Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Padriag Don'tcha just love it when something you've said is variously labeled as fascist, conservative and liberal... by various groups who happen to disagree. The problem is that sometimes the label is the goal and desire. Society labeled Hester an 'adulterous' and labeled her with an 'A'. The society majority saw that as negative. You think that represented 100%? You think her the only adulterous adult in the community? Better yet, think that some woman and men envied the label or at least what it implied? Labels inhibit free speech, but the FEAR of being labeled is powerful. It is this fear which is a source, and cause of misinformation and results that inspire 'conspiracy theories'. Consider the current Presidential race of Senator Obama. His background disclosed thus far, anticipating more to come, would have eliminated from consideration any other candidate. Either he was totally naive and ignorant to what was being represented by his Church and self identified 'Mentor' pastor; or he was and is in agreement. Neither answer would be acceptable if coming from any candidate who's run for this office in the 20th century. We're a country who eliminated a VP candidate because in the past he went to see a psychiatrist. Yet Senator is still the front-runner for his political party. Polls say he is favored and preferred over Senator Clinton and Senator McCain. When the results are tallied in November and they don't hold up to the polls a new conspiracy will be born. Reality is, the inhibition of free speech of pointing out the Senator's lack of credentials, experience, and past judgment is the cause. Who wants the risk the potential of being labeled with the scarlet letter 'R' or 'B'. Behind the closed doors of a ballet booth it is much easier to practice free speech expressed in casting a vote. Private hypocrisy needs little rationalization. Ironic that a political party, both guilty of handing out labeling letters but in this case seeing the potential of doom, is now trapped. Worse for them, their other candidate, with similar criticism averting labeling issues; brings out more doubt in the ability of the person expected to be the parties standard-bearer. Setting up a situation of opportunity for another four years of status quo with the expectation of more PAC driven and benefiting PAC policies. Similar to a blind application to universities wouldn't it be better to not consider anything but the raw data and not care or know the race, age, or creed of the candidates? Of course not - because that 'free speech' just doesn't consider 200 years of bias and social injustice; because accepting below acceptable standards makes up for that history and accepting mediocrity is rationalized under the banner of 'change'. In defeat it spawns conspiracy and a VERY funny rationalization; "we're not like them".
|