...and in politics:
As opined by the Jew:
dealey77: SF politics is stuck on the 1960s youth culture, bohemian, ultra liberal, convinced it can save the world... however, the world moved on 25 years ago and thats why san francisco flails about like a retard, cut off from the rest of the world's political thinking... no other city in america, and very few in the world, take care of people in the same way... this city's establishment is obsessed with helping the downtrodden
... and overall I think he's right, with the possible exception of his use of the word "retard". I ask you, my K-bors and friends: Is this a good thing? Posed another way, as seen on SF Politics message boards: Is SF ahead of the curve or stuck in the stone age?
dealey77: SF politics is stuck on the 1960s youth culture, bohemian, ultra liberal, convinced it can save the world... however, the world moved on 25 years ago and thats why san francisco flails about like a retard, cut off from the rest of the world's political thinking... no other city in america, and very few in the world, take care of people in the same way... this city's establishment is obsessed with helping the downtrodden
... and overall I think he's right, with the possible exception of his use of the word "retard". I ask you, my K-bors and friends: Is this a good thing? Posed another way, as seen on SF Politics message boards: Is SF ahead of the curve or stuck in the stone age?
posted by Kolsky at 1:45 PM
3 Comments:
Since this was my thinking, I obviously think so.
I dont really have an opinion on whether or not its right for SF to be such a fuzzy wonderful city that spends so much money and taxes the shit out of its people to help the needy. That doesnt interest me
What does interest me is how the city is viewed from the outside and whether or not these values can be exported and extended into the greater political discourse.
I say no, america has moved on.
I think the ineffectiveness of the anti war movement is also related. Being anti war was only cool in the 60s in certain circles (albeit larger circles than today).
but that was due to the draft.
today's anti-war is moral, and morality is a twisted thing
Interesting that you see the anti-war movement as a moralistic one, because without necessarily disagreeing with you, I'd like to point out that the foundation of the war is built on similarly moralistic ground.
The rational for the war has changed, as we all have seen, over the last three years but I obviously has some strong moral compenents. However, the justifications for the initial movement (invasion) was not moral but a response to a perceived and/or created threat.
Morality on the large stage and in politics is never a call to action. Rather, its an afterthought or better yet, a rationale used to extend an action.
To make people move, you can never tell them whats right. you need to excite viscerally (yelling fire in a crowded movie theater). When they are outside the theater, angrily asking you where the fire is, then you bring out morals, saying you thought you were doing the "right" thing
Post a Comment
<< Home