From: Corwyn J. Alambar (nettiger@best.com)
Date: Fri Dec 15 2000 - 17:43:10 MST
Okay, the earlier post was out of hand. Fortunately I didn't send the several
pages that had been written before that. So I simply trimmed down to about
as uninflamatory language as I could, and sent without thinking to try and
make the point a little more clearly.
I am simply amazed, however, at the amount of shoddy thinking I'm seeing about
politics and the way various political outcomes affect a number of things that
one might think important here.
Of course, the really irritating thing that brought this on is the way that
people CONTINUE to pillory Gore for things that he never actually said. He
never said that he invented the internet - you can go through news archives
to try and find an attribution made directly by Mr. Gore, and not the mis-
representations that followed suit. This uproar over the speech is another
thing in the same vein. I would challenge you to say something, anything,
so long as it is coherent, that had not been said or written by someone else
at some point in the history of language. Additionally, it is well-known that
sometimes a particular phrasing or concept can make a strong impression upon
a reader, unconsciously influencing something they may write at a later date.
In the interests of fairness, there MAY be a bit of plagiarism involved here.
I'm fairly certain it is (a) not provable, nor (b) really valid. Also, in an
age where speechwriters handle most public discourse, one can't necessarily
on the face of it attribute these words to Mr. Gore. Though, unlike a certain
President-elect, Mr. Gore does write much of his own material, and it comes off
as lucid if a bit staid.
I forgot - Mr. Gore doesn't get any benefit of the doubt. Mr. Bush has all
that. Why else would so many people who claim to be futurist oriented would
cast out the technocrat who has worked through much of his proven legislative
career (unlike a certain limited-experience executive with little to any
public-record experience on anything) supporting technological causes, in favor
of someone who would throw money raided from taxpayers (not my rhetoric, but
the rhetoric I see here all the time about taxation of any kind) at faith-
based (church) organizations with a deathist, reactionary agenda that will,
probably sooner than later, come to a head against extropian values? Or
does it have to do with being bought off by the bribe of a large tax-cut that
will not benefit many of the people here on this list?
I have serious doubts about Mr. Bush's committment to expanding possibilities
of any kind, unless of course you happen to be wealthy, heterosexual, and
religious. What little public record he does have seems to indicate an
indifferent manager, a person with managed to parlay his only real asset (his
last name and the connections thus) into the highest office in the US. I do
not see his committment to telecommunications technology (Mr. Gore was a
staunch supporter of the ARPAnet project through a large portion of his
legislative career), to space exploration, to medical research, or even to
extending tax credits for research expenses. Mr. Bush was an alcoholic, and
may or may not have done cocaine in his youth - all that has been forgiven,
because people change. Mr. Gore wrote a book about environmentalism back when
the two sides were either arch-alarmist or in denial, but he will be buried
by that book because it's proven that he will come into our homes with
soldiers deputized by a reappointed Ms. Reno to take away our internal
combustion engines without any sort of recompense or alternative, dooming us
all to horseback and bicycle.
I am frankly surprised at the fact that these points don't even seem to be
considered - but then again politics in the US has become an article of faith
and morality. For all the talk about runnign the country more like a
business, there is a ringing endosement for the one with the least experience
on the job - and who has often avoided laying out specifics of what direction
he would take.
And worst of all, the real difference between the two comes down to a matter
of degree. If Al Gore is a socialist for defending Medicare, et al, why then
is Bush not pilloried for taking the same stands, simply with the numbers
changed a bit, and often to a lesser degree? This isn't the reductionist
rhetoric of the Gingrivh Revolution (tm), but the incremental coopting and
"triangulation" pioneered by the right's favorite pol to hate, Bill Clinton.
I will give Bush a chance to govern, and maybe he will prove me wrong. It
would have been nice to have these concerns addressed before the election, but
it seems that that is not what elections are for anymore. They're instead
opportunities to smile, kiss babies, spend money and look cute and not _too_
smart. Elections aren't about the future; the future is what happens after we
pick the most likeable person. It's just like voting for a class president.
In the California senate race, there were two candidates facing off - Diane
Feinstein, Democrat, and Tom Campbell, Republican. They both had solid stands
on issues, they articulated many of them, and both had records to choose from.
Most people will think I supported Feinstein. Think again. I felt the better
leader would have been Campbell, in part because of his stand on the War on
Some Drugs, and his support of personal freedom. (Feinstein never met a gun
control law she didn't like, or an expansion of police powers she didn't like,
either).
This is why partisanship is such a bad thing. I guess I was disappointed to
find this particular virulent strain of political fundamentalism amongst
intelligent people who have an avowed interest and investment in the future.
We'll see what the next four years brings. I hope to be proven wrong.
-Corey
New signature brought to you by the Supreme Court:
All hail His Accidency, King George the Second!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:24 MST