The Observation Deck

I was looking over the Observer today before taking a copy over to my parent's house and I saw Helen Brinich's opinion piece. I looked it over and when I finished, I had a question pop into my head.

The final line was: "What we need is a government which promotes the common good."

Well, what is the common good and who defines it?

Granted, its science fiction, but if you look at the movie Logan's Run, the "common good" dictated that life ended at 30.

Logan's Run is a creepy movie.

But I feel like that statement is so overused it has lost its meaning.

So in essence, it doesn't really mean anything. The common good is so varied and since we have a large country, it could mean anything. Whenever someone uses it, I always feel like they mean to say a country that promotes what they think is the common good.

To that extent, I think that you would have to divide the issue into economic, social, and political elements.

Politically, we have a multiparty system, so that fits the common good. Everyone can vote and there are laws on the books, so no issue there. Questionable campaign funding, so that is one thing that should be cleared up, but that just turns into a 1st Amendment issue.

Socially, well that depends on your personal views.

Economically, I don't think this country has ever once in its history gotten economics right. That's because politicians generally don't understand economics. And if they do, they ignore it in favor of their own interests and the interests of others who don't understand economics.

So I guess the next time that someone writes and opinion like that...be specific.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Logan's Run is a creepy movie.

But I feel like that statement is so overused it has lost its meaning.

Thealexa

Great post as always.

Roy

I am figuring, protecting the Constitution, would be protecting the common good.

However, as Thealexa pointed out, the devil is in the details.


.

Newt Gingrich will win the Presidency.
His campaign platform will be based on the idea of repeating these phrases incessantly:
"restore traditional family values"
"cut taxes to decrease the deficit"

Later, he will invade Iran or Nigeria.

Newt Gingrich is way to boring and unremarkable to win the Presidency. It's hard enough to get young people to vote Republican let alone vote Republican for another old white dude.

And besides, I doubt he'll get the nomination even. He's managed to upset just about every part of the party with his non support of the republican health care ideas.

How 'bout this as a test for candidates for national office---- would you want them anywhere near the command structure for launch of nuclear weapons?

Now see the inherent problem with that is...I wouldn't even trust myself near that let alone anyone else.

How about can they correctly retell major events of Amerian History, like Paul Revere's ride?

LOL--- I getcha, but realistically, should someone who believes in Armegedon, The Rapture, The Second Coming, be trusted to act in the interest of humanity?

I believe that personal faith and political leadership should be intrisically seperated. Like, Seperation of Church and State.

Sadly, that doesn't happen.

I think anyone who is too dogmatic is dangerous. There needs to be moderation to best accomodate everyone.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Now see the inherent problem with that is...I wouldn't even trust myself near that let alone anyone else.

How about can they correctly retell major events of Amerian History, like Paul Revere's ride?

How about they know how many states there are in the union...


When the Constitution was written...


World geography...

Roy,

Those are just verbal missteps. It is very easy for a politician giving tons of speeches to slip up and say "countries" instead of continents or saying 20 instead of 2. I say this not just for President Obama, but for any politician. People just like to point out when someone screws up, but that does not mean that they are stupid or unqualified for saying a word or a number wrong.

Sarah Palin is a different case because she doesn't just screw up words, she doesn't even just screw up numbers or statistics, she screws up basic facts a 4th grader would know, ALL THE TIME, not just once in a while. This has nothing to do with her politics and everything to do with her lack of coherency and knowledge. When her sentences have more ums and ahs than substantial words and she thinks that Paul Revere warned the British and that she can see Russia from her house, that is when you should be concerned.

I appreciate that there is the need to point out failings in others to prove a point or to make a position or opposition to their policies more valid, but there is a difference between pure ignorance and simple, very human mistakes.

But that does not change the fact that I don't think I trust anyone with nuclear controls. I don't care how smart they are.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Roy,

Those are just verbal missteps. It is very easy for a politician giving tons of speeches to slip up and say "countries" instead of continents or saying 20 instead of 2. I say this not just for President Obama, but for any politician. People just like to point out when someone screws up, but that does not mean that they are stupid or unqualified for saying a word or a number wrong.

Sarah Palin is a different case because she doesn't just screw up words, she doesn't even just screw up numbers or statistics, she screws up basic facts a 4th grader would know, ALL THE TIME, not just once in a while. This has nothing to do with her politics and everything to do with her lack of coherency and knowledge. When her sentences have more ums and ahs than substantial words and she thinks that Paul Revere warned the British and that she can see Russia from her house, that is when you should be concerned.

I appreciate that there is the need to point out failings in others to prove a point or to make a position or opposition to their policies more valid, but there is a difference between pure ignorance and simple, very human mistakes.

But that does not change the fact that I don't think I trust anyone with nuclear controls. I don't care how smart they are.

First, let me back down, just a little, because I did not properly research the whole Palin thing. I was unaware that she later reaffirmed the statement about Paul Revere. I was under the impression that she misspoke, meaning to say something like 'He rode to warn about the British' and what came out was 'He rode to warn the British'. I should have looked it up before I posted last night.

However, might I put forth that she speaks with ums and ahs with equal frequency to President Obama, when they are both lacking a script to read from. Obama is, by no means, an excellent off-the-cuff speaker.

I hate to break it to you, Roy, but almost every speech that you or I consider a great speech was read from a written transcript. Since Socrates began wrestling with the conflict between the oral and the newly created written tradition that sprung up during his lifetime, all of the great orators that we consider to be great were reading from the page as they spoke. Are there exceptions? Sure. But the vast majority of great orators were reading their lines.

As for Obama's skill as an orator, it will be judged by time. But I can tell you, as someone who deals extensively with teaching how to be a good orator, that some of his speeches will long be remembered as master classes in the school of public speaking.

Sean, I'm well aware that most of the greatest speeches were read. That wasn't my point. If Thealexa wishes to make fun of Palin for saying 'um' and 'ah' at times, Obama should be equally criticized because under similar circumstances, he does the same thing.

As for the rest, I suppose I'll have to take your word for it. I took a journalism class for my senior English elective at LHS while a lot of kids took the speech class.

BTW: As for the Palin/Revere thing, I may have spoken too soon. There seems to be some dispute within the community of history intellectuals...
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
from the Boston Herald:

In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

Roy Pitchford wrote:Sean, I'm well aware that most of the greatest speeches were read. That wasn't my point. If Thealexa wishes to make fun of Palin for saying 'um' and 'ah' at times, Obama should be equally criticized because under similar circumstances, he does the same thing.

I'm not "making fun" of Palin as much as criticizing. And you cannot criticize Obama without criticizing everyone who screws up, and used her as an example that everyone was aware of.

And I'm not criticizing her for just her ums and ahs. She gets things wrong and says odd things on a regular basis. And I was suggesting that she doesn't have as many completely coherent sentences as say, oh let's pick a Republican this time so it doesn't look like a party thing, John Boehner. Him speaking off the cuff sounds far better than her speaking off the cuff.

She is also a prime offender of the usage of vacant phrases like the one that started this thread. When she speaks, even when she is scripted, her words do not carry the backing of substance. Granted most politician's words do not, which is a problem I have with the lot of them, but hers are more rote than they are indicative of what she wants to do.

BTW: As for the Palin/Revere thing, I may have spoken too soon. There seems to be some dispute within the community of history intellectuals...
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
from the Boston Herald:

In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

I do not pretend to be a historian (however both my parents are), but I would like to think that I have a logical mind on most occasions. So, I believe that criticism of Palin on this particular account may have been too severe, if the historians are correct.

However, what I have a problem with about what she said is this. She thinks he ran to warn the British, but the historians say he was captured. Even a historical novice can see the subtleties inherent there. I believe he did speak to the British, but Palin seemed to insinuate he willingly sought them out. Possibly an error on her part just because she was speaking off the cuff. Fine.

But the thing I have a bigger problem with is the fact that people keep calling these colonists Americans.

I was not under the impression that they were anything other than rebelling colonists at the time. The Declaration of Independence didn't come until the next year, so really, they didn't have a formal banner to rally around. SO THEY ARE ALL BRITISH STILL. Really angry and dissatisfied British, but British.

I have a huge pet peeve about people referring to anyone pre-1776 (the declaration) as being American. The colonists viewed themselves as loyal British subjects with the same rights as people living in England. If you remember your history, they didn't want a proper split at first, they just wanted their rights corrected, they even petitioned the crown. So Americans didn't make the colonies and Americans didn't found Jamestown, etc. But too often that is what is reported or taught. But Americans did not exist officially until 1776. So if you want to be picky, Paul Revere DID warn the British, just the rebellious ones.