The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 238

sleepyjeff · 07-17-2007, 01:04 PM

Why did Saddam act like he had WMD's when he didn't? Why didn't he just open up the doors and say "look all you want, I've nothing to hide"?

Why did he choose the path that led to his son's being killed and himself being captured and executed??? When he had NOTHING to hide?

Before when I've asked this question I got the "he didn't want to look weak and lose his power"............

The current Iraqi President lives in the same culture as did Saddam. He can't be seen begging the US to stay....especially if it looks like we might leave soon.

Prudence · 07-17-2007, 01:47 PM

I was going to post this in the Sicko thread, but it’s got a broader reach so in here it goes.

Generally speaking, an organism that doesn’t adapt to changing conditions will die out. This is true whether you’re a large scaly reptile, a Fortune 500 corporation, or a superpower state. You can’t keep acting the way you always have when the conditions are no longer the way they were and expect to stay ahead. But the bigger, more established you are, the harder that change is.

Change is difficult because organizations – whether economic or political - that are accustomed to being successful begin to make the “best” the enemy of the “good”. There is no such thing as “better”. After all, why make a change if there will still be problems after the change?

And that is where we find ourselves all too often in politics now. Our systems may be held together with chewing gum and baling wire, but we can pretend that everything’s fine. If a proposed change has any defects, it’s shot down, dismissed, and nothing happens.

And any change will have some drawbacks. There is no perfect solution that will do only what we want and nothing that we don’t. (And that’s assuming we can even agree on what we want.) If we make it easier to send people to jail, fewer criminals might go free, but more innocent people might be imprisoned. If we make it harder to qualify for welfare, perhaps fewer people will defraud the government, but perhaps more people who just need a temporary assist will land in permanent poverty. If we keep healthcare private, we may be able to stave off tax increases and benefit from the innovation that comes with competition, but there may be a significant number of people for whom healthcare remains unattainable.

There is no magic solution. But we, as a nation, don’t bother seriously evaluating whether the flaws in the suggested change are better or worse than the flaws in the status quo. We gobble up sound bites suggesting that our sewers will be clogged with the dead bodies of starving orphans with skin cancer and asbestos poisoning, or that we’ll be taxed so heavily that we’ll all have to work 37 hours a day just to afford a cardboard box to sleep in.

And what happens to political candidates who suggest a change? There sure aren’t many who suggest any actual change that consists of details, not just a string of empty superlatives. And who can blame them? As soon as news breaks that Candidate Smith has proposed such-and-such a change, the airwaves are full of people denouncing that change as the worst idea ever in the history of all mankind, and what a stupid cow Candidate Smith must be for even suggesting it, and why would anyone vote for Stupid Cow Smith and his Worst Idea Ever?

Because if there’s anything at all wrong with the suggested change, it is bad and should be thrown away. Not pondered. Not compared honestly to the status quo to evaluate whether the overall effect would be a better outcome with fewer drawbacks. Not analyzed to see whether there are alterations that could be made to the suggested change to make it better. Not considered, but rebutted by a difference suggested change with perhaps fewer drawbacks.

None of this happens. If there are any flaws, the whole plan is bad, the person who thought it up is bad, the university they went to is bad, the part of the country they’re from is full of complete morons, and we wrap some more baling wire around the status quo.

So here we sit. Waiting for the perfect, the best solution. Who knows how many good ideas have washed by while we sit here waiting for the “best”?

There's my random thought of the day - worth every penny you paid for it, I'm sure.

Motorboat Cruiser · 07-17-2007, 01:57 PM

Yeah, that just about sums it up. Great post.

sleepyjeff · 07-17-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prudence

There is no magic solution. But we, as a nation, don’t bother seriously evaluating whether the flaws in the suggested change are better or worse than the flaws in the status quo.

I agree. In the last 20 years over 1 million Americans have been killed in automobile accidents(that's more than have been killed in all the Wars we have fought in the last 230 years). Nearly all of these deaths could have been prevented had our leaders been bold enoough to make going over the speed of 20mph illegal...and enforce it.

But instead we go around making laws against drunk driving(a good start, but not good enough), seat belt laws, helmet laws, cell phone laws, and bouncing back and forth between good gas milage and bigger safer cars.......

....all so we can get there 3 times as fast.

JWBear · 07-17-2007, 03:10 PM

Prudence for President!!!

SacTown Chronic · 07-17-2007, 03:11 PM

Do you know how many people I'd kill if the speed limit was 20mph, sleepy? Road rage cubed.

JWBear · 07-17-2007, 03:17 PM

Well... Since my evening commute is effectively that speed anyway, I don’t see a problem.....

sleepyjeff · 07-17-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Do you know how many people I'd kill if the speed limit was 20mph, sleepy? Road rage cubed.

BunnyTravolta · 07-17-2007, 08:27 PM

Isn't "insanity" defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result each time? I don't believe there has been an administration in my lifetime that hasn't been insane, and I myself am guilty of it, because whenever I go to the ballot box, I think, "Oh, maybe things'll be different this time".
Can I have some Moderate-ation, pliz?

Pru has a good point, we let our >elected< officials toss pretty good ideas out, just because they weren't A-1 solid fixes. I'd accept something that's 85% there, as long as it was viable and could be improved on.

My thought of the day, take it as you may.

scaeagles · 07-17-2007, 10:28 PM

Another problem is the "comprehensive" approach. I think any bill with that has the title "comprehensive" in it is bad news.

It is difficult enough for small things to be agreed upon. So instead of focusing on a small aspect of something, some arrogant politician (or group of them) decides they have the complete answer and package it all together. Well, this then goes through committees and pork gets added and there is legit disagreement and the position can be spun in a miriad of ways.

The recent immigration reform bill is a perfect example. Why not break it apart a bit? How about voting on an actual bill to control the borders by building a high tech fence? The merits of said fence can be debated alone without having to couple it with what to do about 12 million illegals in the country at ppresent. It's like discussing the surgical procedure ad infinitum while the wound continues to gush blood.

And yet, simple and small changes are often rejected as well and, as Prudence wrote so well, rejected as stupid or dangerous or some other such word. Social Security reform is a great example of that. No one dare to touch it, and the very mention of a younger contributers being allowed to invest a very small percentage of said contribution is portrayed as the desire for widowed grandmothers to be sleeping on the streets.

So what to do? Ther are passionate points of view from polar opposites that passionately will defend what they think is best - or perhaps what gives them the most power. Those polar opposites will portray the other side as anything and everything in order to make their side seem like the better solution.

I don't know if the discourse is headed downhill as much as the coverage of the discourse. It was over 40 years ago that a political campaign portrayed Goldwater with the infamous commercial of "In your heart you know he might" as someone likely to drop nukes on Russia. Pretty harsh. The examples are endless.

When passionate people compete for things they are possionate about, it is tough to come to some sort of viable alternative.

07-17-2007, 01:04 PM	#2371
sleepyjeff Go Hawks Go! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parkrose Posts: 2,632	Why did Saddam act like he had WMD's when he didn't? Why didn't he just open up the doors and say "look all you want, I've nothing to hide"? Why did he choose the path that led to his son's being killed and himself being captured and executed??? When he had NOTHING to hide? Before when I've asked this question I got the "he didn't want to look weak and lose his power"............ The current Iraqi President lives in the same culture as did Saddam. He can't be seen begging the US to stay....especially if it looks like we might leave soon. __________________ River Guardian-less
	Submit to Quotes

07-17-2007, 01:47 PM	#2372
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	I was going to post this in the Sicko thread, but it’s got a broader reach so in here it goes. Generally speaking, an organism that doesn’t adapt to changing conditions will die out. This is true whether you’re a large scaly reptile, a Fortune 500 corporation, or a superpower state. You can’t keep acting the way you always have when the conditions are no longer the way they were and expect to stay ahead. But the bigger, more established you are, the harder that change is. Change is difficult because organizations – whether economic or political - that are accustomed to being successful begin to make the “best” the enemy of the “good”. There is no such thing as “better”. After all, why make a change if there will still be problems after the change? And that is where we find ourselves all too often in politics now. Our systems may be held together with chewing gum and baling wire, but we can pretend that everything’s fine. If a proposed change has any defects, it’s shot down, dismissed, and nothing happens. And any change will have some drawbacks. There is no perfect solution that will do only what we want and nothing that we don’t. (And that’s assuming we can even agree on what we want.) If we make it easier to send people to jail, fewer criminals might go free, but more innocent people might be imprisoned. If we make it harder to qualify for welfare, perhaps fewer people will defraud the government, but perhaps more people who just need a temporary assist will land in permanent poverty. If we keep healthcare private, we may be able to stave off tax increases and benefit from the innovation that comes with competition, but there may be a significant number of people for whom healthcare remains unattainable. There is no magic solution. But we, as a nation, don’t bother seriously evaluating whether the flaws in the suggested change are better or worse than the flaws in the status quo. We gobble up sound bites suggesting that our sewers will be clogged with the dead bodies of starving orphans with skin cancer and asbestos poisoning, or that we’ll be taxed so heavily that we’ll all have to work 37 hours a day just to afford a cardboard box to sleep in. And what happens to political candidates who suggest a change? There sure aren’t many who suggest any actual change that consists of details, not just a string of empty superlatives. And who can blame them? As soon as news breaks that Candidate Smith has proposed such-and-such a change, the airwaves are full of people denouncing that change as the worst idea ever in the history of all mankind, and what a stupid cow Candidate Smith must be for even suggesting it, and why would anyone vote for Stupid Cow Smith and his Worst Idea Ever? Because if there’s anything at all wrong with the suggested change, it is bad and should be thrown away. Not pondered. Not compared honestly to the status quo to evaluate whether the overall effect would be a better outcome with fewer drawbacks. Not analyzed to see whether there are alterations that could be made to the suggested change to make it better. Not considered, but rebutted by a difference suggested change with perhaps fewer drawbacks. None of this happens. If there are any flaws, the whole plan is bad, the person who thought it up is bad, the university they went to is bad, the part of the country they’re from is full of complete morons, and we wrap some more baling wire around the status quo. So here we sit. Waiting for the perfect, the best solution. Who knows how many good ideas have washed by while we sit here waiting for the “best”? There's my random thought of the day - worth every penny you paid for it, I'm sure. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

07-17-2007, 01:57 PM	#2373
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	Yeah, that just about sums it up. Great post.
	Submit to Quotes

07-17-2007, 03:10 PM	#2375
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	Prudence for President!!! __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

07-17-2007, 03:11 PM	#2376
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	Do you know how many people I'd kill if the speed limit was 20mph, sleepy? Road rage cubed.
	Submit to Quotes

07-17-2007, 03:17 PM	#2377
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	Well... Since my evening commute is effectively that speed anyway, I don’t see a problem..... __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

07-17-2007, 08:27 PM	#2379
BunnyTravolta Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ellensburg, WA Posts: 48	Isn't "insanity" defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result each time? I don't believe there has been an administration in my lifetime that hasn't been insane, and I myself am guilty of it, because whenever I go to the ballot box, I think, "Oh, maybe things'll be different this time". Can I have some Moderate-ation, pliz? Pru has a good point, we let our >elected< officials toss pretty good ideas out, just because they weren't A-1 solid fixes. I'd accept something that's 85% there, as long as it was viable and could be improved on. My thought of the day, take it as you may.
	Submit to Quotes

07-17-2007, 10:28 PM	#2380
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Another problem is the "comprehensive" approach. I think any bill with that has the title "comprehensive" in it is bad news. It is difficult enough for small things to be agreed upon. So instead of focusing on a small aspect of something, some arrogant politician (or group of them) decides they have the complete answer and package it all together. Well, this then goes through committees and pork gets added and there is legit disagreement and the position can be spun in a miriad of ways. The recent immigration reform bill is a perfect example. Why not break it apart a bit? How about voting on an actual bill to control the borders by building a high tech fence? The merits of said fence can be debated alone without having to couple it with what to do about 12 million illegals in the country at ppresent. It's like discussing the surgical procedure ad infinitum while the wound continues to gush blood. And yet, simple and small changes are often rejected as well and, as Prudence wrote so well, rejected as stupid or dangerous or some other such word. Social Security reform is a great example of that. No one dare to touch it, and the very mention of a younger contributers being allowed to invest a very small percentage of said contribution is portrayed as the desire for widowed grandmothers to be sleeping on the streets. So what to do? Ther are passionate points of view from polar opposites that passionately will defend what they think is best - or perhaps what gives them the most power. Those polar opposites will portray the other side as anything and everything in order to make their side seem like the better solution. I don't know if the discourse is headed downhill as much as the coverage of the discourse. It was over 40 years ago that a political campaign portrayed Goldwater with the infamous commercial of "In your heart you know he might" as someone likely to drop nukes on Russia. Pretty harsh. The examples are endless. When passionate people compete for things they are possionate about, it is tough to come to some sort of viable alternative.
	Submit to Quotes