Alice Klein's nonpartisan appeal

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

remind remind's picture

Now, in respect to Klein's article, I have some serious issues with her use of "My Canada", "our dreams of Canada" and her use of 'mean girl' tactics in order to get what point across exactly. Low brow people in rural areas are destroying her Canada it appears.

Klein paints a picture of those outside urban areas and PQ, as being not part of "her" Canada, and basically infers that they have no part in the dream of Canada that she holds, and even suggests that they, those damn non-urbanites, are blocking her dream of Canada.

Her words are divisively condescending and she is at best being immaturely deceitful. Of course she meant:

quote:

On the subject of cities, my Canada does not include Alberta or Saskatchewan. (Just kidding.)

If she did not mean it, she would not have included it, nor put it as a one line paragraph in her diatribe. "Mean girls" in high school do this type of immature nasty shit. Slam you, then say "just kidding", when both the victim and the perpetraitor know differently.

People in the center of the universe do not have dibbs on it being "their" Canada, nor for what their dream of Canada is. Not going to bother going into the obvious fact Toronto exists because the outlaying areas in ON and the rest of Canada, provide the means for it to exist. Which she apparently takes for granted and expects as her due.

Her attitude and others like, are what prompt those in the ROC to dislike what they see the "elitist" Canadian left, it is elitist and unfounded criticism. She is not doing anyone any favours by mouthing such anti-urban sentiments. They are divisive and mean-spirited and will do nothing to draw together a unified front against regressive politics.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well I certainly would not use the word "enlightened" to describe Klein's ideas. Is Alice Klein elitest? Most certainly. About as elitist as Heather Mallick.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Well I certainly would not use the word "enlightened" to describe Klein's ideas. Is Alice Klein elitest? Most certainly.[/b]

Glad we are on the same page then, in respect to Klein's lacks as a enlightened thinker.

Moreover, I would suggest that her deceitful strategic voting push, comes from her indwelling belief that the ROC is not entitled to vote how they want. And from this perspective it is easy to extrapolate that she actually believes non-urbanites are not even deserving of a vote, as they do not belong to "her" Canada. I guess that makes it all the easier for her to try and deceitfully deprive us/them of their/our democratic vote, doesn't it?!

Klein, through her words, appears to have a fundamental flaw of elitism, that supports her exclusionary beliefs, and which run counter to democracy, beliefs in equality and cooperation.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]You said something like I understand that the site is not an NDP site, BUT we are always under attack and being called partisan, and its not fair that these other people claim not to be aligned with any particular party, when its obvious to us that they must be affiliated to some organization, or another that is antagonistic to the NDP if not in fact, at least in practice and we can see this based on the fact that they persistently attack the NDP, and so therefore why can't we out them as Liberals or Greenies or whatever, and so on and so forth.

Basically you seemed to be saying that people should identify themselves, and if not that, others should be able to label them, based on the objective substance of their positions.

I choose not. Sorry.

I admit it was a little confused, but seemed generally to be an thinly veiled personal attack on some people who post here. It wasn't really nasty, but still not very nice. That is the way I read it.

Should have left it there so other people could have tried to take a crack at figuring it out.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


Nobody's calling you a Liberal shill, or even a slavish talking head for the Liberal Party.

And in case anybody's wondering, it's a violation of Geneva Conventions and cub scouts of Canada honour to refer to anyone who criticizes the NDP on a daily basis as a Liberal shill, or even so much as a slavish drone of the Liberal Party of Canada, or shill for any provincial chapter of said party, just to be clear. And so as Peter Sellers once said in character, back to The Partay.

triciamarie

And, it was always thus.

Talk of a coalition runs directly opposite to the prevailing received wisdom in NDP that Liberals are nothing but Conservatives in sheeps' clothing. Anyone who seriously proposes to coalesce these two parties is somehow going to have to get around the fact that the NDP are sworn blood enemies of the Liberals and have been since the days of the CCF. When the right united they didn't have that kind of history to overcome.

However, maybe this kind of discussion needs to play out, within the LPC as well as in NDP ranks, and as Wilf Day points out, also on the right, to show why an American-style two party system will not work here (if it does there) and drive home the necessity of electoral reform. In Canada there is no alternative.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]

Glad we are on the same page then, in respect to Klein's lacks as a enlightened thinker.

Moreover, I would suggest that her deceitful strategic voting push, comes from her indwelling belief that the ROC is not entitled to vote how they want. And from this perspective it is easy to extrapolate that she actually believes non-urbanites are not even deserving of a vote, as they do not belong to "her" Canada. I guess that makes it all the easier for her to try and deceitfully deprive us/them of their/our democratic vote, doesn't it?!

Klein, through her words, appears to have a fundamental flaw of elitism, that supports her exclusionary beliefs, and which run counter to democracy, beliefs in equality and cooperation.[/b]


And it was that "fundamental flaw of elitism" that I was attempting to reveal in using [url=http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1992----02.htm]manufacturing consent[/url].

quote:

QUESTION: When we talk about manufacturing of consent, whose consent is being manufactured?

CHOMSKY: To start with, there are two different groups, we can get into more detail, but at the first level of approximation, there's two targets for propaganda. One is what's sometimes called the political class. There's maybe twenty percent of the population which is relatively educated, more or less articulate, plays some kind of role in decision-making. They're supposed to sort of participate in social life -- either as managers, or cultural managers like teachers and writers and so on. They're supposed to vote, they're supposed to play some role in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on. Now their consent is crucial. So that's one group that has to be deeply indoctrinated. Then there's maybe eighty percent of the population whose main function is to follow orders and not think, and not to pay attention to anything -- and they're the ones who usually pay the costs.


Further, [i]the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media[/i], and use what he calls "a propaganda model".

For some reason Klein appears to think that the GTA saved the rest of a Canada she envisions. I see that as myth making. Why did she not move beyond the border of the GTA, and for that matter beyond northern Ontario?

Polunatic2

quote:


in respect to Klein's lacks as a enlightened thinker.

In other words, she's not an NDP partisan, therefore she's unenlightened (or just plain stupid). Enlightenment must mean doing the same things over and over and over again even if they'll never get you where want to go.

When will Klein be appointed as a conservative senator like E May and B Hargrove? Since they're destined to become Liberal senators according to some here, and since the conservatives and liberals are one in the same, can we expect an announcement soon?

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

I think what Alice recognized, as well as Cueball, is that there is a "mathematical basis in regards to future agendas to "decisive leadership of this country" under a "stronger minority government."

That one would consider that under let's say,"a Health care plan," any idea of stopping "for profit healthcare is doomed" other then to consider the legal implications of this and the taking to task of the denigration of the Heath act by government lack of wanting to uphold these kinds of laws for all Canadians.

This mathematical basis would then recognize that it would "need Quebec to assert it's right" not under the plan to self determination as a distinct culture and break away, but to enforce that it's citizens as Canadians would benefit from a plan that would reach beyond all borders of distinction, and to recognize the inherent right to equality across this country beyond partisanships of a political party.

Had Ducceppe believed the same way as he does for his "culture" that he would believe in a Canadian one, then it would have seen a rise in prosperity in terms of equality across this country and his leadership. "A breaking" of that strong minority government.

Best,

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Polunatic2:
[b]In other words, she's not an NDP partisan, therefore she's unenlightened (or just plain stupid). [/b]

If we're talking about her political savvy, I'll choose the latter, thanks.

And BTW, it's Alice herself who [i]claims to be[/i] an NDP partisan - which serves as "Exhibit A" for my case.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well from what I know of Alice, she would vote NDP were she in a riding that the NDP had a strong chance of winning, and vote Liberal in riding that was a tight race between the Liberals and Conservatives. That much is clear.

In this I think she shares a lot in common with a large number of NDP voters. The NDP is filled with a lot of Liberals like that. Perhaps the problem people are having is that she is not Partisans Partisan.

But again this is a debate about electoral mechanics, not progressive outlook. What seems to be being asserted is one must absolutely and unswearvingly show absolute devotion to the NDP at all times to avoid being slammed as a Liberal by the true progressives in the NDP, who will variously call for you to be banned from progressive discourse if you fail to argue the correct line on electoral mechanics.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

quote:


What seems to be being asserted is one must absolutely and unswearvingly show absolute devotion to the NDP at all times to avoid being slammed as a Liberal by the true progressives in the NDP, who will variously call for you to be banned from progressive discourse if you fail to argue the correct line on electoral mechanics.

It seems to me that it is primarily yourself making this assertion, and falsely attributing it to others.

Cueball Cueball's picture

You were the one who italized "claims to be" in your statement on her views about strategic voting -- clearly questioning the validity of that claim. Others have quite clearly enounciated the desire to see her removed from list of people published on this web site for the same offence.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Her offence is not, as you claim, a lack of partisanism, but rather illogic.

I am offended by her addition here for two reasons: I do not feel she meets the current standards of rabble.ca, and she already has an outlet for her mediocrity.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Maybe so. But there are lots of mediocre writers who publish here, and indeed within the NDP. They too also mostly have other outlets for their mediocrity, most in fact. Rick Salutin and Malick both do. But if that was the only issue why did you indicate that her position on strategic voting, might invalidate her "claim" that she is an NDP partisan:

quote:

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b] And BTW, it's Alice herself who [i]claims to be[/i] an NDP partisan - which serves as "Exhibit A" for my case.[/b]

It seems to me pretty evident that exhibit "A" in your case is that advocating "strategic voting" is enough to bring into question ones support for the NDP. Others have even argued that this is enough to bring into question ones "progressive" values.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Your answers are already here, scattered between the many dozens of your kneejerk posts in two and counting threads now. I invite you to actually read the many responses you have received. Several are quite good.

I'm done here now.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

This one, in particular, illustrates well why Ms. Klein is undeserving of our attention:

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Now, in respect to Klein's article, I have some serious issues with her use of "My Canada", "our dreams of Canada" and her use of 'mean girl' tactics in order to get what point across exactly. Low brow people in rural areas are destroying her Canada it appears.

Klein paints a picture of those outside urban areas and PQ, as being not part of "her" Canada, and basically infers that they have no part in the dream of Canada that she holds, and even suggests that they, those damn non-urbanites, are blocking her dream of Canada.

Her words are divisively condescending and she is at best being immaturely deceitful. Of course she meant:
If she did not mean it, she would not have included it, nor put it as a one line paragraph in her diatribe. "Mean girls" in high school do this type of immature nasty shit. Slam you, then say "just kidding", when both the victim and the perpetraitor know differently.

People in the center of the universe do not have dibbs on it being "their" Canada, nor for what their dream of Canada is. Not going to bother going into the obvious fact Toronto exists because the outlaying areas in ON and the rest of Canada, provide the means for it to exist. Which she apparently takes for granted and expects as her due.

Her attitude and others like, are what prompt those in the ROC to dislike what they see the "elitist" Canadian left, it is elitist and unfounded criticism. She is not doing anyone any favours by mouthing such anti-urban sentiments. They are divisive and mean-spirited and will do nothing to draw together a unified front against regressive politics.[/b]


ETA:
Okay, now I'm done.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

I don't dispute that in the general. In fact, I agreed with it almost immediatly, as you will see if you look at my post immediatly below that.

What is bugging my is this kind of thing:

quote:

And BTW, it's Alice herself who [i]claims to be[/i] an NDP partisan - which serves as "Exhibit A" for my case.

It appears that not conforming to the mainline tactic espoused by some NDP'rs is enough to bring into question your support for the NDP, and by exstension your progressive politics.

Heather Malick is also pretty much an elitest too, but there has been no call for her removal from the rolls of Rabble writers by NDP Babblers. In fact she she was solidly defended by many. No this particular treatement is reserved for Klein because she advocated strategic voting: it is exhibit "A".

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

quote:


What is bugging my is this kind of thing

It only bothers you because you can't dispute it. Which accounts for your constant judo attacks, trying to turn your opponent's advantage against them.

The problem you have is, it isn't about me. Or Heather Mallick.

It's about Alice Klein.

Bookish Agrarian

I could care less about Klein's view of the NDP, probably about a grand total of 6 people will be influenced by it.

What I am troubled by and as remind has pointed out her view of Canada, and it would seem her own province is of the intensly navel gazing type and really isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up.

As someone who has spent a good deal of their adult life fighting this kind of prejudice, found on both sides I find her snide, ill-informed rural bashing, if just by default dispiriting, but hardly surprising. It is this kind of clap trap that we find rampant in our current provincial government and is at the heart of why many rural Canadians turn their backs on progressive parties. It is not because they identify with Conservatives, but call someone a dipshit redneck a few times and they pretty much will stop listening to you.

Ms Klein like her kind doesn’t actually see what is going on around her. The GTA in fact saw close to one third of all votes cast being marked for the Conservatives. Large gains were made in Conservative vote all across the GTA.

It is time for the Ms Kleins of the ‘progressive’ side of politics to stop looking in their navel so much and have a wee little look in the mirror instead. With a good look they may find many of the answers as to why many parts of the hinterlands and their own backyards are turning away from ‘progressives’ in increasing numbers.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Now of course Malick can go "off" about the "white trash vote", but that's AOK, because its an attack on the right.

quote:

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]It only bothers you because you can't dispute it. Which accounts for your constant judo attacks, trying to turn your opponent's advantage against them. [/b]

Huh? What I can not dispute is that Klein is an elitist. And guess what? I did not. I agreed immediatly. You are merely deflecting attention away from the attempt at asserting the NDP as the norm of what defines progressive. That is all.

Again, you have yet to explain this comment.

quote:

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b] And BTW, it's Alice herself who [i]claims to be[/i] an NDP partisan - which serves as "Exhibit A" for my case.[/b]

Even suggesting that one disagree on something as miniscule as political tactics is enough to have ones progressive credentials questioned. I disagree. I disagree for a lot of reasons. One reason I disagree is that happen to think that supporting the NDP is a political tactic, which supposedly has political ends.

Just because I don't necessarily see supporting the NDP as it stands today as a useful political tactic, that does not mean that I think being in the NDP makes one not progressive. That judgement, should be made on the basis of the beliefs of people on an issue by issue basis, not their tactical accumen.

Again, why does Klein's advocating for strategic voting, undermine her claim that she is an "NDP partisan"?

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]Further, [i]the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media[/i], and use what he calls "a propaganda model".[/b]

Well, her article certainly can be perceived to serve as a function of propaganda shedding, as it plays to a very narrow group, that would be part of the 20% political class to which Chomsky refers. I won't refer to it as propaganda pushing, as IMV, it is far more subtle than that and can be seen as more of a oblique dropping of divisive propaganda elitism, as opposed to pushing it.

Had her article remained in her little center of the universe magazine, it would have had little or no impact, in the antional world. However, she was able to reach a broader audience through having it published on Rabble. Thus it "now" serves as chill for those across the ROC, who are not urbanites in the larger sense of the word. Who knows, if it was intentionally geared to be a wedge for further polarization, as opposed to being just short-sighted geocentric elitist tripe.

quote:

[b]For some reason Klein appears to think that the GTA saved the rest of a Canada she envisions. I see that as myth making. Why did she not move beyond the border of the GTA, and for that matter beyond northern Ontario?[/b]

Yes, I concur that it appears to be an attempt at myth making. That it does not pass surface tension inquiries, matters little, it is the immediate effect it has upon those in urban centers, who wish to believe they are the voice of Canada and it's saviours.

This aspect of it, is especially egregious for those in the ROC who have valid complaints about urban centers in PQ and ON deciding their fortunes and being dismissed as the great unlettered and unwashed. We saw people come on here after the election and erroneously blame the farmers for putting Harper into power again. So we can safely presume that her words will feed this regressively harmful sentiment.

Conceptual frameworks of the type that she tried to build, actually have the potential to further deploy anti-elitist mindsets, as well as western separation advocates. She in essence appears to believe, or at least is subtly indicating, that the west should separate, as it is we who are destroying "her Canada". Oops, I was too broad in that, as she only fingered out Saskatchewan and Alberta, to bash.

Alternative left media IMV, should be trying to minimize the marginalization of the left in the ROC, as opposed to fostering it. Though I suppose that depends on the actual mandate of said alternative media.

Aristotleded24

quote:


Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
[b]I could care less about Klein's view of the NDP, probably about a grand total of 6 people will be influenced by it.

What I am troubled by and as remind has pointed out her view of Canada, and it would seem her own province is of the intensly navel gazing type and really isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up.

As someone who has spent a good deal of their adult life fighting this kind of prejudice, found on both sides I find her snide, ill-informed rural bashing, if just by default dispiriting, but hardly surprising. It is this kind of clap trap that we find rampant in our current provincial government and is at the heart of why many rural Canadians turn their backs on progressive parties. It is not because they identify with Conservatives, but call someone a dipshit redneck a few times and they pretty much will stop listening to you.

Ms Klein like her kind doesn’t actually see what is going on around her. The GTA in fact saw close to one third of all votes cast being marked for the Conservatives. Large gains were made in Conservative vote all across the GTA.

It is time for the Ms Kleins of the ‘progressive’ side of politics to stop looking in their navel so much and have a wee little look in the mirror instead. With a good look they may find many of the answers as to why many parts of the hinterlands and their own backyards are turning away from ‘progressives’ in increasing numbers.[/b]


Exactly. For one, I'm quite sure that many votes in the NDP seats in northern Ontario and BC came from people not living in the major population centres. As for her claim that "cities" saved Canada? Hogwash. Yes the Liberals did well in the GTA and Montreal, but you don't need to win any seats there to form the government. Harper knows this better than Klein, and that's why Harper continually ignores Toronto's needs. It's also nonsense that the Conservatives don't appeal to people in cities, unless she's prepared to argue that places like Saint John, Fredricton, Quebec, Ottawa, Kitchener, London, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver (places where Conservatives either did very well or picked up seats) aren't cities?

Toronto has a distinct reality from the rest of the country, and that's fine. What is not fine is when that reality is held up as if it speaks for the whole country when in fact it does not.

janfromthebruce

I just this question and answer page from Chomsky because it appeared "to fit" with that supposed "left" elitism.

quote:

QUESTION: When we talk about manufacturing of consent, whose consent is being manufactured?

CHOMSKY: To start with, there are two different groups, we can get into more detail, but at the first level of approximation, there's two targets for propaganda. One is what's sometimes called the political class. There's maybe twenty percent of the population which is relatively educated, more or less articulate, plays some kind of role in decision-making. They're supposed to sort of participate in social life -- either as managers, or cultural managers like teachers and writers and so on. They're supposed to vote, they're supposed to play some role in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on. Now their consent is crucial. So that's one group that has to be deeply indoctrinated. Then there's maybe eighty percent of the population whose main function is to follow orders and not think, and not to pay attention to anything -- and they're the ones who usually pay the costs.


[url=http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1992----02.htm]source[/url]
Like Agriarian [sp for sure wrong], she can be ignored somewhat, but not necessarily. When Klein does "her mean girl thing" she is actually talking about that 80% [i]whose main function is to follow orders and not think, and not to pay attention to anything -- and they're the ones who usually pay the costs.[/i]
Those 80% are her target audience for votefortheenvironment. These are the plebes she does not want to think how to vote or why, and just to follow orders, "follow the site."

I remember actually hearing people who were blogging or leaving messages on the site in different riding forums, telling viewers to "follow the recommendations" provided by the site. This way Alice and whoever she is representing get "her/their dream of Canada."

The reality for me was that this votefortheenvironment site actually reached more than 2 or 3%. It ended being platformed in the MSM and alternative media. So it may have had it's origin with the corporate owner of NOW but became virile.

And I can say that in Toronto downtown that her constant putdowns of one party (often subtle and in that mean girl way or just trying to be helpful but I really like you way) does have an effect on the outcome in those ridings.

janfromthebruce

And I would not say that Klein is non-partisan, as she has a very partisan view of what her Canada should look like.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: janfromthebruce ]

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
[b]Toronto has a distinct reality from the rest of the country, and that's fine. [/b]

We're a distinct society. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]We're a distinct society. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

We? [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]

Jack Layton likes to say "I'm not from Toronto, I'm from Montreal."

And Michelle says -- or used to say -- "I'm from Kingston." [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]I just this question and answer page from Chomsky because it appeared "to fit" with that supposed "left" elitism.[/b]

More from Chomsky:

quote:

CHOMSKY: Well, to say it doesn't make any difference who wins is simply to express your contempt for the general population, 'cause it does make a difference. A lot of what they say is correct: the two parties are effectively factions of one party, the business party, but the factions are somewhat different. And as I mentioned, over time the differences show up in benefits, working conditions, wages, things that really matter to people. So yes, there's a difference. It's a narrow difference, and the spectrum within the political system is well to the right of popular opinion, and certainly the public is well aware of it. So 80 percent of the population say that the government is run by, I'm quoting, "a few big interests looking out for themselves, not the population." And they can argue about the details, but the picture's essentially correct, and they don't like it. Nevertheless, there is some difference and you have to make a choice. If you're in a swing state, you have to ask: is this difference enough for me to pick the lesser of the two evils? And there's nothing wrong with picking the lesser of the two evils. The clichй makes it sound like you're doing something bad, but no, you're doing something good if you pick the lesser of two evils. So is it worth doing that? Or is it worth trying to act to create a potential alternative? For example, should I vote Green because maybe someday their party will be a real alternative? Should I express my disdain for the right-wing orientation of both parties by not voting, let's say? Or should I pick the lesser of the two evils, thereby helping people? Okay. That's a decision people have to make.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=004346]C... advocates vote for Obama in swing states [/url]

Bookish Agrarian

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]Yes, I concur that it appears to be an attempt at myth making. That it does not pass surface tension inquiries, matters little, it is the immediate effect it has upon those in urban centers, who wish to believe they are the voice of Canada and it's saviours.

This aspect of it, is especially egregious for those in the ROC who have valid complaints about urban centers in PQ and ON deciding their fortunes and being dismissed as the great unlettered and unwashed. We saw people come on here after the election and erroneously blame the farmers for putting Harper into power again. So we can safely presume that her words will feed this regressively harmful sentiment.

Conceptual frameworks of the type that she tried to build, actually have the potential to further deploy anti-elitist mindsets, as well as western separation advocates. She in essence appears to believe, or at least is subtly indicating, that the west should separate, as it is we who are destroying "her Canada". Oops, I was too broad in that, as she only fingered out Saskatchewan and Alberta, to bash.

Alternative left media IMV, should be trying to minimize the marginalization of the left in the ROC, as opposed to fostering it. Though I suppose that depends on the actual mandate of said alternative media.[/b]


Just when I think I am smart, I read something like this from remind and I realize I am not even in the same league. Woozers, go go go gadget less brain of mine go. That was really interesting remind!

janfromthebruce

I agree with librarian. Remind that was a good read Klein's. In the thread that I had originally started and you closed [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] , I knew her writings irked me this past year, but it wasn't till the election and her cooing of her new voting strategic site that I became pissed.

I actually think that she is very smart and uses her editorial position to move "readers" to certain positions that they might question if it was written in a MSM forum.

I agree with you. It is I guess my expectation that she is writing in a progressive forum or alternative press format, that I too accept her writing to be more encompassing. Maybe I am expecting an Amy Goodwin. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=004346]C... advocates vote for Obama in swing states [/url][/b]


thank goodness we don't live in a 2 party state! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Its not a two party state. Chomsky is quite clear on forwarding the notion that one might legitimately voter for Nader's Green party, under certain circumstances. However, Klein and Chomsky agree on the principle that one might in certain circumstances vote for "the lesser of two evils", against ones true beliefs. Should this not publish Chomsky as well, because he is not "progressive".

remind remind's picture

Glad it prompted you BA! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Extending on the propaganda shedding, that this article and indeed the votefortheenvironment, was able to do, I would like to point out a few things about the nature of propaganda and when it is best used.

People's ability to think critically/rationally, is directly proportionate to the state of stress they are experiencing. Scientifically it is represented by 2 bell curves, one inverse to the other, with 0 as the base line for both. As your state of stress increases, your ability to use cognative functions diminish at the same rate. People at the top end of the stress bell curve, have no ability to think critically, and would be at a state of absolute irrational behaviour. Real life example of this would be when someone who is drowning drowns their rescuer. They cannot calm themselves enough to realize that they are being rescued. At point 0 where no stress is felt, is when critical thinking is at its highest.

Going into an election, especially one where it is perceived that much is riding on the outcome, increases people's stress level, thus their level to think rationally instantly becomes impaired. What percentile it is differs amongst people, of course. The more stressors that are added in an election setting, the more people's ability to think critically becomes impaired. And they commence looking for something to decrease their stress.

This is where propaganda shedding, of the type I noted above, as well as others a bit more subtle, come into play, as control tools. Their sole function is to give people a place, or an action, where they can decrease their stress by feeling empowered that they are actually "doing" something to fix their internal stress. Not realizing the choices they allegedly are making have no basis in rational thought. They are either; accepting to do what they are told, or they are gravitating to what is "known", the 'unknown' will be pushed aside as being "too stressful" to contemplate.

Now after an election, when people are shocked, or numb, and at their most stressed, it is an opportune time to re-enforce former messaging and to further deploy divisive strategies, as people are more willing to accept them at face value, as opposed to looking for validity and truth.

Thus emotions are used, to create an internal climate/memory response where they can be used again and again at some future date. Evoke that memory response and you get the same result. It is this type of proganda shedding that needs to be blocked, or diffused, for a successful election, no matter what party it is. How the aftermath of the election is handled is an important factor for the next election.

Take for example cueball's post of Chomsky's, where he, Chomsky, is calmly deliniating the noble worth of choosing the lesser of two evils, as opposed to voting your choice, or not voting at all. It could be viewed as an oblique propaganda support of Klein's article and indeed for the whole votefortheenvironment campaign, though cueball used it to say Chomsky was advocating vote for Obama. It is the immediate perception and reaction that counts.

Such a quote, could be used a propaganda tool to sooth (decrease the stress) of those who wasted their vote by voting strategically, or for the lesser of 2 evils, as opposed to their choice. The unpleasant memory of their failure has to be turned into a positive perception in order for the same propaganda to work again.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]Glad it prompted you BA! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Take for example cueball's post of Chomsky's, where he, Chomsky, is calmly deliniating the noble worth of choosing the lesser of two evils, as opposed to voting your choice, or not voting at all. It could be viewed as an oblique propaganda support of Klein's article and indeed for the whole votefortheenvironment campaign, though cueball used it to say Chomsky was advocating vote for Obama. It is the immediate perception and reaction that counts.

Such a quote, could be used a propaganda tool to sooth (decrease the stress) of those who wasted their vote by voting strategically, or for the lesser of 2 evils, as opposed to their choice. The unpleasant memory of their failure has to be turned into a positive perception in order for the same propaganda to work again.[/b]


On the other hand it could be taken at face value as an assesment of strategic realities.

remind remind's picture

Yes it could be, but that is where rational thought can now enter into the equation.

As one needs to consider that the strategic realities are not/were not what was being promulgated by Klein et al, up here in Canada. Nor were her column words positive messaging, they were divisive, elitist and engendering of animosity though geocentric positioning, and thereby fostered emotional and regressive processing of information.

Notwithstanding of course is the fact that US politics cannot be superimposed upon the Canadian political scene, and have it remain a credible source to base future actions upon. Strategic value is a false conceptual framework, that contains very little, if any, pertinent application, because of the very different nature of the electoral process, say nothing of the fact we have a multi-party system.

The repeated failure of strategic voting in Canada stands as testimony to that truth.

Cueball Cueball's picture

But you analysis is based on the highly tendentious assumption that millions of people vote Liberal for "strategic" purposes, and would otherwise vote NDP. Pre-election polling have never, but once ever shown that the NDP should be able to win the governing position in Canadian parliment, and the reality is that many people just prefer the Liberal party over the NDP.

At best, strategic voting has been shown to shave off 2 o 3 percentage points off the NDP vote totals at the end of election night, when that is compared to campaign polling.

Perhaps the failure lies in the NDP, and not in the voters Remind. Just a thought.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]But you assumption is based on the highly tendentious assumption that millions of people vote Liberal for "strategic" purposes, and would otherwise vote NDP. Pre-election polling have never, but once ever shown that the NDP should be able to win the governing position in Canadian parliment, and the reality is that many people just prefer the Liberal party over the NDP.[/b]

Then why were Dion's Liberals instructed to vote [i]with[/i] the Harpers and [i]against the NDP[/i] on as innocuous a proposal as restarting the federal study on electoral reform? The NDP wasn't proposing the rollback of billions of dollars in tax cuts to fossil fuel companies and banksters with that one.

remind remind's picture

Funny, I thought we were discussing Klein's words and their impact. In fact, I looked back over my posts and saw nary a word about the NDP. As such, I am not going to participate in a bait and switch of my words now being used by you in a partisan way. I am specifically addressing Klein's words and actions, both during and post election and how propaganda plays out and is used in the public voting world.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Ok Remind. What "failure" are you refering to then? The failure of stratgic voting to produce a government led by the Reform Party, perhaps? Right wing Christians vote strategically too, you know.

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]Funny, I thought we were discussing Klein's words and their impact. In fact, I looked back over my posts and saw nary a word about the NDP. As such, I am not going to participate in a bait and switch of my words now being used by you in a partisan way. I am specifically addressing Klein's words and actions, both during and post election and how propaganda plays out and is used in the public voting world.[/b]

I'm getting the distinct impression now that what Klein wrote or didn't has nothing to do with it anymore.

ETA: And pardon me Remind, that wasn't meant as a subtle jab towards you, if that's what it looked like. You've made some interesting points here.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
Again, why does Klein's advocating for strategic voting, undermine her claim that she is an "NDP partisan"?
[/b]

This is one statement I can see some sense to though. Its not that an NDPer might not consider "strategic" voting for some overriding purpose, members have done it before in the municipal arena; it's the double edged sword of not even *getting* any tangeable offers from other supposedly left-of parties while getting blasted in the media by these same parties for not playing ball. By ignoring those already well known facts Klein is playing the role of agent provacateur for other parties competing for the left-of vote, and therefore is unlikely to be either serious in portraying herself as "NDP friendly", or as any sort of journalist to be taken seriously anywhere on the left.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Excelent. Strategic voting is a political tactic, not a political view. Chomsky advocates it in certain circumstances, and this in no way undermines his credibility as a "progressive" thinker. Making once choice of voting "tactic" fundamental to ones credentials as a member of the "left" is fundamentally an undemocratic imposition of party discipline. One might, for example assert that having a party at all, or joining one, or voting are merely tactics employed to achieve a specific aim.

I see no reason that any one group in the left should be able to assert that conforming to the tactic they espouse is the benchmark of admitance to a cause. Basically it is an attempt to "whip" the left.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Erik Redburn

Please stop trying to make everything I write as just another support for your supposed case. After all your twists and turns here its not even clear what youre trying to argue here or why exactly, except that you don't like the NDp, therefore I shall bow out of this one again and trust that others see it too.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I tell you what I am trying to argue here very bluntly. The NDP, and many NDP'rs have been insinuating, and in some cases directly saying that if you do not vote for the NDP, and for example, instead decide to vote "stratgically" you are not progressive. The attack on Klein for doing so is a case in point.

The campaign by the NDP to oppose "strategic voting" is not about ideas. It is about tactics. The NDP can advocate against strategic voting, and so could the Reform Party. Just because the Reform Party might have opposed strategic voting, because it was not in its best interests, does not mean that they were inherently "progressive".

The NDP does not have a sanctified monopoly on what is and is not progressive, sorry. Nor does it have the right to demand basically that all progressives must vote for it, or find themselves excluded from what we call broadly "the left."

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

I'll tell you rather bluntly: you are once again fabricating the motives of those you perceive as opponents. And it is getting rather sad to observe.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Do you believe that someone could vote for the Liberal party and still be "progressive"?

remind remind's picture

Frankly, I am arguing that Klein cannot be viewed as an illuminating progressive thinker/doer, because of the words and sentiment she expressed in her opinion piece here. As noted above by me.

Moreover, I would say that conflating her with Chomsky is an attempt to give her more validity, vastly more, than what she is do.

How about you cueball, find some quotes of Chomsky's whereby he dispargages vast segments of of a targeted population, uses divisive elitist terminology, and waxes on and on about HIS vision of America and how it should exclude all others? Or even one where he states that people should vote the way he determines they should, to bring about HIS dream of the USA? And then maybe I will consider your compare of the 2, as something more than utter fabrication.

Cueball Cueball's picture

The comparison just serves to show that there is nothing iherently "unprogressive" about strategic voting.

remind remind's picture

False dichotomy and an inherently flawed compare, sprinkled with shifting sands of positions made, now disguarded when they were illuminated as being false and flawed.

Klein herself has been exposed as being a regressive thinker/doer, she aligned herself with a partisan person, to advocate people vote strategically according to their dictates. Basically it was an attempt to "whip" the left vote.

As such, the way it was used by Klein et al is decidedly regressive in its propaganda intent and privileged belief that they knew better than the other unwashed masses did.

Like nuclear bombs there is nothing inherently destructive in them, until they are used upon others.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

[b]Remind[/b]:

quote:

oblique dropping of divisive propaganda elitism

Removing all names/political parties aside, I think if one did not deal with the "real issues" at the forefront of one's "Canadian Constitutional right" and no thought given to examine it under the light of "no borders," I do not know if this is thought to be, as per your above quote?

Is a "democracy index" a value assumption when held to "certain categories( of course these have to be examined)" and could be thought of as divisive, when it should be considered to be "a marker" for tools used to examine the rights of it citizens( "another choice" to a one world Government) across this globe??

Best,

Pages

Topic locked