Don't you think we live in a pretty liberal country, NNN? There aren't really any huge extremes in Canadian politics. I think you said it best in another thread, something like, we had a change of government, because the other one had been in power for too long. The main parties here, all seem to support the sort of things I'm interested in. Everything seems to go along just fine, regardless of who is in power. Maybe that attitude is lackadaisical, and it could be a result of seeing quite a few years of economic prosperity nationally. Anyway, there isn't any one particular thing that motivates me to get my citizenship and vote. I intend to, sometime, but there never seem to be any burning issues in Canadian politics. Even our politicians are as dull as ditchwater.
My political outlook is based on both the positive and the negative. There are a few issues about which I feel particularly strongly, and all else being equal those things are likely to govern my decisions. However, I might agree with just about everything that a candidate says yet if they disagree with me in those few key areas, I cannot in good conscience support them. So, perhaps I am shaped more by what I react against or dislike. Interesting.
Posts: 4468 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I first turned to my trusted Robert & Collins, which told me: "as dull as ditchwater or dishwater". The Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms agreed that both were used. The OED has en entry for "as dull as ditchwater", but not for the other one. Finally, the American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms tells us that although both forms are now in use, the original is "dull as ditchwater", dating from the 1700s, which only became dishwater in the first half of the 1900s, probably through mispronunciation.
I'm glad that's cleared up. I wasn't sure about the meaning of "mondegreen" since I'd never heard the word before and I suspected that the mis-hearing must have been by dg. As usual it was the damn yankees.
Hi Frank, I meant to use the term, "ditchwater," but then later, I looked it up, and saw that Americans say "dishwater." I do mishear things though; when you were all talking about mondegreens at the weekend, I went to a site for misheard lyrics. There's an England Dan and John Ford Cowley song that I have been hearing the wrong words to forever. The song is "I'd Really Love to See You Tonight" I thought they were singing, "I'm not talkin' 'bout the linen," but apparently it's "I'm not talkin' 'bout movin' in." A Collection of Humorous Mondegreens
I once dictated an opinion in a case in which I said " Happily, the plaintiff had only superficial injuries". The typist heard, and typed, this as " Happily, the plaintiff had only super facial injuries"!
She obviously had a cynical view of the attitude of her boss !
I realise the original topic was maybe as dull as a dishwasher, but...
quote:
Don't you think we live in a pretty liberal country, NNN?
I guess, but then there's this, for example: Insite. The Conservatives want to close the injection site on idealogical grounds, even though by any pragmatic measure its benefits outweigh concerns.
I like to think that it's that kind of ideological craziness that I react against. Whenever you find yourself advocating or doing something that defies common sense or decency, you have to question your ideology, not reality.
That kind of loopiness used to be the preserve of the far left, back in the day - "Waddaya mean the proletariat don't want to rise up! Of course they do - they just don't know it..."
However it's the right that seems to take ideology too far these days. Bush vetoed the expansion of S-chip on the ground of political philosophy, for example. And things were taken to the nth degree in Iraq - Baghdad year zero.
Of course there is something to be said for the idea of small government, and as few regulations as possible, with people standing on their own two feet. That's maybe what makes it so exasperating when it's taken to silly extremes. In practice, deregulation often just means corporations acting against the common good, blindly and selfishly. Those who genuinely can't look after themselves get hurt - it's notable that some libertarians have to deny the existence of mental illness and insist on children being treated exactly as adults legally, to bend the real world to fit their vision.
quote:
Anyway, there isn't any one particular thing that motivates me to get my citizenship and vote.
I did get my citizenship in Canada, and have voted Green. The Green party could well be a disaster if in power, not that that's likely, dictating 'top-down' lifestyle changes - but as a pressure group they're useful and can push things in the right direction, maybe.
The Green party could well be a disaster if in power, not that that's likely,
No, it isn't. Hell, the NDP will never likely be in power either...at least as long as Jack is leader. My bet would be that the Bloque has a better chance than the Greens.
Posts: 7646 | Location: On Vacation | Registered: 06-06-02
If you are drowning in the ditch-water after a car accident, you don't ask the paramedic if he went to medical school.
Thus I believe that politicians who are able to tap into your deepest fears and pains have an edge, regardless of knowledge or experience in handling them. Remember Bill Clinton's line, "I feel your pain" ? Clinton was a master at this (past tense).
Obama evokes excellent images of people in pain/trouble/fear/etc. He may not tell us exactly what he will do about the problems, but he is able to connect. When he does mention solutions, its always people we don't like who are going to foot the bill: big oil, rich guys, etc. This also makes a connection. McCain does not have the gift of connecting on that level.
People who are very good at sales and marketing know that people buy emotionally and make decisions intellectually. Part of the trick is to make them think the buying decision is intellectual.
We even buy water. In bottles. Sometimes at a higher cost than gasoline. And people even have their own favorite brands of water! The stuff has a 90% chance of either being more pure or of having fewer chemicals if you drink it out of the tap for a penny a gallon. Yet we intellectualize the emotional decision to buy bottled water.
And voting is a form of buying. We all like to think that we vote for someone based on his or her positions on the issues, don't we? These are used only to support the emotional behavior of buying into the candidate.
Posts: 7707 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
I think there's something to that idea that our basic emotions inform our political choices, however much we pretend to base things on careful thought. It maybe comes down to whether we value, on an instinctive level, tradition or innovation, respect for authority or iconoclasm, competition or cooperation, all the food piled in the middle of the table or everyone with their own plate and no sharing - and so on.
Even where a party's actions work against this basic desire (for example, does the calamity in Iraq really meet the perceived need to project strength and to answer potential threats aggressively, or was Blair's "third way" really such a warm and fuzzy compromise) we maybe still tend to go along with the image rather than the reality. Bush has demonstrated that the US army can be stymied by a few fanatics with Kalshnikovs, but he still talks tough, and Blair still has a nice smile.
