Personal Attacks

thank you, thank you, thank you . . .

Notice my "Location" . . .

Heh heh, that list has something for everyone, and I love the slogan "Helping make the world a better place." Perfect irony...

Jealous, jealous, jealous. And I bet eh says - "go to it, mama." Which I would, if I could move faster.

Setanta

Yeap, I saw you already here

ok - who woke me up, and why?



Go to it, mamaJ! :wink:

I'd rather a ho hum than whistle.

I was also wondering whether political discourse had lowered its tone, and also tending to think not.

In Australia, there is a long tradition of withering discourse in Parliament - especially at question time.

In the hands of some of our finest wits it has been hilarious - in the hands of others, although witty, it has been revolting - especially so from the faction of the labor Party known, with some awe, as the New South Wales Right.

Political afficionados tend to treat it as some sort of gladiatorial contest, and keep points, and see them as meaningful. The press gallery, which is such a part of ther tiny world of the professional politician, also sees these contests as important - and speaks of government or opposition as being on top, as though it affects electoral outcome.

Perhaps it does, to some extent, especially if the press become convinced the government is looking weak and so on. Sometimes people are horrified by the language, and may turn against a party because of it as with one PM's frequent use of words like "scumbag" as an insult.

Do US politicians become very rude to each other in the house (or whatever you call the place where they meet)?

Our houses are painfully boring. Occasionally I'll see a brawl in the Taiwanese parliament or something, and I get jealous.

There was a Speaker of the House from Maine at the end of the 19th Century, who was famous for moving business along, and using a rapier wit, and quick reparte for the purpose . . .

A member from Indiana once stood, and began, with great dramatic effect, by saying:

I was thinking, Mr. Speaker, i was thinking . . .

A commendable innovation on the part of the gentleman from Indiana, the chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina . . .

Evening, all.

Setanta

Here in Canada, the CBC recently celebrated a birthday, and as part of that celebration, showed a great number of shows (of various sorts, including political content) from the past. If I hadn't had the notion before that political discourse has declined in the last two decades or so, watching those old shows would have stimulated the idea. Of course I'm aware that politics has been nasty before, power and wealth being always at stake, but it would be false to say that the level of discourse remains unchanging through time. This is a particularly ugly and intellectually vulgar period presently (could you find an analogous example from just a decade past to Crossfire with its loud, interruptive, cliched, partisan style?) I understand the temptation to think one's own time is special or unique, but certain periods manifest unique characteristics, and a simple 'it's always been that way' conception can do disservice to what's really going on.

I do consider that not only is the level of discourse in decline, but also that the nature of where discourse has gone has advantaged a portion of the political spectrum - even, that this is at least partially be design... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/opinion/27KRUG.html
Now, I (and the many other not unbright folks who share my view) might be wrong. But even if so, what damage is caused to the body politic from demanding that people get off their asses and do some reading, do it as widely and as carefully as they have time for, and to demand that they think for themselves and not simply swallow and quote cliches from authority?

I don't intend to answer that last question, because nothing in what i've written here even remotely suggested that that were the case . . .

For a time of equal political strife and mayhem, i would refer you to the period from the death of Malcom X in February, 1965 to the murder by the Chicago police of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark in 1969, to the Kent State shootings in 1970. You might find Mitchner's Kent State an interesting read. Although he was totally naive about "the counter culture"--them boys and girls pulled the wool over his eyes ever time--he does a first class job of reportage. He relates that more than 500 universities and colleges expelled their student bodies and closed their doors in the wake of the shootings. He also reports the results of surveys his graduate assistant researchers did showing an appalling incidence of parents telling their children that had they been at Kent State and participated in the demonstrations against the ROTC, they (the parents) would not have been dismayed were their offspring shot by the National Guard . . .

blatham

Thanks for the NYT link.

The Krugman column is downright scary!

Let me see, just the US, now

The "McCarthy Era"

The 1930's, with right-wing radio evangelists and homegrown crypto-nazis

The pre-World War One era of the "Lily Whites" (white supremecist, anti-catholic, anti-semite, anti-immigrant) and the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan, with it's spread to nearly every state east of the Mississippi, and most to the west . . .

Just about every election campaign from 1824 to 1860 . . .

Yes, i'd go along with the contention that one tends to view one's own times as uniquely disasterous, often through a lack of historical perspective . . .

Gough Whitlam was one of our wittiest Prime Ministers - here is a very rude (if you get it!) piece from him.

The leader of an opposing party, for whose policies Gough had great contempt, was retiring, and was being eulogised, as one is on these occasions.

As the eulogy at last drew to a close, the speaker finished his comments by saying something like: "And throughout it all, he remained loyal to his constituency - he was, above all, a country member!"

Gough opened his eyes and said, in his sonorous voice: "Yes, we remember".

Sly wit is a treat . . .

Lincoln gave the Department of War to Cameron of Pennsylvania, for getting out the vote. Cameron began to stuff both pockets as fast as his fat little hands could move. Lincoln's oldest friend in Congress, and now his closest congressional advisor, Fessenden, told Lincoln that Cameron was corrupt.

Surely you don't mean to say that Secretary Cameron would steal?

Well, he wouldn't steal a red hot stove.

As this was said publicly, at a White House reception, it quickly got back to Cameron, who confronted Fessenden in public about it, and received this apology:

Secretary Cameron, i'm sorry i said that you wouldn't steal a red-hot stove.

Which reminds me of Ted Turner, who got quite lit up on champagne (he used it as ballast in the final race) when sailing back from his successful defense of the America's Cup. He made very unflattering remarks about the New York Yacht Club to the press, and was much criticized for it. (At that time, the New York Yacht Club had the America's Cup literally nailed down in a glass case.)

On Monday morning, Turner held a press conference, during which he said: "I'm sorry i said the New York Yacht Club were absolutely no help to me in my successful defense of America's Cup."

Colorow, the Ute Indian, and his small band were herded onto a small farming reservation by a man named Meeker with the intent to prevent the Utes from maintaining their hunting livestyle in western colorado. Meeker promised them food and shelter if they would accept farming. Colorow objected to Meekers failed promises and the starvation of his people and killed him and then ran a stake through his throat, explaining later it was necessary to prevent him for "lying to his gods as he had done to the indians" In 1879 the Ute Mountain Ute tribe became the last native americans to come under US Government control.

Colorow makes a good point, don't he . . .

So the last whole bunch of posters tend to agree, including me with y'all, but still, I quaver, as an only child brought up by nuns, one who read a lot but hardly ever ran into an actual discussion, much less argument, until I was at least a late teen....I have a bias toward not treating your immediate conversational partners with distain.

I know it must be invigorating to be able to back and forth fast on these matters..and I don't feel entirely unable, just molasses like. Sort of the way I feel about mountain biking. I could if I wanted. (Not, but for sake of argument...could with training, she says laughing. Ok, I couldn't, but some friends can do that.)

I generally love Blatham's posts but disagree instinctively on the need to engage the loud idiots, and from the right point of view, can .... well, no I can't,
who is the equivalent.

Sadly, I really think none of this matters. What matters is TVQ, your haircut, your presence. I know, I KNOW, George Bush has not an outstanding persona on screen, but Al Gore drove more people mad. That is what matters. Not to me, but for votes.

I agree that you tend to get back what you put out here on A2K. Political debate is pretty sharp, and sometimes quite unpleasant - you wont always be treated with the respect you'd like. But I've only ever had actual personal invective thrown at me one or two times - i mean, literally in one or two episodes only. And that was by people i hadnt actually ever spent any time talking to earlier. Likewise, the one time I went name-calling about someone here came as an utter surprise to him (caused needless harm there). I take it pretty badly, myself, perhaps exactly because it is so rare - I mean, on Abuzz you know.