There's a World Outside Your Window...

And it's a World of Dread and Fear

Published on August 28, 2004 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

OK, time to put my "liberal" hat on.

For those who don't notice, I have stolen a line from one of the greatest Christmas songs of all time ("Do They Know It's Christmas?") for this blog.

As the Republicans are settling in for their national convention, they are sending their message out in a city whose homeless problems are legendary. Where a former mayor once proposed putting the homeless in jail that refused to go into the shelters.

George W. Bush will speak, most likely, on the thousands of lives lost less than five miles away on September 11, 2001. But the thousands he will refer to will be the almost 3,000 known to have perished in the tower and surrounding area; not of the estimated thousands who called the subway station below the towers home.

He will speak of an economy that is growing and of a better standard of living as gas prices remain at or above $2.00 a gallon in many parts of the country, and certain grocery items have experienced double digit inflation over the past year. He will also speak on this as the standard of living has dropped for many Americans and countless thousands are hovering on the brink of homelessness. It is ridiculous to think that the economy is entirely his fault; it is equally ridiculous for him to hide his head in the sand and proclaim that "prosperity is just around the corner" while millions of us know better.

He will speak of the tax cuts that his administration has provided, without acknowledging that those tax cuts have crippled many social programs without providing ample replacement for those programs, and have not addressed the corporate welfare that has historically been supported by his party.

He will speak on the sanctity of life before conception, while holding in low regard the sanctity of life AFTER conception.

He will speak of the war on terror while the chief terrorists remain at large.

He will speak on the protection of marriage as defined between a man and a woman while endorsing economic policies that threaten to undermine the stability of those marriages.

He will speak of the "dishonorable service" of a man who received three purple hearts while defending his own honor as he remained stateside to avoid the war.

He will speak a message of hope while implementing policies that have removed that hope for so many.

respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish

Comments (Page 1)

Texas Wahine

on Aug 28, 2004

Oooh Gideon, this gets an insightful from me. All I can say is right on. This is a brilliant piece.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 28, 2004

thanks, texas. I just hope a few more people see it.

Abe Cubbage

on Aug 28, 2004

I liked it.

apdelong31

on Aug 28, 2004

I sure did!!! Great work!

I'd like to see not only during the convention but up until election day how things play out as far as protection of marriage is concerned. After all, it was only four days ago that Cheney said "freedom means freedom for everyone" and "People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

It's good to see some kind of uniformity amongst the administration.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 28, 2004

I'd like to see not only during the convention but up until election day how things play out as far as protection of marriage is concerned. After all, it was only four days ago that Cheney said "freedom means freedom for everyone" and "People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

Yes, although it's odd that his daughter, who is a lesbian (and a good part of the reason why Cheney made that statement) works for the reelection campaign of the President who is so willing to shut that right down.

OckhamsRazor

on Aug 28, 2004

I'll be the odd man out, Gideon. These sentiments, in my mind, are the sentiments that cripple the very people you feel sorrow for. Not that I think conservative policies are better.

NO political fortress will ever solve the plight of the homeless, (I believe your buddy Jesus said something similar), and to imply that some set of policies is going to save them serves to addict them to hope and more specifically to the ones that SELL hope at the end of a voting lever.

I wear no hats, liberal OR conservative. I recommend everyone take off what hats they wear and realize a simple fact. If the way WE as a people are doing things is not working, then the only sensible thing to do is something different. That's pretty logical, right? ANYthing different will have a better chance of success than a replication of an action that is proven to fail won't it?

Is it not clear that Partisanship only causes the yo-yos running for office to say anything and everything to get elected? It's not them causing these stupid election wars, it's us. It's people who refuse to think - people that just listen to some other guys' ideas (parents, peers) and says "Yeah, me TOO!" The fight for votes is no longer a supplication to the thinking people to observe a plan of action and judge its merits and to vote accordingly - now it's a fight to trick the most idiots into thinking that politician A is going to solve an unsolveable problem better than Politician B can. Hello...the problem is UNSOLVEABLE...why aren't the red flags going up? You Are Being Lied To.

Please beware ANY replicated method of swaying minds to one side of an issue or another. SADLY, the swaying often works, but the RESULT of that swaying proves to be empty. Know why? Well just what quality of decision making would you expect from a mind that was swayed?

This article is beneath you, Gideon. Do yourself a favor and trade in the "liberal hat" for a "thinking cap" or you run the risk of suffering the fate of the easily swayed, and as a bonus prize, the negative karma (or moments in hell, if it please ye) usually reserved for the one's doing the swaying.

Respectfully returning your submission with red ink,
Ock

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 28, 2004

wow, that was rather harsh, ock...and I think you miss my point.

My point was not about how the Republican party should necessarily change their platform to suit their electorate, it was about the inherent hypocrisy of their talking points. I believe such is equally applicable to the Democrats.

Yes, there will be poor always with us. I don't believe, however, that the solution is in the socialist mindset, but rather in encouraging civic responsibility in remedying these problems. The comment about the "liberal" hat was mildly sarcastic, as to denote that that was where the article would hit home the most. You took too much out of that comment and too little out of the rest of the article.

I don't think that such articles are beneath me any more than my "burning bunnies" article was. The purpose of my blogs are, as stated in the site description, to encourage free thought and discussion.

Thank you, though, for your candor. I do appreciate it.

OckhamsRazor

on Aug 29, 2004

My point was not about how the Republican party should necessarily change their platform to suit their electorate, it was about the inherent hypocrisy of their talking points. I believe such is equally applicable to the Democrats.

If I search your blog will I find a similar article that took place at the time of the DNC?

Yes, there will be poor always with us. I don't believe, however, that the solution is in the socialist mindset, but rather in encouraging civic responsibility in remedying these problems.

There is NO civic responsibility to encourage. There is civic charity. You are NOT responsible for MY plight, and I would refuse your or anyone's help because taking that help causes a greater plight. My own devaluation. Read: "I am less without your help." This is the hidden outcome of "social" thinking. Well - not so hidden - go talk to some russians.

The comment about the "liberal" hat was mildly sarcastic, as to denote that that was where the article would hit home the most. You took too much out of that comment and too little out of the rest of the article.

As for the rest of the article, it was about 5-6 points slanted to make Republicans seem like hypocrites with absolutely no representation of democrats being hypocritical, too. Saying it after the fact in a response doesn't count.

I think I read every bit of your article. The part in the words, and the part between the lines. What is NOT said is as much a part of a statement as what is said. There was a LOT you did not say, and whether you like it or not, it gave me offense.

The purpose of my blogs are, as stated in the site description, to encourage free thought and discussion.

Try for original and equal thought if you're just sitting around one day and feel like a new experience. The only discussion you got (I don't count people drooling "insightful" on you for saying something that has been said a billion times already as "discussion") was from me. And your "encouragement" of it was to tell me you thought it was harsh and that I had not read your article properly.

As for harsh, I found your intimating that ANY man holds in low regard the sanctity of anyone's life to be harsh. And irresponsible. And wrong. And Self-righteous. I would never say this of Bush, Kerry, or anyone I know but a psychotic. It is an ignorant implication for which you are directly responsible. By saying these and other things in this public format you have dropped the pebble in the pond. You are now responsible for the ripples. Are you 100% sure your logic is sound or did maybe the excitement of this public format occlude momentarily the very real responsibility of the effect it has?

Thank you, though, for your candor. I do appreciate it.

Why?

WiseFawn

on Aug 29, 2004

I am so glad you pointed me to this and I'm giving it an insightful.

"He will speak a message of hope while implementing policies that have removed that hope for so many."

oh, ain't it the truth!!

bakerstreet

on Aug 29, 2004

"He will speak of the "dishonorable service" of a man who received three purple hearts while defending his own honor as he remained stateside to avoid the war."

About as logical as someone who calls himself a war hero and then condemns the "atrocities" he, himself, committed. I doubt that the world will agree that burning villages and killing livestock was somehow a morally superior way to spend the Vietnam war. If I were an anti-US propagandist, I think it would be much harder to spin fraternaty shenanigans.

OckhamsRazor

on Aug 29, 2004

oh, ain't it the truth!

No, it ain't the truth. It would be very simple if it were the truth. The average trend in the polls shows them locked in a dead heat. (Citation: Rasmussen Reports) Now if these statements were so much the truth, then shouldn't this be a Kerry landslide?

But Wisefawn, I'll let you prove me wrong. Let's see your evidence on policies that George Bush implemented that removed hope from all the people you claim it has. Drop your pebble, too. Note: It has to show a net "hope loss." If the policy removed hope from one person but gave hope to two, that is a net hope gain.

Deference

on Aug 29, 2004

Very good Gideon, and very true. I particularly liked the rythm you achieved near the end of the post.

Deference

on Aug 30, 2004

Meet the new Boss....
Same as the old Boss......

I'd like to agree, on this bit, little whip. So what are people fighting over, is it for the hope that possibly, one's favored candidate will more accurately represent their interests? We know about the pandering to the base than the immediate run to the mainstream middle. The trick to this shell game is the lack of a basis of comparison. If you have one, you can't prove that the other would necessarily have followed the same course of action since there is only one position. This doesn't stop some (okay, ME) from wondering just how differently situations would have been handled by different leaders. The candidates themselves don't seem to distinguish enough from each other in their positions to truly paint an accurate "what if" picture.

Furry Canary

on Aug 31, 2004

From a (possibly) less contentious angle ...

one of the greatest Christmas songs of all time ("Do They Know It's Christmas?")

Gideon, you need to expand your Yuletide listening. I accept that the Band Aid effort was well intended, but a great song - I think not. (Oh, and the answer to the question in the title? No, actually they didn't - most of them were not Christians.)

ShoZan

on Aug 31, 2004

Serious Note:
Only problem anyone is going to have with a war on terrror, is that there are no central leaders like a war on a nation. So, Osama don't control much at all, US Congress, President, Media, etc. are to blame for blowing up his image and saying he was the leader. If they woke up and realize that terror groups never have one leader, nor do they have a centralized leader. I.R.A. during it's more active years (don't know how active they have been very recently), probably lost many leaders, but they kept going, same can be said for other terror groups.
You take out the supposed leaders who speak out, problem was they are replaced just as easily. This war on terror is a lot harder than most want to believe, because to fight this war on terror, you have to fight an enemy who can be anywhere, who has no central leader, and is willingly to do inhumane things to shock people against you, or to make you give in to them. Problem from giving in, they decide to take more later on, cause the first time worked. All sides need to wake up that fact.

Less Serious Note:
Jingle was well done. Yes, problem with both sides, as I have read a little from replies, is how we deal with the homeless situation, but if we try to pull American assets out of foreign countries to help with the problem, than the UN is pissed at us, so it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation (Catch 22). Can we expect more jingles close to election time, that would be great.
You could add the fact that both parties want to make sure every vote counts, but won't even look into the situation of voter fraud, and American Military personnel not getting to vote.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!