It was an odd coincidence to see this image when I clicked on a link regarding the Nikon School. It seems a multi-purpose image which might address a variety of sentiments.
The arc of political action—especially the latest dismantling of the Roosevelt legacy, the suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act, does not bode well for getting the elephant off our necks any time soon. Each day brings more news that the “compassionate conservatives” are more than happy to keep the gulf between rich and poor widening each day. But the liberal response, as always, seems to tilt at another windmill. Mark Woods pointed at an article by Lakoff. In part, it proposes that:
Unless the real truth is told starting now, the American people will accept it for lack of an alternative. The Democratic response so far is playing right into Bush’s framing. By delaying a response for fear it will be called “partisan,” the Democratic leadership is allowing Bush to frame the tragedy. And once it is framed, it is hard to reframe! It is time to start now.
Hurricane Katrina should also form the context in which to judge whether John Roberts is fit to be chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. The reason is simple: The Katrina Tragedy raises the most central issues of moral and political principles that will govern the future of this country. Katrina stands to be even more traumatic to America than 9/11. The failure of conservative principles in the Katrina Tragedy should, in the post-Katrina era, invalidate those principles — and it should invalidate the right of George Bush to foist them on the country for the next 30 years.
John Roberts, as chief justice of a conservative court, would have enormous powers to impose on the nation those invalid principles. Do not be fooled by the arguments of “strict construction,” “narrow interpretation” and the avoidance of “judicial activism” that will be brought forth in the hearings. What Roberts is brilliant at is the use of “narrow interpretations” to have maximal causal effect. Narrow interpretation, in his hands, can serve the purpose of radical conservative judicial activism.
I agree with the projection of what will happen with Roberts at the helm of the court—but is there any chance that Roberts won’t be confirmed? I don’t think so. So shifting the emphasis from the day-to-day pork which has emerged in the wake of Katrina to the long term judicial effects of Roberts helps how?. However, the distinction that Lakoff draws between the “common good” versus “every man for himself” is particularly instructive in the light of current events. I suspect that the split between these two moral stances in the US would be as ambiguous and divisive as the red/blue split of the election.
Casting the problem in such bipolar/bipartisan terms does not reduce the pressure on the necks of the poor, nor does it police the profiteers. I wish that there was reason to hope that it wasn’t going to continue to be business-as-usual. “Conservative principles” are not just an empty rhetoric forced on people by George Bush—they are a moral stance that a majority of the American people actually subscribe to. I’m not optimistic that this will change. Though I try to quit thinking about elephants, I’m not having much luck lately. I think that Lakoff does a good job of identifying the root of the problem. It is not a matter that can be solved by partisan politics; it is a moral crisis of staggering magnitude.
You might have noticed that I fell in love with “Don’t Think of Elephant” and have written a bit about it in the last few months. Re-framing is an interesting concept.
“Conservative principles” are not just an empty rhetoric forced on people by George Bush—they are a moral stance that a majority of the American people actually subscribe to.”
Yea, but when the folks were polled following last year’s election, they were hard pressed to name any specific principle behind “morla values.” I have this suspicion that principles, conservative or liberal, are just so much PR, and not any actual fixed philosophy.
For examples, the conservatives are often associated with Protestant Christians. I’m Catholic, but I’m sure all sects of Christianity share the value of sharing wealth and helping the needy. Things nowadays are very instant gratification, not at all like Weber’s original assessment that Protestants/Capitalists were ascetic – we’re currently in credit culture and big TVs.
I feel kind of shit-talkish making these statments and citing weber like a hotshot. But if you could refer me somewhere that elaborates which principles are Conservative, I’d be grateful.
Madpercolator:
See “Don’t Think of Elephant” for a good breakdown of principles.
I AM A VERY BIG FAN OF ELEPHANTS, ELEPHANTS ARE MISUNDERSTOOD CREATURES OF GOD.I THINK IF HUMANS-POACHER WOULD LEAVE THESE WONDERFUL CREATURE ALONE, THE ELEPHANTS WOULD BE FINE IN THEIR OWN LITTLE WORLD. GOD PUT THESE WONDERFUL CREATURES ON THIS EARTH FOR A PURPOSE AND THE #1 PURPOSE ISNT FOR MAN TO DESTROY THEM.
I LOVED ELEPHANTS SINCE I WAS 7yrs OF AGE, WHEN MY UNCLE HAD TAKEN ME AND OTHER SIBILINGS TO THE CIRCUS. AT ONE TIME PEOPLE WERE ALOUD TO RIDE ELEPHANTS AT THE CIRCUS WHERE I WENT AND IT WAS MY TURN TO RIDE THE ELEPHANT, HER NAME WAS NIKI, WELL MY UNCLE WALKED AWAY FROM ME AND I WAS AFRAID OF BEING ALONE AND I RAN AFTER HIM AND I TRIPPED OVER THE ELEPHANTS FOOT AND ALL NIKI DID WAS PICK ME UP BY MY WAIST, I CAME TO MY KNEES AND ALL NIKI DID WAS SMELL ME, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY NIKI CHECKED ME OVER TO SEE IF I WAS ALRIGHT, AND KEPT DOING WHAT SHE WAS SUPPOSE TO DO. FROM THAT MOMENT ON, I FEEL INLOVE WITH ELEPHANTS.
I DO HAVE A PASSION FOR ALL CREATURES GOD PUT ON THIS EARTH. EVERY LITTLE THING FROM THE ANTS TO THE BIRDS ,WATER TO LAND HAS A SOLE PURPOSE IN LIFE, AND ITS NOT UP TO MAN TO DESTROY THEM!
PLEASE IF ANYONE OUT THERE IS READING, LISTENING, PLEASE LEAVE THESE MAGNIFICENT CREATURE IN PEACE!
GOD DIDNT WANT MAN TO DESTROY WHAT HE PUT ON THIS EARTH!
Did anybody know that the price of gas is upposed to rise to $4.00 per gallon by Christmas of 06? By my opinion the whole gas rising is a multilayered scheme by the Bush Admistration and other oil companies. It goes like this. The price is rising because when it’s at six dollars a gallon and then it suddenly drops to $1.50 per liter, people won’t be so against the intergration of the metric system. Also this price jacking is giving that much more money to Bush. Greenland had developed a way to make gas from water, it has something to do with the hydrogen. Bush won’t let it into the country because “it hasn’t been proven and is highly dangerous,” Greenland has had this for many years and hasn’t told us until now becasue they were testing it. Recently Canada found oil sands, which is just as easy to process as crude oil, but after the immediate release of this information, there was nothing more heard about them.
The scheme also goes on to this, when the biofuel that can be used in all cars is released, the prices won’t have to be lowered a lot. Also doesn’t anybody find it odd that Bush hasn’t slowed his use of feul nor have any other oil tycoons or the perfect rich people, such as Bill Gates. They’re not effected by these increases. It’s all on the average people’s shoulders, just as it always does throughout history (I thought we had learn history so we wouldn’t make the same mistakes). Yes the rich people have to pay taxes, but is it right that after leaving office ex-officals still pick up a paycheck bigger than a factory workers?
Also with the rising gas prices that many more will do nothing but work which will cause health insurance to go up and the auto insurance and then home insurance and then heat. When people can’t afford to keep their houses heated during the winter, the health insurance is going to go that much higher. Directly conected with gas prices is grocery prices. Those prices will go up causing people to have to rely on the junkier foods which will cause health problems which will cause health insurance to go up more. Junk food is cheaper than healthy foods so people are going to do what they can to survive and if that means eating foods that are bad for you because they’re cheaper then so be it.
People say they want you to go to college, but what’s the point? A very small percentage acctually end up doing anything with their education and with college prices rising with gas prices, nobody’s going to be able to afford to go. Scholarships aren’t going up to make up for this crazy jump in prices.
It just makes you wonder if the upper class are trying to go back to the days or lords and ladys owning everything and the peasents barely lining.