Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » I wish OSC would write more World Watch

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: I wish OSC would write more World Watch
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really. I came to realize that a lot of what he wrote was wrong, but it was always interesting. I read World Watch much more carefully than I do his Uncle Orson column, most of which I just scroll through.

I wonder why he's stopped; do you think he decided he was making too many mistakes and needed to go back to the drawing board?

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think he's probably sick of the backlash.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It probably takes a fair bit of energy to write World Watch, too. I don't know if I could find it in myself to summon the sustained outrage to write more than three or four World Watch columns.
Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He made some controversial statements recently about gay marriage. I have been wondering if his usual venue doesn't want to carry that column at the moment? Just a theory.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lol, you mean when he called for an uprising against the government because legalized SSM is the end of democracy?
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC writes columns for more than one newspaper, including one called The Village Voice for Deseret News of Salt Lake City. That appears in the Mormon Times, which is a weekly insert in the newspaper and is also distributed outside of Utah as a separate publication together with the Church News section. So these columns are directed more specifically toward Mormons than the World Watch - or similarly titled - columns written for the Rhinoceros Times of Charlotte and Greensboro, North Carolina. The columns cover a variety of subjects and the most recent at the moment is headed "Expand definition of 'talent',"

http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=9369

The column mentioned by TommySama was part of a series of columns on homosexuality, and was published on July 24, 2008. The heading was, "State job is not to redefine marriage." But that series is complete, and this thread is probably not a good one on which to discuss OSC's views on marriage.

[ July 01, 2009, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems oddly appropriate and surprising that OSC just published another Mormon Times topic that touches on how LDS citizens should respond to the actions of governments.

Here it is

The article does seems to have a worthy point: that religious convictions should not be subject to nationalism. I think the lesson can extend to those who aren't particularly religious - ethics can and ought to transcend patriotic feeling.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I found OSC's recent article a very interesting read since right within my own LDS community we have a wide range of political affiliations which, when voiced, can cause dissent among our members. We are encouraged not to discuss politics while meeting as saints so it usually only come up in public arenas.

I feel OSC's ultimate message was that what binds us in the gospel is more important than the different political ideology that divides. I agree with that premise, but I think it will be tested and become increasingly untenable the further polarized the two political parties become towards the extreme.

As the Democratic Party becomes more strongly supportive of abortion on demand, scientific research without moral strictures, and the "right" of people to commit suicide (to mention just a few sticking points) the more difficult it will be for LDS Democrats to defend their political choice...if only to themselves.

[ July 13, 2009, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: cb ]

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
I found OSC's recent article a very interesting read since right within my own LDS community we have a wide range of political affiliations which, when voiced, can cause dissent among our members. We are encouraged not to discuss politics while meeting as saints so it usually only come up in public arenas.

I feel OSC's ultimate message was that what binds us in the gospel is more important than the different political ideology that divides. I agree with that premise, but I think it will be tested and become increasingly untenable the further polarized the two political parties become towards the extreme.

As the Democratic Party becomes more strongly supportive of abortion on demand, scientific research without moral strictures, and the "right" of people to commit suicide (to mention just a few sticking points) the more difficult it will be for LDS Democrats to defend their political choice...if only to themselves.

Oh, I don't suppose it'll be much harder than justifying support for all the horrid crap the GOP has been up to. [Smile]

(Thank goodness the LDS don't air all of their politics in church meetings. Chaos, I tell you.)

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Abortion on demand has been defined variously as the right of a woman to be permitted by law to have an abortion for any reason she chooses during the first six months of pregnancy, and as a similar right which should exist at any stage of pregnancy. In practice probably neither the doctor nor the woman could be prosecuted for an abortion simply because an ultrasound showed a fetus was a girl when she wanted a boy. But I think an abortion for that stated purpose might be hard to obtain at any stage of pregnancy, and particularly just before birth. Also such procedures would be in fact illegal in most states in the third trimester. Otherwise I doubt very much the Democratic Party will ever add a sentence supporting unrestricted abortion for sex selection to its platform.

As for abortion in general, the LDS Church has a long tradition of approving abortion in certain circumstances, even if present leaders tend to disavow that. No doubt the debate will continue in that denomination.

[ July 14, 2009, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
(Thank goodness the LDS don't air all of their politics in church meetings. Chaos, I tell you.)
[Smile] I'll give you that. Chaos somewhat!

But as far as "all the horrid crap the GOP has been up to"...I'm not talking about the indiscretions of individuals within the parties (with both parties vying for the post of most indiscrete) or of the corruption that is proliferate on both sides of the isle, I'm talking about the basic tenants of the parties.

Romney made it simple for Republicans with his three legged stool analogy - strong family's, strong military and strong economy.


To be fair, I offer to the dems on this blog the opportunity to put their tenants as succinctly.

In my mind, Democratic tenants would be - strong central government, strong regulation and control of the free-market, and strong and rapid dismantling of American traditions and ethics.

But, I'm sorry...I've digressed terribly from the original point of this thread. I have always wanted more political commentary by OSC, but understand that he does have a life away from his word processor.

[ July 14, 2009, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: cb ]

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just add "strong communities" and you got a nice four-legged chair instead of a rickety stool.

And wow! He's in favor of a strong economy? And what does "strong families" mean, anyway? And how exactly are Republican policies reflecting that?

Buncha buzzword nonsense, if you ask me.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:


And wow! He's in favor of a strong economy? And what does "strong families" mean, anyway? And how exactly are Republican policies reflecting that?

Silly. They believe in strong families by making sure that non-conventional families have no protection under the civil law. This means that more partners will be abused and children will be the victims.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And, judging by past Republican policy, "strong military" means a military overburdened with unnecessary war (as long as defense contractors are making a lot of money)" and "strong economy" means deregulation so that the rich can get richer, the poor get poorer, and modern day robber barons can take the money and run.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Just add "strong communities" and you got a nice four-legged chair instead of a rickety stool.

And wow! He's in favor of a strong economy? And what does "strong families" mean, anyway? And how exactly are Republican policies reflecting that?

Buncha buzzword nonsense, if you ask me.

You proved my point. That's all those values are to many liberals...buzz words. I know exactly what Romney meant by his three "strong"s, because I share those values.

And yes a STRONG economy. Not one that is dependent on funny money to shore it up which will lead to run away inflation. How anyone in their right mind can believe that printing trillions of dollars that are not matched by GDP can create a strong economy is beyond me. And before you go off on the fact that the bail-out was Bush's idea...I don't consider the Bush of 2005-08 to be a Republican. He certainly didn't govern as one.

Strong families means protecting and defending family values...like parental rights being respected and empowered, father's staying in the homes to raise and support their families, divorce shunned...that kind of thing.

And yes, it also means keeping marriage between man and wife. I know you guys go round and round about this, but since gay marriage is probably at this point, an inevitability (not that I'll stop fighting it) you will see ultimately gay marriage joining the ranks of no-fault-divorce in the total dissolution of the family unit. The family unit is the foundation of society. Without strong families society will fall into chaos.

But, gays will have their rights!! Yeah!

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You proved my point. That's all those values are to many liberals...buzz words.
You falling into the common fallacy of believing that your opponents must believe the opposite of your values.

Liberals and democrats believe in strong families. That is why they believe in expanding the defintion of marriage and families to include those currently excluded. They believe in allowing weak families to dissolve for the good of all members, not holding them together artificially until they emotionally tear each other apart.

They believe in a strong military that is not overextended in useless wars. They believe in a strong military that is not used to bully other countries just for our economic advantage.

They believe in a strong economy, by making sure businesses treat their workers fairly and produce products that are safe. They believe in regulating the economy to prevent the excesses that come from competition and personal greed.

What they believe more than anything else, though, is the right of the individual to seek his own path, to follow his own conscience, and to make his own life and happiness, even if this is contrary to the views of other people. To actually attain life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by helping to restrain those who would restrict the ability of others to do so.

Conservatives love to talk about how they trust the common people, but when the common person wants to do something they don't agree with (like getting married to a person of the same sex), then their trust disappears like dust in a gust of wind.

Perhaps one day LDS members will have to choose between their church values and the direction of the Democratic Party. But they may also have to choose between their belief that every person has a right to choose their own values and beliefs and a party whose direction is that of imposing their beliefs on others. Especially if that party suddenly decides that some LDS beliefs are not worthy of being tolerated.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is a very eloquent summation, Wayward Son. Happily Orson Scott Card shares many of those goals, which is probably one reason you and I remain on his site. People disagree more about how to get things done than they do about what they want to see happen.

In the Bush years I thought it inevitable the United States would invade Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama bin Laden, whether there was much chance of catching him there or not. Invading Iraq, where the United States knew he was not present and had few friends, seemed a diversion from that goal. And as to same sex marriage, same sex couples now have children together and will continue to do so, for which reason extending the protections of civil marriage to such families seems advisable. But people can differ on such policies, and certainly do.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You proved my point. That's all those values are to many liberals...buzz words. I know exactly what Romney meant by his three "strong"s, because I share those values."

Really? When you say "Strong families", does that extend to the gay or lesbian family down the block? Hmmmm? When you say a strong military, does that mean keeping it out of a stupid and destructive war?

What I mean by buzzwords is not that "I don't believe in these things", but rather that anyone can say they do and portray the actual policies they support as fitting that. You can portray hostility to gay marriage as "supporting strong families", and I can say that by opposing gay marriage, you actually weaken many families. You can say your policies make for a "strong economy" and I can say mine do that.

Get it, now? It's like saying your party is "for" mom and apple pie. It means nothing. It's just a sorry ass attempt to cloak a question of policy in a mask of absolute morality.

Actually, the only telling thing here is the conservative tendency to do what I've just described and turn every disagreement about methods into a good and evil thing. Maybe it's because of the authoritarian underpinnings...

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1