Speedy's Cafe - General Chat about anything you like!

[Arcadia]

I love the Darwin Awards! :D
 
The Justice Scalia thing is big only for people who care whether the US Supreme Court (the highest court in the land) becomes more liberal or not. Scalia was considered a conservative; so in theory, because Obama is a "liberal" (he's not, he's a moderate, but liberal is what the conservatives call him because they think that makes him sound scary ), there is an opportunity here for Obama to nominate another liberal justice to the court.
 
The thing is, the conservatives who control Congress have to approve any nominee, and they're already announced they will do everything they can to prevent an Obama nominee from being approved. They are hoping they will win the next presidential election, and then they'll have a conservative president who will nominate a conservative judge to replace Scalia ... thereby maintaining the status quo.
 
In that case, the conservatives will end up running all three branches of government in this country -- Congress, President & Supreme Court -- and that could lead to some major changes in both domestic and international policy. Then again, maybe not -- I think they'd be surprised to find out it's not as easy to go backward as they would like. Hope so, anyway.

[Van Buren Supernova]

That is quite a..complicated system that has ability to go both ways, but it's never easy to run big country. I just hope it doesn't mess up ordinary people's life and your... US Sherlocked. :P

[Arcadia]

Well, actually, in theory it could -- the conservatives would like to do away with public television, which airs Sherlock here in the States, and helps fund the show. Less funding for Sherlock is a Bit Not Good, so I will definitely be voting against all conservatives in the fall. :D

[Carol the Dabbler]

... because Obama is a "liberal" (he's not, he's a moderate, but liberal is what the conservatives call him ....

Speaking as neither a liberal nor a conservative, I must side with the conservatives on this one.  "Liberal" and "conservative" are presumably relative terms. ( If you don't see it that way, please tell me how you define them in absolute terms.)  Therefore, there must be some liberals and some conservatives in this country (as well as probably some moderates or centrists or whatever you want to call them).  If Barack Obama is not an American liberal, then pray tell who is?

 

Seems to me the Democrats want us to think the country is divided roughly 50/50 into moderates and right-wing extremists.  Sorry, but relative terms just don't work that way.

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

That is true about relativity. Almost everything is sort of relative.

 

My hobbies are considered crazy by some regular friends, but when I hang out with the professionals, it's nothing.

Same that my obsession with Sherlock would be considered crazy among friends, if they knew, but here, it's kind of tiny bit mild? :P

[Arcadia]

 

... because Obama is a "liberal" (he's not, he's a moderate, but liberal is what the conservatives call him ....

Speaking as neither a liberal nor a conservative, I must side with the conservatives on this one.  "Liberal" and "conservative" are presumably relative terms. ( If you don't see it that way, please tell me how you define them in absolute terms.)

In American political terms, I assume you mean? Political liberals believe government should be a force for promoting equality and equal opportunity. Political conservatives believe the government should stay out of it, and let market and social forces determine opportunity. Moderates, such as Obama and Mitt Romney, tend to favor a mix of the two.

 

Therefore, there must be some liberals and some conservatives in this country (as well as probably some moderates or centrists or whatever you want to call them).

Did I imply there weren't? Didn't mean to. Just trying to explain why Scalia's death is being discussed as a potential turning point in the Supreme Court; he was considered a conservative, and might be replaced by a liberal.

 

If Barack Obama is not an American liberal, then pray tell who is?

Off the top of my head? Well, for starters; Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Barney Frank, Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Joe Solmonese, Henry Waxman, my sister, my friend Liz, most actors, Alan Grayson, John Lewis, Al Sharpton, and, uh ... a lot of the artists I know. All more ideologically pure than Obama or either of the Clintons.

 

Seems to me the Democrats want us to think the country is divided roughly 50/50 into moderates and right-wing extremists.  Sorry, but relative terms just don't work that way.

And the Republicans want us to think conservatives are the vast majority, when in fact about it's about 40% who self-identify as conservative. Probably explains why everyone is so cynical about politics ... too many spin-meisters!

[Arcadia]

 

Same that my obsession with Sherlock would be considered crazy among friends, if they knew, but here, it's kind of tiny bit mild? :P

 

Oh, you think so, do you?

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

If Barack Obama is not an American liberal, then pray tell who is?

 

Off the top of my head? Well, for starters; Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Barney Frank, Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Joe Solmonese, Henry Waxman, my sister, my friend Liz, most actors, Alan Grayson, John Lewis, Al Sharpton, and, uh ... a lot of the artists I know. All more ideologically pure than Obama or either of the Clintons.

Hey, I never said he was a purist!  (Though I suppose that's a relative term as well.)  I'm sure not gonna argue with any of your sterling examples, but I'd still put Obama well to left of center.

 

Seems to me the Democrats want us to think the country is divided roughly 50/50 into moderates and right-wing extremists.  Sorry, but relative terms just don't work that way.

 

And the Republicans want us to think conservatives are the vast majority, when in fact about it's about 40% who self-identify as conservative. Probably explains why everyone is so cynical about politics ... too many spin-meisters!

Quite true about both the spin-meisters and the Republicans.  Of course, assuming your 40%-conservative figure is accurate, that doesn't automatically mean that the other 60% self-identify as liberal.  As I'm sure you're aware, there's a large chunk in the middle (or off in some other direction).

 

[Arcadia]

No, I think it's something like 25% identify as liberal, the rest moderate. Here's one poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

[Carol the Dabbler]

No, I think it's something like 25% identify as liberal, the rest moderate. Here's one poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

 

That poll measures only the left-right political axis. leaving many people unable to answer.  I believe some polls are starting to include other options such as libertarian, and those polls should yield a more accurate picture.

[Caya]

Some analysts (and a few pollsters) round here have begun using a two-axis system, which makes a lot more sense imho, namely the social and the economical axis, adding up and down to left and right. So you'd have politicians and parties who are both social and economical liberals (the true "small government" type) or conservative in both areas (the "avid regulator" type), as well as those who are socially conservative, but not economically so (would be the Christian Right in the US, I think) as well as their social-liberal-economic-conservative opposites (most Democrats would be here somewhere, as well as basically every European politician ever from a US point of view, I guess ).

[Arcadia]

Interesting also, because here in the States, "avid regulators" is what the conservatives call the liberals, and "small government" types is what the libs call the cons!

 

I.e., in American politics, the Dems are considered the social and economic "liberals," meaning they favor using government intervention to promote social equality and regulate the economy. The GOP (Republicans) are considered social and economic "conservatives"; meaning they favor using the government to protect "traditional values", but not to regulate the economy.  The Libertarians call themselves socially liberal and economically conservative, but they are the true "small government" types, meaning they don't think the government should interfere in either area. That leaves us with socially conservative but economically liberal; hmmmm. I'm not sure we have anyone who claims that mantle.

 

But those are all how they and the media define each other ... the reality is a lot more complex, as it so inconveniently but usually is. And none of that addresses how the different sides view foreign policy.

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

Same that my obsession with Sherlock would be considered crazy among friends, if they knew, but here, it's kind of tiny bit mild? :P

 

Oh, you think so, do you?

 

You mean...even for this forum's standard...

I'm already ?

 

 

Have US been in this situation before?

[Arcadia]

I leave you to your deductions. :d

 

By "this situation", do you mean one ideology running all three branches of government? Hmmm, that's tough to answer, because the Supreme Court is by nature less ideological than the other two. They're supposed to make decisions based on law, not ideology, and even the "conservative" Scalia was known to make decisions that would be termed "liberal" by some. Or to put it more simply; I don't know! :d But it's certainly possible, I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened. Our nation hasn't always been as politically diverse as it appears to be right now.

 

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Some analysts (and a few pollsters) round here have begun using a two-axis system, which makes a lot more sense imho, namely the social and the economical axis, adding up and down to left and right.

 

That's the Nolan chart, which has been around since the late 60's, but was little-known here (except in libertarian circles) until recently.  Actually, it's still not all that well known here, but as you say, it's being used by some analysts.

[J.P.]

I think I just earned the prize for the slowest blind owl in the world.

I just read about Ian Hallard (Mark's husband) being in Sherlock.

I see every damn screw on the plane set but missed him!

[sittything]

BBC America is such a joke.  The Night Manager is airing in the UK tonight and it's not airing here in the States until April.  What exactly am I paying for again?

[Arcadia]

Re-runs of Star Trek: TNG, as I recall. :p

[Caya]

You're saying that as if that were a bad thing :P.

[Arcadia]

Paying extra for it is! :d

[Carol the Dabbler]

And it ain't exactly a British programme.  Apparently their rationale is that it stars Patrick Stewart, a British actor -- but how does that justify their running it up to ten times per day, in preference to actual British programmes (of which I am assured there are a few dozen in existence)?

 

[sittything]

I just wanted to watch Hiddles' new show... 

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

Anyone watched Spotlight?

[sittything]

Well, X-Files is official on hiatus now too. I'm getting really good at this hiatus thing.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

[Arcadia]

Anyone watched Spotlight?

No, but I'm seriously considering wasting my money on a movie this weekend. Recommended?

 

Well, X-Files is official on hiatus now too. I'm getting really good at this hiatus thing.

That was it? Geez, Sitty, what have you gotten me into?

 

I have to admit I didn't enjoy this last one as much ... for one thing, I missed it last week, so I was sort of lost, and they seemed to be trying to cram too much "epicness" into a one-hour episode. And too much of Muldur just lying around, battered. I like it best when they're working together.