[Foss-cafe] Greetings!

[Timothy Butler]

> I think I was last on the list about a year and a half ago, at which
> point the domain I was using for email expired, and I didn't bother to
> re-subscribe because the list seemed to be on its last legs. How have
> you been holding up since then?

	Oh, pretty well, thanks. Just seem to be keeping busy all the time  
without accomplishing nearly what I'd like, but... I've been busy  
writing a lot with the hope of maybe doing a book one of these days  
and OFB has relaunched with a bit more of a general focus -- I'm  
trying to bring in commentary on issues outside of computers.

	On the computer front, since the last time this list was very  
exciting, I also became a full time Mac user...

	How about yourself?

> What's needed is for someone to slip some highly controversial
> subjects into the conversation, such as the war in Iraq, and whether
> it was for oil or freedom. Although Bush seems to have settled that
> argument on the midterm campaign trail...

	Indeed. Well, for the sake of the list (and not, of course, any  
false sense that I love to debate!) let me fan the flames a bit:

	I'm going to go with those pundits who see this as a loss primarily  
of the Republican/neo-conservative movement of the last few years and  
not conservatism in general. I don't think it establishes Iraq as a  
warfront for oil, but rather shows Americans were (1) never really  
that into the whole idea and (2) have a very limited ability to stick  
to things. Remember, the media labeled Iraq a "quagmire" after just  
three weeks -- hardly time for a quagmire to form -- and the public  
agreed. Americans have short attention spans, and I think that is the  
hardest thing in dealing with this. (Along with fairly incompetent  
management of the situation over the last few years with the various  
abuse cases, etc. The army should pay more so that the soldiers there  
would be a bit happier about being there.)

	I think I am like a lot of conservatives when I say that I was  
willing to back the armed forces in as much as I realized the  
inevitability of action (and, supported the overthrow of Saddam,  
though more in principle than an overwhelming urge to go get stuck  
invading a country), but conceding to the inevitable is not the kind  
of feeling you want the "base" of a party to have. This 2006 election  
cycle showed the Republicans totally lost touch with the reality that  
they needed to energize their base, or rather, bases.

	I wrote this last fall on my blog:

	"For those, like me, of the Right, we have a serious problem. As the  
saying goes, if these are our friends, we hardly need enemies. I  
predict a Democratic landslide in 2006, unless we get our collective  
acts together."

	(October 18, 2005, http://asisaid.com/journal/article/847.html)

	I'm not sure how closely you follow the GOP, so I'll go over a few  
points that you might already know. The GOP essentially is built of  
two minorities that have enough common interests to work together  
usually -- the economic libertarians and the social conservatives.  
Unlike the *really* extreme right wing social conservatives or the  
complete libertarians, the parts that have put the Republicans in  
power I think are interested mostly in either economics or morals and  
are willing to concede some ground on the other issue. It works well  
enough, and  there are people like me who fit mostly into both  
groups, though I am loyal primarily as a social conservative (though,  
to digress, I am at heart more of a libertarian, assuming the ideal  
world where government would be weak enough I wouldn't feel the need  
to push it in a socially conservative direction since it wouldn't  
support social agendas of any political leaning).

	Anyway. So, as a free market kind of guy, I'm not excited about the  
Republicans at the moment -- they are now the "big government party,"  
and though I don't trust the Dems talk of smaller government (since  
it doesn't fit with their overall agenda), I think this damaged the  
GOP's one major base. Moreover, the wishy-washiness of the  
Republicans on issues like cloning, etc., hasn't done much to  
energize the social conservative side either. So, I think the  
Republicans ended up going for some illusory "moderates" that really  
don't exist, or at least not enough to win an election, while leaving  
behind the bases that propelled them into power in '94, and helped  
for the big wins ten years later in '04. This was worsened by the  
close association of the GOP with the USA PATRIOT Act, despite the  
fact that people from both parties stupidly supported this bill. Why  
the GOP pushed to reup it is beyond me. Really, the election was all  
about the stupidity of forgetting what people elected you to do and  
not even really trying to lie about it and pretend next time will be  
better.

	The Democrats went way off to the left (for U.S. politics, at least)  
in 2004, but I think you are seeing them at least pretend to be more  
moderate right now. The Republicans need to differentiate themselves  
from the Dems by going more conservative for 2008 -- not any  
extremes, but enough to let the bases know they aren't entirely  
forgotten, and give people a clear understanding of why they should  
pick the GOP over the Democrats.

	

>
>>         I'm game for trying to revive the list if you are.
>
> By all means. I miss the constant flamewars^W^Winformed discussion on
> Free Software, politics, philosophy and job-hunting ;).

	Me too. :-)

	-Tim



---
Timothy R. Butler | "Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher
tbutler at ofb.biz   | is bound in  his  way to  be a lover of myths  and
www.uninet.info   | poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in
timothybutler.us  | being big with wonder."
                                                      -- Thomas Aquinas