I would like to start a discussion on exposing the phony left/right paradigm, in terms of the overall political process. Cognitive dissonance serves as a psychological firewall, overriding logic and the obvious.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".
Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:
*if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
*and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
On cognitive dissonance and sour grapes
A more formal account
Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger and associates, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen. While fringe members were more inclined to recognise that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
Full Version: Cognitive Dissonance And The False Left/Right Paradigm
I'm more than happy to reply on this thread, but to get more responses and views it might not be a bad idea to cross-post it on our regular "News today" thread, which is supposed to be the catch-all.
http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com/index.php...opic=14&hl=
http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com/index.php...opic=14&hl=
Thanks for posting this TT!
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Apr 27 2007, 12:31 PM) [snapback]298520[/snapback]
I would like to start a discussion on exposing the phony left/right paradigm, in terms of the overall political process. Cognitive dissonance serves as a psychological firewall, overriding logic and the obvious.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".
Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:
*if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
*and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
On cognitive dissonance and sour grapes
A more formal account
Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger and associates, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen. While fringe members were more inclined to recognise that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
So, what's phony about the paradigm? Everybody knows there has always been a left and a right.
The story of the cult doesn't sound that much different than the doom and gloomers that are always predicting the next big stock market crash, world war, environmental calamity.
The committed may stay committed, but maybe they take a longer view. Sooner or later the world is going to end and at least some of them will live to be proven right.
The committed may stay committed, but maybe they take a longer view. Sooner or later the world is going to end and at least some of them will live to be proven right.
Don't know if this would go here, but I will post it elsewhere also.
Some of the ideas seem a little unrealistic, and some are just FEEDING the paradigm. The idea that there needs to be some kind of "alliance" among Americans shows his mindset buys the Corporate BS:
Left -Right Alliance against the war
Here, however, are some ways of transcending Left-Right concerns and forging an anti-imperial coalition.
1. Explain to Americans how other nations also seek security, that negotiation is not “un-American,” that Reagan too negotiated.
2. Work against a U.S. attack on Iran and the spread of war, which could end up wrecking world trade. Work to bring in Japan and South Korea, which depend upon Arabian Gulf oil, to publicly pressure Bush not to attack.
3. Bring in the business community. Much of it fears blowback from growing anti-Americanism abroad. The hi-tech industries in particular want peace to protect their intellectual property rights. Remember: Andrew Carnegie was a founding member of the Anti-Imperialist League.
4. The improvements to our civil defense are woefully inadequate and incompetently behind schedule. We all know the prime targets: our big coastal cities, tunnels, reservoirs, and industrial ports such as the Houston Ship Canal. We need biological defense, hospital resources, and fallout shelters much more than we need new submarines. More consciousness about these risks might make more Americans aware of the connection between our bombing of foreigners and their acts of terrorism against us.
5. Conservatives should join Leftist anti-war demonstrations, but with their own placards and banners. I have seen such at anti-war marches in Washington, and they are effective and draw attention. I wrote about this during the Kosovo war, because only Leftists make big anti-war events.
6. Each side needs to publicize the other’s anti-war resources. On the Right the conservative establishment has been very successful in suppressing anti-war views.
7. Attend each other’s meetings (though this can be counterproductive if the meetings are dominated by the extremist yahoos on the Right or America-haters on the Left).
8. Promote travel, international conferences, and foreign views, especially for the young.
9. Secure divided government so that each branch will investigate the other and help restrain its abuses of power.
10. Work for term limits, still the best way to limit Leviathan, and bring in younger, less compromised congressmen and women.
11. Remind Republicans that when they provide the president with ever more nearly dictatorial powers, it may well be a Hillary Clinton who enforces them.
There remains much that divides Left and Right. But, particularly as these designations lose their meaning, there is much that unites us as well. Opposition to American empire can serve as the banner that welcomes us into the one big tent of people opposed to war, an Anti-Imperialist League for the 21st century.
Jon Basil Utley is associate publisher of The American Conservative. He was a foreign correspondent in South America for the Journal of Commerce and Knight Ridder newspapers and former associate editor of The Times of the Americas. He was for 17 years a contract commentator on third world issues for the Voice of America. He is a writer and advisor for Antiwar.com, a chairman of ConservativesForPeace.com, and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus, where this article is republished from with permission.
Some of the ideas seem a little unrealistic, and some are just FEEDING the paradigm. The idea that there needs to be some kind of "alliance" among Americans shows his mindset buys the Corporate BS:
Left -Right Alliance against the war
Here, however, are some ways of transcending Left-Right concerns and forging an anti-imperial coalition.
1. Explain to Americans how other nations also seek security, that negotiation is not “un-American,” that Reagan too negotiated.
2. Work against a U.S. attack on Iran and the spread of war, which could end up wrecking world trade. Work to bring in Japan and South Korea, which depend upon Arabian Gulf oil, to publicly pressure Bush not to attack.
3. Bring in the business community. Much of it fears blowback from growing anti-Americanism abroad. The hi-tech industries in particular want peace to protect their intellectual property rights. Remember: Andrew Carnegie was a founding member of the Anti-Imperialist League.
4. The improvements to our civil defense are woefully inadequate and incompetently behind schedule. We all know the prime targets: our big coastal cities, tunnels, reservoirs, and industrial ports such as the Houston Ship Canal. We need biological defense, hospital resources, and fallout shelters much more than we need new submarines. More consciousness about these risks might make more Americans aware of the connection between our bombing of foreigners and their acts of terrorism against us.
5. Conservatives should join Leftist anti-war demonstrations, but with their own placards and banners. I have seen such at anti-war marches in Washington, and they are effective and draw attention. I wrote about this during the Kosovo war, because only Leftists make big anti-war events.
6. Each side needs to publicize the other’s anti-war resources. On the Right the conservative establishment has been very successful in suppressing anti-war views.
7. Attend each other’s meetings (though this can be counterproductive if the meetings are dominated by the extremist yahoos on the Right or America-haters on the Left).
8. Promote travel, international conferences, and foreign views, especially for the young.
9. Secure divided government so that each branch will investigate the other and help restrain its abuses of power.
10. Work for term limits, still the best way to limit Leviathan, and bring in younger, less compromised congressmen and women.
11. Remind Republicans that when they provide the president with ever more nearly dictatorial powers, it may well be a Hillary Clinton who enforces them.
There remains much that divides Left and Right. But, particularly as these designations lose their meaning, there is much that unites us as well. Opposition to American empire can serve as the banner that welcomes us into the one big tent of people opposed to war, an Anti-Imperialist League for the 21st century.
Jon Basil Utley is associate publisher of The American Conservative. He was a foreign correspondent in South America for the Journal of Commerce and Knight Ridder newspapers and former associate editor of The Times of the Americas. He was for 17 years a contract commentator on third world issues for the Voice of America. He is a writer and advisor for Antiwar.com, a chairman of ConservativesForPeace.com, and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus, where this article is republished from with permission.
QUOTE(Highstreet @ Apr 30 2007, 12:43 PM) [snapback]299067[/snapback]
Don't know if this would go here, but I will post it elsewhere also.
Some of the ideas seem a little unrealistic, and some are just FEEDING the paradigm. The idea that there needs to be some kind of "alliance" among Americans shows his mindset buys the Corporate BS:
Left -Right Alliance against the war
Here, however, are some ways of transcending Left-Right concerns and forging an anti-imperial coalition.
1. Explain to Americans how other nations also seek security, that negotiation is not “un-American,” that Reagan too negotiated.
2. Work against a U.S. attack on Iran and the spread of war, which could end up wrecking world trade. Work to bring in Japan and South Korea, which depend upon Arabian Gulf oil, to publicly pressure Bush not to attack.
3. Bring in the business community. Much of it fears blowback from growing anti-Americanism abroad. The hi-tech industries in particular want peace to protect their intellectual property rights. Remember: Andrew Carnegie was a founding member of the Anti-Imperialist League.
4. The improvements to our civil defense are woefully inadequate and incompetently behind schedule. We all know the prime targets: our big coastal cities, tunnels, reservoirs, and industrial ports such as the Houston Ship Canal. We need biological defense, hospital resources, and fallout shelters much more than we need new submarines. More consciousness about these risks might make more Americans aware of the connection between our bombing of foreigners and their acts of terrorism against us.
5. Conservatives should join Leftist anti-war demonstrations, but with their own placards and banners. I have seen such at anti-war marches in Washington, and they are effective and draw attention. I wrote about this during the Kosovo war, because only Leftists make big anti-war events.
6. Each side needs to publicize the other’s anti-war resources. On the Right the conservative establishment has been very successful in suppressing anti-war views.
7. Attend each other’s meetings (though this can be counterproductive if the meetings are dominated by the extremist yahoos on the Right or America-haters on the Left).
8. Promote travel, international conferences, and foreign views, especially for the young.
9. Secure divided government so that each branch will investigate the other and help restrain its abuses of power.
10. Work for term limits, still the best way to limit Leviathan, and bring in younger, less compromised congressmen and women.
11. Remind Republicans that when they provide the president with ever more nearly dictatorial powers, it may well be a Hillary Clinton who enforces them.
There remains much that divides Left and Right. But, particularly as these designations lose their meaning, there is much that unites us as well. Opposition to American empire can serve as the banner that welcomes us into the one big tent of people opposed to war, an Anti-Imperialist League for the 21st century.
Jon Basil Utley is associate publisher of The American Conservative. He was a foreign correspondent in South America for the Journal of Commerce and Knight Ridder newspapers and former associate editor of The Times of the Americas. He was for 17 years a contract commentator on third world issues for the Voice of America. He is a writer and advisor for Antiwar.com, a chairman of ConservativesForPeace.com, and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus, where this article is republished from with permission.
Good points as always H....
There is a phony left/right paradigm, which we see played out on AM talk radio, cable news channels and print media. For some reason, people are emotionally invested in a poltical party and want to feel like they are part of the establishment, when, in fact, they are not.
For example H, on the NeoCon lovefest board, where we both contribute, I cannot believe what I read sometimes. We have a group of people that, for the most part, have suspended all logic and critical thinking abilities. If you diagree with them, you are a 'liberal' or 'surrender monkey'. Most GOP Kool-Aid drinkers can't realize certain facts, which are blatantly obvious. President Bush has spent more than all previous presidents combined, period. He has also doubled the size of the BATF and greatly increased the size and scope of government. How is that conservative? Under his administration, the Patriot I and II were passed, which has nothing to due with fighting 'terrorists' and everything to do with increased surveillance of the American people. Section 802 of the Patriot Act defines terrorism as any act that 'involves acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State'. Again, I ask, how can any conservative support this, in good conscience? With domestic policy, I could go on and on.
As far as foreign policy goes, it should be blantantly obvious. Although Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11, the decision was made right after W and the Neocons came into office that, for all intents and purposes, the US was going to overthrow Saddam. This is not open to debate, as PNAC and TONS of other documentation points out. As Ron Paul notes, the Iraq Liberation Act back in 1998 started the ball rolling.
Therefore, with rhetoric and propaganda aside, can anyone see a difference between the two party system?
They are bought and paid for by the same special interest groups.
You can mention the "neo-con lovefest board". I'm a member too, and there's no rules here outside of no gory pictures on the News thread, no being destructive to the BOARD (as opposed to me or members) and whoever starts a thread can state in the first post some basic rules.
My aim is to accept everyone as equal and promote free speech for anyone who wants it, up to letting members moderate their own areas and invite who they please, and delete what they don't.
My aim is to accept everyone as equal and promote free speech for anyone who wants it, up to letting members moderate their own areas and invite who they please, and delete what they don't.
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Apr 30 2007, 12:01 AM) [snapback]299011[/snapback]
So, what's phony about the paradigm? Everybody knows there has always been a left and a right.
Most of the time, the debate is already framed. Have you noticed, even with the GOPers, the agenda is always more bureaucracy, bigger government and the consolidation of power?
With the exception of Ron Paul, why aren't these other 'alleged' conservative candidates promoting limited, constitutional government and liberty?
Ideologically, between a Hillary and Rudy/McLame, there is no difference. Study their voting records and history. One is socialism and the other other is socialism lite.
Voters want things, and politicians buy votes by promising to provide them. Even Reps. Even conservatives and Libertarians want things from politicians, even if it's only the right to keep every dime of their own money and protect it with a legal semi-auto.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 30 2007, 08:30 PM) [snapback]299135[/snapback]
Voters want things, and politicians buy votes by promising to provide them. Even Reps. Even conservatives and Libertarians want things from politicians, even if it's only the right to keep every dime of their own money and protect it with a legal semi-auto.
Your are correct....
I was simply pointing out how delusional GOPer Kool-Aid drinkers have become. They are the party of big government.
When you are the government, you ain't likely to want to cut it. I always wonder what would happen if one of the Libertarians I've voted for had won. Even one at any level. The envelope of actions is pretty small for any single person.
Jesse Ventura did a lot of bill vetoing and had support from many Minnesnowtans. Unfortunately, the pols who had votes to buy overrode those vetoes and the press was just merciless toward him.
Yep, just one man, and I was one of those that was hoping he'd go nationwide.
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Apr 30 2007, 03:33 PM) [snapback]299126[/snapback]
Good points as always H....
There is a phony left/right paradigm, which we see played out on AM talk radio, cable news channels and print media. For some reason, people are emotionally invested in a poltical party and want to feel like they are part of the establishment, when, in fact, they are not.
For example H, on the NeoCon lovefest board, where we both contribute, I cannot believe what I read sometimes. We have a group of people that, for the most part, have suspended all logic and critical thinking abilities. If you diagree with them, you are a 'liberal' or 'surrender monkey'. Most GOP Kool-Aid drinkers can't realize certain facts, which are blatantly obvious. President Bush has spent more than all previous presidents combined, period. He has also doubled the size of the BATF and greatly increased the size and scope of government. How is that conservative? Under his administration, the Patriot I and II were passed, which has nothing to due with fighting 'terrorists' and everything to do with increased surveillance of the American people. Section 802 of the Patriot Act defines terrorism as any act that 'involves acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State'. Again, I ask, how can any conservative support this, in good conscience? With domestic policy, I could go on and on.
As far as foreign policy goes, it should be blantantly obvious. Although Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11, the decision was made right after W and the Neocons came into office that, for all intents and purposes, the US was going to overthrow Saddam. This is not open to debate, as PNAC and TONS of other documentation points out. As Ron Paul notes, the Iraq Liberation Act back in 1998 started the ball rolling.
Therefore, with rhetoric and propaganda aside, can anyone see a difference between the two party system?
They are bought and paid for by the same special interest groups.
I am with you, and you can see it from both sides. They both make many assumptions when you make a statement. That doesn't often happen in a conversation with people I know. We can all have a civil discussion even if we don't agree.
As far as I can tell, the political process was bought and paid for since I have been alive.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 30 2007, 03:46 PM) [snapback]299128[/snapback]
You can mention the "neo-con lovefest board". I'm a member too, and there's no rules here outside of no gory pictures on the News thread, no being destructive to the BOARD (as opposed to me or members) and whoever starts a thread can state in the first post some basic rules.
My aim is to accept everyone as equal and promote free speech for anyone who wants it, up to letting members moderate their own areas and invite who they please, and delete what they don't.
Do you mind me askin which avatar you go by?
I know Tom
TT
Kentucky
BGG
I have a flag on hannity, and my same name. AV.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 30 2007, 04:58 PM) [snapback]299140[/snapback]
When you are the government, you ain't likely to want to cut it. I always wonder what would happen if one of the Libertarians I've voted for had won. Even one at any level. The envelope of actions is pretty small for any single person.
Seriously, who was the dumbass who thought it would be a good idea to give control of their paychecks to themselves?
On the other side are people who think anything you get to keep is a gift.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ May 1 2007, 12:59 AM) [snapback]299240[/snapback]
On the other side are people who think anything you get to keep is a gift.
What do you mean?
QUOTE(Highstreet @ May 2 2007, 10:07 AM) [snapback]299497[/snapback]
What do you mean?
The people who think anything that ISN'T taxed is somehow a gift from government. A tax cut is government losing income, not the people retaining it. Seldom do they consider what the overall effect of tax cuts is, only the loss of receipts IF everything was static. (which we know it isn't)
QUOTE(Highstreet @ Apr 30 2007, 07:18 PM) [snapback]299206[/snapback]
Seriously, who was the dumbass who thought it would be a good idea to give control of their paychecks to themselves?
As opposed to whom? Who should control the paychecks of elected officials? Think this through, if you will.
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ May 4 2007, 02:56 PM) [snapback]300116[/snapback]
As opposed to whom? Who should control the paychecks of elected officials? Think this through, if you will.
Maybe one of the other branches, at least.
Or make them have to be authorized by thier constituents, so they are fully accountable, not just thru re-election. It would also have the side effect of making the voters aware of their salary.
QUOTE(Highstreet @ May 5 2007, 07:02 PM) [snapback]300383[/snapback]
Or make them have to be authorized by thier constituents, so they are fully accountable, not just thru re-election.
Accountable and paid by performance. "Public Service" has made too many of them way too rich on top of the vast power they want to hold over us.
QUOTE(Highstreet @ May 5 2007, 07:02 PM) [snapback]300383[/snapback]
Maybe one of the other branches, at least.
Or make them have to be authorized by thier constituents, so they are fully accountable, not just thru re-election. It would also have the side effect of making the voters aware of their salary.
Anyone other than the elected representatives themselves OR those who elect them would be unacceptable to me, and both anti-democratic and illiberal.
I suppose the executive ought to be able to veto it. The Judiciary ought to be kept entirely out of it, as they are unelected.
QUOTE(Spot @ May 5 2007, 08:32 PM) [snapback]300418[/snapback]
Accountable and paid by performance. "Public Service" has made too many of them way too rich on top of the vast power they want to hold over us.
Paid by performance? What are they 'employees'? They are our elected representatives, they are AUTHORIZED by our votes to act on our behalf. When they act, WE who elected them (and can fail to re-elect them, or may recall them) are acting.
They are not way too rich. If they're not paid enough, they're liable to be more easily bribed and actually 'paid by performance', or to be so rich and thereby out of touch with the concerns of their constituents as to be unbribable (at least via money).
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ May 6 2007, 02:34 PM) [snapback]300510[/snapback]
Anyone other than the elected representatives themselves OR those who elect them would be unacceptable to me, and both anti-democratic and illiberal.
I suppose the executive ought to be able to veto it. The Judiciary ought to be kept entirely out of it, as they are unelected.
Paid by performance? What are they 'employees'? They are our elected representatives, they are AUTHORIZED by our votes to act on our behalf. When they act, WE who elected them (and can fail to re-elect them, or may recall them) are acting.
They are not way too rich. If they're not paid enough, they're liable to be more easily bribed and actually 'paid by performance', or to be so rich and thereby out of touch with the concerns of their constituents as to be unbribable (at least via money).
Being "so rich ....as to be unbribable" is pie in the sky. There is no such thing as "unbribable".
I go the other way, because like teachers, they shouldn't be there for the money.
No bribes, no lobbies, no gifts of any sort. Free speech comes out of your mouth, not your pocket book. Our current system is rule by the dollar, not the electorate, and it is BS.
QUOTE(Highstreet @ May 16 2007, 02:50 PM) [snapback]302388[/snapback]
Being "so rich ....as to be unbribable" is pie in the sky. There is no such thing as "unbribable".
I go the other way, because like teachers, they shouldn't be there for the money.
Everybody has to eat, and pay for kids and the like. College doesn't pay for itself.
I don't mind the money, but I want every dime transparent.
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Apr 30 2007, 12:33 PM) [snapback]299126[/snapback]
Good points as always H....
There is a phony left/right paradigm, which we see played out on AM talk radio, cable news channels and print media. For some reason, people are emotionally invested in a poltical party and want to feel like they are part of the establishment, when, in fact, they are not.
For example H, on the NeoCon lovefest board, where we both contribute, I cannot believe what I read sometimes. We have a group of people that, for the most part, have suspended all logic and critical thinking abilities. If you diagree with them, you are a 'liberal' or 'surrender monkey'. Most GOP Kool-Aid drinkers can't realize certain facts, which are blatantly obvious. President Bush has spent more than all previous presidents combined, period. He has also doubled the size of the BATF and greatly increased the size and scope of government. How is that conservative? Under his administration, the Patriot I and II were passed, which has nothing to due with fighting 'terrorists' and everything to do with increased surveillance of the American people. Section 802 of the Patriot Act defines terrorism as any act that 'involves acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State'. Again, I ask, how can any conservative support this, in good conscience? With domestic policy, I could go on and on.
As far as foreign policy goes, it should be blantantly obvious. Although Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11, the decision was made right after W and the Neocons came into office that, for all intents and purposes, the US was going to overthrow Saddam. This is not open to debate, as PNAC and TONS of other documentation points out. As Ron Paul notes, the Iraq Liberation Act back in 1998 started the ball rolling.
Therefore, with rhetoric and propaganda aside, can anyone see a difference between the two party system?
They are bought and paid for by the same special interest groups.
Aren't you joining in on the con when you only critisize one "side"?
QUOTE(Human Ills @ May 17 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]302490[/snapback]
Aren't you joining in on the con when you only critisize one "side"?
With TT, it goes for the Dems as well. They have just been more public about their betrayal to corrupt money for longer than the Repubs.
QUOTE(beasty @ May 16 2007, 06:35 PM) [snapback]302396[/snapback]
Everybody has to eat, and pay for kids and the like. College doesn't pay for itself.
I don't mind the money, but I want every dime transparent.
I will "not mind the money" when we have a balanced budget, including lower taxes AND lower spending.
QUOTE
I go the other way, because like teachers, they shouldn't be there for the money.
I'd rather they increased the pay of teachers, rather than bring that of our elected Representatives down to the level of teachers.
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ May 6 2007, 11:34 AM) [snapback]300510[/snapback]
They are not way too rich. If they're not paid enough, they're liable to be more easily bribed and actually 'paid by performance', or to be so rich and thereby out of touch with the concerns of their constituents as to be unbribable (at least via money).
Power is the ultimate aphrodesiac. I'm alright with paying them a lot for performance. Then everyone wins.
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ May 18 2007, 04:11 PM) [snapback]302814[/snapback]
I'd rather they increased the pay of teachers, rather than bring that of our elected Representatives down to the level of teachers.
The best of both should be paid better.
QUOTE(Spot @ May 18 2007, 07:46 PM) [snapback]302850[/snapback]
Power is the ultimate aphrodesiac. I'm alright with paying them a lot for performance. Then everyone wins.
The best of both should be paid better.
Ok, so, spell this out for me, as far as U.S. Representatives and Senators are concerned. Who is going to decide which Representative and Senator are the "best performers"? Do the voters in CA get to decide if the Reps and Senators from New Mexico are performing really well, and vice-versa?
Paid by performance? How about a general idea as to what the criteria would be, the 'metrics' for performance when it comes to Reps. and Senators?
Give me a hypothetical: Sen. Domenici ought to be paid more than Sen. Boxer because x, y, z (or vice-versa) . . . What would the x, y, z be?
I still keep one around for tweaking my dish on the house from time to time. Once you are on the right satellite they are handy.
There are a lot of meters out there from the 30 to the 400 ones, most of them work pretty well and as you go up in price they add nice to have features.
There are a lot of meters out there from the 30 to the 400 ones, most of them work pretty well and as you go up in price they add nice to have features.
I went away for awhile, now I'm back.
So anyway, the title of this thread caught my eye. The idea of cognitive dissonance as applied to politics. And as I read the posts I was not at all suprised at what I found-a fast fall into the same old users harping the same old arguments at each other.
The fact is that, in America, the left and the right are holding hands like school kids skipping down the block together. Trouble is, they are skipping us all straight toward a Totalitarian government.
The left and the right in this country are not the scale, they are points ON the scale. And the cognitive dissonance is that we all are hoping that it is not true even as we watch it happening.
Facsism gained popularity first under Pres. Bush, then grew at a rate that I find quite shocking under Pres. Obama.
The left and the right have both commited acts of Facsism. The sheeple on the left and the right have cheered them on.
Don't wonder another for moment about why "crazy" people are talking openly about armed conflict, and the Second Civil War.
So anyway, the title of this thread caught my eye. The idea of cognitive dissonance as applied to politics. And as I read the posts I was not at all suprised at what I found-a fast fall into the same old users harping the same old arguments at each other.
The fact is that, in America, the left and the right are holding hands like school kids skipping down the block together. Trouble is, they are skipping us all straight toward a Totalitarian government.
The left and the right in this country are not the scale, they are points ON the scale. And the cognitive dissonance is that we all are hoping that it is not true even as we watch it happening.
Facsism gained popularity first under Pres. Bush, then grew at a rate that I find quite shocking under Pres. Obama.
The left and the right have both commited acts of Facsism. The sheeple on the left and the right have cheered them on.
Don't wonder another for moment about why "crazy" people are talking openly about armed conflict, and the Second Civil War.
QUOTE (Catharsis @ Jun 21 2009, 07:46 PM) 
I went away for awhile, now I'm back.
So anyway, the title of this thread caught my eye. The idea of cognitive dissonance as applied to politics. And as I read the posts I was not at all suprised at what I found-a fast fall into the same old users harping the same old arguments at each other.
The fact is that, in America, the left and the right are holding hands like school kids skipping down the block together. Trouble is, they are skipping us all straight toward a Totalitarian government.
The left and the right in this country are not the scale, they are points ON the scale. And the cognitive dissonance is that we all are hoping that it is not true even as we watch it happening.
Facsism gained popularity first under Pres. Bush, then grew at a rate that I find quite shocking under Pres. Obama.
The left and the right have both commited acts of Facsism. The sheeple on the left and the right have cheered them on.
Don't wonder another for moment about why "crazy" people are talking openly about armed conflict, and the Second Civil War.
So anyway, the title of this thread caught my eye. The idea of cognitive dissonance as applied to politics. And as I read the posts I was not at all suprised at what I found-a fast fall into the same old users harping the same old arguments at each other.
The fact is that, in America, the left and the right are holding hands like school kids skipping down the block together. Trouble is, they are skipping us all straight toward a Totalitarian government.
The left and the right in this country are not the scale, they are points ON the scale. And the cognitive dissonance is that we all are hoping that it is not true even as we watch it happening.
Facsism gained popularity first under Pres. Bush, then grew at a rate that I find quite shocking under Pres. Obama.
The left and the right have both commited acts of Facsism. The sheeple on the left and the right have cheered them on.
Don't wonder another for moment about why "crazy" people are talking openly about armed conflict, and the Second Civil War.
Everybody likes government when it helps them achieve their aims. The government that can give you everything can take everything away. Soon a theory to be tested with medicine, which is life or death for some people.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.