Now The Libs Are Decrying the "Toy Gap"

[Bruzilla]

From the characters at DU:

Dogfolks (1313 posts)
Sep-16-02, 04:43 PM (ET)

"Taking kids' toys away?
I saw a thing over the weekend. I think it was National Geographic Explorer, but I'm not sure. Anyway, they were talking about a new exhibition at the Smithsonian. It's all toys, but the twist is they're all toys from 3rd world countries where kids don't actually have toys.

They make their own. They had a charming catepillar made by a 9 year old boy from bottle caps and paper. They also had a little sail boat a kid had made for himself with a flip-flop, a stick and a piece of paper. They had corn husk dolls, and a myriad of other imaginative and charming things kids had made for themselves to play with.

So, they brought all these toys here, and put them in a museum. And now American kids (whose parents spend ONE BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR on toys) can see what other kids play with when their parents can't afford a BILLION DOLLARS a year.

Nice, huh? I can't stop wondering if they gave the kids anything to replace them, or did they just take the toys away? No mention was made of any compensation in the report."

You just gotta love those folks. Now they're after America's kids for having too many store-bought toys. Oh the humanity!

 

[Sharon]

Kids will play with just about anything

My sons seemed happier with the boxes the toys came in when they were little. They also would take everything apart (so basically it was broken) and then string, staple, or tape "it" into a new creation...and they had hours of fun doing it.

I remember a few times when they actually got something they saw on TV that they just had to have. When they finally got it for a BD or Christmas gift, they were so disappointed that it didn't work like the commercial.

 

[jimmy]

PLEASE OH PLEASE stop using these people as an example of "Libs"....

That would be like me going and posting something from Fallwell on this site and saying "yep, them conservatives are a bunch of bible-toting, bass-akwards, idiots"....

This guy's post fits no where NEAR in line with the general ideas held by the "Libs" I know. This guy/girl is an idiot and is making the assumption that we just went over there and "took these toys out of kids hands, laughed and came back here"....how retarded....

So, no, most of us don't make such an olympic leap in logic when finding causes ACTUALLY worthy of taking up...thank God...

 

[Bruzilla]

I agree with you Jimmy. But you have to admit it is pretty darned funny.

 

[Tonio]

jimmy, I don't like the terms "liberal" and "conservative" because they are used so much as political weapons.

What do they mean anymore? Here are two old definitions:

1. (A college professor of mine) Ls are optimistic about human nature, while Cs are pessimistic about human nature
2. (Libertarians) Ls believe in more regulations for economic behavior but fewer regulations for personal behavior. Cs believe in fewer regulations for economic behavior but more regulations for personal behavior.

I don't think these definitions are valid anymore. Partisans on both sides make up straw men that they insist represent all Ls or all Cs. You want an example? How about that bumper sticker with a baby human and a baby seal with the caption "Guess which one isn't protected"?

Each side positions itself as the voice of moderation and reason, while warning of plagues of locusts if the other side has its way. Why do they do this? Part of it is simply a fund-raising tactic. But most of it, I think, comes from a psychological need to view the world in terms of good versus evil.

It's the same need that drives people to spin wild conspiracy theories about UFOs, JFK's assassination, the TWA Flight 800 crash and the Pentagon terrorist attack on 9/11. Note that I'm not talking about the facts of each case. Instead, I'm referring to the leap of logic about a massive cabal that controls everything behind the scenes. That is some people's way of dealing with the fact that they can't control everything that happens in their life. Well, even a "conspiracy" like al Qaeda was open about its objective (destroying America). Its only secrecy was in a tactical sense.

My point? American politics shouldn't be about good versus evil. Most people enter politics because they want to make the world a better place. (What happens after they've been in office for awhile is another story.) It's sad when they let their drive lead them into accusing the other side of hypocrisy, placing loyalty over ideological consistency. As far as I'm concerned, both sides are guilty of that kind of hypocrisy. I think most people are L in some of their beliefs and C in others. And that's all right.

 

[Frank]

Wow. Those definitions wouldn't even come close to what I see in my experience. Actually, in most cases, it seems the opposite - that conservatives would just prefer that the government stay the hell out of their lives and everyone else's, and that liberals want to use the government to intrude upon lives to promote social change. It just seems to me that the politically correct stuff comes from the left. Almost every new regulation that personally affects me, seems to assume that I am an idiot that needs governmental regulations to keep me from killing myself, or to be able to sue someone for my doing something stupid.

In that respect, it seems that conservatives are optimistic - they believe that parents are good enough to raise their kids properly, and that liberals are not - they believe that certain things have to be properly taught to kids, because parents do such a bad job. I don't think the many kinds of classes I've had to attend in my adult life, to properly "teach" me about professional behavior was any idea of a conservative. I guess I have always resented the idea that my behavior needs to be corrected.

I realize that conservatives - specifically religious ones, which I personally consider a radical and embarassing section of conservatives - have often done similar things - such as the teaching of creationism in school. But they almost always lose such battles, and thank God for that.

I guess I just don't see it - it seems to me that less regulation for social matters is trusting people more, and from my point of view, it's the left that wants to regulate this.

 

[jimmy]

Tonio,

Your post was dead on the money. That's really the view that I'm starting to take in all this and being on this board has really opened my eyes to how and why this political game plays out like it does...

I haven't lost my desire to be involved on some level but I'm questioning which end of the pool I'm gonna jump in, if that makes sense. Not in a lib v. con sort of way but just in the type of approach I'm gonna take to this whole thing...

I appreciate your non-partisan views; they are a breath of fresh air on this forum...

 

[Tonio]

Thanks for your praise, jimmy!

And Frank, I appreciate your input as well. Keep in mind the the definitions I cited may have been appropriate in 1985, before the debut of "political correctness." (That term was originally an in-joke on the left, by the way. Terms like "vertically challenged" were invented only to demonstrate the absurdity of going too far not to offend people. But some activists--the kind who had insisted on calling manhole cover "people-hole covers"--didn't get the joke.)

Anyway, older conservatives, especially the religious ones, tended to favor more restrictions on porn, birth control and homosexualty. Older liberals tended to be strong free-speech advocates.

Some of the problems you cited come from the "for heaven's sake let's do something" syndrome that goes along with political correctness. Neither the left nor the right are immune to that syndrome. How does it show up on the right? Things like proposing a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning.

 

[jimmy]

Tonio,

You bring up a great point about political correctness. It's something that shows up on BOTH sides of the equation, just in somewhat different forms...

I'm really against taking any of that stuff too far; the vertically challenged joke is a great example and, yeah, there are many Libs that actually take those types of issues to that level...ugh...

But it's all about seperating society into "special groups". It's just different when it comes to just WHO your special group is. For Libs, it tends to be the disenfranchised, underclass. For the Repubs, it's members of the military and religious groups.

To be sure, I'm generalizing somewhat but this idea of "for heaven's sake let's do something" and "if the other side wins, we're going to hell in a handbasket" crap is something BOTH sides are guilty of and I wish, Tonio, that more people could see it.

I mean, I remember talking with my friends and actually the phrase "welp, that's it---we're screwed" were uddered when Dubbay (finally) won the election. Then, just over in another thread here, a conservative basically said that our country would be destroyed if Gore would have won the election...just funny how chicken little some can be when towing party line...

 

[Warron]

I think the most basic definition of Liberal and Conservative are as follows;

Liberal- advocates change
Conservative-advocated keeping things exactly how they are

The problem is that after some one advocating change (liberal) gets that change to occur, they are now conservative, because they want things to say the way they currently are. And the previous conservatives, who liked things the way they were, now want things to change, becoming liberals. So whether your liberal or conservative depends on the current status of the issue in question.

Another problem with applying the term liberal or conservative to a person as if it is some group they belong too, is that a person can be liberal on one issue and conservative on another. So, no such general label can be applied.

As far as how the word liberal is used in today’s society, I stick with my definition of it meaning "anyone who you don't agree with." People use the term today as an insult in an attempt to self validate their own opinion by calling anyone who disagrees a liberal. I'm getting to the point, that whenever I see or hear the word anymore, I dismiss the persons view almost immediately. Because if you can't put forth a point without insulting or labeling someone, you must not have a valid point to put forth.

 

[jimmy]

Warron,

Word.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by Warron
I think the most basic definition of Liberal and Conservative are as follows;

Liberal- advocates change
Conservative-advocated keeping things exactly how they are

I have my own version:

Con: "Stay out of my life, I am responsible enough to take care of me and my own, including those who depend on me."

Lib: "You need help! Let us show you where in your life you can do better."

Yes, Libs were for free speech and change for the better sometime around 30 years ago. And Cons, at the same time, wanted to reign in the perceived social chaos of the same period.

Funny how the lines have shifted, ain't it?

BTW, Reno has backed out!

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Steve
Yes, Libs were for free speech and change for the better sometime around 30 years ago. And Cons, at the same time, wanted to reign in the perceived social chaos of the same period.

Funny how the lines have shifted, ain't it?

Steve, you've hit upon something there. Maybe the difference is simply a generational one. Abbie Hoffman spent his last years railing against drug testing. He saw it as government intrusion into one's personal life. Would he have anything in common with someone like David Horowitz, who went from extreme leftist to extreme rightist?

 

[Warron]

Originally posted by Steve


I have my own version:

Con: "Stay out of my life, I am responsible enough to take care of me and my own, including those who depend on me."

Lib: "You need help! Let us show you where in your life you can do better."

Isn't this exactly what I said.

"Stay out of my life" - is advocating keeping things the same

"Let us show you where in your life you can do better" - is advocating change

But like I said before, there are very few people who think the world is perfect. And there are very few people who think every single thing needs fixed. So most people are both liberal and conservative, depending on the specific issue being addressed.

Originally posted by Steve

Funny how the lines have shifted, ain't it?

Once again, as I said. Your only liberal until the change you want comes about and your only conservative as long as things remain as you want them.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Warron


Isn't this exactly what I said.

"Stay out of my life" - is advocating keeping things the same

"Let us show you where in your life you can do better" - is advocating change

The use of the word "change" is too broad. You can have conservatives who work for change in say, foreign policy - but it's not about property taxes, being re-educated or told to wear a seat belt or take a drug test. Some are personal, many are not.

I think there is more than the simple definition. But I can say this - I think most conservatives - with the exception of the religious ones - would be just as willing to leave YOUR life alone as well. How would you feel if a *conservative* was showing you where in your life you could do better? Perhaps, you know, re-educate you where your attitudes need fixing. That kind of thing.

You want to fix the roads, hey, I'm for it. You want to reduce the classes in schools, by getting more, and better teachers, that's a change I can support. You want to get in there, and teach values to my children because *I'm* not teaching them things at home you think are right -- that's invasion of my life, and I won't tolerate it.

 

[Warron]

I guess I need to clarify that I mean change as in ideology or policy.

If the currently adopted policy is to fix roads, then sending someone out to fix the roads is keeping with a conservative policy. If the current policy is to never fix the roads, then calling for someone to go fix them would be a liberal policy.

The same thing applies to teaching values to your children by strangers. If the current ideology is that it is the parents responsiblility to teach values to their children, then calls to have strangers, who think they can do it better, come in is a liberal ideology. But its only a liberal ideology until it becomes the norm. If, at some time in the future, it is the norm for schools to be completely responsible for what values children learn, then that will be the conservative policy.

Besides, it is once again coming back to my point that people are liberal or conservative depending on the specific issue. If you support change in any issue, like it or not and call yourself whatever you want, you have a liberal view of that issue because the conservative view would be to maintain the existing condition.

 

[Frank]

I understand your explanations, but I'm afraid I simply do not agree. There are issues which are advocating for change which can only be regarded as "conservative" issues, and ones which are urging for protecting the status quo, which can only be called liberal ones. A reasonable example is the situation over abortion - it's legal here, and has been so for more than a generation, but conservatives generally wish to stop it, and liberals wish to keep it the way it is - the commercials even phrase it thus. Generally, as a rule, conservatives are against continued application of affirmative action programs and other social measures they believe intrude on people's lives unfairly. They're FOR school vouchers. I think underneath all of the differences lies a philosophy regarding the role of government. The government protects your freedom. It is not an ally in your wish for shaping culture or society. We as a people do that, or don't do that.

You may have a point regarding 'change' but I don't think it is specific enough. I'm basically conservative - I never, ever wish to change *you*. You can be outright offensive, and it gives me a sense of pride in my freedom, because that's what I expect to happen in a free country. It's unusual (and I always mention - disregard the religious fundies - they are a wart on the conservative movement) for conservatives to want YOU to change. Change anything if it is not effective. But don't change ME. Liberals aren't content with that. I can say what I want - so long as it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings. I can teach my kids what I want, but a liberal will want to be sure my kid is taught liberal viewpoints on societal issues.

This is where I take exception with the ideology part of your remark. I can't tell if you think it applies to government or individuals, but it doesn't matter, because what matters to me is what MY ideology is. I don't care one bit what the government's is, nor what society at large's is. If MY ideology is at odds with the government does, I will oppose it. Only mine. I'm not here to build a better world - I just want to live in it peacably. I'm never going to adopt the ideology of the group, of society. So I'm not sure what you say makes any sense there.

 

[Larry Gude]

Good points all, very thoughtful.

Here's the thing though. With the given of a two party system, doesn't this pretty much demand labels of some sort?

On one side we have so called "conservatives".

On the other "liberals".

We say "conservative" and a picture forms in the mind: The conservative ranks are filled with people who pretty much think alike. As a rule, they are in favor of traditional religions, very pro business, very much "law and order", tend to take the side of the individual over what perhaps could be the greater good of the community as a whole (IE gas guzzler SUV's, dangerous firearm ownership, energy development (drilling)) and they are rather big on the military.

The other side, "liberals" are a vast array of philosophies, lifestyles, backgrounds and faiths. In general, this group favors no older religions pe se, supports workers rights, tend to see societies role in law breaking, lean towards the common good in terms of vehicles, how much water your toilet holds and individual rights restrictions to enhance safety and tend to see the military as an extention of the right, AKA "conservatives".

Now, when we say "conservative" we all know that it means "rich white guys" and what they stand for; conserving their being rich and white.

When we say "liberal" we think of anything from Ted Turner (Rich white guy) to Hillary Clinton to Jesse Jackson to Ira Glasser to Susan Sarandon and we can think of a rainbow of things they stand for and possibilities for everybody.

Now, when you look at it this way it's easy to make a choice with your vote and, as long as the two party system is our choice, then there is ONLY two ways to vote, yes?

Now, the problem is that one side is full of people in lock-step and the other is full of individuals. Certainly there are issues of unintended consequences and areas where things are not so cut and dry but by and large isn't this the basic presumption in our political lives?

Now, doesn't the group of individuals HAVE to come together if they want any say so?

 

[Tonio]

Larry, you seem to be suggesting that the Cs perceive themselves as the "haves" (or representatives of the "haves") and the Ls perceive themselves as the "have-nots" (or their representatives).

But both sides have a sense of victimhood, especially those members on the fringes. I find it hilarious that each side accuses the media of slanting things the other way.

As an example, I had never heard of Ann Coulter before reading her name here on the Forums. I found out she was the one who called for a holy war to convert Arab countries to Christianity, and declared her regret that McVeigh hadn't chosen to blow up the NY Times instead. Statements like that make her sound just as wacko as Cynthia McKinney.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Tonio
I found out she was the one who called for a holy war to convert Arab countries to Christianity, and declared her regret that McVeigh hadn't chosen to blow up the NY Times instead. Statements like that make her sound just as wacko as Cynthia McKinney.

You're kidding - did you read those columns, that stuff was in? That was a joke. You should go to her site, and check the archives there. Ann Coulter rocks! You should read some more of her stuff. She's no more wacko than say, Bill O'Reilly.

I have no doubts about journalists slanting the news to the left - many of them have come out and said, they have found that most journalists are liberals, and that papers sometimes have a philosophy about them. At Slate, Michael Kinsley mentioned that he knew of no one there who voted for Bush. There's also no doubt in my mind that Fox News has a right slant, even though they claim to be fair and balanced. They try, but the bias is really there, and it's obvious enough to me after years of the networks and CNN.