Politics | Way of the Mind

Tag Archive for 'politics'Page 2 of 2

Lieberman’s loss, and lack of integrity

Published

on August 9, 2006

. 0 Comments

I’ve seen some news sources saying that Lieberman’s loss is actually bad for the Democrats, because Lamont will be pictured as “too liberal” and may actually lose the state to the Republicans - not to mention that, around the country, the Reps will be saying things like “See, Joe Lieberman was not liberal enough for the Democrats! They’re extreme left wing!” Even some Democrats are scared, because Lieberman could attract many more “centrist / right-wing” voters than Lamont, and now the entire party may be seen as “too liberal” or “not tough enough on terrorism” (WHAT terrorism? What does the Iraq war have to do with “terrorism”?)

Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

Is the only goal in politics to win elections? Must politicians base their campaigns on opinion polls, instead of actually having principles of their own? Do they just say anything they have to say to get elected? Anyone with half a brain knows that the war in Iraq is wrong, but because so many people don’t have half a brain, our candidate must support the war? Is that it?

Or am I too naïve by being surprised?

I’m glad Lamont won. It’s time politicians - and everyone - stop being afraid of standing up to the Bush administration, because they don’t want to be seen as “liberal extremists”.

Let’s hope this is but the beginning of a wave of people finding out where their balls are.

Lieberman lost. Good.

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 9, 2006

in censorship, politics and principles

. 1 Comment

I’m not American, so why do I care?

Because America influences the rest of the world, like it or not. And Lieberman’s loss may finally mean that things are changing for the better over there.

Funnily enough, I’ve long disagreed with Lieberman, before the Iraq war, before even the Bush administration. Because I remember: Joe Lieberman is an advocate of censorship.

He’s the kind of sleazy politician who promotes censorship and other controls of media like video games, without really knowing anything about them, just to show soccer moms and conservatives how much “a guardian of moral values” he is. In other words, he despises the first amendment, individual choice, and freedom.

People, censorship is wrong. Always. And in this particular case it’s even worse, because it’s not censorship based on something that is actually there, but on a lie repeated so often that people accept it as true without even checking. The lie that “there are video games where you are rewarded for raping and beating up women”. I’m a gamer, and I tell you, there is no such thing in mainstream video games, no matter what Lieberman, or Hillary Clinton, or one of the most disgusting creeps in the world, say.

Video games are just like comic books in the 50s, or rock music in the 60s: they’re unknown to older, scared people, and dishonest politicians take advantage of that, promoting such entertainment as “deviant” and “dangerous”, and attempting to appear as guardians of morality. And people keep falling for it.

But Joe Lieberman is even worse. Let’s take one of his more recent comments, about the war in Iraq:

“In matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”

(source)

Excuse me?!? Isn’t that the same as saying “if we’re at war, the president is our supreme leader and cannot be questioned”? What kind of absurdity is that? Isn’t he, in effect, saying that any president can start a war, and is then allowed to do whatever he wants, that he actually becomes above the law? Clever, then: start a generic “war on terror”, without a defined end.

And that man had the nerve to call himself a “democrat”. Last time I looked, “democracy” didn’t exactly go for supreme leaders…

Good thing he lost. I hope he loses again, when he runs as an independent.

Socialists and "liberals"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 8, 2006

in definitions and politics

. 1 Comment

A weird thing about Americans (I’m European) is that they call socialists “liberals”. And they use the latter term as if it was a dirty word.

You see, I’m far from a socialist - I’d say I’m something akin to a libertarian, although there’s no libertarian-like party around here. However, I do consider myself a liberal - because, around here, “liberal” means someone who cherishes individual freedom (real freedom, not just “freedom to agree with me”), and who opposes any kind of authoritarism. It has nothing to do with socialism or collectivism or “big government” or social security or the “welfare state” or all those meanings they ascribe to the term; instead, its meaning comes from the origin of the word “liberal”: liberty.

But Americans, as I said, use it like a dirty word.

Strange country.

GWB: the worst American president in history?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on April 20, 2006

in politics and stupidity

. 6 Comments

Historians seem to think so, according to this Rolling Stone article. Long, but, IMO, a fascinating read.

Among other gems:

According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever — with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006.

And, of course:

Armed with legal findings by his attorney general (and personal lawyer) Alberto Gonzales, the Bush White House has declared that the president’s powers as commander in chief in wartime are limitless. No previous wartime president has come close to making so grandiose a claim. More specifically, this administration has asserted that the president is perfectly free to violate federal laws on such matters as domestic surveillance and the torture of detainees.

Liberals and Conservatives, part 2

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 28, 2006

in definitions and politics

. 3 Comments

In part 1, I’ve described how both sides seem to view the other one. But what are they, really?

If you go by the meaning of the words, “liberal” comes from liberty, a.k.a. freedom. “conservative” comes from conserve, keep, maintain.

I think most people would agree that, from that definitions, liberals would be “better”, right? Freedom is good (though some would argue against “too much” freedom, as that’s unpatriotic) , and “conserving” usually means “holding back”.

Of course, we’ve seen before that things can be misnamed. Still, we don’t usually see conservatives saying that so-called “liberals” aren’t liberal at all, nor do we see the opposite, so it’s my guess that the terms have mostly been accepted, and that people usually don’t think about what the words actually mean.

Still, my point remains: in my opinion, at least, and in the opinion of any who value freedom and in moving towards a better world, rather than staying as we are (or even as we supposedly were, in some golden age), the meaning of “liberal” is much, much better than the meaning of “conservative”.

Again: I’m talking, here, about the meaning of the words, not about what liberals and conservatives really are.

By the way, I do not consider myself a “liberal”. Or a “conservative”. I’d say I’m mostly a libertarian (with a lot of Ayn Rand influences), though there is no libertarian(ish) party in Portugal (so I tend to vote against people I despise).

More to come…

Liberals and Conservatives, part 1

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 7, 2006

in definitions and politics

. 3 Comments

Gee, scary title.

I’ll try to make this post shorter by making it just the first of a series of posts about this theme.

“Liberals” and “conservatives” are two terms used in some of the most intense discussions and flamewars on the Internet. This has happened for decades. But what do they mean, really? I don’t believe that they mean the same to everyone - independently of what one’s own position is.

Let’s start by trying to come to some definitions, then.

Continue reading ‘Liberals and Conservatives, part 1′

The Bush administration’s attack on privacy

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 20, 2006

in freedom and politics

. 5 Comments

You’ve probably heard of a couple of such attacks, recently. But have you heard the latest one? They apparently want Google to disclose search data. Google is refusing.

The most worrying thing is that MSN and Yahoo! have already complied.

Of course, the government doesn’t say it’s attacking privacy. It says it’s doing it “for the children”. Remember People and they stated goals? How, by saying you’re doing something (whatever it is) for some noble cause, it apparently excuses anything you do, and demonizes anyone who criticizes you? That’s what’s happening here:

Jack Samad, senior vice president for the National Coalition for Protection of Children and Families, a Cincinnati, Ohio-based advocacy group, said search engines should be willing to help the Bush administration defend the law.

Samad said: “Young people are experiencing broken lives after being exposed to adult images and behaviours on the Internet. I’m disappointed Google did not want to exercise its good corporate branding to secure the protection of youth. I think [complying with the subpoena] would substantiate the basis of Copa if they get a free exchange of information on youthful use of the internet.”

But in which way would getting “millions of search records” help in that? That’s what they don’t say. And where does it end? Anyone can abuse a child at home, so why not install government cameras in every room of every single home?

I sometimes think you could get away with killing children by saying you were doing it “to protect the children”…

People and their stated goals

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on October 19, 2005

in politics, reason and truth

. 6 Comments

I wanted to talk about Jack Thompson’s latest disgusting scheme (he said he would donate $10.000 to charity if someone made an absolutely revolting game about going on a murder spree against real members of the video game industry, then someone did it, and he said his offer was just “satire”, then the Penny Arcade guys donated the $10K to charity - in his name - and now he wrote a letter to the police asking them to arrest the PA guys…), but everything that could be said about that has already been said elsewhere.

So, instead, I’m writing about one of the possible ways that that creep could be successful:

Equating someone’s stated goals with the person himself.

Consider that example: Jack Thompson says he wants to prevent school shootings and cop killings… by banning violent video games.

Now, preventing school shootings and cop killings is a laudable goal, certainly. But:

Thompson doesn’t really want to do that, he only craves attention, fame and money
there’s no relation between video games and violence, several studies have already indicated so
none of his attempts, if successful, would actually lower real life violence
his methods have been despicable - lies, personal insults, threats of lawsuits against people for simply disagreeing with him.

However, to a certain… let’s say, “more intellectually-challenged” segment of the population, it’s easy to make the jump from:

- Jack Thompson is trying to prevent cop killings

(which is already untrue, but let’s even imagine that it was true, that he was simply misguided instead of being what he is)

to:

- Anyone who opposes Jack Thompson’s methods, or criticizes him, is in favor of cop killings.

To anyone who uses reason, that’s absurd - there’s no way to logically conclude the second from the first (even if the first was true, which it isn’t). But it’s easy to get confused, and perform that leap of “logic” - “he says he’s in favor of X, so anyone who criticizes him is against X”. Or the other way around.

It happens the same way, but on a larger scale, with a certain current American president. He says he’s fighting terrorism. Whether he actually is, or not, isn’t important - anyone who disagrees with him or his methods, or criticizes him in any way, is “supporting terrorism”.

Just like anyone who opposed Senator McCarthy was “a communist”. He said so, and people believed him.

People, please think a little more about things like this. A person isn’t defined by his stated goals, which are usually laudable, but by his actions - and you aren’t against those goals when you notice that his actions don’t actually do anything to accomplish such goals… and say so.

Major Disasters of the Bush Administration

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on September 15, 2005

in humor and politics

. 10 Comments

I’d prepare for those locusts if I were you…

The video games industry fights back!

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on September 15, 2005

in current events, freedom, politics, video games and violence

. 2 Comments

In the state of Michigan, U.S.A, apparently a law forbidding the sale of “mature” (you know, what in a movie means PG, but in a game means M or even AO) games to minors passed. Even though it’s unconstitutional.

But, surprisingly, the video games industry is fighting back. For a change. About time, IMO.

Continue reading ‘The video games industry fights back!’