Oct. 9th, 2006

forsyth: (Default)
One of the problems in politics is voters "know" what Republicans and/or conservatives stand for, in nice short pithy sentences, but don't seem to know what liberals stand for. Or don't think they know. And there's some that think liberals stand for surrendering to terrorists and forced abortions for everyone and are going to make everybody gay. Or something. Those people probably aren't worth trying to get to.

So, I figured I could try and figure out what I, as a liberal, think the fundamental parts of liberalism are, and then boil them down to something short and memorable.

The first part that came to mind is equality, or maybe better as a "Level playing field." Everybody should have the same opportunities for education and jobs and medical care, marriage, place to live, and the right to speak their mind as anyone else. Regardless of age, sex, religion, income, who their parents were, who they're shagging, political beliefs, where they live, who they associate with, or anything else largely outside of their control or irrelevant. Anybody who does the same work with the same skill should get paid the same, have the same opportunities to be promoted get bonuses, or whatever.

I want to try and tie this into Security too, with the sense of people should be secure in their persons and health and not worry that their job's going to disappear and then they'll lose their house and health and spiral into endless debt, and that they don't have to worry about being blown up at the airport, or have to stand around for two hours and have their shoes x-rayed, or get disappeared or held just because they have the same last name as somebody who once upon a time sent a check to a hospital that was also a front for Al Queda money laundering or something. But I think that's a somewhat separate issue, although security's a part of opportunity, because there's lots of opportunities you've got more pressing concerns like being shot at or losing your job or so on.

A lot of these things connect and tie together at some fundamental levels, at least it feels that way to me. Which makes me think this is possible.

Comments on the first part, anyone? Suggestions for other key ideas?

Bad Design

Oct. 9th, 2006 12:59 am
forsyth: (GG ID)
Okay, yes, I get the idea. You have a game, and the tradeoff between some of the powers for the ball is it can bounce higher, but it's less controllable. But then expecting people to make specific careful jumps that can only be reached by the less accurate ball? That's not challenging. That's just retarded and annoying. Kthx.
forsyth: (Politics Icon)
From Encyclopaedia Britainnica Films, 1946.


(snagged from [livejournal.com profile] jokermage)

(Minor historical note, you might notice the Pledge of Allegiance they say at one point doesn't include the phrase "under God." That was added in 1954, thanks to the Knights of Columbus and a Presbyterian Minister named George MacPherson Docherty.)

Profile

forsyth: (Default)
Forsyth

May 2018

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
202122 23242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 25th, 2026 03:48 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios