View Full Version : Oh dear
InsatiableDesire
02-22-2008, 06:31 PM
This here post could cause me to plummet in the social circles here (They are everywhere, admit it :p)...But look at this as me being quite naive/ignorant on the topic of politics at the moment and simply looking for perspectives -- not answers, because I honestly don't think definite answers are possible on this topic or any like it.
*deep breath*
How many of you have thought that the United States seems to be steering towards a So******tic type of government? I see the signs such as the classes shifting farther and farther apart in to two categories - rich and poor (with the median buffer of middle class diminishing). At the moment, sadly that is the only example I can think of (I just woke up from a nap), I will share more as they come to me.
Sooo....?
(Edit)
Hopefully you understand what those *'s are covering up, otherwise this entire thread was pointless, lol. I didn't realize it would censor that.
(/Edit)
Sir_Russell
02-22-2008, 08:03 PM
actually I don't know what was covered up and if the site is going to start editing/censoring posts I may just stop posting
Thorne
02-22-2008, 09:50 PM
actually I don't know what was covered up and if the site is going to start editing/censoring posts I may just stop posting
In an effort to stop spamming, the site blocks certain groups of letters which might be attributable to commercial products, in this case "C-I-A-L-I-S"
The word which was starred, therefore, was "social ism" and it's starred because it contains within it the forbidden word. There are a few others, but this one seems to crop up most often, probably because this is a political arena.
InsatiableDesire
02-23-2008, 04:49 AM
Interesting...Thanks for the heads up Thorne. :)
You are probably right.
I did a look up of the term just to make sure I knew that we were talking about the same thing, and the second paragraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy
Ward later expanded on the concept in his books Dynamic Sociology (1883) and The Psychic Factors of Civilization (1892). Ward, although rarely studied today, was very influential in his time and had a worldwide reputation as a groundbreaking sociologist. He believed that a highly educated public was essential if a country was to be governed effectively, and he foresaw a time when the emotional and partisan nature of present day politics would yield to a much more effective, dispassionate and scientifically-based discussion of issues and problems. Democracy would thus eventually evolve into a more advanced form of government, sociocracy.
pretty much sums up the direction America is going in.
Our education system is becoming so broken that we are graduating children into our society that have no understanding of the geography around them (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANTDkfkoBaI). Students don't know basic American history, if the teachers were not hampered by the system, this wouldn't be the case. Our 'no child left behind' policy doesn't teach the children the content of the course, it teaches them the answers to the standardized tests. They loose the ability to think abstractly about topics because the topic is foreign to them.
Another thing that is occurring in America and has been occurring for numerous years, not just the Bush anomaly, is the corporate polarization of the political machine. As the need for money to become a viable candidate grows so does the need to have the hands of rich organizations to give you funding. No successful corporation is going to give money to someone or something without some sort of guaranteed return. This way of doing things then tarnishes the objectivity and non-partisanship of a candidate. Thus the candidate loosing the desire to please the people who are supposed to elect them. Ron Paul (who actually might have been a good candidate) didn't get the attention he could have, or needed, because he didn't have the funding the others had. The results bear the truth of this notion.
Then there is the media dumbing down of the constituents. Everyone knows that Fox News is so far skewed to the right wing of political reporting that they can scarcely be called a news agency (at least we all should know that). Even with this glaring fact known, the right wing political activists will fail to see or agree to that notion. As a result Fox News is able to pump any kind of information or propaganda that it sees fit to, or has been paid to. Fox News isn't the only guilty party here, just the easiest to identify. There are left wing media outlets that do the same thing.
As a result, the general public is given a filtered account of the true and accurate situation of current events. Due to that occurring, the classes that are able to manipulate the system because they have the funding, are able to maneuver the 'lesser' class into doing or thinking as they wish. There are exceptions to this of course, but it is occurring.
Thorne
02-23-2008, 08:05 AM
...They loose the ability to think abstractly about topics because the topic is foreign to them....Thus the candidate loosing the desire to please the people...
These two statements are, in my opinion, quite indicative of what you are saying. Please don't take this personally, it is not meant as an attack against anyone. I certainly can't claim to be a certified member of the Grammar Police. But after 10 years of surfing the web it's become clear to me that far too many Americans cannot distinguish between the words "lose" and "loose" and this drives me up a wall for some reason.
Think of it this way: I can simply have a few LOOSE screws, or I could quickly LOSE my mind!
Thorne
02-23-2008, 08:34 AM
Now that I've gotten the above statement out of my system, let me respond to your comments, IDC.
I must say I agree with you whole-heartedly regarding the degradation of the American education system and the media control of so many aspects of our lives. Though you don't actually come out and say it, you hint at the idea that the election system in this country has been seriously compromised by the TV news groups, and I have to say that this does seem to be the case. But I think there is more to the story.
Yes, our education system is failing, but why? It's certainly not the fault of the teachers. They work hard to do something they love, only to be attacked (verbally) by administrator and parents because their students aren't passing certain standardized tests. But as you point out, even passing those tests does not signify that a student is educated. Just that he's learned to pass that test!
As parents of two grown children we had our own problems with the school system, but never with individual teachers. And our solution was simple: we limited the children's TV time, monitored the video games they played, taught them to enjoy reading boods, did NOT buy them cell phones so they could spend all their time talking to their friends when they should have been studying. In short, we took responsibility for our children's education, we didn't delegate that responsibility to some bureaucrat we'd never met.
We now seem to have a generation of people who have come through that failed education system and are far more interested in the self-destructive antics of some failed pop-stars than they are in any real meaningful issues. And the media, knowing which side of their own bread is buttered, caters to those mindless drones by feeding them all the dirty little details. Naturally, those in power love this, since the biggest threat to any corrupt or inept government is an educated populace. They are quite content to feed the masses drivel in order to pacify them.
As for the current crop of presidential candidates, whether they are capable or not, whether they are popular or not, whether the media will give them fair coverage or not, it doesn't really make a hell of a lot of difference. The bureaucracy of the American government system has gotten so bloated and out of control that it doesn't really matter who's in the Oval Office any more. Unless and until the American people are willing to rip out the heart of this bureaucracy and send the career politicians packing, sending them home to do some REAL work, and arrest and prosecute those who have taken bribes and those who have offered them, the business of big government will go on uninterrupted.
Whether we like it or not, this government is controlled by big business. Those who really control things, the clerks in their offices typing up the laws, the lobbyists sending lawmakers on expensive vacations, the whole mess of government, are basically there to keep the CEO's rich and powerful. Until we are ready to get out from under those CEO's we can settle for the really serious issue of whether or not steroids have destroyed baseball. As if anyone really cares.
InsatiableDesire
02-23-2008, 02:01 PM
You are probably right.
I did a look up of the term just to make sure I knew that we were talking about the same thing, and the second paragraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy
pretty much sums up the direction America is going in.
Our education system is becoming so broken that we are graduating children into our society that have no understanding of the geography around them (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANTDkfkoBaI). Students don't know basic American history, if the teachers were not hampered by the system, this wouldn't be the case. Our 'no child left behind' policy doesn't teach the children the content of the course, it teaches them the answers to the standardized tests. They loose the ability to think abstractly about topics because the topic is foreign to them.
Another thing that is occurring in America and has been occurring for numerous years, not just the Bush anomaly, is the corporate polarization of the political machine. As the need for money to become a viable candidate grows so does the need to have the hands of rich organizations to give you funding. No successful corporation is going to give money to someone or something without some sort of guaranteed return. This way of doing things then tarnishes the objectivity and non-partisanship of a candidate. Thus the candidate loosing the desire to please the people who are supposed to elect them. Ron Paul (who actually might have been a good candidate) didn't get the attention he could have, or needed, because he didn't have the funding the others had. The results bear the truth of this notion.
Then there is the media dumbing down of the constituents. Everyone knows that Fox News is so far skewed to the right wing of political reporting that they can scarcely be called a news agency (at least we all should know that). Even with this glaring fact known, the right wing political activists will fail to see or agree to that notion. As a result Fox News is able to pump any kind of information or propaganda that it sees fit to, or has been paid to. Fox News isn't the only guilty party here, just the easiest to identify. There are left wing media outlets that do the same thing.
As a result, the general public is given a filtered account of the true and accurate situation of current events. Due to that occurring, the classes that are able to manipulate the system because they have the funding, are able to maneuver the 'lesser' class into doing or thinking as they wish. There are exceptions to this of course, but it is occurring.
Bravo! Thank you....You hit the nail on the head -- at least as far as the points I wished to make went. :o
Although you took it farther than I had really ever thought into it. I was simply looking at the separation of our social ranks and the obvious lack of interest in our democracy as it stands....
InsatiableDesire
02-23-2008, 02:03 PM
*ahem*
InsatiableDesire
02-23-2008, 02:13 PM
I've also just thought of something while (whilst?) reading Thorne's post:
You said that the current American generation is addicted to pop-culture, etc. I agree. Actually to take it a step farther, it seems that we are so addicted to it that it has been ingrained into our morals and beliefs -- It not only being pop-culture but drama. Everywhere you turn there is some sort of drama taking place. So why not place drama in the Oval Office as well? This war is dramatic (if you ask me), as well as many of the other recent choices (recent being the past 20 years. I'm sure you can think of some other examples *coughClintoncoughAffair*). Instead of focusing on what is best for the country, we have taken the whole thing and dumped it into the hands of addicts...literally.
o.O Or am I just rambling?
These two statements are, in my opinion, quite indicative of what you are saying. Please don't take this personally, it is not meant as an attack against anyone. I certainly can't claim to be a certified member of the Grammar Police. But after 10 years of surfing the web it's become clear to me that far too many Americans cannot distinguish between the words "lose" and "loose" and this drives me up a wall for some reason.
Think of it this way: I can simply have a few LOOSE screws, or I could quickly LOSE my mind!
I am not, nor have I ever been one that was best at grammar. I also suck at spelling (thank you Firefox!). To me, if you are able to read the post, and get the fucking gist of my point, then get off your fucking high horse, and enjoy the dammed post.
Additionally, I didn't say the teachers didn't care, or didn't teach. I said they were hampered by the system they are cogs of.
As far as mattering who is in the oval office. I say it does matter who is there. For the person who is in office is a representation of America when they visit other countries. Can you imagine what the leader of Liberia thinks when this yokel of a leader we currently have opens his dammed mouth?
I do agree that a good portion of those Senators and Congressmen in office should be kicked to the curb, but then there is the problem of experience that so many people look for when evaluating their choice for a presidential candidate.
Another problem I didn't bring up, because it didn't pertain to the thread, but is a political problem. Religion in many parts of the country is very tightly tied to the running platform of those seeking office. As is the case in the southern (Red) states. This interwoven way of thinking, I believe, presents hurdles for real directional change.
Thorne
02-23-2008, 08:44 PM
Haha! I can't help but laugh at this! It's an ongoing battle, and ever will be I think. Spelling and grammar will never be perfected by everyone. Even as an English major I find myself making mistakes. I have picked on friends and lovers for theirs though, which amuses me. *hi-5* I suppose we'll just have to keep trudging along in the War Against MisuseOfEnglish :p
I'm not even sure it could be called grammar. Just a misuse of words, like using "coffin" when you mean "coughing." Misuse of the words "too" and "to" also bothers me a bit, but at least they are pronounced identically.
Thorne
02-23-2008, 08:52 PM
I am not, nor have I ever been one that was best at grammar. I also suck at spelling (thank you Firefox!). To me, if you are able to read the post, and get the fucking gist of my point, then get off your fucking high horse, and enjoy the dammed post.
Sorry to get you upset. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, just one of my pet peeves.
Another problem I didn't bring up, because it didn't pertain to the thread, but is a political problem. Religion in many parts of the country is very tightly tied to the running platform of those seeking office. As is the case in the southern (Red) states. This interwoven way of thinking, I believe, presents hurdles for real directional change.
I agree with you here, too. I live in the South and it looks to me like there are three major industries: churches, banks and fast food. Seems like every time someone builds one, someone else builds another. Hard to tell which is leading but I think the churches are barely edging out the banks. But when such a large part of your population professes to be Christian, you'd damned well better be a good Christian yourself if you want to get elected.
TomOfSweden
02-24-2008, 01:08 AM
Just thought I'd point out that our, (Sweden's) most extreme right wing party, (Moderaterna) is way more so******t than the Democrats in USA. Politically USA is a very extreme right wing country. And you don't have that much lower taxes then us. Sure, it's lower but not that much. It's just that USA uses their taxes for law enforcement and the army rather than social programmes. It's not my place to judge, so I won't. But USA is pretty fucking far from even slightly resembling so******m any time soon.
Sorry to get you upset. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, just one of my pet peeves.
A private message would have sufficed. I have done the same for others that have issues with spelling and grammar (it's really bad when I can tell).
As far as word choice, I do it all the time. I know the difference between loose, and lose, I also know the difference between your and you're. I make word choice errors when typing cause I am getting out the thought, and the spell check doesn't catch the error, so when I go back over the message I miss the error.
Maybe next time you will consider a private lesson rather than publicly chastising the person. For if you really didn't want to offend, as you probably got when I publicly chastised you, then you probably should have made that choice to begin with.
Back to the thread;
Tom, I agree, we are far from being a sociocratic, though the country is headed in that direction. If we were there, I don't think there would be a large emphasis on getting the poverty stricken areas of the country to side with a particular candidate. I could be wrong on that point however.
Thorn, I am from the northwest, and grew up learning that those running for office had to consider the high concentration of Mormons. Another thing they had to consider where I grew up was industry. The area I grew up in is largely blue collar workers, and heavy in union participation. Now normally being heavy in the union area would result in a concentration of Democrat voters, however because the area was largely Mormon, it ended up being the opposite. Always seemed to be a bit of an oxymoron of a situation to me. Hence why I say that religion is heavily tied into politics. Also, lets consider the idea of Mitt Romney. The guy might have been a good presidential candidate, however his heavy ties to his church (as any 'good Mormon' is heavily tied to their church) probably prevented his ultimate candidacy. Though if John McCain, or Hillary Clinton were to say they were Atheist or Agnostic or any religion that wasn't Christian based they would quickly be forgotten. The notion that someone wouldn't be swearing on the bible when going into office for some reason messes with peoples heads.
TomOfSweden
02-24-2008, 11:02 AM
Tom, I agree, we are far from being a sociocratic, though the country is headed in that direction. If we were there, I don't think there would be a large emphasis on getting the poverty stricken areas of the country to side with a particular candidate. I could be wrong on that point however.
How is the country heading there? If you don't mind explaining.
I consider myself so******t. But so******m can be different things to different people. Karl Marx I'd say is still the father of so******m and no matter how much Lenin, Stalin and Mao tried, for me they haven't changed the original meaning of it. What Karl Marx didn't want was static classes. ie, people born into the wealthy families where privileged and knew they'd become rich no matter what they did in life. Similarly people born into poverty would never have the means or education to raise themselves out of their station no matter what they do. So******m for me is simply combating that.
Another way to put it, allowing the American dream to be a possibility for all of USA's citizens.
I'm not a big fan of welfare. I don't think it's an inherently So******t thing. Yes, so******m has as a goal to give the poor the same sense of security as the ruling classes, so they won't be ruled by fear of starvation when pursuing their goals. This would mean some sort of financial safety net. But it should never be a means of sustenance. It should never be a situation where everybody knows that no matter how much of a fuck up they are in life, the state will always be there ready to pick up the burned out pieces.
Why this is so common in countries with so******t oriented governments I think is simply because it's a way for so******t parties to buy votes. And it'll always be the poor who vote for them... so... yeah. It's a problem with democracy. The poor will be the uneducated classes, so they're not likely to vote very cleverly.
For me so******m is things like state sponsored education. State subsidised health care. Extensive drug rehabilitation and support for ex convicts. The criminal lifestyle is typically a symptom that a poor person cannot find a dignified means of support. Just being hard on crime naturally doesn't solve the underlying problem.
The state cannot give people jobs. State run companies will always be inefficient, (= everybody loses). This is just one of those facts of life all those in-duh-lectual commie nerds with red star badges need to deal with. We need private citizens to start companies that will hire people. Hopefully give jobs to the poor that allows them to support themselves so they can stay away from crime and climb the ladder of life.
In my opinion there's no conflict with low taxes for companies and catering to increased rights for private companies to aid their means of expansion. But me mustn't be so liberal as to give the employer the ability to take advantage of his uneducated and ill-informed work force. If we do, we're back to Karl Marx's original complaint with capitalism. Unchecked the class system will be static and their will be no hope for the hard working poor to rise from their station in life. If classes are static, we can't blame the poor for turning to a life of crime. There must be a balance. Realising this and working toward maintaining that balance is what so******m is for me.
I don't see paying out social welfare under long periods to the same individuals as an intrinsic part of so******m. I think the result will be the opposite. A poor uneducated and un-networked person that also receives money falling from the sky, will be locked into lethargy. They will never get enough money to invest or get an education. All they have is enough to sustain them. This is not only expensive but counter productive. This is not social mobility or the goal of so******m.
But we can't give out welfare under short periods as if that by itself will mean that the poor feels the stress to get an education for a more qualified job. One intrinsic factor with being poor is that they're uniformed. They're utterly clueless of what possibilities they have in life. I mean... if they did know they wouldn't be poor would they?!?!?! It's easy to sit with a cushy job, like I have today and say... "hey, I had to study for ages to get this job. They're just lazy who haven't". The reasons I took this journey is complex and supported by a rich social network. I both worked hard and I was lucky. Damned fucking lucky.
We also have working class culture which is seldom instrumental in aiding them to rise from their station. They're very often their own worst enemies. But this is not their fault. This is a fault in the system.
In my opinion, Karl Marx's greatest achievement as a philosopher was to point out that the position in life you are born into is not part of some kind of divine plan. It was just luck. That you're not inevitably stuck in it. He also pointed out that the poor are held down from climbing by a complex system of rules that have evolved into place to keep the status quo. This is of course because it is the people in power who make the rules. Yes, even in a democracy. It's just the natural order of human social interaction. And if the poor classes don't realise this and demand that this status quo is constantly challenged the system will become static and the whole country will rot from within and we'll see nepotism and corruption rather than a meritocracy. And why a meritocracy is in the best interest for a countries economy, I'm sure nobody needs to have explained to them.
And I also hope that nobody needs to have explained to them how dangerous people without hope are. This is equally as true for members of Al Qaeda as of South Central gang bangers. We get the society we shape. These are modern times and with the Internet nobody with any form of higher education should miss to see the link between state policy and the symptoms of a system out of balance.
So this was a long winded explanation of what so******m means to me and how it can and should be implemented to reach it's explicit goals. There are many interpretations of what equality means. I don't interpret it as the same amount of stuff no matter what choices to make in life. But maybe that's just me.
Sir_Russell
02-24-2008, 02:57 PM
The USA needs to remember that others respect those that take care of their own first. Others are puzzled by why we don't.
Tom, simply put, the separation of the classes is widening. As I understand the topic (could misunderstand the whole bit) is that a s o c i a l i s t society is a separation of the classes (rich stay rich poor stay poor). Though we are not yet there, we are headed that way. There are organizations and groups that are endeavoring to fight that, but it is still happening. I think the slums in the major American cities are a good testament to it. Crime rate is high there because the people feel trapped, feel they can't get ahead. This may be the case, it may not. However it is how those people feel. There are exceptions to this, and is what feeds the American Dream.
My understanding of Marx and Mao is that their society is communist based, not s o c i a l i s t. Though I could have the differences all mixed up, and don't mind a lesson if I do.
wmrs2
02-24-2008, 09:55 PM
Tom, you hit the nail on the head. I wish every American could read your remarks.People need to work for a living. Some politicians want to dupe the poor into thinking the party will take care of them. I'm happy there is a division in classes so I can climb upwards. The poor, although they are poor, are a whole lot better off than they have been. In the USA the poorer get richer too. Most of the poor have colored TV and air conditioning.
Thank God for the rich. They provide jobs and pay the most taxes. People who read this thread should not go away thinking all Americans want is a free hand out, even if certain politicians claim you do. They only want your vote.
As for the Fox network, its only been around for a little over 10 years. It has taken over half the viewing audience. The power to dupe the public by the left has been challenged and you that dislike Fox, watch it some and you'll be able to spot the fallacious argument of the rest of the media. Until Fox came along you only heard the left side of the story.
If you don't like Fox I bet the other broadcast companies have said a lot of bad things to you about Fox. I view the various networks for hours each day. You only ge two points of view on Fox.
IDC, we enjoy your remarks very much. Don't be discouraged about grammar and spelling. You do very well, better than most of us and besides you are a gentleman. But you are wrong about Fox.
TomOfSweden
02-25-2008, 01:20 AM
Tom, simply put, the separation of the classes is widening. As I understand the topic (could misunderstand the whole bit) is that a s o c i a l i s t society is a separation of the classes (rich stay rich poor stay poor). Though we are not yet there, we are headed that way. There are organizations and groups that are endeavoring to fight that, but it is still happening. I think the slums in the major American cities are a good testament to it. Crime rate is high there because the people feel trapped, feel they can't get ahead. This may be the case, it may not. However it is how those people feel. There are exceptions to this, and is what feeds the American Dream.
The increased gaps between rich and poor, I don't necessarily see as a problem.
Some people are driven and some are lazy. We are differently inspired and have different hopes and dreams. Some have as their ultimate goal in life to do two chicks at one time. Another wants to own two Jaguars. If a person doesn't want to work I think he should be free to do so, but also be free from social welfare. A person who does not wish to add to the communal treasure chest shouldn't be blamed when not doing so. My issue isn't with this.
Until we've figured out "the purpose of life" I think it is wrong to tell people what they should want with their lives.
People who own their own companies generally work fucking hard. They deserve the fruits of it.
My issue is with condemning people from birth. Having them grow up with ready made labels they are expected to wear. To let people be the master of their destiny. If they want it of course.
This cannot be done without state intervention. At least not for all classes. If people will always be at the mercy of someone else's whim their minds will always be shaped by that.
The nice thing with state subsidies is that the recipients don't have to grovel in the dirt from gratitude to someone who'll expect their kindness repaid. We are all a part of an intricate financial network. We are all living off the fruits of earlier generations. There is very little in our lives we ourselves can claim is our and only our creation. This is equally true for those who are in power today. They are elevated by the rest of society a lot more than they have climbed themselves. This should be obvious to anybody, but we needed Marx to have this pointed out to us before anybody noticed.
My understanding of Marx and Mao is that their society is communist based, not s o c i a l i s t. Though I could have the differences all mixed up, and don't mind a lesson if I do.
Words change. Marx invented both the words so******m and communism and used them interchangeably. But words get connected with all kinds of connotations the original author didn't think of.
An important thing to realise with Marx is that it's the end goal which he talks about. He only proposed the communist revolution because he couldn't imagine a world where the ruling class would give up their privileges without a war. Which was exactly what happened in the west. If they'd done it without Marx first urging revolution, is another matter. It's far from inevitable.
So******m and communism are old concepts now and it would be better to modernise them. But we've yet to come up with better words for it. But Mao's China had a dictator at the top, which by definition isn't communist. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" means that the working class are in power. Once Mao seized power he stopped being working class. It was the same thing that happened in Russia and everywhere else we've seen communist revolutions. This BTW is a controversial interpretation.
I'd argue that every democratic country in the world today is communist as far as Marx is concerned. But this is controversial and far from a popular interpretation. Marx had plenty of economic theories which just where total bollocks. That's why Marx is most famous as a philosopher and not an economist. He wasn't very good at maths. So if you want to be strict about Marxist theory then none of it is possible to even potentially be carried out.
It's just that we don't really have any better words for what so******m and the spirit of so******m is. It's simply the idea that man has to step in and axle the task which was traditionally given to God. Because it seems that only man can carry it out as God intended. I think this is what put so******m on a collision course with religion. Marx didn't have anything against the philosophical religious ideas as such. It was priests, who where most often in bed with the rulers, that he had issue with.
Anyway... I'm not so******t because I am for equality for the sake of equality. I'm so******t because I think it is in the best interest for all of humanity. If we rob people of their hopes and dreams we'll get a very dangerous world. But this is equally true for the unemployed in the ghetto as the well educated and driven entrepreneur. There is no magic bullet. Balance is the key. And I also think that we'll never fully succeed. There is no perfect state or society. Somebody will always be caught in the cracks. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can.
I'm also a big fan of a pragmatic political approach rather than ideological. What I mean is that we should set a goal, throw money at it... and if it doesn't work, then do something different, no matter what the ideology says. But this is how so******m has worked in practice in western Europe toward the en of the 20'th century.
PS! A huge contribution of Marx was his way of reading history. Not based on the acts of kings and statesmen but whole societies driven by material conditions. Today this is so obvious to us that we just take it for granted. It is very easy today to ignore how steeped in Marxism every aspect of our lives and thinking are. The communist revolution has swept most of the world and was successful. We just didn't notice it because we forgot where the ideas came from.
Another long rant. he he. I need to get a hobby.
IDC, we enjoy your remarks very much. Don't be discouraged about grammar and spelling. You do very well, better than most of us and besides you are a gentleman. But you are wrong about Fox.
Thanks for enjoying my posts. As far as being wrong about Fox. I vehemently disagree with you.
If you still feel that way, I can and will go into painful detail, but I do think if you remove the blinders you will see that I am correct. You may want to consider I did also say that there are liberal outlets that do the same thing, I didn't slam only conservative media propaganda it's just fox has taken it so far that it is criminally blatant as far as news agencies go.
wmrs2
02-25-2008, 09:51 PM
Could it be that Fox has several shows that are very conservative, such as Sean Hanity, Bill O'Riley, etc., which leads you to believe that Fox News is badly slanted to the right? The news per sea does not match the extreme emphasis many of its show hosts display. Than again I like Rush too!
Have a good day.
Could it be that Fox has several shows that are very conservative, such as Sean Hanity, Bill O'Riley, etc., which leads you to believe that Fox News is badly slanted to the right? The news per sea does not match the extreme emphasis many of its show hosts display. Than again I like Rush too!
Have a good day.
If they were fairly balanced, wouldn't they also have liberal shows? The news reporting is not accurate. In fact, it has done false reporting, and has been documented as much.
Remember CBS's Dan Rather, and the false reporting that came out? Same thing has happened with Fox. Fox does it to promote a conservative slant on reality, inappropriately skewing the news in favor of this.
TomOfSweden
02-27-2008, 01:42 AM
News is entertainment. They tell and sell stories people want to buy. Nobody wants the truth, they want one cohesive story that is easy to digest that fits their storyline of the world so far. This is no problem that needs to be fixed. This is simply because it isn't practical to have any other approach. If we didn't we'd do nothing else but read and interpret news.
Derrida has written plenty about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrida he's got lot's of clips on youtube, if you're not the reading type.
We read the news that corresponds to our level of education purely out of sheer necessity.
I don't blame Fox news for formatting the truth like they do. They're a news station and this is the reality they live in. They have their niche and it's popularity is proof they're doing a good job feeding that niche with the kinds of news that niche are interested in and capable of digesting.
Anybody with any kind of education of course realises that the news isn't the truth. It's a truth. The people who don't... well... who doesn't?
I like Fox news. I think they're hilarious. It doesn't get any more jingoistic and low brow. They're the perfect parody of themselves.
Ozme52
02-27-2008, 12:55 PM
As a fellow who actually sits in the middle more often than not... I used to rail at CBS News (mostly) the way liberals rail at Fox these days. Now I have irritants at both ends of the spectrum.
Both sides are 'pots calling kettles black'.
wmrs2
02-27-2008, 03:55 PM
Thank you gentlemen for a perfect response to the Fox Question. I would say it was fair and balanced.
Thank you gentlemen for a perfect response to the Fox Question. I would say it was fair and balanced.
I guess the responses to your point of view have gone on blind eyes (would say deaf ears, but we are supposed to be reading, then again could be a braille machine). Tom, Oz and myself have all said the opposite of the above.
wmrs2
02-27-2008, 08:57 PM
What is, is. In the end I think we all want what is best for the country. If this election year signifies an end to the hatred and anger that has existed in politics since 2000. All true Americans are on the same team.
DOMLORD
02-27-2008, 09:47 PM
If they were fairly balanced, wouldn't they also have liberal shows? The news reporting is not accurate. In fact, it has done false reporting, and has been documented as much.
CNN is fairyl liberal right? and when they did do a republican youtube debate the questions were much harder than the ones the democrats got, so why aren't they accused here of being skewed towards the left?
CNN is fairyl liberal right? and when they did do a republican youtube debate the questions were much harder than the ones the democrats got, so why aren't they accused here of being skewed towards the left?
Actually it depends on your perspective. Many people actually think that CNN is somewhat conservative. Think Glenn Beck, they give him two hours during prime time to rant about whatever he thinks the country should know. Personally I perceive Glenn Beck as radically right.
If you were to compare CNN with BBC, or even CNN International in terms of international news, you can still see that it does have a conservative bias to some degree.
As far as the debates go, asking the candidates to clarify what they said about each other is simply a waste. In that way, CNN is simply trying to create some sort of reality TV show with these elections, getting one politician to attack another all in the name of higher viewership. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of any other reason Blitzer would ask Obama to comment on Clinton's remark made two weeks ago about some minute detail of no national importance. I honestly think by asking harder questions, they are giving the politicians some respect, allowing them to convey their message to all the viewers.
I like Fox news. I think they're hilarious. It doesn't get any more jingoistic and low brow. They're the perfect parody of themselves.
I find Fox News funny...what scares me though is some of the stuff that is reported is actually taken extremely seriously by a fair few viewers.
TomOfSweden
02-28-2008, 02:37 AM
I find Fox News funny...what scares me though is some of the stuff that is reported is actually taken extremely seriously by a fair few viewers.
You don't know that. I get a huge tongue in cheek vibe from the production and I assume most of their viewers aren't all total morons. I mean, check out this clip from Bill O'Reilly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ
It's like, "I don't understand all the big words you're using so I'm going to assume I won this debate".... I mean, how can it get funnier than that? It's hilarious.
Nothing is funnier than morons on TV who think they're clever and smart and the more they get wound up the more they think they're being clever. It's like reality TV, but a lot more cruel. Fox rules...
CNN is fairyl liberal right? and when they did do a republican youtube debate the questions were much harder than the ones the democrats got, so why aren't they accused here of being skewed towards the left?
I haven't seen the debate, and a debate among the republicans was not something I was really interested in watching anyways. I actually favor the republican party most of the time, but the party as a whole has been tarnished by the Bush anomaly so this time around I'm not really wanting a Republican President.
Were the questions harder? Couldn't tell you, as I think that kind of thing is hard to quantify from a viewer perspective. Why didn't I slam CNN? I didn't because I haven't seen the blatant liberal reporting that Fox does on the conservative end. That doesn't mean they don't do it, just means I haven't noticed it.
I've actually stopped watching TV news for the most part. I read most of the news I am interested in now. The "Breaking News.... Someone is driving a truck fast on the interstate in California" just doesn't interest me. Nor does the story about some cop who killed his wife and kid.
wmrs2
02-28-2008, 10:22 AM
The only way to get a fair account of political truth is to observe the reporting from all liberal and conservative reporting. The problem is that few people have enough time to do this. That's why news agencies broadcast at specific times with their particular slant, which is very obvious at said time.
I like to listen to all the news broadcast and I do have the time. I still do not receive the whole truth but I am really better able to tell those who did not have the truth when they don't know. My judgment is still far from perfect.That's how Socrates knew that he was the wisest man in Athens. He knew not but knew when he knew not. The men of Athens knew not but did not know they knew not. That's what Socrates said. He believed that people who were sure they knew something that they did not know caused a lot of confusion. That kind of reporting led to Socrates' death.
Now, how do we solve this issue? I don't know!
Thorne
02-28-2008, 02:01 PM
I've actually stopped watching TV news for the most part. I read most of the news I am interested in now. The "Breaking News.... Someone is driving a truck fast on the interstate in California" just doesn't interest me. Nor does the story about some cop who killed his wife and kid.
I don't watch the TV news either. But unlike you, I'm more interested in that high speed chase or that killer cop than any more politics. I don't want to see any debates, don't want to see the conventions, not interested in the campaign commercials. To my ears they all say the same thing: "I'll promise to do better than my opponent, at least until you dummies elect me, then I'll do whatever the hell I want anyway."
In fact, it's gotten so bad that I would almost, ALMOST, rather hear more news about those Hollywood/Pop star train wrecks than listen to more political crap. It's a close race.
I feel your pain Thorn. I read technology news, environmental news, and pay attention to the world politics. I read over stories on the race for the presidency, and use several sources to capture a broad report of what is going on so that I can make an informed choice when the time comes to be at the ballot box. Knowing what the issues are, and then seeing how the candidates stance changes over time as stories come out into the mass media reporting rather than the backwoods reporting that hasn't gotten the sensationalist spin on it yet tells me something about the person.
I think your brought up a good point about something that is going on. People are tired of hearing about it. Unless they are a political news junkie they are tired of hearing about it, and so ignore the issues, ignore the flip flopping that goes on. As a result of this apathy the issues are lost on the public. They would rather read about someone stealing money from Ms Spears, or watch "reality TV"; be entertained, and get caught up in the story line of fantasy, rather than pay attention to the story line of the things in life that affect them.
TomOfSweden
02-29-2008, 01:24 AM
But Thorne and ID, isn't this just the sign of modernity. This is what Internet has done. We, (consumers) have much higher demands on information today and don't want large amounts of information to sift through, (like our recent ancestors wanted). We want it as condensed and relevant as possible.
All you two are saying is that politics in a democracy is in crisis, because we don't vote for ideologies any more or political images. We vote for concrete acts. Or at least think we do. With the risk of stating the obvious. After a politician is elected they can only promise to give it a try. They cannot promise anything at all. So people get bored with politics. It's been reduced to the art of avoiding saying anything while still seeming likeable. And now we have reality TV. Which is the exact same spectacle. So of course nobody cares about politics any more.
I do think this is a good development. The old post industrial age nobility can't get away with only pretty speeches. "Ich bin ein berliner". Even though people are voting less, we're seeing more democracy. Step one in a democratic process is the public informing themselves. Thanks to the Internet this is happening more than ever before.
Just because people aren't listening as much to people in grey suits looking as serious as possible, doesn't mean the guy in the suit has anything to say. That is just falling for the image.
I'd say this is a new golden age for democracy. The old images and ideologies are dying and we're in the middle of a revolution where we're relearning how to learn about our world and who to listen to. Democracy is a bottom up process. I'm sure that when people our age, (I'm 33) are dead politicians will have radically different messages and will be voted in on completely different conditions. People in my generation are still letting politicians get away with doing virtually nothing at all, and are still talking about bullshit things like who's image is the best. I'm sure this will change, and will as long as politicians want to get elected in the future, and voters care about money. Change is just slow.
Tom your modernization point is part of it. However, letting the politician get away with saying they will try and do something while in office, and then vote in the opposite direction when the time comes is part of the apathy I refer to. Americans don't for the most part pay attention to those details. We re-vote incumbents into office for no other reason than our perception they have done a good job, which in many cases is not even close to the truth (Bush as a perfect example).
TomOfSweden
02-29-2008, 05:41 AM
Tom your modernization point is part of it. However, letting the politician get away with saying they will try and do something while in office, and then vote in the opposite direction when the time comes is part of the apathy I refer to. Americans don't for the most part pay attention to those details. We re-vote incumbents into office for no other reason than our perception they have done a good job, which in many cases is not even close to the truth (Bush as a perfect example).
For the last two Swedish elections there's been a few web applications where you could fill in your political opinions and it would generate a list of all the politicians and their parties on what they where planning to do within these issues, and their track record of making good on earlier promises. They where sorted after their dependability. These were created by the biggest newspaper sites.
This was just one example. The Internet is changing the world. No politician can dig themselves out of a hole with pretty speeches any more. Also voters are learning that their high demands on image is having effects on politicians. In Sweden, most politicians don't want any higher positions because it effectively stops them from having a life like ordinary people. And this is Sweden. We don't mind politicians getting drunk and fucking lovers.... They still find the pressure to high. So we as voters have to ask ourselves. What is it we're voting for. Ability to lead and dependability, or a spotless and boring private life.
The latest example is Obama's Muslim outfit. If people care about stuff like that, we're still back in the pre-Internet political climate.
But it'll change. The old coots who care about still like this will die out. I'm sure of it.