I think it's interesting how different people see different sides of M&T. Here's my take, FWIW:
Matt and Trey like to point out how people who identify with one camp or the other tend to distort their thinking and perceptions. For example, a conservative tends to see only the negative aspects of liberalism and exaggerate them in his mind, while ignoring the good side or minimizing the importance of any positive effects of liberalism. He tends to overlook the obvious in his view, because it is distorted by being filtered through his beliefs.
A liberal does the same thing, but in reverse. (And don't try to tell me moderates don't do it, because they do.)
The fact that people do this is funny if you think about it, but most folks don't think about it. Matt and Trey, as true artists, are able to present these all-too-common human follies in such a way that we can see the humor and laugh, even though we are laughing (at least in part) at ourselves.
It doesn't really matter what leanings M&T have, if they have them. What matters is that their parody and humor works on so many levels, and that it is freely given us to enjoy.
Ok, they don't always hit the target, but when they do, it's amazing. Even when these guys try and fail, they'll still heroes to me. They are talented enough to work as writers for a network sitcom, recycling the same old jokes over and over since the Honeymooners like all the other ones--but instead they take chances.
On 5/5/2004 4:22 PM Pepper brightened our day with:
I don't quite get it, I thought that episode was fantastic. Do people have a problem with it because your Christian? Is it funny to me because I find Mel Gibson a ridiculous buffoon and his Passion movie a piece of crap?
I have never laughed so hard as when Gibson shit on little nazi Cartman's face, I thought that was high art.
I'm not Christian, I'm probably the most agnostic person you'll ever meet. But it just wasn't -funny-. I sat through the entire episode thinking to myself, "OK, when are they going to stop doing a fan service to the morons who watch the show purely for the shock factor?"
Of course you did. With your putative IQ and your evident knowledge of the only language you (so to say) speak, one could safely guess that scatological pseudohumor would fit your "tastes" perfectly.
Now, isn't there a Jackass rerun or a Spiderman comic book on which you should be concentrating? (Jackass and Spiderman comic books indubitably being even more of a "high art" in your mind)
hey, fuck you, you damn pussy who thinks that poo ain't no good. poo is everything!
everything that lives on earth poos in some way and that's how the cycle happens each and every day just look at the green green grass and the birds up in the sky it's all here because of poo and now i'll tell you why
grass is eaten by the cattle which is eaten by women and men it fuses with their bodies and becomes poo again and that poo goes through the sewer where it's dumped into the sea and it's eaten by the plankton that becomes the fish's meal
and then that bigger fish with the poo still inside swims up near the shore and gets eaten alive by a grizzly bear that poos on a dead piece of sand so it can spring to life and become poo for the land
it's the poo of the antelope, the poo of the giraffe that falls onto the earth and becomes the blades of grass the grass is eaten by the cattle which comes out the other end to make poo for the humans to start all over again
i'm the poo of the antelope that flows onto the ground becomes the grass of tomorrow which the grazers turn around so on the leg of the leopard and the wings of the hen which becomes dinner for the humans and turns back to poo again
You know, you should try reading that entire post out loud, and try doing it without giggling. It's even more hilarious when you hear this shit in real life than to read it on the computer.
But hey, don't feel too bad. When I was younger (about 13-14 years old), I too used to think 50-cent words made me sound intelligent, but then I got older and realized that nobody gave a crap about one's vocabulary.
"Inglo" wrote in message news:8_emc.45318$[email]...
You have raised a very interesting and noteworthy point. Different eps of SP appeal to different people. An ep I think sucked may be thought of as one of the great ones by others, and vice-versa. My guess is that this is because the genius of Matt and Trey is not only deep but also wide, it spans such a range that the various episodes cannot appeal to just the same people all the time.
I agree with your take on this, but I'd like to clear up a few points. You equate liberalism with "liberal", and as I see it those two terms are almost the opposite of each other.
On 5/5/2004 1:05 PM Arashikage brightened our day with:
That's "liberalism" as in economic policy, when compared to various forms leading to a centralized, command economy; which is what you usually get in socialist and communist governments. Words and even isms can often have more than one meaning,
I never really understood the point of calling it "libertarianism" when it clearly is "liberalism" as definde by www.m-w.com : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard.
Was the term "liberalism" hijacked by some right-wingers and used to denote some sort of semi-socialism?
"Arashikage" wrote in message news:0Lcmc.1999$[email]...
denote
More or less. "Liberalism" is commonly used to mean "what liberals believe in" and liberals in the US are generally those who are polar opposites of conservatives on most issues.
US politics is a symptom of mass insanity. Same could be true for other countries, but what do I know about other countries' politics? I have a US public school education. ;-)
Well, try this one on for size: In Norway, where I come from, it's against the law to sell alcohol after 20:00 on weekdays and 18:00 on saturdays. If you walk into a store after that, you'll just see giant blankets or similar draping the alcoholic beverages. Grocery stores aren't allowed to stay open on sundays, but if they were the sale of alcohol would not be allowed at all that day. All with full political blessing. We have our problems too:-)
On 5/6/2004 10:23 AM Arashikage brightened our day with:
What about nightclubs and restaurants? There are many places all over the U.S. that have arcane liquor laws, there are hundreds of "dry counties" where it's illegal to sell alcohol at all.
Nightclubs and restaurants operate on another set of rules. There are some minor local variations, but where I live (the south-east), nightclubs can serve liquor until 02:30, and have to close by 03:00. Restaurants can serve alcohol on Sundays.
So you're telling me that there are places in the US where it's downright impossible to legally buy alcohol without driving to another county? Any special part of the US where this is common?
I'm interested if Arashikage could report the rational behind Norway's liquor laws. I like to think of Scandinavia as not being full of dumb-fuck christians.
Like the US, Norway had a short period of prohibiton sometime in the early 1900s. I think the rationale behind the retarded liquor-laws stems from that to some degree. The anti-liqour lobby developed some muscle in those days, and still retain a little today. If you ask them, they'll throw some research your way about "lower prices and higher accesability correlating with alcohol-related accidents and deaths". These policies have the nice side effect of making binge drinking more of a rule than an exception.
In Scandinavia, Norway has the most restricted liqour laws (followed closely by the swedish, surpassed in some respects) with Denmark being very liberal on the matter. It's really not a big deal, though. More of an annoyance.
"Arashikage" wrote in message news:zwumc.2271$[email]...
We have laws like that in most states. In Minnesota, it is (or was) illegal to sell "off sale" hard liquor or beer after 20:00 Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday, and also on the 4th of July, which is out national Independence Day holiday. "Off sale" refers to alcohol that is sold still sealed in its original container, meaning you buy it to drink it "off" the store's premesis, as opposed to a pub or bar where you buy alcohol to consume it on the premisis.
Also, you can be drafter to fight in a was (if there is a draft) at age 18, but cannot drink in most states until you are 21. It seems that if you are old enough to be called upon to kill and maybe die for your country, you should also be old enough to make your own decisions about alcohol.
Some stated legalized marijuana only for use in medical situations in which a doctor perscribed it to make a patient more comfortable or healthier, but the president forced those states to ignore their own laws in favor of the national law that makes marijuana use illegal for any purpose. There doesn't seem to be any logic behind this, other than maybe the president wants to send a message that all states are under his control and any deviation from federal ideals will not be tolerated.
Norway has some really funny laws too, but it seems like such a nice place. I sometimes read an online Norweigian newspaper that is published in English and note that the voplence rate in Norway is so low, a fistfight in the street can make national news. Quite different than in the USA, where children kill other children with guns so often that such murders do not always make it into the national news.
similar
open
all
I think most countries have goofy laws. In the US, states which have the death penalty often put convicts to death based on flimsy evidence because the convicts were poor and could not afford a good lawyer. When DNA testing became available, a number of convicts who were awaiting their death sentence had to be freed because DNA showed that they were wrongly convicted. In spite of this proof that sometimes people are wrongly sentenced to death, the death penalty continues to exist.
The problem stems from a cultural difference between America and the rest of the civilized world. This is one of puritanical effects of prohibition that we are still feeling to this day. Alcohol in most parts of the world is much less of a taboo than it is here in the states. I'm thinking of european countries specifically here, where alcohol is a part of daily life. To be sure, alcoholism and the like are problems in these countries, but the association of alcohol to social ills is not as strong in other nations as it is here.
Since we decided at one point in our history to outright ban alcohol, it has taken on a mystical aura of the forbidden fruit, and as such, kids in America wait with breathless anticipation for their 21st birthday, at which point they proudly whip out their ID to every club they can hit in a 20 mile radius and get HAMMERED. Of course, they had been doing it all along, just illegally. The difference is that these other countries have alcohol around the home as a matter of course, and it doesn't carry the "forbidden fruit" association that alcohol does here.
As it relates to drafts, the problem comes in that people are honestly at the peak of their physical condition, at least most men, by around the age of 18 or so. If you miss that golden opportunity to snag some unsuspecting youth and put them in the service of their country, you're not going to be fighting with the most physically adept soldiers in your ranks. That's not good.
The stigma associated with alcohol pretty much assures a sort of "alcohol immaturity" until at least a year or two past when you can legally drink it. I used to live in Windsor, which is directly across the border from Detroit, where I now live. The legal drinking age in Windsor(Ontario, Canada) is 19. This means that Canadians go through their "alcohol immaturity" much sooner, and by the time most Canadians hit their 21st birthday, they've gotten most of the alcohol related wackiness out of their system. On the other hand, you can go downtown on any weekend and find the typical "underage drinkers"(american 19-20 year olds), all getting wasted, starting fights and being general pricks, because they are still going through their alcohol immaturity phase.
which
but
Being a libertarian, I have always been in favor of legalization of even the hardest of drugs. I'm also an evolutionist, so I consider it almost Darwinistic in nature. If you're stupid enough to do drugs, *something* bad is going to happen to you, and you deserve what you get, but by the same token, I'm not about to tell you that you are not allowed to be stupid, that's your choice. It's also a GREAT way to ensure that natural selection takes place.
Same thing with abortion. My wife tells me she sure as hell will never have an abortion, and at first she thought that made her pro-life. Until I asked her if she would tell anyone else that they couldn't have an abortion. She hadn't realized that despite her personal views on the subject, she wasn't about to tell someone else what to do with their bodies, and that this freedom of choice is what the pro-choice movement is all about. Many people don't realize that they are pro-choice, when in fact they are.
testing
The argument for the death penalty is simple: closure, for MOST everyone involved. Sure, someone might not want the kind of closure they are going to get, most specifically the criminal, but it definitely ends the cycle.
Some people like to say it's about revenge, and to a certain extent, it is. Some people like to say it's justice at it's finest, biblical justice, eye for an eye type stuff, and it honestly is that as well. Some people say people get wrongly convicted and so on, like you have done, and yes, it happens, but not all that often, and certainly not often enough to be statistically valid enough to bring about a moratorium.
Personally, I am of the opinion that if you want to do the crime, you better be prepared to do the time. If that means a very short period of time, followed by a very long dirt nap, so be it. Capital offenses are the gravest of crimes, and it makes it easier to swallow the death penalty pill. If we were bludgeoning litterbugs to death with large rocks behind the courthouse for amusement, it would be a slightly different story. But we are humanely "disposing" of trash that just happens to be in human form.
You make a lot of good points and while I am not currently inclined to respond to them all, I will respond to this one.
First of all, I radically disagree. You seem to believe that putting a few innocents to death by accident is an acceptable price to pay for having the death penalty. Well, what of one of those innocent lives was yours? What if it was someone you cared about? I can't imagine a mindset that would justify the killing of innocents on the grounds that most of those killed were guilty. If only one innocent person in a million slipped through and got the death penalty, that would be enough in my book to justify a moratorium, and the reality is almost certainly thousands of times higher than that.
The other thing proponents of the death penalty don't understand is that the death penalty is basically a form of political correctness.
Political correctness is about trying to correct hurt feelings. The death penalty doesn't accomplish anything but make people feel better. One might say it prevents repeat offenders, but there are other ways to do that, some of which are reversible if subsequent evidence proved the convict to be innocent.
Ah, the ever present "it could be you" argument. Here's the thing. There is a very distinct, very present difference between "not guilty" and "innocent". The people on death row are not Joe Smith the humble CPA who happened to be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and mysteriously all the evidence of a brutal homocide points to him. Nope. The people who inhabit death row, proven guilty or protesting innocence, are a pretty grim bunch. Basically, I could not envision a set of circumstances that would put me anywhere near a gas chamber, nor could I envision such circumstances for any of my friends or family. Lucky me, I guess.
In short, yes, a unfortunate miscarraiges of justice are acceptable losses to the greater good in this instance. What would you prefer, that an innocent person is institutionalized for 30 years before being set free, acquitted of his charges, only to find himself transformed by the system into a ruthless criminal? The act of imprisoning a person changes them, especially if they are imprisoned for a violent crime, because this puts them in contact with other particularly brutal and violent people on a regular basis.
the
might
some
So what if it is about correcting hurt feelings? I would readily admit that it does nothing to deter criminals(except for ONE criminal), and quite honestly, the families of victims of capital crimes deserve some closure when it comes to their loved ones.
Right. The ones on death row are scumbags unable to defend themselves in court given public defendants asleep on the job. We'll never know how many innocents have been put to death, but who cares? They're just mental defectives living on the street. Convenient to drag in and use to solve any case.
Don't let the fact that the real killers are still walking the streets bother you.
I'm not going to let the remote possibility that one of thousands MIGHT be an innocent make me revise my position on this issue. Overall, the system works. And with the enormous level of checks and balances to ensure that one is guilty before being put to death, with innumerable appeals and stays and whatnot, the chances of a truly innocent person being put to death are almost infinitesmally small. Remember, we're not talking about chinese justice, take em out back, shoot em in the head and bill the family for the bullet type of stuff directly after the trial. We have YEARS of appeals to worry about.
YES, IT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST THAT AN INNOCENT PERSON WAS PUT TO DEATH, THIS I ADMIT, before you tell me that it's happened before, I know this. But how many of those put to death were actually guilty? Almost immeasurably more than were innocent. You're supporting the dismantling of a system that, for the most part, works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. In your world, we would not drive cars because they break down from time to time, we would not use computers because we get a BSOD every now and then, we would not use toilet because they overflow sometimes. Simply because a thing is not perfect does not mean we should not use it.
And, yes, quite frankly, the people on death row deserve to be there.
On Fri, 7 May 2004 11:30:08 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" wrote:
Please define what you would consider statistically valid. The most publicized moratorium would most likely be the state of Illinois, where Governor Ryan commuted the sentences of the 167 men remaining on death row after 17 were exonerated. I would consider 9% to be statistically significant, as would anyone who deals with statistics.
I have no desire to get into a debate on the merits of the death penalty, but just wanted to point out that it wasn't that long ago that the US legal system was not far removed from bludgeoning litterbugs to death with large rocks behind the courthouse, at least if those litterbugs were black (or anarchists or communists). There is a significant amount of historical baggage that any discussion of capital punishment really must consider--on both sides of the arguement.
"Jeremiah Kristal" wrote in message news:[email]...
I think that the action taken was invalid. The men were exonerated because the process was WORKING, not because it wasn't. That said, while I have no doubt that 17 men had their sentances commuted because of whatever reason, I doubt VERY highly that 17 innocent men were slated to be put to death. I did read a bit about how 4 men were tortured into confessions, and that was discovered to be the case before the sentances were carried out, as the system is designed to allow for. That said, being tortured into a confession is simply a constitutional technicality, and does not speak to the actual guilt or innocence of the people involved.
Bottom line: the process works. It allows for the death penalty to be carefully examined for years. It's not like we take em out back and put a bullet in their heads. The process takes YEARS.
Personally, I can't disagree with your assessment, except to say that the history of an issue should not be used to judge the merits of an issue at this time. The same can be said for racial equality. To assume that something is owed to someone because of years of injustices their forefathers bore at the hands of slave owners is silly in this day and age. Likewise, for capital punishment, just because it was meted out with more fervor in the past, and on certain types of people more often than others, does not mean it happens to this day.
Yes, know the history, and be aware of the history, so you are not doomed to repeat it. But do not allow history of a subject to cloud your view of the current state of the subject.
Oh come on. The left in this country has always been for federal power superceding states' rights. Until it's in their interest. Then all of the sudden, states' rights are real important.
That being said, I'm not necessarily against the idea of legalizing more drugs. But masking it under "medicinal use" is a joke. Marijuana doesn't make a patient healthier, it functions as a pain reliever. And there are far more effective pain relievers with less side effects than marijuana. These "patients" just want a legal excuse to get high.
The ironic thing of course, is that the left is always criticizing the tobacco industry for their irresponsibilities in marketing cigarettes to the public, but what do they think would happen if marijuana were made legal throughout the US? Marijuana companies=good, tobacco companies=bad????
"casey j cress" wrote in message news:c7gb0d$1278$[email]...
I suggest you seek out the episode of Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" show on Showtime that dealt with the war on drugs. They focussed primarily on pot. Despite knowing most of the facts they presented, seeing them laid out like they were was definitely an eye-opener. And, the people who are legally getting high seem to be a pretty sickly bunch.
Besides, what's easier, going to the park and buying a nickel bag when you feel like getting high, or getting the approval from your doctor, HMO, state legislature and so on, just so you can smoke pot? Come on. Do you know *ANY* pot head that is that motivated??? Most can barely scrape themselves off the couch to get some pickles and icecream when they have the munchies.
Personally, I'm *ALL* for the legalization of all drugs. Make them all legal, control them like tobacco and alcohol, and tax the ever livin SHIT out of them. Then use the money from drug sales to fund clinics for anyone who wants treatment. And use the TRILLIONS of dollars that would be left over on something really cool, like a government sponsored higher education bill where anyone could go to college on the leftover drug money. Imagine how cool that would be. Potheads would no longer be clogging up the prisons, crime would drop, columbia would go back to making coffee, it would no longer be profitable to grow it and sell it, so you wouldn't have drug kingpins. AND! College wouldn't make middle america remain in the middle, and the poor could actually "afford" college!
The only reason NOT to do it? Puritanical need to cleanse the souls of others. I hate that reason. You can't save other people from themselves. It's pointless to even try. It's the whole reason why the war on drugs will NEVER work.
I guess what I'm saying is that if marijuana didn't have recreational use, it would have just gone down in history as a substance for pain relief, like zillions of other drugs, that have been surpassed by better, more effective drugs. No one would be lobbying for its use in medicine today. Ether was once used as an anesthetic. If it had recreational use today, and was subsequently banned, we'd probably have a bunch of people demanding it be legalized for its "medicinal use", even though we have much better drugs than ether in this age.
However, I agree with your latter points. It would save this country a lot of money, and likely reduce a lot of crime. That's why the libertarian view is appealing. At the same time, I think there are better reasons to keep them banned than just to "cleanse souls". It's really not a victimless crime. Tell the children of drug abusers that it's a victimless crime. That goes for alcohol too. But, since there are plenty of people who can use alcohol and not abuse it, the same could probably be said for other substances. We would still have to fight abuse though, much like we fight drunk driving.
"casey j cress" wrote in message news:c7gi1n$187f$[email]...
Like heroin? Yeah, there's a *huge* demand for medical heroin. And cocaine. And crank. Oh wait, no there isn't. Again, your arguement falls apart when examined.
"casey j cress" wrote in message news:c7gi1n$187f$[email]...
Of course we have to fight abuse, which is why you would tax it, to pay for the necessary treatment centers. There will always be innocent victims of drugs, the children of abusers will always be in a pickle. Children of alcoholics and drug abusers are already in a tight spot at the moment, why not make available the resources to allow people who want to get help to get the best help they can? Current clinics are woefully underfunded.
More importantly than that, many people on drugs and who are alcoholics are addicts. There's simply no getting around it. They won't change, and no amount of expenditure will make them better people. So, make it so they don't have to cheat, steal, kill, rape and pillage to get the money for their drugs. Don't lock them up simply because their life sucks so much already that they feel the need to hit the pipe or whatever. Give them what they seek. If they want help later, it's fully funded and ready to rock n roll.
But definitely, keep the criminality of the REAL crimes there. Crimes like driving under the influence will ALWAYS happen, drugs being legal or not. Obviously this is the case, since drunk driving is such a bane on our society. Of course, drug use needs to be responsible drug use. Imagine the public service announcements of the legalized drug society. "Smoke pot responsibly... get your munchies before you smoke a bowl... brought to you by 7-11." It would be the same message as drinking: do it responsibly, and you can do it all you want.
Most of all, it's important to remember that not everyone who does drugs is a total loser stoner pothead junkie, just like not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. It is possible to drink responsibly, to do your drugs responsibly. Let's keep that in mind when we adjust the nation's drug policy.
"casey j cress" wrote in message news:c7gb0d$1278$[email]...
So what the hell does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about how screwed up the US is, not trying to get into the inane arguement that left or right is better.
So what? It's not *supposed* to make a patient healthier, it's supposed to ease their suffering.
Not only are you wrong, even if you were right, your arguement would make no sense.
First off, there aren't medications that have proven to be more effective at reducing nausea, such as that caused by chemotherapy, with lower side effects than pot. And most of the more effective pain relievers not only build up a tolerance, they cause physical addiction. You're just mindlessly echoing the rhetoric of the religious right.
Secondly, even if there are far more effective pain relievers than pot and those pain relievers had fewer side effects and didn't cause addiction, using that as an excuse to prevent medical marijuana makes no sense. By your logic, all pain relievers should be illegal except the one which is most effective and has fewest side effects. But that isn't the case. Why? Because people react differently to pain medication. You can't say pain med A is better than pain med B and therefore there is no reason to allow pain med B, because you have to consider the fact that in the real world, different people react differently to different pain meds. Some people are more affected by the side effects of morphine, while some may be more affected by the side effects of Demerol or Dilauded.
That's a presumptious and irresponsible thing to say.
What the does any of this have to do with the left? You're apparently trying to set up a straw man argument, but that won't work with me, sorry.
Keep in mind that the US is of the few places in the world where "liberal" refers to the left, since the political spectrum is so skewed to the right that the only choice is between the far right ("conservative") and moderate right ("liberal"). I don't think liberals can really be identified as semi-socialists, although the right would often like to label them as such. In most political systems, liberals are associated with the center-right. So defining liberalism as a right-wing system may simply be a more European perspective.
Also, one of the more uniquely American aspects of liberalism, and one of the liberal traits that South Park attacks, is political correctness, which is liberalism carried to an such an extreme that it becomes fascistic. The first South Park X-mas episode, for example, showed what would happen if we eliminated all references to religion just to avoid offending people. They've also attacked the anti-smoking lobby (Butt Out), hate crime laws (Cartman's Silly Hate Crime), and the abuse of the idea of tolerance (The Death Camp of Tolerance). All of these are definitely the foolish excesses of liberalism, not really the core of it. Of course, they've also shown particular disdain for liberal celebrities who display contempt for "middle America" (see their characterizations of Barbara Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell).
Although I believe Trey and Matt identify as Republicans, they've attacked Republicans a number of times, especially on religious issues. They've lampooned Pat Robertson and the 700 Club, which is basically a mouthpiece for the evangelical wing of the Repubican party, and more recently Mel Gibson, also a Republican. In fact, I think they've made fun of George W. more than Clinton. In Ladder to Heaven, they implied he was a moron ("-Are you stupid, or just on drugs? -I assure you, I'm not on drugs."), and in Toilet Paper, the Hannibal Lecter kid seemed pretty determined to TP the Bush-occupied White House. Clinton, on the other hand, wasn't even mocked at all when he appeared in The Red Badge of Gayness.
Although they've often expressed fiscal conservative views, I think there are only a few times they've expressed social conservative views. They attacked divorce in Clubhouses, but that's not saying much; you don't have to be very conservative to believe divorce is unfortunate for the kids. They also appear to be pro-life, judging by the way they handled the stem-cell issue in Krazy Kripples, but they've never made a very clear statement about abortion. Even in Cartman's Mom is Still a Dirty Slut, where she lobbied for the right to abort her child, they avoided the issue completely when it turned out she was talking about adoption.
Otherwise, they basically seem to be socially progressive. Although they delight in doing offensive charicatures of gays or the disabled, for example (again, just to irritate the PC crowd), they basically respect their rights. Otherwise, why would Kyle, who's based on Matt, have been so upset about Cartman pretending to be retarded in Up the Down Steroid? They also seem to have no moral objection to porn, judging by the familiarity they show with it in The Return of the Lord of the Rings to the Two Towers. In Fun With Veal, even though Stan literally turns into a pussy by not eating meat, they still concluded that veal is wrong because the calves are tortured. Since Stan is based on Trey, and he was reluctant to shoot an animal in Volcano, it look like Trey is somehing of an animal lover. As much as he claims to hate liberals, he must have at least a certain streak of bleeding-heart liberalism in him when it comes to animals. In the Volcano commentary, Trey explains that even now, he can't stand to see an animal die.
The show skews towards the cooler, libertarian flavor of Republicanism, although standard, dopey conservative dogma pops up randomly, like there being no real evidence for global warming (this is where the reasoning is at 4th grade level), along with all-out hatred for liberal icons like Barbara Streisand. All in all, as with "King of the Hill," it does manage to portray conservatism as something not just for greedy, evil, bigoted, right-wingers, which is how it's been portrayed on The Simpson's by contrast. South Park has been so successful at portraying Republicanism in a positive light that "South Park Republican" is becoming a common political term.
The most accurate placing of liberalism on a political chart that I've seen involves to axis crossing each other. The Left-right axis represent the degree of economic self-government, and the up-down axis represents personal self government. Liberalism (the definition of it, at least) would then be at the top right corner with high scores in both personal and economic freedom. A "US-liberal", for lack of a better term, would get high scores for personal self-government, but lower scores for economic self-government .
IMO, episodes like these represents the very best of what South Park has to offer. I love it when they take on political correctness, it's so goddamn dead on.
They mocked Clinton in "Chinpokomon", but every male acted as he did in that episode.
Not sure about the stem-cell issue, in "Kenny Dies" I got the feeling that were very much against the banning of stem-cell research.
Matt&Tery's familiarity with porn becomes pretty obvious after seeing "Orgazmo":-) I agree with you on the socially progressive part. Trey is a smart guy.
You're mistaking the Wild West no-restraint capitalism for "liberalism".
The word liberal, as understood in the majority of the civilized world minus the US, stands for a person whose political affiliation is with the social-liberal parties and programs which, simplistically put, advocate extensive personal and societal freedoms coupled with generous social programs for the underprivileged. In the US, unfortunately, as the result of the neo-McCarthyist propaganda by the conservatives, the world liberal stands for anything that any conservative opposes at any given time, which is clearly nonsense. So far, I've heard the term "liberal" being used in a pseudo-derogatory way to describe, among other, people who support ecological programs, people who attempt to overuse political correctness, feminists, homosexuals, war protesters, atheists, and even those who oppose the Patriot Acts or Bush's tax cuts, etc. One doesn't have to be a genius to see that such usage of the word is clearly and obviously a straw man that people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and other dishonest cocksuckers are using to push their neocon agendas onto the dumbass gullible population. And judging from the polls, they're succeeding, since one of the worst presidents in the history of the US still enjoys a huge popular support.
Friend, I suggest you do some reading or at least go to school and take some courses in political theory and its history. Classic liberalism stands exactly for free markets and a free economy, as other posters have indicated. I suggest you type in "classic liberalism" into Google and see what you find. It is really only in the US where liberalism refers to the left. This association is consistent with with the left's views on personal freedoms, but very much contrary to the left's views of economic freedom. What the rest of the world calls liberalism, we in the US call libertarian(ism).
So what does the rest of the world call what we in the US call liberalism? Socialism? Here in the US, liberals are often called socialists by conservatives. They mean it as an insult the same way they do when they say liberal.
Insisting that liberalism applies strictly in the economic sense of the word, while dismissing the main political meaning of the word is either stupid or dishonest. When one refers to someone as liberal, it is assumed that the person's political views are primarily taken into consideration, especially because there is little or no difference between the basic economic policies of liberal and conservative parties nowadays.
Get the fuck out of here. Name one liberal party in Europe that is branded by anyone as being on the right wing. Liberals, social-liberals and similar parties are either leftist or left leaning centrist parties, as opposed to nationalist, conservative, Christian democratic and similar parties.
Then you have no idea either what European liberal parties are all about or what the US Libertarians are about.
The Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet) is the party considererd to be farthest to the right in Norwegian politics. I quote from their webpage under "ideology" www.frp.no/article/?id=167#ideologi (translated for your convenience):
"The progress party is a liberalistic party. It is founded on the Norwegian constitution, Norwegian and Western tradition and cultural heritage with a base in Christian values. The party's main goal is substancial reduction of taxes, tolls and government intervention."
"Arashikage" wrote in message news:HP5nc.197$[email]...
Not to stick my nose in someone else's argument, but I think your respective disdain for each other's position stems simply from a definitional thing. One of you grew up in the states, and one in Norway, where the same word(in english) has come to mean different things.
For your information, Arashikage, the word "liberal" in the United States has come to be almost interchangable with "democrat", a political party of the united states, with a leftist lean. A democrat has the following general viewpoints on big issues: gun control, more of it, abortion, pro-choice, economics, assist the disadvantaged through social programs, individual freedoms, as broad as possible, religion, not in government.
On the other hand, the word "conservative" has become almost interchangable with "republican", another political party in the states. A republican has the following general viewpoints on big issues: gun control, less of it, abortion, pro-life, economics, assist big business to get bigger, individual freedoms, use christian morals as a roadmap, religion, depending on the person, perhaps in the government. The major viewpoints of republicans often stem from conservative christianity, so if you think think of your neighborhood business owner who is a devout christian, odds are he's a republican, or would be considered a republican.
And before anyone decides to jump in and attack my definitions, yes, I know, they are sweeping generalizations, and they do not apply to every democrat and republican. But perhaps they will shed some light on the differences between what a norweigan liberal is, and what an american liberal is.
Yeah, that pretty well corresponds with my impression of american politics. I'm not arguing that a liberal is a leftist, I'm just claiming that you can not automatically equate liberalism and liberals. Free trade & free markets are core values of liberalism, but in american politics it seems such policies (like NAFTA) are favoured more by republicans than democrats (liberals).
know,
It's hard to compare american and norwegian politics because, like another poster wrote, the american political spectrum is so skewed to the right in comparison. Many of the opposing views between democrat and republicans that you wrote of, are not big issues in Norway beacuse the vast majority agrees on them (aborition : yes, gay marriage : yes, death penalty : no, etc.) The differences between the left and right here are to larger extent based on economic policies, and not so much based on issues of personal self-government and morals.
"Arashikage" wrote in message news:Vvanc.242$[email]...
The reason for that is simple. Liberal has come to mean democrat, which is more of a conglomoration of ideals than it is a single ideology. Being a "liberal" means so much more than what your political views are. It's also your moral views, your sociological views, your financial views, and oh yeah, also a little bit about politics. ;)
Basically, "liberal" is not JUST about politics of some sort. It's more a massive overgeneralization about what a person can be reduced to with a single word. The concepts are so broad (liberal vs conservative) that they are really very difficult to define with any certainty.
To explain the economics part of it, the reason republicans favor NAFTA with the democrats mostly don't is because the democrats are in favor of unions, while the republicans support big business. NAFTA reduces business overhead, at the expense of local jobs(you export the labor to reduce costs). Unions HATE this, business loves it. That is why the republicans support NAFTA more than the democrats.
Surely you mean "to the left"? Unless you refer almost exclusively to the economics of it, in which case, definitely it's a right leaning political climate.
Which would be a major reason for the previous poster going on a holy tear when he read your post.
"Arashikage" wrote in message news:0Acnc.265$[email]...
The (US) Bill of Rights is FIRMLY planted on the left side of the continuum. It's ALL about individual freedoms, the freedom of citizens within the country.
The Constitution of the US, on the other hand, lays out the format of the government in it's various branches and whatnot, and it's much more of a "governmental how-to guide" than it is a political document. The Bill of Rights is more or less a chapter of the constitutional book, if you want to look at it that way.
I can't place both economics and individual freedom on a single left-right axis. Something like this work better: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz , it uses two axis one for economic self-government and another for personal self-government.
Yes, unfortunately, thanks to the AM radio talk shows and similar idiots who managed to pull off another witch hunt, trying to make the word "liberal" have the same stigma as "communist" had in the 60's. To normal people, democrat and liberal are two completely unrelated terms, as they should be.
First, any party that in its program claims allegiance to "Christian values" can not be liberal by definition. Second, any party whose main goal is "substancial reduction of taxes, tolls and government intervention" is only using the liberal label as a smokescreen, in this case probably to tone down their right extremism. Therefore, even though that party is masquerading as liberal, its program is apparently (and that's according to your quote) as liberal as the Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic (nudge nudge, wink wink).
Google for European liberal parties and read their programs. Fremskrittspartiet ain't it. The majority of European countries are run by liberal or liberal leaning parties.
Firstly, it's not claiming to be "liberal", it's claiming to be "liberalistic", I think the former is way broader than the latter. Sencondly, you're dead on about the smokescreen and all that, their main objective is really to stop immigration. They frequently draw criticism regarding the claim that they're a liberalistic party, but the critic is based on that they support TOO MUCH government intervention.
I've done some reading and I've found out that we're talking in different languages here. According to this site http://www.duc.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/liberalism.html
"In Europe, the term liberalism is still used more in its 19th century sense, and European liberals are rather more respectful of the values of the free market than their American namesakes, whose views sometimes more closely resemble those of Europeans styling themselves as social democrats."
This is what I've got so far: Apparantly what we call liberalism, you call libertarianism. What we call social democrats, you call liberals. But what do you call what we call liberals??
I don't necessarily agree with this, because it again attempts to pigeonhole the entire group of people into a narrow partisan definition. This fails for the simple reason that there is no liberal party in the US, so it is impossible to say what a hugely diverse group of people such as American liberals advocate in the economy. For example, I am as liberal as they come, yet I certainly do not think that socialism in any form is a viable alternative, especially not in the US and not in the form of social democracy in the European sense.
No, man, read that page again and note the emphasis on civil liberties. The author of the page slants his own definition of the US liberal by insisting that it almost means socialism.
Incorrect comparison, due to the non-existence of a third option in the American politics. We only have republicans and democrats, that's it - all other third parties draw no more than 3-4 % of the vote combined. As a result, republicans receive votes from all kinds of rightists, from genuine conservatives to Christian fundamentalists, to KKK members, etc. Democrats, otoh, receive votes from genuine democrats, but also from many leftists who simply choose the lesser of two evils.
Liberals. The Libertarian Party is just one of many faces of the US liberals and doesn't represent all of them. Although many agree with many of their positions, they generally fail to attract too many votes due to the peculiarity of the US two party system where voting outside of that is considered throwing your vote away.
Actually, liberalism and laissez-faire capitalism ( Wild West no-restraint capitalism) are pretty similar.
minus
Yes, I agree on the meaning of "liberal". I do not agree, however, that a "liberal" necessarily is a supporter of "liberalism". That would be a "liberalist", as I see it. Somewhat boring semantics, but important to this discussion. Note: I'm projecting the norwegian definitions onto english, so there may be some discrepancy, but from what I've gathered from www.m-w.com the same definitions apply.
by
the
history
Yeah, that's the impression I've got of american politics and the use of "liberal". And I completely agree with you, it's a fucking retarded way to attack your political opposition.
Where? No liberal party that I know of advocates the return to the capitalism of the 19th century. We know that just doesn't work, like we know socialism doesn't work.
And as I've said a "liberal" party doesn't have to have anything to do with the economic theories of liberalism. In Norwegian, the difference is denoted with the words "liberal" and "liberalist" with the former being , a liberal person (very broad definition), and the latter being a believer in liberalism. This is apparantly more difficult in English.
Maybe so, but you fail to understand that the (dictionary) meaning of the word "liberalism" in the economic sense is not even secondary or tertiary, and can only be used in a strictly parochial sense when the context clearly deals with *economic* issues. Insisting that "liberal" means "advocating no-restraint capitalism" in the normal every day sense of the word is misleading and false. It is like parsing the dictionary for words with multiple meanings and then asking some church ladies if they wanted to see your beautiful long pink cock, then wondering why they're fainting because you just wanted to show them your rooster.
And liberalism means being a liberal or belonging to a liberal party, not subscribing to the "economic theory of liberalism", whatever that means.
You oughta know that you can't translate words and ideas literally.
The guy lives in Norway. They use the word differently there. Bottom line. Let it go.
What do you call it, soda or pop? Here in the midwest, it's pop. Down south it's soda. In boston(?memory hazy?), for some reason, everything is coke. "I'll have a coke" "what kind?" "Mountain Dew please."
On Thu, 6 May 2004 09:52:35 +0100, "freeda" wrote:
Wrong. They've never insulted or even said anything bad about the Eskimos of the northern Antarctic region. Clearly, Matt and Trey are in their pockets.
if i could distract you for just a second from that rim job you're giving...
they have conservative leanings. cartman hates hippies (duh). and their take on the war was lame in 701, "I'm a Little Bit Country". they said that we need people who are against the war so the rest of the world doesn't hate the u.s. so much, and we need the people who support the war so we don't look like a bunch of pussies and get invaded. that's weak.
i'm a democrat, and as such, they piss me off a little sometimes. the only examples i can think of that reallygo against the grain of republican thought are "it's ok to be gay" and their take on christianity. in big gay al's big gay boat ride, al says something like, "oh no, the oppressors! christians and nazis and republicans!"
the most recent episode that addressed political issues is the last one that aired, 806, "Wetbacks From the Future". They did not rip on Bill O'Reilly nearly as much as they could have. They referred to the liberal as "Aging Hippie Liberal Douche". Fine, so they also took a small jab at rednecks (who are quite overwhelmingly republicans). At the end of the episode, when they're working towards a better future, their conclusion is "this is gay". i would say that they tend to have conservative leanings, but in a lot of ways, their attitude comes down to "fuck it".
"fifth grader" wrote in message news:O3Amc.803$[email]...
M&T.
the
the
the
his
me
folks
present
humor
What
it
giving...
Nice personal attack there. It really strengthens your position.
Cartman is presented as an ignorant asshole, therefore it is unreasonable to assume that M&T express their views through him.
they
Which just supports my point, they make fun of both sides.
You lack objectivity. Like many other left-wingers, right-wingers or religious fundamentalists, you see reality through a filter of How You Believe Things Should Be. Therefore when Matt and Trey make fun of both sides equally, you see them as being soft on the right while being unreasonably harsh on the left. The people in the right see the reverse, and religious fundies see them as against their religion (except maybe Buddhists.) Sorry, but I'm not interested in discussing at that level. The debate between right and left is extremely tired.
You're dead wrong. In the mini-commentary for 301, "Rainforest Schmainforest", Trey Parker says that Cartman's bitching basically expresses Trey's thoughts from his visit to Costa Rica and its rain forest. The country smells like ass, and the rain forest is a shitty place to visit.
A more recent example is from 803, "Up the Down Steroid". When Cartman is trying to talk his mother into signing him up for the Special Olympics, he says, "I've sometimes looked at people with disabilities as people god put here on earth for my amusement." You don't think that's how Trey Parker really feels? You're dead wrong.
how does that make fun of the people on the right?
everyone has bias. even you. in your case, it's "Trey Parker and Matt Stone are gods. They can do no wrong. I want to fan them and feed them grapes. I want to lick and suck the the pigment off their sphincters."
"fifth grader" wrote in message news:aNUmc.3177$[email]...
unreasonable to
Not at all. I like how, when you sense the weakness of your position, you use stronger language to try to make your point seem stronger. Instead of "I disagree", you say "You're dead wrong" twice, as though that makes you right.
Cartman expresses the ignorant asshole side of all of us. Trey is in touch with his ignorant asshole side, as we all should be if we want to know ourselves. Cartman does not express all the beliefs of Trey any more than Stan, Kyle or Butters does.
the
Help me out here, how can I make it any more obvious to you?
Of course!
even you.
Naturally!
I did say basicallt that.
No, I neither said nor implied any of that. Creating a straw-man argument is usually a last resort of someone who has nothing on which to base their belief.