doesn't make such assertions.

Now when it needs a voice to counter the innumerable Limbaugh's, Oreilly's and Hannity's it cant find one!

What about all the major media? CNN, NBC, ABC? Ever read the book Bias? Until recently, AM talk radio was the only place left for conservatives to have a voice of any significance. Now that they have a voice, the Left, supposedly champions of the 1st Amd, are going apesh$t because those ideas oppose theirs.

Ok I have written enough, now time for you people to sling the dung or fling the garlands!
[ April 19, 2003: Message edited by: Sriraj Rajaram ]

Dung, dung , and more dung at you

[Mapraputa Is]

"Your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness". -- Ayn Rand
Just got Ayn Rand's book. I am impressed...
To young scientists.
These remarks were delivered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in March 1962. They were addressed to "the students who are to be America's future scientists."
"... Your mind is to be the tool and servant of their whims. You are to create the H-bomb - but a blustering Russian anthropoid will decide when he feels like dropping it and on whom."
I am confused here, why the H-bomb created by former MTI students will be dropped by a blustering Russian anthropoid? I would think that a blustering American anthropoid would decide when he feels like dropping it and on whom? And then, a blustering American anthropoid already has some experience with dropping nuclear bombs, which cannot be said about his Russian counterpart...
"It is thus that the world reached the nightmare spectacle which surpasses any horror story of science fiction: two Soviet capsules circling in "outer space", as the alleged triumph of an advanced science - while here on earth, a young boy lies bleeding to death and screaming for help, at the foot of the wall in East Berlin, shot for attempting to escape and left there by the prehistorical monsters from twenty thousand centuries deep: the Soviet rulers."
That's I suppose is written about the first cosmonaut was send in space. Is this what Ayn Rand consider "the nightmare spectacle which surpasses any horror story of science fiction"? The book is called "The Voice of Reason", of course, no less...

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
"Your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness". -- Ayn Rand
Just got Ayn Rand's book. I am impressed...

Ah, good to see you are getting a balanced mental diet. Too much Noam Chomsky will lead to serious deficiencies... Never the less, may I reccommend "The Virtue of Selfishness" as a first intro to Rand(starting with the essay Man's Rights). Some of her essays are just political diatribe, others are more carefully reasoned philosophy such as "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" which is also a good intro but somewhat drier because of the nature of philosophy. As a third choice, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal is also very good. Her fiction leaves something to be desired in my opinion...

To young scientists.
These remarks were delivered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in March 1962. They were addressed to "the students who are to be America's future scientists."
"... Your mind is to be the tool and servant of their whims. You are to create the H-bomb - but a blustering Russian anthropoid will decide when he feels like dropping it and on whom."
I am confused here, why the H-bomb created by former MTI students will be dropped by a blustering Russian anthropoid? I would think that a blustering American anthropoid would decide when he feels like dropping it and on whom? And then, a blustering American anthropoid already has some experience with dropping nuclear bombs, which cannot be said about his Russian counterpart...

1962 was the time of what we in the US call the "Cuban Missile Crisis" where the Soviet Union provided Cuba with offensive nuclear weapons capable of reaching my hometown. This was the closest the world has ever came to full scale nuclear war and a scary time for everyone in the US.
The "anthropod" would have to be "shoe banging on the table" Kruschev. Americans don't bang shoes on tables so there were no American "anthopods".

"It is thus that the world reached the nightmare spectacle which surpasses any horror story of science fiction: two Soviet capsules circling in "outer space", as the alleged triumph of an advanced science - while here on earth, a young boy lies bleeding to death and screaming for help, at the foot of the wall in East Berlin, shot for attempting to escape and left there by the prehistorical monsters from twenty thousand centuries deep: the Soviet rulers."
That's I suppose is written about the first cosmonaut was send in space. Is this what Ayn Rand consider "the nightmare spectacle which surpasses any horror story of science fiction"? The book is called "The Voice of Reason", of course, no less...

I don't know if it was a cosmonaut or one of the dogs the Soviets sent first. In any event, it was known that space program had definite military purposes/applications. The nightmare was the boy dying on the ground while the same system that causes his death was beginning to dominate space. No place in heaven or earth for refuge.

At the time of Cold War, the Soviets were supporting Marxist revolutions in many countries (leading to the US blindly supporting anyone not Marxist), they were ahead of the US technologically in a number of areas, communist agents had penetrated a number of government positions (see "Venona papers") and no country that had become communist had become non-communist. You did not have to be a Marxist to think it was possible that eventually the whole world could become communist. Thus there was a fear at that time of a nightmare situation.

[Mapraputa Is]

Ah, good to see you are getting a balanced mental diet. Too much Noam Chomsky will lead to serious deficiencies...
It seems that both extremes will lead to serious deficiencies... Ayn Rand is as much capable of detaching herself from reality as Noam Chomsky. You only need to read her "About a Woman President" essay to enjoy her "objectivity":
"I do not think that a rational woman can want to be president.
<...>
The issue is primarily psychological. It involves a woman's fundamental view of life, of herself and of her basic values. For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero worship - the desire to look up to man.
<...>
This (presidency, - MI), for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selfishness, and an incommunicable loneliness" ...
Etc.
This reminds me that in XIX century they believed that college education would be a danger for woman's health. It would place such an enormous intellectual burden, so women would simply pass out. So no rational woman would ever want to get education, I suppose...
I'll try to read "capitalism", but frankly, I am not a big fan of "speculation" genre. Clifford Simak is more entertaining, and for any other purpose I would prefer to read serious economists or sociologists, and Ayn Rand is neither, if I am not mistaken?
"Cuban Missile Crisis" got some investigation in this thread.
[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Sriraj Rajaram: As for libertarians.. you dont really hear much of them do you?
Seems they are alive and well. You just need to know where to look for them...
"There are significant political consequences to the Blogger Effect: Because the blogging community contains a disproportionate number of libertarians, it's possible that Google searches on certain hot-button issues will start skewing toward libertarian-friendly pages."
http://duncan.focuseek.com/2002/07/googleintegrity/
Here, by the way, is what Ayn Rand's follower Peter Schwartz had to say about the Libertarian movement (from Ayn Rand. "The Voice of Reason" book):
"Libertarianism deserves only one fundamental criticism: it does not value liberty. If it were ever successful, it would destroy the remnants of freedom that still exist in this country far faster than any of the more explicit enemies of liberty."

Paul: That is something to be proud of? I thought the left was the defender of the 1st ammendment. Just another example of the left saying one thing but doing another.
I am not sure, but aren't here restrictions on "hate speech"? "left saying one thing but doing another" -- no ideology can be all-encompassing, not even liberalism. Liberals support tolerance, so it is sensible that the only thing they try to prohibit is intolerance. There was a conservative magazine that could be find all over the campus in Eugene, nobody prohibited it...
Herb: Is "Ethically acceptable" so different than "society's traditions"?
Traditionally black people and women did not have rights to vote. As I understand, progress in society happens because some people have more developed ideas about what is "ethically acceptable", as compared to "society's traditions".
[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
This reminds me that in XIX century they believed that college education would be a danger for woman's health. It would place such an enormous intellectual burden, so women would simply pass out. So no rational woman would ever want to get education, I suppose...

Its well documented that excessive exposure to books about science and common-sense cause women to overheat and explode.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
[b]Ayn Rand is as much capable of detaching herself from reality

Sorry for interuption...
Thats what I feel, some where Ayn is living in her virtual word.
Her heros are if not impractical then not practical.
AW when I will have time then I will go through the first post
Please continue ..

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
[b]
This reminds me that in XIX century they believed that college education would be a danger for woman's health. It would place such an enormous intellectual burden, so women would simply pass out.

How can I, as man, pass judgement on Ayn Rand when she is woman talking about women? She should know more on this subject than I and about 50% of the population. But I have noted this reagarding women' changing roles in society : Lots and lots of women I know personally are on Prozac or other such medication, but I don't know a single man taking such stuff. Maybe women are designed to simply stay home and nurse/make children?

I'll try to read "capitalism", but frankly, I am not a big fan of "speculation" genre. Clifford Simak is more entertaining, and for any other purpose I would prefer to read serious economists or sociologists, and Ayn Rand is neither, if I am not mistaken?

Correct, Rand is not a serious economist, try Ludwig von Mieses or Schumpter.

"Cuban Missile Crisis" got some investigation in this thread.
[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

Haven't had time to see what half-truths are being propagated there yet..
[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Sorry for interuption...
Thats what I feel, some where Ayn is living in her virtual word.
Her heros are if not impractical then not practical.

"Heros" refers to her fictional works I assume. She stated that her fictional writings were for own benefit/enjoyment as an ideal. Ideals are something we aim for, but not necessarily achieve. At least when you are aiming you have better chance to go in a better direction.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I am not sure, but aren't here restrictions on "hate speech"? "left saying one thing but doing another" -- no ideology can be all-encompassing, not even liberalism. Liberals support tolerance, so it is sensible that the only thing they try to prohibit is intolerance. There was a conservative magazine that could be find all over the campus in Eugene, nobody prohibited it...

There are no restrictions on hate speech. That would be a violation of the 1st ammendment.
Savage's show was not banned. A group boycotted his show and the owners of KUGN decided he wasn't worth the controversy. But his show is broadcast in Oregon on several stations. He is nationally syndicated on 350 radio stations.
Here are the stations in Oregon carrying his show (provided by michaelsavagesucks.com):
KWRO AM 630 Coquille OR
KLOO AM Corvalis OR
KMED AM 1440 Medford OR
KXL AM 750 Portland OR
KMBD AM 1590 Tillamook OR

[Mapraputa Is]

But I have noted this reagarding women' changing roles in society : Lots and lots of women I know personally are on Prozac or other such medication, but I don't know a single man taking such stuff. Maybe women are designed to simply stay home and nurse/make children?
This can be an American phenomenon. I never heard about women taking anti-depressants in Russia, while a lot of men suffered from alcoholism. Maybe these are men who stay home and... make children? Hm...
Another aspect, we are not taking about women becoming American presidents en masse. All we need is one woman, and there are plenty healthy women in American society that do not stay home and aren't on Prozac, I believe.
As for "I don't know a single man taking such stuff" - my husband's former boss was on Prozac and he is not a woman, as far as I can tell.

[Mapraputa Is]

This is the latest hit on K5 site, by the way. Worth reading...

[Mapraputa Is]

Regarding Michael Savage, maybe I used wrong word: "banned".
"KUGN, the "Voice of the Ducks," will drop bombastic talk show host Michael Savage starting today.
The move follows a chorus of complaints from University of Oregon faculty and students who have argued for weeks that UO football and basketball broadcasts shouldn't share the air with "hate radio" commentators who defy the university's commitment to diversity and equality.
"It was our opinion that Michael Savage, in his desire to be noticed and compete in a crowded conservative talk show market place, was growing more and more outrageous as time wore on in order to draw attention and therefore ratings," Donovan said.
Still, he noted, university officials, including President Dave Frohnmayer, went on record that they had no desire to dictate KUGN's programming decisions.
Last month, Frohnmayer publicly affirmed the university's diversity policies, but said he wouldn't use the contract with KUGN to pressure it into dropping the Savage show. To do so, he suggested, would amount to censorship.
Even without Savage, KUGN will continue to tilt to the right with a program lineup that features Bill O'Reilly and Michael Medved."
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/18/1a.kugn.1218.html
Also: SAVAGE IS OFF THE AIR IN EUGENE: This is part of how it was done.

[Jason Menard]

As seems typical with many on the left, the only freedom of speech they are for is that which supports their on views.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~assembly/UA0203-1.html
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/18/155013.shtml

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

"KUGN, the "Voice of the Ducks," will drop bombastic talk show host Michael Savage starting today.

SAVAGE IS OFF THE AIR IN EUGENE: This is part of how it was done.

The most interesting thing is that the liberal Left is co-ordinating and organizing targeted attacks against those who do not share its views. It brands them as "haters" and then targets the radio station sponsers with threatened/actual boycotts. So much for their "tolerance" and promotion of "diversity".
Its the PC police at the usual best. I'm going to look for Savage on the radio tonight before he gets banned in my hometown.
Check out http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html to get more info on Savage.
[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Also: SAVAGE IS OFF THE AIR IN EUGENE: This is part of how it was done.

I just read that site Map. Don't people like that scare you?
Some quotes from that moron's site:
We believe that the Hate Jockeys have the complete right to exercise their free speech in the unemployment line. They just don�t have a right to dominate the public airwaves with it.
In other words, this person has taken it upon himself to regulate the amount of views in opposition to his own should be aired. It isn't enough for him not to listen to something he doesn't agree with, he wants to control what other people listen to.
Hate Radio isn�t free speech anyway.
He claims it is "commercial" speech, seeming to argue that it shouldn't be covered by the 1st amendment so is okay then to supress it. It matters not that he contradicts himself multiple times regarding whether it is or isn't protected by the 1st amendment.
Hate Radio ought to be commercial suicide for advertisers. We can accomplish that, and put decency back into public discourse on public policy.
His method of attack is to go after what he sees as the weakest link, which are advertisers who support radio stations who play these popular radio shows. He betrays himself when he mentions that his purpose is basically to attack the advertisers in order to get the radio stations to drop the people he disagrees with in order to promote his own twisted views of "decency".
This guy is at least as bad as anyone on the extreme right. Actually, he seems very similar to those on the extreme religious right. It would be kind of funny if it weren't so pathetic.

[Thomas Paul]

And if the people on the right do the same thing we can go back to completely bland radio and TV the way it was meant to be.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
As seems typical with many on the left, the only freedom of speech they are for is that which supports their on views.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~assembly/UA0203-1.html

I do not see how UO's anti-war resolution supports your thesis. In fact, I couldn't find any proof that it was ever officially voted for. All I found is:
December 5, 2002
UO senate votes not to hear war resolution
Tensions ran high Wednesday as the University Senate, after an hourlong debate, voted 29-8 to not hear or discuss a resolution condemning the war in Iraq, a decision that dismayed some but drew the praise of University administration.
More than 200 professors, students, members of University administration and the community packed the EMU Fir Room on Wednesday for two hours, and while most speakers said they were against the war in Iraq, many said they did not believe that the senate was the proper place to vote on a national issue.
February 28, 2003
Editorial: Pro or con, you should attend the Assembly
University Assembly will meet in the Student Recreation Center to possibly vote on a resolution that "opposes the U.S. engagement in war in Iraq at this time."
The controversy has elicited strong reactions from some community members, lobbying actively for or against the assembly resolution on the streets and in the Emerald, but it has elicited almost as strong apathy from others. This last position worries us.
No matter your position on the resolution, attend the assembly meeting. Let there be quorum and a discussion. Students are invited -- they still have a voice. If you believe that the resolution is a done deal and your voice will neither help nor harm its chances, do we really need to remind you that important decisions in world history have sometimes hinged on a single vote?
We urge you to make your viewpoint heard by the campus community this afternoon.
Assembly fails to reach quorum for vote
The only photo in this article: Linguistics and cognitive science Professor Emeritus Tom Giv�n spoke against the University taking an anti-war stance.
[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Herb: The most interesting thing is that the liberal Left is co-ordinating and organizing targeted attacks against those who do not share its views. It brands them as "haters" and then targets the radio station sponsers with threatened/actual boycotts. So much for their "tolerance" and promotion of "diversity".
1. "Even without Savage, KUGN will continue to tilt to the right with a program lineup that features Bill O'Reilly and Michael Medved."
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/18/1a.kugn.1218.html
-- so much for their "tolerance" and promotion of "diversity", really :roll: Do you pay attentions only to the facts that support your POV?

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Herb: The most interesting thing is that the liberal Left is co-ordinating and organizing targeted attacks against those who do not share its views. It brands them as "haters" and then targets the radio station sponsers with threatened/actual boycotts. So much for their "tolerance" and promotion of "diversity".
1. "Even without Savage, KUGN will continue to tilt to the right with a program lineup that features Bill O'Reilly and Michael Medved."
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/12/18/1a.kugn.1218.html
-- so much for their "tolerance" and promotion of "diversity", really :roll: Do you pay attentions only to the facts that support your POV?

Map, have you been to this group's website?
They don't give a damm for "diversity" or "tolerance". Several times on their home page they boast of shutting down free speech and getting certain viewpoints off the air. Is that tolerant?? Their whole goal in life appears to be nothing more than stifling free speech.
Here's a quote from their homepage that sums it up, "we must cleanse the airwaves of these cowards,". Then they say "Rush" is next.
Map, I can't even begin to follow your illogical response. The fact that there are other conservative talk show hosts on the air has no bearing on the motivations, goals, and aspirations of this group. "Rush" is no hater and no worse than many liberal talk radio hosts I listen to in Florida. If they are capable of targetting Rush, it proves this is all a purely polically motivated attack on differing viewpoints. Can you show me evidence of a different "POV" that shows this group is trying to promote tolerance of other viewpoints on the airwaves.
Didn't think so... :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Mapraputa Is]

Map, have you been to this group's website?
It's not a group.
"Disclaimer: This page is not affiliated with any of the groups herein cited or mentioned. The Webmaster is a private citizen."
Map, I can't even begin to follow your illogical response. The fact that there are other conservative talk show hosts on the air has no bearing on the motivations, goals, and aspirations of this group.
There is probably misunderstanding here. I was thinking about the whole community of listeners:
"The move follows a chorus of complaints from University of Oregon faculty and students who have argued for weeks that UO football and basketball broadcasts shouldn't share the air with "hate radio" commentators who defy the university's commitment to diversity and equality..."
Etc.
Not sure what contribution the aforementioned site made to this decision.
If you mean only this particular citizen, I apologize.
I still disagree with you:
They don't give a damm for "diversity" or "tolerance". Several times on their home page they boast of shutting down free speech and getting certain viewpoints off the air. Is that tolerant?? Their whole goal in life appears to be nothing more than stifling free speech.
There is not enough information on the page to make any conclusion about this guy's "whole goal in life".
Herb, may I ask what would you do if there was a fascist talk-show on the radio that would blame Jews and bicyclists for all world's woes? And if it was very popular in your country?

[Mapraputa Is]

I just read that site Map. Don't people like that scare you?
I must admit that I did not get any negative feelings after reading the front page for the first time (except that my eyes hurt). I then read it again, trying to understand what caused such a strong reaction. Still did not get it.
In other words, this person has taken it upon himself to regulate the amount of views in opposition to his own should be aired. It isn't enough for him not to listen to something he doesn't agree with, he wants to control what other people listen to.
He said that he doesn't want to listen to something what insults him. There is a difference between being disagree with somebody and being insulted by somebody?
WE have been insulted by them for long enough. As soon as your friendly local merchant wants to stop insulting you, you would probably like to purchase his/her merchandise. But not while they pay for Hate Radio.
Do we have a right to spend our money at whatever merchants we choose? Yes.
Do the Hate Jockeys have a right to stay on the air? Yes.
But if a businessman feels that insulting half of his potential audience every day is going to grow his business, he really ought to have his head examined.
He claims it is "commercial" speech, seeming to argue that it shouldn't be covered by the 1st amendment so is okay then to supress it.
Do the Hate Jockeys have a right to stay on the air? Yes.
His method of attack is to go after what he sees as the weakest link, which are advertisers who support radio stations who play these popular radio shows. He betrays himself when he mentions that his purpose is basically to attack the advertisers in order to get the radio stations to drop the people he disagrees with in order to promote his own twisted views of "decency".
What is your pretension? He did not break any law, if I am not mistaken? I am just curious. So you think it's perfectly Ok for the USA to overthrow a leader of a sovereign country, and to impose a regime the USA is sure is better for the Iraqi people, but when somebody does what he believes will make his country better, you call him "moron"?
I am trying to reverse the situation, and to think about some radio show I would love to listen to, which was considered offensive by some people. These people write to advertisers threatening to boycott their production... Still do not see anything evil. Why should they pay to companies that support somebody they found offensive?

[Richard Hawkes]

Many great, creative, intelligent minds have sought to deliver us from the social ills and injustices that have plagued society. The disciplines of philosophy, economics, theology, sociology, science etc, have all contributed and helped to shape and refine these thoughts. It is a marvel indeed when you consider the historical effort that's been devoted to the pursuit of a greater understanding of the human condition and of society.
More amazing still are the huge range of conclusions that beset us from all sides, all perfectly logical in their own framework or paradigm, and all equally countered with an alternative point of view; it seems every social theory neglects or understates the inevitable exceptions to the rule.
Its remarkable too that many of these theories are only believed to be true rather than known to be true; people tend to side with one particular argument because it sounds right or rings true in some way. Hardly scientific, but in itself that speaks volumes about the nature of humanity. Everyone already has a social theory in their head, based on anecdotes, education and above all, experience.
So where does one start in the quest for real truth and enlightenment? Can we really ever find it? With this in mind, I started writing a book on the subject and have started with a practical impartial summary of the more influential political schools of thought:
Conservatives: always whinging that "We've always done it like this". Fine. Really, that's fine. Now take your medicine and go back to sleep. We'll wake you when its ready.
Libertarians: constantly stamping their feet in little tantrums, mouthing off because they can't do what they want to do all the time. Please!! Just GROW UP! Listen to your selves! I bet you never wanted to eat your greens did you?!
Liberals: just won't shut the f*ck up about how they know best and that "you can't do this" or "you can't do that" because its "bad for you/me/us/them". "Let me help you", they say. Christ, if I want my gay lover to blow coke up my arse, what the hell has that got to do with you? Nothing that's what. Now all of you, just piss off and leave me alone!!!
...actually I'm not writing a book, I've just run out of real work for the day and I'm not allowed to go home until, oh, now! Okay Goodnight

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

It's not a group.

I saw the word "we" used a lot and "we" took credit for shutting down Savage. "Group" simply means a number of people that may be united for a purpose or goal. More than one person is involved in these activities and these activities are directed towards a common purpose - I'm going to call that a "group". The webmaster may simply be the central coordinator, or he may recieve help in other ways from other vounteers to direct this group.

There is probably misunderstanding here. I was thinking about the whole community of listeners:

The point is not the listeners, its the radio hosts that are being targeted because of their political views and then shut down.

There is not enough information on the page to make any conclusion about this guy's "whole goal in life".

The whole point and purpose of the website and the group is crystal clear.

Herb, may I ask what would you do if there was a fascist talk-show on the radio that would blame Jews and bicyclists for all world's woes? And if it was very popular in your country?

I wouldn't listen to it, that's what I would do. Besides, bicyclists are starting to clog the roads where I live.
[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]