global tag rooms
October 24, 2008 by Mark de LA
There many different kinds of relationships in the world of politics.  Some imply power and control over like the "follow the money" scenario is likely to uncover. I would call the money scenario a strong relationship. Relatives by blood & marriage are next in line as semi-strong relationships.  Support & endorsement is a medium to weak relationship in that it is much more one-way than the strong relationships.
There are also relationships which are abstract & expose the mindset, philosophy, world-outlook or foundation of a politician: voting, legislation, party membership, & even endorsement. What a politician has written about, taught, or supported tells us something about their evolution in principles & can predict where they might go in the future. These gathered together as metrics of the content of an article indicate one kind of value. The other is the value of the article in terms of reporting such as spin content, sourcing, truth or falsehood (if determinable) date, reporter, & again the political relationships of the publication itself. This stuff clusters. FOAF clusters as well. Investigative journalism would be a lot more interesting if the journalists themselves were investigated; if the bloggers were somewhat exposed. No man is an island. Integrity is a great value to be relished not only for it's rarity, but for it's staying power within the Universe.
  1. item 10647
by Mark de LA in group projects — 2008-10-24 07:45:27 thought 10700
1 comment thread
Mark de LA of group mark 2015-12-10 12:52:57 [item 10700#23993]
I wonder if any of this would help untangling the relationships in politics:

October 21, 2008 by Mark de LA
To recap we are all connected &/or related by being on the Earth. Furthermore we are connected by six degrees of separation from one another if you believe in social scientists & game shows. I am referring not to these but more <-> cause & effect kinds of associations. One should look at what the effects are of one's behavior & speech to assess what you are causing for whether it is good.  In the case of politics a leader must continually look at what he is leading his group towards & away from. While the individuals of a group are ultimately responsible for their own actions, I think it can be said that there is a cause/effect chain proceeding from the leadership to the group & down to individuals. Why else would a politician, leader or even a president wish to become such unless he/she/it wants to cause something to happen?  Hence I am looking at the results of a candidate & his acolytes, followers, campaign workers & results accomplished in all arenas & even the groups he/she/it has been part of and worked inside to see if the whole picture is good. It is valid to judge the leader by what his followers do! Words do mean something & action from those words start a cause/effect chain for which the ends can be judged.
Currently I am not finding much good at all in election politics. Currently I don't like much of the direction their words have caused the political, economic & social river to flow.
by Mark de LA in group mark — 2008-10-15 08:54:09, changed 2008-10-21 12:33:23 thought 10647