More Paul Graham. He argues that facing up to working hard on big problems is rewarding but also terrifying. Graham is a programmer and essayist so he's not referring to facing up to big political problems, but of course it's just as true there, if not more so:

Another reason people don't work on big projects is, ironically, fear of wasting time. What if they fail? Then all the time they spent on it will be wasted. (In fact it probably won't be, because work on hard projects almost always leads somewhere.)

But the trouble with big problems can't be just that they promise no immediate reward and might cause you to waste a lot of time. If that were all, they'd be no worse than going to visit your in-laws. There's more to it than that. Big problems are terrifying. There's an almost physical pain in facing them. It's like having a vacuum cleaner hooked up to your imagination. All your initial ideas get sucked out immediately, and you don't have any more, and yet the vacuum cleaner is still sucking.
- Good and Bad Procrastination

Thanks for link to Paul Graham article. I was struck more by this passage which seemed to me to be the main theme:

When I talk to people who've managed to make themselves work on big things, I find that all blow off errands, and all feel guilty about it. I don't think they should feel guilty. There's more to do than anyone could. So someone doing the best work they can is inevitably going to leave a lot of errands undone. It seems a mistake to feel bad about that.

I think the way to "solve" the problem of procrastination is to let delight pull you instead of making a to-do list push you. Work on an ambitious project you really enjoy, and sail as close to the wind as you can, and you'll leave the right things undone.

   What's the big problem?  We have no apparent option other than to vote for democrats, here in the U.S.  The republican whores are as obvious as the day is long, the war is a lie; everyone knows it, etc.  Still, the idiots, the impoverished poor idiots (mind you) make up the bulk of the votes cast for the GOP.  That's a big problem. 

 

 

gbbro: I think a major part of the "big problems" Bill was referring to is our inability to actually have any sort of meaningful political dialogue with people we disagree with such as yourself. If you look around the forum and other parts of the site you will find lots of reasons why we obviously wouldn't agree with you that the Iraq war is wrong or that the Democrats are better than the Republicans.


We support the war and think the Democrats are at least as bad as the Republicans. While taking that "for granted" in much the same way as you take your views for granted, we'd actually like to be able to argue about it with people who disagree. But that simply isn't possible when you don't actually present arguments for what you believe or arguments against what we believe.


Hopefully, in posting what you did, you might be actually looking for a debate about something. If so, that would be great.


But you have to actually take a position and defend it as we have done in numerous articles and forum topics you could respond to. Simply saying "we have no apparant option other than to vote for democrats" didn't convince a majority in your country to do so.


 If you honestly think its so obvious it doesn't need an explanation then you will remain stuck with the fact that most people in your country don't agree with you and that you have the big problem that there is precisely nothing you can do about it.



In Australia we have a more or less opposite "big problem". A large majority would agree with you that "the war is a lie" and an overwhelming majority would agree that the US Democrats are far better than the Republicans (not quite as overwhelming as in Europe but a general consensus of nearly all "opinion leaders" here).


But we haven't come across people actually willing to argue those positions with us, as opposed to simply proclaiming them and regarding any attempt to convince others as simply pointless ("impoverished poor idiots" etc)


For example most of the people involved in this web site were very actively involved in solidarity with the Vietnamese people against US imperialist aggression.


We started completely isolated as a very small minority but gradually won people around by starting from the position that many of those who supported the war weren't idiots and we could explain things to them. We helped build a movement (very much inspired by similar movement in USA) which eventually contributed to victory for the Vietnamese by making it utterly clear we were serious about insisting on defeat for the aggressors.


 Yet you say "everyone knows" you are right, and you do in fact have a majority who agree with you that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, yet you are completely unable to do anything about it. Doesn't that suggest to you that there is something unconvincing about simply asserting that there is no alternative but to vote for the Democrats without offering a single reason why anyone should?


The US Vietnam anti-war movement certainly didn't tell people to vote for the Democrats since it was in fact the Democrats that started and escalated the war and the Republicans that finally admitted defeat.


Its really tempting for us to simply assume from your post that you are "an idiot" and that there is no point trying to argue with you. But I'd much rather prove you are wrong by debating with you.

If you do think we are idiots not worth arguing with there is not much point you posting here. If you do think there is some point then you have to post arguments that can be replied to as we have done.

 By lying about WMDs Bush has done everything possible to provide conditions in which you could build an effective anti-war movement if the war was in fact unjust.

Yet you can't  (!) despite a majority agreeing with you that it wasn't worth fighting and an overwhelming majority of "opinion leaders" being extremely hostile to Bush and the Republicans.

Has it occurred to you that this might be related to the fact that the war is not against the Iraqi people as you assumed - and that they are now able to elect a government of their own choosing - the exact opposite of the US goal in Vietnam?

Sure it was a lie. Bush never admitted his aim was anything more than "disarming Sadaam". But its kind of difficult to mobilize people against allowing Iraqis to choose their own government isn't it?

 

     Well, that was a mouthful.  You don't note that the presidential election was quite a close one.  Have you talked at all with a non-idiot that voted for Kerry? There is a lot of suspicion, by the way, that the election was rigged enough to give Bush the edge.  But that's beside the point.  Don't forget, though, that the 2000 election was actually won by Gore.  I don't particularly want to debate that.  There are sources that can relate the fact; it has actually been proven beyond doubt.

     That there are as many Democrat idiots as Republicans is a close call but I wouldn't necessarily disagree.  My point was simply that it's pathetic that Kerry was the only potentially effective alternative.  Notwithstanding that, I do believe, actually have experienced, a better living situation under a Democratic administration.  Is this truly a site advocating Socialism (by the way)? After all, my whole concern is the betterment of the masses that the capitalist establishment will stop at nothing(virtually) to continue exploiting.  I read not a hint of anything having to do with Socialism! 

 

     Bush lied that there were indeed WMD in Iraq and so on and on. This argument is huge and ongoing and multifaceted.  I don't want to take it on as a debate at this point to any large extent.  The U.S. had no right to invade.  Iraq was no threat to us.  It's the same old, old story of sending the poor do die for the rich.  Ofcourse it's all about oil as well the further agendas of the few who control the proverbial purse strings. There IS a great deal of anger and distrust in America towards its current policies.  Tragically, the feeling of powerlesness is all too pervading. Things are not hopeless.  There will be future elections and changes for the better are always slow in coming.  We are on the brink of socialized medicine regardless how hard fought the money has tried to keep it down.  That's a sure stepping stone to a better world, however slow and reletively isolated.  Again, where is Socialism discussed on this site?

     To be tempted to assume me an idiot for the few words I posted is idiocy in itself; not to mention a rather stupid means by which to bate me to respond.

     I would like to continue but I have schedule to adhere to.  The first of which is to walk my dog.  Cherrio, or is G'day more apropos?

 

    

 

 

 

G'day gbbro/Leo/Jihad:

It doesn't look like Bill or anyone else wants to follow up on the original theme of this topic, and it does have a title wide enough to cover a discussion of pretty well anything. So I see nothing disruptive in your continuing to post in this thread (only) in a style that doesn't actually say anything worth responding to, presumably to see what kind of responses you will get anyway.

So the floor is open. If there is some single topic in particular you would like to take issue with us about, by all means state the issue, present your views on that issue clearly and then present your arguments as to why you are right.

Otherwise, good luck trying to strike up a conversation with your dog.

 

     Aw shucks, Arthur, I think there is a great deal worth responding to regarding what's been touched upon.  Certainly a good deal more than your silly bantering and condescending retorts.  Ofcourse I'm interested in seeing "what responses you will get anyway."  After all, I responded to you. 

     But, I'm new here.  I probably need to navigate and further familiarize myself to this site.  I was directed here by someone who told me this was all about Socialism, and that is my interest and intent.  If it's all just argument for the sake of it, well, that might be interesting though not why I looked it up.

     I have no trouble striking up conversation with my dog but we just can't discuss these things.  I clearly present to you my view on that issue and there is no need to argue why I'm right.

    Maybe you can help me by presenting a topic and with a style worth a response, on the open floor (ofcourse).  Otherwise, I shall see what's available elswhere, on this site and perhaps others yet unknown. 

     I do apologize for my ignorance of the original theme or specific topic, whatever it may have been.

     But please bare with me.  I do wish to participate in a worthy dialogue of worthy cause.  Socialism I was told was what this site was all about.  Perhaps I've been misled or misinterpreted.

    Thank you for your most kind wishes.  

 

 

 

 

Hi gbbro,

 

I can't reply in any depth to your messages at the moment because I only have a few minutes access to the internet...I'll try to write something more detailed in a few days when I get back to my own computer.

 

If you want to get a better idea of our ideas about socialism, the left, the war in Iraq etc have a look in our archived material which can be seen in the yellow folders down the left hand side of this site's home page.

 

You may particularly want to read the material in the politics folder but the other folders contain material which should give you some background material about the sorts of issues and ideas we are interested in discussing as well.

 

You can also read a brief description of our general stance by clicking here.

 

I think its possible to have a fruitful discussion/debate - I'm up for it if you are and I'll check back in on the forum in a few days to write something longer.

 

keza

 

     Hi keza,

     'Preciate your reply, will check out the suggested folders and look forward to hearing from you again.

      Regards,  gbbro