'kay, so I realise this is the politics thread, but it occurred to me today that I should recommend this particular bit of old UK tv here, rather than in a TV thread.

Wizlette and I have been watching a series which aired in the 90s, called Our Friends In the North. (Vox may know of this, seeing as he likes his who, and this show features a young Eccelestone).

Anyhow, it was all very of its time in the 90s, and it's only now, rewatching it, that I'm impressed how politically relevant it remains over 15 years later. And it's not just that the politics lean any particular way. Yup, the british miners strike is there, and writ large. Yup, the UK's biggest social issue of the 60s and 70s, housing, is a significant plotline. Still, though, what amazes me is the depth of the characterisation, and how it reflects developing political viewpoints over decades. it runs from the 60s through to the 90s, and you'll get a nice crash course in siginficant developments in the UK, should you be so inclined. but like I said, that's not really the point. It's primarily political drama without being a policy wonkfest. a lot of it is about how people come to be conservative, radical . . . I really can't recommend it enough.

Y'all can probably pick it up on DVD. The accents are predominantly newcastle, so it's not too hard to understand. I'd wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who has a political opinion. especially jersey, cos he's starting out down the route of being part of a political machine.

Oh, and I mentioned ages back an exceptional piece of theatre about a scottish regiment in iraq out of the UK called the black watch. I know it was briefly in New York, and then back here again. well, they're all wetting themselves about it down south, and again, if you have any political viewpoint, you do yourself a favour to seek it out if it comes stateside once more. It's a powerful portrayal of soldier's voices. I remember when I came out, I literally could not speak for five minutes. it's fucking incredible writing, and like the best art, should inform how you look at the world. so please, please, keep an eye out.

You too, vox!

latest review here.

The absolute worst part of going home is everyone talking to me about politics. Especially the liberal family members who get in their digs, and I know it's not worth it to respond in kind.

I've been trying to talk to people about the Rays this weekend just to change the subject, whenever folks bring up politics. It's worked a couple of times, actually. Failed a few times as well.

jerseyhoya wrote:The absolute worst part of going home is everyone talking to me about politics. Especially the liberal family members who get in their digs, and I know it's not worth it to respond in kind.

You should relish the chance to educate, if your lefty brethern actually want to talk instead of yell.

My favorite co-worker is a kneejerk librul, but she's a thoughtful person who will discuss rather than bluster. Her experience with conservatives is mostly with flag-waving homophobes, clinging to God and guns, who offer plenty of opinion without any substantial argument behind it.

I love the look of amazement when she hears, apparently for the first time, cogent arguments as to why the trade deficit doesn't matter, why lower taxes on the "rich" is better for the poor, why socialized medicine is a bad thing, why free trade and free markets benefit everyone, why Baby Ruth Ginsburg is a horrible judge.

Reagan was a great conservative for lots of reasons. One of them was his ability to simplify and clarify. I treasure the basic lessons on which a conservative view of the world can be based. I keep coming back to fundamental points of economic behavior that seems to escape most Democrats: If you tax a behavior, you will get less of that behavior; if you subsidize a behavior, you will get more of that behavior. Whether talking about fiscal or social policy, it's great fun when you bring that into a discussion with a lefty who is willing to engage.

A mjaor problem is that too many Democrats think that every conservative is Jesse Helms. Gentleman though he was, his view seemed to me to be to govern for "what is best for people like me." That didn't include the poor, nonwhites, or gays.

My kind of Republicans don't enjoy war, they don't want to put down women, minorities, and gays, they don't want to live as rich country clubbers uncaring about the suffering of the poor, they don't want to deny first rate medical care to all.

Democrats need to know that conservatives want the same things that they do -- peace, equality, prosperity for all. We just see a different path for getting there. We see the disastrous results of the left's good intentions, and we know that you have to apply the fundamentals of human behavior to social policy; we know enough history to grasp that appeasement is not a keen strategy.

It's up to you and me to dispel the notion that we are hard-hearted robber barons jealously gaurding our riches from being shared with the underprivileged.

TomatoPie wrote:It's up to you and me to dispel the notion that we are hard-hearted robber barons jealously gaurding our riches from being shared with the underprivileged.

"lessee, lower taxes, lower taxes, underprivileged (sure wish I knew some of them).....I've got it - we'll lower taxes on food stamps!!"

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:It's up to you and me to dispel the notion that we are hard-hearted robber barons jealously gaurding our riches from being shared with the underprivileged.

"lessee, lower taxes, lower taxes, underprivileged (sure wish I knew some of them).....I've got it - we'll lower taxes on food stamps!!"

See, you're exactly the kind of guy we need to persuade.

There so many people who think Republicans don't want clean air, clean water, and good education for their children. I think this is a combination of Republicans not getting their message out, not living up to their message, and some people not wanting to understand points of view different than their own. I'm guessing that 98% of Republicans make less than $250,000 a year. Yet, the perception that Republicans are either all rich CEOs or racist homophobic xenophobes who don't care about anyone but themselves.

There are some Republicans who believe in low taxes because they don't want to pay taxes. Of course there are some Democrats who believe that only rich Republicans should pay taxes. There's no big difference in desire to pay taxes between someone who makes $40,000 a year and $400,000 per year.

The reason Republicans believe in low taxes has nothing to do with people selfishly wanting to keep all their money. The reason Republicans don't believe in socialized medicine or welfare has nothing to do with Republicans not wanting to help the poor. The reason Republicans are less zealous about clean air and clean water has nothing to do with Republicans not wanting these things. Yet there's a large number of people who think that way.

A friend of mine once told me, "I've never been hired by a poor person."

someone that doesn't believe in the necessity of 'welfare' is a completely ideological person and refuses to see reality or the multiple benefits of a well-devised safety net, especially in a capitalistic economy.

TP, it's mostly two uncles. I think I've heard the word Haliburton 10 times already this weekend. It's beyond a lost cause.

I try with some of my cousins who aren't as set.

jerseyhoya wrote:TP, it's mostly two uncles. I think I've heard the word Haliburton 10 times already this weekend. It's beyond a lost cause.

I try with some of my cousins who aren't as set.

Jersey, I don't envy you. Politics always comes up at our family gatherings, especially when my dad's around, but I try hard to stick by the "no talking about politics or religion with friends & family" rule. It's hard. I just hate when an otherwise fun, relaxing time turns contentious, especially with people I really like despite their beliefs.

jerseyhoya wrote:TP, it's mostly two uncles. I think I've heard the word Haliburton 10 times already this weekend. It's beyond a lost cause.

I try with some of my cousins who aren't as set.

Well, if they think Bush and Cheney went to war to enrich HallieBerryton, they are beyond hope.

Still, if you get one of them one-on-one, you might be able to get your views heard.

TomatoPie wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:TP, it's mostly two uncles. I think I've heard the word Haliburton 10 times already this weekend. It's beyond a lost cause.

I try with some of my cousins who aren't as set.

Well, if they think Bush and Cheney went to war to enrich HallieBerryton, they are beyond hope.

Still, if you get one of them one-on-one, you might be able to get your views heard.

no, bush went to war because saddam tried to kill his father. the fact that cheney could make tens of billions for his golf buddies was just a cherry on top.

pacino wrote:someone that doesn't believe in the necessity of 'welfare' is a completely ideological person and refuses to see reality or the multiple benefits of a well-devised safety net, especially in a capitalistic economy.

Now, I know I'm guilty of placing my oponents ideology in extreme blacks and whites, but who is suggesting this?

For example, where in the Contract for America is the elimination of welfare called for? Even in it's nebulosity, this doesn't apply to "compassionate conservatism" either. McCain wants amnesty, I have trouble believing he'd advocate the elimination of welfare either (or, to put it more mildly, arguing against the necessity of welfare). I think the only member of the recent crop of candidates who would say this was Ron Paul (who wants to get ride of the Department of Transportation, among other things).

The "well-devised" part is the contention and source of disagreement.

steagles wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:TP, it's mostly two uncles. I think I've heard the word Haliburton 10 times already this weekend. It's beyond a lost cause.

I try with some of my cousins who aren't as set.

Well, if they think Bush and Cheney went to war to enrich HallieBerryton, they are beyond hope.

Still, if you get one of them one-on-one, you might be able to get your views heard.

no, bush went to war because saddam tried to kill his father. the fact that cheney could make tens of billions for his golf buddies was just a cherry on top.

True fack.

Rummy, Cheney, Condi, and Colin Powell all conspired to avenge the attempted hit on Bush the Elder and to enrich Cheney's golf buddies.

Republicans think nothing of 4,000 dead Americans and 100,000 dead Iraqis if it helps their portfolio.

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:someone that doesn't believe in the necessity of 'welfare' is a completely ideological person and refuses to see reality or the multiple benefits of a well-devised safety net, especially in a capitalistic economy.

Now, I know I'm guilty of placing my oponents ideology in extreme blacks and whites, but who is suggesting this?

For example, where in the Contract for America is the elimination of welfare called for? Even in it's nebulosity, this doesn't apply to "compassionate conservatism" either. McCain wants amnesty, I have trouble believing he'd advocate the elimination of welfare either (or, to put it more mildly, arguing against the necessity of welfare). I think the only member of the recent crop of candidates who would say this was Ron Paul (who wants to get ride of the Department of Transportation, among other things).

The "well-devised" part is the contention and source of disagreement.

laexile said this right before my post

The reason Republicans don't believe in socialized medicine or welfare has nothing to do with Republicans not wanting to help the poor.

pacino wrote:someone that doesn't believe in the necessity of 'welfare' is a completely ideological person and refuses to see reality or the multiple benefits of a well-devised safety net, especially in a capitalistic economy.

Unfortunately, welfare is necessary in our capitalist economy as it is now. Eliminating welfare tomorrow would be a disaster. It is not a well-devised safety net. There needs to be safety nets, but we need to have better ones than welfare.

jerseyhoya wrote:I think I've heard the word Haliburton 10 times already this weekend. It's beyond a lost cause.

Mention to them that Clinton gave Haliburton no bid contracts for Kosovo and Bosnia. Then ask if Clinton went into those two countries to benefit his buddies at Haliburton.

Republicans think nothing of 4,000 dead Americans and 100,000 dead Iraqis if it helps their portfolio.

Heck, John McCain is willing to sacrifice his sons' lives to help his portfolio.

is it the recent national holiday that has prompted the gusher of maundering self-congratulation from the rightward end of our bleachers today?

Or something potentially contagious? Because if the latter, I'll need to hunt for the witch hazel

drsmooth wrote:I'll need to hunt for the witch hazel

ahhhhh sooothing Tucks medicated pads....

Um, hate to break to you, but welfare (AFDC) was eliminated more than 10 years ago.

My job description would tend to disagree with you.

TenuredCletus wrote:Um, hate to break to you, but welfare (AFDC) was eliminated more than 10 years ago.

Really hate to break it to [y]ou -- but we don't have a free market because of the welfare to corporations which dwarfs anything ever spent on the poor and disnenfranchised.