The Legend of Howie.
22/05/08 00:01
I’ve been reading the
news back home again, which is never a good idea when
you’re traveling the way I do. Whenever I’m
introduced to something new I do my best to
understand it - to almost to a point of liking it.
This obviously has it’s drawbacks as I often will
neglect critical question in the pursuit of other
peoples views. But on the other hand; being
invasively critical never really opened any doors
either.
Well, reading the news back home got me pretty steamed about several things to be honest. But in the interest of keeping this little bundle of joy well under ten pages I’ll focus on one of the items: the news themselves. And oh the shame, the pity the horror...
When reading news in the danish online news community (which is the same as the newspaper), it struck me: this is just another case of Howie! And now you might ask (which would be fair), who in the name of santa’s dented old jingle bells is Howie?
Well you see, Howie is and old adversary of mine. He isn’t an enemy, just kind of a someone I bump into once in while. He comes in many forms and shapes - he has a lot of different meanings - often about diverse subjects. The one thing that seems to be the most special thing about Howie though: I’m the only one who knows he exists. He’s kind of an axiom in my life. He’ll guarantee me the validity of the world as an existing place constituted by real things, in the common sense meaning of course - which holds a certain duality to it, but that’s just Howie’s wicked sense of humor.
Whenever I see something happen, e.g. as a consequence of something else - like in the term causality - imagine a ball dropping, a cueball rolling into the eightball etc. I usually assume that it is due to physics. This is my common sense perception - or understanding of the world. It’s not moral, it’s not oppressive (I mean people are free to claim whatever the heck they want). I mean who cares why a cueball moves, it’s the fact that it does move that matters.
Well, it seems that the same perception rules in the news media in Denmark at the moment. They are very keen on reporting what s going on in the american elections - in fact you’re better of with their numbers than the american news stations, who as a matter of pride seem to serve either DNC or GOP. The danish media on the other hand seem hellbent on reporting things without having the slightest clue as to why they’re actually happening
Hello Howie!
Howie is the secret entity that screws over every visible fact due to misconceptions by the the percieving. Whenever people claim fact due to personal views, I just refer to it as agrument ad Howie. He is the unification of all things immeasurable claimed as part of fact. He is a sly son of a bitch that’ll trick you into believing something based solely on your personal views. He’ll make you assert that seeking inspiration or knowledge before passing judgement is irrelevant - you already know what you need to know.
He is the little bastard who whispers in your ear that those people are wrong and as such their misery is right. In his own right he would probably be a good speechwriter for the reverend Fred Phelps or other mongers of one sided rhetoric and hatred. And once again, I digress...
Back on track we go, sorry about that.
Well, the danish media have gotten into a really bad habit of analyzing everything from a danish point of view - even the mechanics of foreign states. It’s like they’ve been hit by a collective brain hemorrhage, or bitten by The Bat of Righteousness - who happens to be the sidekick of Howie (myth has it he used to be a solipsistic hermit, and flying round infecting people with the seal of the righteousness was a punishment from Howie).
Now in regards to who is winning - be it in eight ball or as the the topic in question: the democratic nominee race - stating who wins really wont take a genius. We know that one of them will eventually come out with the most votes, and we can be pretty sure if the eight ball is hit by the que ball, then it will be affected. It really doesn’t take particularly smart fellow to state this as a fact.
The thing is about these examples - they in themselves are not given motives, and are judged by the laws of causality (who ever wrote them I don’t know but I obviously claim Howie did - on the grounds that he told me). When trying to explain why people vote, or why they pass certain laws - we really need to stop listening to old Howie. He’s always offering his opinion about stuff he doesn’t really understand. Always telling you that it’s just like back home, or just like the time when you did the thing with the guy and everybody was like... You catch my drift, right?
The newspapers in Denmark will tell you that Obama just won this, and that Hilary just won that, but what they haven’t seemed to pick up yet is why the hell it happens. They really haven’t bothered to ask anyone - or as I hope: they haven’t yet found out that they’re wrong by ignorance. The thought of them not printing something due to complexity just pisses me even more off. They really haven’t bothered to analyze why people vote like do and as such leave their readers hanging on to the perception that things are the same.
Well hello Howie!
There is a general misconception that either you’re a rightwing powermonger with a lust for war or a reasonably thinking democrat who would love nothing more than to cuddle up with the growing (morally righteous) european powerblock. This isn’t really the case. I know Howie will say that republican beliefs are based on christianity - an argument actually used with force by George Washington when he left office in the late 18th century, when trying to establish a link to morality from the republic.
He will also tell you that in order to be a member of the Republican Party you’ll need to be a registered gun owner and have a verified disrespect for the value of human life - but an obvious undying love for the unborn. He’ll probably add to the fact that as such you’ll be a strong opponent of political nuances - because with only two parties someone has to.
Again - as this cannot be stressed enough - do not listen to him.
Within the parties are a multitude of voters and states. They all hold claim to several beliefs, but one is the core belief: no one tells us what to do. This stands universal with both democrats and republican voters. They don’t vote for the same things, but the people who I’ve had the pleasure of talking to all vote against one thing: the all powerful state.
The thing is that when applying your own morals to another system of beliefs (and no I do not condone the abuse of women or any other group that examples may provide), you will generally fail to understand - and with the failure to understand, you deprive yourself the basis for change - or at least a very important tool for change.
Understanding is not the same as accepting, this is an important thing to keep in mind. But at least trying without relying on the advice of old Howie seems at the very least a reasonable option, because claiming to be right by default - basically puts us back in ‘ye olde crusade days’, or at least could start a concern that we never really left.
Uhm, kinda lost track again - didn’t I?
The distinction here, in order to understand the issue becomes what one could refer to voting for positives or negatives. By positives one would be affirming what the right thing is by actually voting for it - we do it a lot in Europe. We gather around, trying to define some kind of common good, and then we pass laws to ensure that people do the common good. By listening to Howie we tend to get caught up in it. Howie becomes the validator of the right to pass laws, that dictate the right thing to do.
In the US the traditional method will be the voting of negatives; you vote for what people can’t do - but as stressed to a point of exhaustion: voting for what people have to do is an absolute, top of the line ‘no no’. The perception of a person voting for positives like universal health care, free education - the classic welfare state benefits, tends to be that the lack of these rights is an infringement of universal rights belonging to the individual - and as such anyone opposing these would be morally wrong. But again, that really is Howie whispering the sentiments of an insecure preadolescent fighting for what his hormones dictate is right into your ear.
The voter going for the negatives on the other hand would argue that the positive freedom of one man can be an infringement of the other. He’s not saying that he doesn’t want to help, just that he doesn’t want to be forced to help - or at least he doesn’t want anybody but himself to be able to define when and how to help. He doesn’t pass judgement in the sense that he wants everyone to do as him - but he argues that he at least should have the choice. He doesn’t tell Howie to get bent - nobody really does that. He does however accept the fact that Howie shouldn’t get to legislate - him being anything but the voice of reason and all.
In order to understand the american voter - republican or democrat - this is a critical notion.
And on that note I shall retire. I will be picking up this notion again but now Howie is once again holding my hand, and it’s time for us to share a cold beer and reminisce about the good old days.
Well, reading the news back home got me pretty steamed about several things to be honest. But in the interest of keeping this little bundle of joy well under ten pages I’ll focus on one of the items: the news themselves. And oh the shame, the pity the horror...
When reading news in the danish online news community (which is the same as the newspaper), it struck me: this is just another case of Howie! And now you might ask (which would be fair), who in the name of santa’s dented old jingle bells is Howie?
Well you see, Howie is and old adversary of mine. He isn’t an enemy, just kind of a someone I bump into once in while. He comes in many forms and shapes - he has a lot of different meanings - often about diverse subjects. The one thing that seems to be the most special thing about Howie though: I’m the only one who knows he exists. He’s kind of an axiom in my life. He’ll guarantee me the validity of the world as an existing place constituted by real things, in the common sense meaning of course - which holds a certain duality to it, but that’s just Howie’s wicked sense of humor.
Whenever I see something happen, e.g. as a consequence of something else - like in the term causality - imagine a ball dropping, a cueball rolling into the eightball etc. I usually assume that it is due to physics. This is my common sense perception - or understanding of the world. It’s not moral, it’s not oppressive (I mean people are free to claim whatever the heck they want). I mean who cares why a cueball moves, it’s the fact that it does move that matters.
Well, it seems that the same perception rules in the news media in Denmark at the moment. They are very keen on reporting what s going on in the american elections - in fact you’re better of with their numbers than the american news stations, who as a matter of pride seem to serve either DNC or GOP. The danish media on the other hand seem hellbent on reporting things without having the slightest clue as to why they’re actually happening
Hello Howie!
Howie is the secret entity that screws over every visible fact due to misconceptions by the the percieving. Whenever people claim fact due to personal views, I just refer to it as agrument ad Howie. He is the unification of all things immeasurable claimed as part of fact. He is a sly son of a bitch that’ll trick you into believing something based solely on your personal views. He’ll make you assert that seeking inspiration or knowledge before passing judgement is irrelevant - you already know what you need to know.
He is the little bastard who whispers in your ear that those people are wrong and as such their misery is right. In his own right he would probably be a good speechwriter for the reverend Fred Phelps or other mongers of one sided rhetoric and hatred. And once again, I digress...
Back on track we go, sorry about that.
Well, the danish media have gotten into a really bad habit of analyzing everything from a danish point of view - even the mechanics of foreign states. It’s like they’ve been hit by a collective brain hemorrhage, or bitten by The Bat of Righteousness - who happens to be the sidekick of Howie (myth has it he used to be a solipsistic hermit, and flying round infecting people with the seal of the righteousness was a punishment from Howie).
Now in regards to who is winning - be it in eight ball or as the the topic in question: the democratic nominee race - stating who wins really wont take a genius. We know that one of them will eventually come out with the most votes, and we can be pretty sure if the eight ball is hit by the que ball, then it will be affected. It really doesn’t take particularly smart fellow to state this as a fact.
The thing is about these examples - they in themselves are not given motives, and are judged by the laws of causality (who ever wrote them I don’t know but I obviously claim Howie did - on the grounds that he told me). When trying to explain why people vote, or why they pass certain laws - we really need to stop listening to old Howie. He’s always offering his opinion about stuff he doesn’t really understand. Always telling you that it’s just like back home, or just like the time when you did the thing with the guy and everybody was like... You catch my drift, right?
The newspapers in Denmark will tell you that Obama just won this, and that Hilary just won that, but what they haven’t seemed to pick up yet is why the hell it happens. They really haven’t bothered to ask anyone - or as I hope: they haven’t yet found out that they’re wrong by ignorance. The thought of them not printing something due to complexity just pisses me even more off. They really haven’t bothered to analyze why people vote like do and as such leave their readers hanging on to the perception that things are the same.
Well hello Howie!
There is a general misconception that either you’re a rightwing powermonger with a lust for war or a reasonably thinking democrat who would love nothing more than to cuddle up with the growing (morally righteous) european powerblock. This isn’t really the case. I know Howie will say that republican beliefs are based on christianity - an argument actually used with force by George Washington when he left office in the late 18th century, when trying to establish a link to morality from the republic.
He will also tell you that in order to be a member of the Republican Party you’ll need to be a registered gun owner and have a verified disrespect for the value of human life - but an obvious undying love for the unborn. He’ll probably add to the fact that as such you’ll be a strong opponent of political nuances - because with only two parties someone has to.
Again - as this cannot be stressed enough - do not listen to him.
Within the parties are a multitude of voters and states. They all hold claim to several beliefs, but one is the core belief: no one tells us what to do. This stands universal with both democrats and republican voters. They don’t vote for the same things, but the people who I’ve had the pleasure of talking to all vote against one thing: the all powerful state.
The thing is that when applying your own morals to another system of beliefs (and no I do not condone the abuse of women or any other group that examples may provide), you will generally fail to understand - and with the failure to understand, you deprive yourself the basis for change - or at least a very important tool for change.
Understanding is not the same as accepting, this is an important thing to keep in mind. But at least trying without relying on the advice of old Howie seems at the very least a reasonable option, because claiming to be right by default - basically puts us back in ‘ye olde crusade days’, or at least could start a concern that we never really left.
Uhm, kinda lost track again - didn’t I?
The distinction here, in order to understand the issue becomes what one could refer to voting for positives or negatives. By positives one would be affirming what the right thing is by actually voting for it - we do it a lot in Europe. We gather around, trying to define some kind of common good, and then we pass laws to ensure that people do the common good. By listening to Howie we tend to get caught up in it. Howie becomes the validator of the right to pass laws, that dictate the right thing to do.
In the US the traditional method will be the voting of negatives; you vote for what people can’t do - but as stressed to a point of exhaustion: voting for what people have to do is an absolute, top of the line ‘no no’. The perception of a person voting for positives like universal health care, free education - the classic welfare state benefits, tends to be that the lack of these rights is an infringement of universal rights belonging to the individual - and as such anyone opposing these would be morally wrong. But again, that really is Howie whispering the sentiments of an insecure preadolescent fighting for what his hormones dictate is right into your ear.
The voter going for the negatives on the other hand would argue that the positive freedom of one man can be an infringement of the other. He’s not saying that he doesn’t want to help, just that he doesn’t want to be forced to help - or at least he doesn’t want anybody but himself to be able to define when and how to help. He doesn’t pass judgement in the sense that he wants everyone to do as him - but he argues that he at least should have the choice. He doesn’t tell Howie to get bent - nobody really does that. He does however accept the fact that Howie shouldn’t get to legislate - him being anything but the voice of reason and all.
In order to understand the american voter - republican or democrat - this is a critical notion.
And on that note I shall retire. I will be picking up this notion again but now Howie is once again holding my hand, and it’s time for us to share a cold beer and reminisce about the good old days.
|