Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (21116)	8/17/2004 10:21:31 PM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Landslide districts - much of that is due to VERY careful, knowledgeable and computerized gerrymanding. I read article on Willie Brown, former speaker of the State Assembly, spending enormous time on California re-districting. He did things like push the boundary across the street to pick up a mainly Jewish retirement home in a district he wanted safely Democratic. Gerrymandering will then tend to leave a few districts which will then be very extreme. This is how Rep. Bob Dornan (known as "B-1 Bob" for his military support) got a safe district. You are correct that the polarization has gotten extreme - the middle is almost vacant in California, leaving room for a moderate (a "Kennedy republican"?) whose beleifs match 95% of the voting public to run straight up the middle and become Governator in spite of having a strange name....;-) Extreme political rheotirc also can distract the public from who's minding the till. The S&L crisis developed at a time when the country was absorbed by the abortion debate.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (21116)	8/18/2004 1:26:10 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Hi Sun Tzu. I wonder sometimes if history doesn't reveal a tug of war between rigid thinkers and flexible thinkers. The flexible thinkers, or "moral relativists," hold sway for a while and then the tide turns and the "righteous" take over for a while. The thing that scares me is that when those who see things in black and white move into power with their strong feeling of "rightness," that's the time when we see witches burning, Jews burning, crusades and a whole lot of fear, aggression and righteously justified use of force. I suspect that individual humans, through genetics or learning, tend to fall on one side or the other in terms of the rigidity of their thinking. I suspect that characteristic, more than any other, is what separates us into the screaming factions that are developing in this country as the flexible thinkers react to those who are trying to limit their choices in life and who are guiding this country to become the hall monitor of the world. I tend toward "moral relativism;" the trait that many Republicans view so disdainfully, and I'm proud of that tendency. It's impossible for me to refuse to see both sides of an issue but I know some otherwise bright people who find it hard to see, much less accept, any side of an issue that doesn't agree with their "preferred" view of the world. I'm sure that Bush is a prime example of one type of person and that Clinton is a prime example of the other. In times of perceived dangers, I suspect that people look for the Bush single-mindedness in a leader. Whether intuitively or deliberately, I suspect that's why Bush and his people keep the fear factor high. One trait helps keep order in society while the other allows for the individual to make his own choices. Both are necessary. In this, as in all things, the pendulum swings from moderation to extremism. When the pendulum is on the extreme end, then we see blatant abuses and that tells us that we need to guard against too much "relativism" or too much "righteous rigidity," whichever it was that let things get out of control. Right now I'd say that those who see things only one way and who feel empowered to tell us what is "American," what is the best way for the rest of the world to live, and what is "moral," are a little too much in control and a little too sure of their "rightness." The availability of neighborhoods, news services and church or political clubs that reinforce single mindedness is truly dangerous. The thing that I remember is that being "not sure" and ending up wrong usually doesn't get you in the same degree of trouble as being "sure" and then ending up wrong. On your second point, I wasn't trying to say that democracy wasn't wanted by all nations in the Mideast, I was only pointing out that not all people in the Mideast wanted democracy. I should have also pointed out that democracy is useless without the cultural and institutional foundations which are necessary for it to function. Can you imagine what democracy would be like in this country without a strong and independent judiciary? It wouldn't be much, if any, different than what you see in many third world "democracies." Oh, that's right, the right has been attacking the judiciary for some time and attempting to limit it's "uncontrolled" power. And yes, as harsh as it may seem, each country must find its own path to stability. Who knows, they might find a better ending solution than the one we'd try to impose on them.