Least and most religious nations

[Thorne]

If you choose something not on the menu offered by the corporate system - like TV programs not controlled by the Murdoch corporation, or guaranteed GM-free food, or cars built to be fuel efficient rather than to make money for the industry, or a bank account that doesn't subsidise overpaid fiscal gamblers, and don't even think of a political party not controlled by big money - suddenly it gets a lot harder, and you realise that maybe you and everyone else were never as free as you thought.

Perhaps a little disingenuous here, don't you think? If you don't like what's on the TV, don't watch it. And make sure you tell advertisers that you won't watch it. And convince your neighbors to tell advertisers the same thing. That's how the system works. If people don't watch, the advertisers don't spend money, and the show goes away.

Problem is, the people DO watch. Programmers are smart enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator, virtually guaranteeing viewers for their advertisers. If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming. Or just don't watch, find something else to amuse you.

Because if people really had the freedom they imagine they have, they might have a choice in whether some billionaire financer should be allowed to control people's lives, and that would be a change far more radical than squabbles over whether to worship Allah or Darwin.

As sad as it may be, people with money have always had far too much control over the people who do not have money. That's also the way things work. Mostly because the people without money are hoping that some of that money will pass on down to them somehow. Maybe if they wear the right clothes, eat the right food, drink the right wine, they can be rich as well. Meanwhile, they are spending what little they have and making the rich even richer.

The solution, of course, is to not succumb to hero worship and live your life, and spend your money, for your own benefit and not to benefit a corporation. Buying the expensive brand instead of the more economical brand is not going to make you more attractive/sexy/desirable. It will only make you poorer.

And just to satisfy my curiosity, could you please point me in the direction of the nearest Temple/Church/Mosque of Darwin? I've been dying to pray to old Chuck, but can't seem to find anyplace where I can worship Him.

[leo9]

Perhaps a little disingenuous here, don't you think? If you don't like what's on the TV, don't watch it.

My point exactly. Your freedom of choice turns out to be the freedom to take what you're offered.

And make sure you tell advertisers that you won't watch it. And convince your neighbors to tell advertisers the same thing. That's how the system works. If people don't watch, the advertisers don't spend money, and the show goes away.

And gets replaced with something almost identical with detail changes. When did you last see something genuinely different?

If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming.

And compete with Sky and News International, good luck with that. But in fact, that *is* happening now with online news and entertainment sites, which is why the media giants are trying to get a grip on the Net so they can squeeze out content they don't like.

My point was, I feel your dedication to the war on religion sometimes blinds you to other social problems. The great consumer society is not part of the solution.

And just to satisfy my curiosity, could you please point me in the direction of the nearest Temple/Church/Mosque of Darwin? I've been dying to pray to old Chuck, but can't seem to find anyplace where I can worship Him.

In this country he's got his face on the most widely circulated banknote, that's about as close to cannonisation as a secular figure gets.

[thir]

Problem is, the people DO watch. Programmers are smart enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator, virtually guaranteeing viewers for their advertisers. If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming. Or just don't watch, find something else to amuse you.

So, the freedom of choice here is Watch Our Shit (meant for the lowest common denominator) or Nothing. Some choice.
The only channels worth watching are often the non-commercial ones.

As sad as it may be, people with money have always had far too much control over the people who do not have money. That's also the way things work.

'Always'? How far back do we go?
Anyway it isn't 'the way things work.' It is the way some powerful people make it work. It is not a law of nature.

The solution, of course, is to not succumb to hero worship and live your life, and spend your money, for your own benefit and not to benefit a corporation. Buying the expensive brand instead of the more economical brand is not going to make you more attractive/sexy/desirable. It will only make you poorer.

But, according to you these choices are what gives you freedom! Why?

[thir]

"It’s Official. We Are All Contaminated
It’s all over the Internet by now. Research carried out by the University of California reveals that of 268 expectant mothers each of them showed levels of toxic chemicals. The study, recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives, concluded, “Certain PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, phenols, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate were detected in 99 to 100% of pregnant women.” Read the report HERE."

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its...#ixzz1BspkqdH2




http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its...ed.html?page=2

[lucy]

"It’s Official. We Are All Contaminated
It’s all over the Internet by now. Research carried out by the University of California reveals that of 268 expectant mothers each of them showed levels of toxic chemicals. The study, recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives, concluded, “Certain PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, phenols, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate were detected in 99 to 100% of pregnant women.” Read the report HERE."

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its...#ixzz1BspkqdH2

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its...ed.html?page=2

And how ist that news?
Plus: Have they made comparative studies, to see whether those leves of contamination have risen or fallen over the last 10 years? Not too long ago, they'd have found large amounts of lead, too. Then unleaded fuel was introduced and lo and behold, lead's off the list.
Face it: Never before in the history of humankind have so many people had the possibility to live so healthy as today.
If people decide to stuff themselves with oversized meals and drive the 100 m from McDonalds to Walmart, then that's their choice. It's also what kills them, not a bit of PCB.
With that I don't want to insinuate that I think PCBs and all that other crap shouldn't be taken off the market.

I just want to say that compared to the health risks people take willingly and knowingly (i.e. not move their asses, eat too much, eat the wrong stuff, no hygiene in their kitchens) the health risks of those poisons you mentioned are chickenshit.

Besides, as Thorne said: Choice FTW.

[Thorne]

So, the freedom of choice here is Watch Our Shit (meant for the lowest common denominator) or Nothing. Some choice.
The only channels worth watching are often the non-commercial ones.

So what are you saying? We'd be better off with only one TV network? No choice at all? That hardly seems an improvement. As I said earlier, in this country you have the freedom to establish your own network if what's available doesn't suit you. Just get the money. And I agree, the non-commercial channels often have the better quality programming. Not necessarily the most enjoyable, but the better quality.

'Always'? How far back do we go?

At least as far back as the establishment of money.

Anyway it isn't 'the way things work.' It is the way some powerful people make it work. It is not a law of nature.

Sadly it's a law of human nature. Far too many people are willing to accept the advice and opinions of wealthy people than of poorer people.

But, according to you these choices are what gives you freedom! Why?

No, freedom allows me to have the choices. Just because all the choices may be bad doesn't take away from the benefit of having choices. Better to choose among three or four (or 124) bad choices than to not have any choice at all.

[leo9]

Sadly it's a law of human nature. Far too many people are willing to accept the advice and opinions of wealthy people than of poorer people.

Well, thank goodness for that. Where would we be if people had listened to that crazy Ghandi in his homespun loincloth, rather than the rich Indians (and Westerners) who were making a good thing out of the British Raj? And as for those Reds like Mao and Lenin, who talked like they were proud of not being rich... yes, it's a good thing it's a law of human nature that people listened to the rich folk instead of them.

(I'm not getting into religious figures because it's too easy, and because I don't want to annoy you too much )

[Thorne]

Well, thank goodness for that. Where would we be if people had listened to that crazy Ghandi in his homespun loincloth, rather than the rich Indians (and Westerners) who were making a good thing out of the British Raj? And as for those Reds like Mao and Lenin, who talked like they were proud of not being rich... yes, it's a good thing it's a law of human nature that people listened to the rich folk instead of them.

I didn't say EVERYONE will listen to the rich over the poor. Again, I feel it's a function of education. Those who are better educated tend to put more stock into another person's words and actions than in his wealth. But given a particular issue, I think most people will tend to listen to a wealthy person rather than a poor one. Until the wealthy person screws up one time too many. Plus, once you get the mob involved all bets are off.