“For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to… The Outer Limits.”
“The Outer Limits” was a respected, but short-lived, science fiction television program from the early Sixties. Most episodes featured a “bear,” a monster of some sort, that provided the focal point for the show.
Our current political/social landscape has it’s own elements of “the Outer Limits.” Both sides, Right and Left, create their own “bears” to drive their ideological agendas. For the GOP, Tea Baggers and Libertarians the “bear” is the Federal Government. For Democrats and progressives, the “bear” is largely Corporations and Christian-driven social agendas.
Granted, the previous statement is a gross over-simplification, but the point is made. There are elements on all sides that push the limits by demonizing the institution or ideology that fuels their ire.
Currently, their is a war within the Republican Party that threatens to purge even slightly moderate members and to be seen even in the least bit willing to work with Democrats is a virtual death warrant.
To their credit, Democrats are much less ideologically driven, but we have our own “lunatic fringe” that can’t support any semblance of compromise. To be sure, some issues, Gay Rights for example, have no room for compromise, but not all issues are quite so clearly defined.
“Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.”
The above is the definition of politics from Wiki.
Well, do you see room for compromise on some issues, if so, what are they? Do you have your own personal “bear” or “bears” and what are they?
William Stephenson Clark
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
I wish we could all imprint that wiki definition into our psyches! We might actually get something done for all the people if we concentrated on ‘making collective decisions.’ What we think are the best ideas are tested only when we need to explain them to someone who disagrees. In defending them we prove or disprove their merit.
The fringes of both ends seem to have taken over, and they are encouraged by media. I’m certainly not going to say the media is slanted to the left — that’s another of the far right fringe talking points, but media does encourage the divide rather than deliver the facts that could lead to compromise. The day the Senate passed financial reform the news was all about Rand Paul and his missteps. Now, which is going to have a greater effect on American’s lives — a Kentucky candidate or financial reform? Sensationalism sells and the media is a big greedy corporation out to make money.
I really like the very creative way you introduced this topic! Thanks, Will!
“Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.”
—
How can we even have the political process if one of the two major parties stomps their feet and just says NO on everything?
When that happens, there is no way to even make a collective decision.
Republicans took a calculated risk on the fact that Obama and the Democrats would not have the guts to pass anything without their help and that they would be seen as failures.
And to give Obama credit, he did appear to be bending over backwards to court the Republicans to work with the Democrats (sometimes I thought Obama was being way too nice to them).
And yet the Republicans are still seen as being obstinate, hissy fit throwing, screaming and ranting little pains in the ass.
This is not the political process – this is just watching the Grand Old Party turn into the Grand Old Poopers.
And if that is their choice, then so be it. But I do not think the majority of Americans are all that pleased with the GOP as it is currently becoming smaller and smaller due to their litmus tests and loyalty pledges and they insist on only the ‘right’ people being ‘real’ Republicans.
Hopefully the midterm elections will turn out some incumbents that need to find the exit door – and that applies on both sides of the aisle. IMHO
In Idaho yesterday, the Tea Party favorite and Palin endorsed candidate in the GOP primary for a House seat got, landslided (new word) by 10 points by a mainstream Republican.
He now will face the incumbent Democratic representative.
The Party of No screams they have no opportunity to introduce their amendments, they have no opportunity to voice their opinions.
Uh Huh.
Laryngitis? Ran out of paper and pencils? Lost their computers? Aren’t invited to Meet The Press (vs. cancelling the appearance)?
If they are being stonewalled as they accuse they should be able to write to every newspaper in the land, they should be able to use specific examples instead of the generalities that fool no one except those already in agreement who are walking lock-step with them.
It all sounds like a whiny bunch of excuses and until they have ideas and solutions they’ll continue to be irrelevant at the national level.
Wsc- Where did you find the picture of my exwife and her mother? Scareyyyyyyyy
LOL And I was going to say how old the Outer Limits reference made me feel.
You know, I suddenly remembered that there was once a club here by that name. If it’s the one I’m thinking of… LMAO at an ancient memory.
Idaho yesterday, the Tea Party favorite and Palin endorsed candidate in the GOP primary for a House seat got, landslided (new word) by 10 points by a mainstream Republican.
I can get the two confused, it that the same mainstream Republican candidate that was plagiarizing his position points from other candidates. AND even when he was making a campaign speech, finally someone noticed it sounded familiar and then realized the guy was almost quoting Barrack Obama’s speech from the Democratic convention that brought Obama to national limelight!
But he is the mainstream Republican candidate since the Tea Party candidate’s campaign slogan is:
“Nuke their ass and take their gas!”.
There is another, the head of the North Carolina Republican party said that the Tea Party candidate is not fit to be dog catcher!
It seem the candidate during his divorce, his now ex-wife said he believed he is the Messiah, he found the Ark of the Covenant in AZ. AND Could raise the dead and tried to raise his dead Step Father!
Oh and that God is going to created the new Jerusalem in Greenland.
Beeaarsss…OH MY!
Good post WSC.
Well, I wore my brain out yesterday writing that column, trying to make it vaguely coherent while trying to present the idea in a unique manner.
I succeeded in blowing a brain gasket.
(It has since healed. There wasn’t much up there anyway.)
Anyway…………………… bears.
I have a bunch of ’em!
Bigotry is probably number one on my list, mainly because I just cannot understand it. No matter how hard I try, I just cannot wrap my mind around it.
Civil people can discuss and disagree on any number of issues, but when the discourse is tainted by bigotry, any hope of a rational debate is ended.
For example, gay marriage. One of the arguments that you hear against it is “if gays are allowed to marry, it demeans my marriage!”
Huh?
That debate point is clearly a smokescreen for an underlying bigoted attitude towards gay people. There is no escaping that fact, although the proponents of that line of thinking will talk themselves blue in the face, claiming that “they have nothing against gays!”
Yeah, right! And thus the conversation is effectively ended.
I am probably violating one of our rules, but I wanted to share this to underscore my point.
We had a new wannabe poster yesterday. I read her initial attempt and chose not to allow her to blog here with this:
“I consider gay marriage as nasty and most be criticizes. They do not believe in god and that is a horrible example for our children and for the future. It is very nasty to see a physically strong man with those feminine manners. Furthermore, who told them they can change the law of god?….I am pretty sure what they want is that the entire hemisphere become gay for their on benefit…..that is worst or comparable to terrorism.”
I my opinion, that attempt was merely spreading a hateful message that is inconsistent with the with the values of Pop Blog, thus my decision. An opinion is one thing, but hateful rhetoric is another.
I agree 100%.
I agree 200%! There is enough hate in this world that we can’t avoid it all, so let’s avoid every bit we can!
Generally speaking, I believe the state and it’s citizens have the right to decide what actions they want to sanction or not sanction. Marriage being of that sort of action. And gay/lesbian marriage, to my knowledge, has neve been sanctioned by any society.
However, just because one has the right to do something, does not mean one should excercise that right. I believe the state has an obligation to make something illegal only when 1) there is a identifiable danger to the state and/or society as a whole, and there is a need to limit that behavior on those grounds or 2) when there is a legitimite, identifiable danger to it’s citizens.
Gay/Lesbian marriage does not rise to either of those requirements. There really is no state’s interests in danger here, there is no danger to society as a whole, or as individuals. It should be allowed, without any restrictions not in place for hetero marriages.
There are far more important things to worry about.
If we were to outlaw bad behavior, then alot of those same holier-than-thou Republicans who want to outlaw gay marriage should be looking over their shoulders.
I agree with the statement that gay marriage is no threat to my marriage. And if you think that way, then perhaps you need to work on your own marriage and clean up your own backyard before you start on your neighbors.
Me and Griffin are the only two who can be a threat to our marriage. So far, so good! 😉 It’s because he is an exemplary man!
And he has the patience of Job – after all, he puts up with you, Fnord!
(And you know I am kidding!)
A little bit.
“Both sides, Right and Left, create their own “bears” to drive their ideological agendas. For the GOP, Tea Baggers and Libertarians the “bear” is the Federal Government. For Democrats and progressives, the “bear” is largely Corporations and Christian-driven social agendas.”
‘Pander’ Bears?
Good one, Daniel!
“If we were to outlaw bad behavior, then alot of those same holier-than-thou Republicans who want to outlaw gay marriage should be looking over their shoulders”
Umm. Technically speaking, it is, and to my knowledge, always has always been,”outlawed”. The desire for others to make in legal is the change desired. There is a huge difference there.
Maybe not in practicality, but in thought process. However, it is time to move forward and change the law. I see no reason to keep it. Gay marriage threatens neither the state, the society as a whole, or any individuals within the state. THe only reason any restrictions should be made on human behavior.
I much prefer living next to homosexual couple raising their children than some heterosexual couple who cheat, lie, steal and then demand the rest of society put THEIR religion on some pedestal as the religion of the land.
I have seen good and bad people in all walks of life. But the most insulting is when I see perverts sitting in the front row church pew, singing and praying like they are God’s chosen.
Can’t argue with that