(no subject)
In his inaugural address, president Bush uttered the word "Freedom" some 27 times. He called for nations to overthrow dictators and encouraged an "ownership society" in the U.S. where more people have control over their own lives.
I have gotten used to Mr. Bush, and now I just roll my eyes at this rhetoric. Funny that Mr. Bush was considered the steadfast leader going into this years elections, championing freedom both on an international and national level. Kerry, though, was labeled wishy-washy, changing his mind based on popular opinion.
To an extent, both of these caricatures are correct. Still, what is left out of the Kerry caricature is the fact that often (though not always) he changed his mind based on new information. Also, it is a leader's responsibility to change his governing based on the changing will of the people (to some extent, at least. Of course one could get carried away with this ideology and argue that a true democracy with people governing themselves based on their changing mood swings would yield counter-productive legislation that would neither serve nor protect the people who made it.) But there is something lacking in the Caricature of Bush as well.
He calls for freedom, and yet he imprisons Iraqis without trial. He calls for personal freedom and a "society of ownership" but refuses to allow social freedoms to be included in this grand idea of freedom. The freedom of gays to marry or pot smokers to smoke pot, or even protestors to protest at his rallies is neglected.
Yes, it's hypocracy. And that is the last thing a Bush supporter wants called to their attention when they reflect on their "steadfast" president.
In truth, Bush's goals seem less for freedom and more in favor of unfettered capitolism. Under this guise, he can call for the creation of free trade among free nations which he has helped to free. Corporations in the U.S. can grow to even more enormous sizes, thereby exercising more control over economics and even societal values (through forcing the products, slangs, and advertising images they "sell" down the throats of the american public--all it takes is money). He, like Kerry, neglects the "unpopular" "liberal" freedoms mentioned above. A person is allowed to control their lives when it comes to corporate posession, but not when it comes to alternative lifestyles.
The same is true overseas. Freedom is valued as long as it helps to further the ideas of capitolism, corporate-ism, and commercialism. New markets, new freedoms...they become the same thing. Other than that, individual freedom is expendable in favor of the "public good" (or, more specifically, the American good) in that a young farmer can and will be arrested for years without trial for owning a gun he used to herd sheep. His freedom does not further the ideals of commercialism and, since theres a remote possibility that the gun would be used to kill American soldiers, his lack of freedom is more favorably toward the ideals of consumerism.
Simply my thoughts. Though i know they will be ripped to shreds on technicalities, idealistic propoganda, and probably more than a few good arguments, I'll still spew them onto this Net we call Inter. I shan't however, be replying to any talk backs on the subject.
Have a good Day :)
I have gotten used to Mr. Bush, and now I just roll my eyes at this rhetoric. Funny that Mr. Bush was considered the steadfast leader going into this years elections, championing freedom both on an international and national level. Kerry, though, was labeled wishy-washy, changing his mind based on popular opinion.
To an extent, both of these caricatures are correct. Still, what is left out of the Kerry caricature is the fact that often (though not always) he changed his mind based on new information. Also, it is a leader's responsibility to change his governing based on the changing will of the people (to some extent, at least. Of course one could get carried away with this ideology and argue that a true democracy with people governing themselves based on their changing mood swings would yield counter-productive legislation that would neither serve nor protect the people who made it.) But there is something lacking in the Caricature of Bush as well.
He calls for freedom, and yet he imprisons Iraqis without trial. He calls for personal freedom and a "society of ownership" but refuses to allow social freedoms to be included in this grand idea of freedom. The freedom of gays to marry or pot smokers to smoke pot, or even protestors to protest at his rallies is neglected.
Yes, it's hypocracy. And that is the last thing a Bush supporter wants called to their attention when they reflect on their "steadfast" president.
In truth, Bush's goals seem less for freedom and more in favor of unfettered capitolism. Under this guise, he can call for the creation of free trade among free nations which he has helped to free. Corporations in the U.S. can grow to even more enormous sizes, thereby exercising more control over economics and even societal values (through forcing the products, slangs, and advertising images they "sell" down the throats of the american public--all it takes is money). He, like Kerry, neglects the "unpopular" "liberal" freedoms mentioned above. A person is allowed to control their lives when it comes to corporate posession, but not when it comes to alternative lifestyles.
The same is true overseas. Freedom is valued as long as it helps to further the ideas of capitolism, corporate-ism, and commercialism. New markets, new freedoms...they become the same thing. Other than that, individual freedom is expendable in favor of the "public good" (or, more specifically, the American good) in that a young farmer can and will be arrested for years without trial for owning a gun he used to herd sheep. His freedom does not further the ideals of commercialism and, since theres a remote possibility that the gun would be used to kill American soldiers, his lack of freedom is more favorably toward the ideals of consumerism.
Simply my thoughts. Though i know they will be ripped to shreds on technicalities, idealistic propoganda, and probably more than a few good arguments, I'll still spew them onto this Net we call Inter. I shan't however, be replying to any talk backs on the subject.
Have a good Day :)