Reading these forums and posting every now and then I am convinced that this country of ours will never get along. What is posted here reflects our nation. We have posters on one side that say "teabaggers" and another that says "libtards". How do we move on from the Bush and Obama haters into a country that really works together and comes together? This is a question for you all... Flame away.
Beat it you maggot.
Just kidding.
I agree, the partisan rift keeps growing when it seems obvious that most solutions probably like somewhere in the middle. I believe until we have people who are truly interested in "serving" the country instead of "being in power" it's going to be this way. I also believe that slanted commentary media and blogs have taken over as the primary political news source for more people. If someone watches Rachael Maddow and reads Daily Kos for all their political information, they are going to believe that liberal thinking is the only way and that conservative solutions are full of failure. Likewise for someone who watches Hannity and reads only conservative blogs only they will think all solutions lie in conservatism.
Unfortunately, access to more information from more un-eductated or at least very slanted sources is blurring the lines of reality.
As far as my own partisan issues I see them as follows:
Where I'm growing increasingly more frustrated with my own party is the blind mantra that tax cuts are the only solution, when it's obvious our government needs to cut spending and we all need to chip in and help pay down the debt. I'm also sick and tired of GOP candidates pandering to the evangelicals.
I don't like the liberal philosophy that there's no problem too big for an even bigger government to stick it's nose into. I don't believe that the solution to every problem has a price tag on it, but rather can be better solved through personal effort.
I was thinking to myself this morning, what would happen if every single citizen and non-citizen would say: "What is one way I could stand to be less dependent on government and what could I do to make that happen today?"
/\/\/\/\/\ Give that man a Marshall's!
I don't think its just politics. Its the nation's personality. We are so divided on so much and so passionate about our divisions that one begins to wonder when the revolution commences, except that we're not united enough to even do that! Much of it comes from a well informed populace that feeds that information through a faulty attitudinal frame of reference. IOW, they hear what they want to hear, believe what fits into their mindset.
FWIW, I have become more convinced that nothing gets done when we all are trying to just get along and compromise. Civility is nice and I respond better to it, but truthfully, we would still have slavery today had we all just played nice. So, as much as I regret the loss of civility it may serve a purpose.
Quote from: TulsaMoon on June 14, 2011, 01:45:08 PM
Reading these forums and posting every now and then I am convinced that this country of ours will never get along. What is posted here reflects our nation. We have posters on one side that say "teabaggers" and another that says "libtards". How do we move on from the Bush and Obama haters into a country that really works together and comes together? This is a question for you all... Flame away.
Slavery? Some still are slaves to other thangs than their mastas....
When the day ends, no matter our differences the anger and divisiveness subsides. It's been interesting to see the underlying tone here compared to 3 or 4 years ago become less spiteful. I think our country is changing. We can all now agree war with the Arabs is a no win and expensive but we may differ on the use of force here and abroad. Perhaps, coming to the realization that we are all in this boat together helps. Or perhaps it's because of an election cycle lull. But in between the lines of many posts here concern and good nature seem to prevail. I've even started to ignore the personal attacks, the bullying, and the sucker punching. :P
TulsaMoon,
We can't. We have been this divided since about the beginning, except for very special occasions, for very short times.
And I always try to write the formal usage, "Tea Baggers" rather than the informal contraction. It just ain't right to pervert the language so. And also, the formal, "Dummycrats" and "Republicontins".
Teatown may have something in the election cycle lull. Just wait until next year.
Aqua,
We replaced one form of slavery with another.
I'm worried.
We've always been a country that disagrees vehemently with itself and that's cool. That's what we do. Our whole form of government encourages it. But we can't agree on the facts to disagree on. What is actually real is at issue, and that boggles my mind. Global warming is one of those things. So is evolution. So is our recent economic history. Also some of the things that happened during the Bush Admin. That's not exhaustive, just some of the stuff off the top of my head.
I'm not making a judgement about what we've decided -- you can read my posting history for that -- but we've decided that what actually happened is up for grabs. Numbers, provable facts, the historical record -- all of these are maleable, and that's what I don't understand. Why facts don't matter.
This is what makes it hard for me to accept compromise these days. Because in many cases it is not a compromise between competing solutions, it's a compromise between fact and not fact. It's a compromise between solutions based on proven data and solutions based entirely on ideology.
So, at least on a personal level, I don't know where we go from here. Over my political life, I feel that I've been pushed to be more and more partisan, more by the other side than by folks on my side of the aisle, so unless the tone on the other side abates I don't know how I can ease away, either. I appreciate the honest debates I hear on the forum, and occasionally we'll have a discussion between sharply differing viewpoints that shows you what's possible. But that's not where the money and power is in Washington right now. The money and power is in fighting, and that's why we've got what we've got.
/rambleton.
Quote from: TulsaMoon on June 14, 2011, 01:45:08 PM
Reading these forums and posting every now and then I am convinced that this country of ours will never get along. What is posted here reflects our nation. We have posters on one side that say "teabaggers" and another that says "libtards". How do we move on from the Bush and Obama haters into a country that really works together and comes together? This is a question for you all... Flame away.
I like where you are going with this thread.
I believe that for most of us, the goal is the same, but the vehicle is different. The vast majority of people who participate in political banter unfortunately do so with a my/your team mentality. For them politics is sport. That is unfortunate because they don't take joy in fully exploring and understanding the philosophy of others. These people are easy to spot because when their argument weakens they resort to name-calling just like when their team is losing.
I think we grow through the debate, as long as each side listens to the other and is civil in their disagreements. I can not speak for everyone, but my goal is to build on my own understanding of politics and society. To do this I need to understand the philosophy and passion of others. I can appreciate those who agree with me, but I value those who disagree even more.
If my ideas, perceptions, and interpretation of history cannot hold up to the scrutiny or logic of others, than they are of little use to me. On the other side of the coin, I must admit, I do take pleasure in the rare occasion when even the most illogical opposition to my point of view submits and validates my position.
TulsaMoon, do not view our banter here as negative, on the contrary, I believe that we all greatly value each member's participation. The vast majority of regulars hold each other in high regard, even if they won't admit it. Our evangelism for our particular flavor of politics is fed by our need to express why we believe that way. We each care enough about our audience to gift significant amounts of time to them, and likewise they to us. For that I am very thankful. These people are my teachers. :)
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2011, 03:52:01 PM
I'm worried.
We've always been a country that disagrees vehemently with itself and that's cool. That's what we do. Our whole form of government encourages it. But we can't agree on the facts to disagree on. What is actually real is at issue, and that boggles my mind. Global warming is one of those things. So is evolution. So is our recent economic history. Also some of the things that happened during the Bush Admin. That's not exhaustive, just some of the stuff off the top of my head.
I'm not making a judgement about what we've decided -- you can read my posting history for that -- but we've decided that what actually happened is up for grabs. Numbers, provable facts, the historical record -- all of these are maleable, and that's what I don't understand. Why facts don't matter.
This is what makes it hard for me to accept compromise these days. Because in many cases it is not a compromise between competing solutions, it's a compromise between fact and not fact. It's a compromise between solutions based on proven data and solutions based entirely on ideology.
So, at least on a personal level, I don't know where we go from here. Over my political life, I feel that I've been pushed to be more and more partisan, more by the other side than by folks on my side of the aisle, so unless the tone on the other side abates I don't know how I can ease away, either. I appreciate the honest debates I hear on the forum, and occasionally we'll have a discussion between sharply differing viewpoints that shows you what's possible. But that's not where the money and power is in Washington right now. The money and power is in fighting, and that's why we've got what we've got.
/rambleton.
I find it disturbing that one faction of Americans can view another faction of Americans as the enemy.Unfortunately each side views compromise as capitulation or losing something. It's all about maintaining power and maintaining political capital, it's not about moving America forward. It's about creating the most believable sound bites to those who keep them in power so they can become more powerful. The two party system is horribly broken. It allows for one party to pillage the treasury and remove more liberties from individuals either via a philosophy of empowering the government or empowering private enterprise.
People like Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews have become useful tools for the RNC and DNC to get partisan messages out. It's led to less of a middle ground, if you ask me. As a kid, there were the local news papers and the evening news for your political news. That was it. Any opinion shows were Meet The Press or the occasional political piece on 60 Minutes. 30 years ago we were not completely inundated with so much supporting chatter of partisan political ideas.
Now one can spend an entire day at work doing nothing but reading one political blog after another which helps to feed which ever partisan view they wish to ascribe to.
You mention facts as if it's only your side of the aisle's view which is based in fact. The "facts" keep getting filtered by people who stand to gain one way or the other, i.e. those who can profit from man-made global warming and those whose lives will be better if it's disproven.
As long as the goal is to remain in power and each side keeps effectively putting their message out through a well organized media assault, this is what we can expect. I think it's time to quit thinking of ourselves as Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, but rather as Americans.
I think it's time to quit thinking of ourselves as Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, but rather as Americans.
Thank you, this is exactly what I was hoping to see. This is the path to moving America forward IMO.
Quote from: TulsaMoon on June 14, 2011, 10:18:49 PM
I think it's time to quit thinking of ourselves as Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, but rather as Americans.
Thank you, this is exactly what I was hoping to see. This is the path to moving America forward IMO.
We're all Americans, and Gaspar was right up thread. We all want the best for the country, or we wouldn't be arguing our points so vehemently. But I'll bite: what do you think needs to happen for us to come together? Practically speaking? what are the issues you'd like to see us compromise on, and what does that mean?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2011, 04:38:00 PM
I find it disturbing that one faction of Americans can view another faction of Americans as the enemy.
Unfortunately each side views compromise as capitulation or losing something. It's all about maintaining power and maintaining political capital, it's not about moving America forward. It's about creating the most believable sound bites to those who keep them in power so they can become more powerful. The two party system is horribly broken. It allows for one party to pillage the treasury and remove more liberties from individuals either via a philosophy of empowering the government or empowering private enterprise.
People like Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews have become useful tools for the RNC and DNC to get partisan messages out. It's led to less of a middle ground, if you ask me. As a kid, there were the local news papers and the evening news for your political news. That was it. Any opinion shows were Meet The Press or the occasional political piece on 60 Minutes. 30 years ago we were not completely inundated with so much supporting chatter of partisan political ideas.
Now one can spend an entire day at work doing nothing but reading one political blog after another which helps to feed which ever partisan view they wish to ascribe to.
You mention facts as if it's only your side of the aisle's view which is based in fact. The "facts" keep getting filtered by people who stand to gain one way or the other, i.e. those who can profit from man-made global warming and those whose lives will be better if it's disproven.
As long as the goal is to remain in power and each side keeps effectively putting their message out through a well organized media assault, this is what we can expect. I think it's time to quit thinking of ourselves as Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, but rather as Americans.
I think we're sort of talking about the same thing, re: facts. Back when there was one or two news outlets that people trusted, there was a consensus that Cronkite could present America with those necessary set of facts and with those facts we could have an adult discussion about what needed to happen. I suppose it all could've come crashing down with a liberal news outlet, but it didn't. Instead, Fox News decided to turn itself into a right wing propaganda channel and they've been doing that for a decade now. Obviously that was only the start -- blogs and indy reporting followed, left and right -- but Fox News IMHO was a major watershed in how our news and facts have been partisanized.
I mention facts because something has to be true, and I try to hunt down the things that have a proven history behind them or a scientific consensus or the place that the experts with experience have come down on. I'm not saying "my side" has a monopoly on truth, but there doesn't seem to be as strong a concern for these things on the right, especially when we're talking about the Tea Partiers, many of whom are still arguing the finer points of Obama's citizenship, despite all the evidence to the contrary. And these folks will discard the facts they don't like in favor of conspiracy theories, because the conspiracy theories hold the facts that they want to agree with.
(Yes, the left did this with Bush, but the worst and weirdest of these people never got elected to higher office; we're now looking at a strong minority caucus in the House guided by the anti-fact, not to mention state level legislators and executives.)
I am your fellow American and I care deeply about the country and what exactly my daughter will inherit when she's an adult, and I'm ready to support compromise on most of the issues floating around out there, but I'm not ready to support compromise that is based solely on ideology. Unfortunately, that's where we are with a lot of the folks on the right. (I don't include you personally in that group, btw. I enjoy arguing with you because you're an independent thinker, and that's valuable to either side of the aisle.)
Quote from: we vs us on June 15, 2011, 07:04:04 AM
Obviously that was only the start -- blogs and indy reporting followed, left and right -- but Fox News IMHO was a major watershed in how our news and facts have been partisanized.
I think Dan Rather was a forerunner in regard to slanted news. We stopped listening to CBS network news shortly after he became the anchor.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 15, 2011, 08:01:49 AM
I think Dan Rather was a forerunner in regard to slanted news. We stopped listening to CBS network news shortly after he became the anchor.
That was before my time, but I can understand. From what I've heard, Cronkite coming out against the Vietnam War was a pivotal moment . . . both for the policy of the state and also for the idea that news could/should actively shape policy. Dan Rather was a relatively young pup at that point, if I remember correctly.
Quote from: we vs us on June 15, 2011, 07:04:04 AM
Instead, Fox News decided to turn itself into a right wing propaganda channel and they've been doing that for a decade now. Obviously that was only the start -- blogs and indy reporting followed, left and right -- but Fox News IMHO was a major watershed in how our news and facts have been partisanized.
At least in my lifetime, you could probably trace this back as far as Vietnam and Watergate, though after those issues were in the rearview mirror everyone seemed to pick up and move on.
In terms of more recent events which got us to this point, people started following news much more closely as a form of entertainment as the first Gulf War unfolded in their living rooms. Then the current shrill partisan era began with the advent of political commentary talk radio in the early 1990's as more adults were turning from music to information for their daily radio listening. Rush Limbaugh became the opposition voice to the Clinton Administration. Other than Paul Harvey, can anyone think of another radio broadcaster who had been so broadly syndicated at that point in time? I honestly cannot remember a time in my brief history that any administration was under daily scrutiny like the Clintons were. Every foible, every mis-step by a cabinet member was pointed out with glee. You never heard about any success of the Clintons on Limbaugh's show or other conservative commentators who started getting their own shows as the popularity of talk radio continued to grow. I believe that was also when more people began to hear the terms "liberal" and "conservative" on a daily basis and started to examine more of where their core values aligned with the political issues.
When Republicans swept legislative elections in 1994, I do believe they owed a good deal of that to great dissemination of information via talk radio. The internet was also starting to really take off, and there were multiple information channels on cable. I believe that's about the time I first heard the term "information junkie".
Newt Gingrich, bolstered by a growing conservative cheering squad and a massive ego, viewed the GOP revolution as an absolute repudiation of anything Democrat, liberal, or Clinton. I have always resented the waste of time and money on the White Water investigation. Certainly some of that was payback for the Iran/Contra investigation and hearings. This was a real departure from previous legislative and executive branch relationships when there were opposing parties in the majorities vs. the White House. Even though Tip O'Neill and President Reagan did butt heads, they did appear to respect each other and realized compromise had real value in tackling the issues of the day. I'm too young to really properly analyze previous administrations relationships, at least on a day-to-day basis.
I did find some interesting information Googling around as to the origins of the news channels. I was already aware CNN had been around since 1980 or '81. Fox and MSNBC both launched in 1996. Here's an interesting fact I was not previously aware of: Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and John Gibson all worked for MSNBC in those early years.
In reality, I don't think you can really pick out a slant one way or the other in the actual hard news shows on Fox or MSNBC. The problem is, people tune in to Maddow or O'Reilly and mistake them for news journalists. Fox was more the innovator of having a slate of political commentator programming before MSNBC. Where either network blurs the lines of journalist vs. entertainer is when they have their staff of commentators man the desk during something like election or debate coverage or national disaster coverage. Putting them into more traditional news roles like that confuses some viewers into believing they are non-partisan. Likewise, someone who had as visible a reporting career like Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper segueing into commentary helps confuse the viewer as well as to what are facts and what are opinion.
Yes, Fox fired the first volley in a larger volume of political commentary, but MSNBC has caught up to it. People who want their own political views bolstered have a home network where they can feed those thought patterns around the clock. If anyone assumes they are getting "facts" by watching political commentary, they simply are not getting them without a filter.
Quote from: we vs us on June 15, 2011, 06:21:27 AM
We're all Americans, and Gaspar was right up thread. We all want the best for the country, or we wouldn't be arguing our points so vehemently. But I'll bite: what do you think needs to happen for us to come together? Practically speaking? what are the issues you'd like to see us compromise on, and what does that mean?
I grew up on a farm in the middle of nowhere miles from any other kids. I had only my younger sister who was very close in age to play with. I never wanted to do the things she wanted to do and like wise she didn't like my ideas. I wanted to throw the baseball, she wanted to play with dolls and jump rope. In the end after fighting like brothers and sisters do we did the things the other wanted to do.
Not all issues will be compromised but most can be if we learn to swing the rope and catch the ball.
Quote from: TulsaMoon on June 15, 2011, 09:52:38 AM
I grew up on a farm in the middle of nowhere miles from any other kids. I had only my younger sister who was very close in age to play with. I never wanted to do the things she wanted to do and like wise she didn't like my ideas. I wanted to throw the baseball, she wanted to play with dolls and jump rope. In the end after fighting like brothers and sisters do we did the things the other wanted to do.
Not all issues will be compromised but most can be if we learn to swing the rope and catch the ball.
Compromise is beautiful and the outcome can be a victory for both sides of the argument. Compromise represents growth in the understanding that not all of your ideas are wrong, and not all of my ideas are right.
How we define compromise is another matter. The term itself is a masterful political tool in that it is thrown around under a myriad of guises. To compromise you must accommodate, not conquer.
The entire art of politics is an act of compromise because it involves being able to manage more than a single individual can comprehend or manage alone.
Interesting how much talk about compromise I am hearing. Just no where else on this site.
Here's some compromise for ya....more of a prediction, actually.
What is, has been, and will be required to "fix" the problems we have are fairly straightforward. But likely to be impossible to compromise on.
1. Cut federal spending in real terms by <pick a number>. I put 8% into that fill in the blank. Must be at least 5%, but probably cannot be more than 10%. Enough to seriously help the effort and a little bit painful for every department involved, but not enough to hurt the function of the government. Yes, including defense. And as a side project, quit using warfare as a tool of economic policy - let's remember what Dwight Eisenhower said about the military-industrial complex. No more imperialistic voyeurism. And eliminate completely some of the really, truly ignorant stuff we do - $18 billion per year example; war on marijuana.
2. Allow the ignorance of both the Obama and the Bush tax cuts to expire. No thinking person with even half a brain left can possibly believe that higher taxes are not part of the solution to the financial problems we are dumping on our kids! And for at least the last several years, anyone who says it isn't necessary is just showing their ignorance. In so many ways.
3. Unwind some of those actions that corporate America has bought and paid for at the expense of the working people in this country. NAFTA, CAFTA, "jobs-for-China". If we are going to use tax policy as an economic tool, quit using it as a hammer to beat on the people of this country. Use it to encourage job retention, growth, creation here.
4. Lighten up!! Break out the Zig-Zags, roll a fat one, light it up, kick back and relax!
Here's to "The King".....F___ing......!!!!!
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2011, 03:52:01 PM
I'm not making a judgement about what we've decided -- you can read my posting history for that -- but we've decided that what actually happened is up for grabs. Numbers, provable facts, the historical record -- all of these are maleable, and that's what I don't understand. Why facts don't matter.
This. As long as most of one side and a significant contingent of the other is perfectly willing to outright lie and our news media refuses to call any of them out on those provably false statements, we're foobared.
I was talking with someone in the DR about this a couple of days ago. He was talking about how corrupt their politics are and how the politicians can get away with even the most bald faced lies. I mentioned that the same thing happens here. He responded that at least we have people sitting in their basements crunching the numbers and letting everyone know when the politicians are being..liberal..with the truth.
My response was essentially that it doesn't matter that the facts are out there because they rarely are presented in any news media that most people watch/read and that even when the facts are presented, there's some fool from the other side countering the factual information with outright lies and that the reporter refuses to step in and call out the lies thus leaving everyone confused, at best.
We have a contingent of powerful people who looked at how much smile the leaders of Latin American countries could get away with and decided that's what we should have here. Lo and behold, their decades-long struggle is finally coming to fruition.
I am fully convinced that the first step absolutely must be a renewed respect for fact over spin. I just don't know how we can possibly get there in a post-Citizens United world.
Speaking of Citizens United, I was watching CNN the other day and their crusade (justified or not) against Weiner. The guest they brought on to clarify the situation? David Bossie, of Citizens United. So much for not being partisan, eh?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 15, 2011, 09:23:29 AM
Yes, Fox fired the first volley in a larger volume of political commentary, but MSNBC has caught up to it. People who want their own political views bolstered have a home network where they can feed those thought patterns around the clock. If anyone assumes they are getting "facts" by watching political commentary, they simply are not getting them without a filter.
Facts are no longer important to the masses. We have moved from a logical society where survival was based on personal responsibility, to an emotional society where your actions are not as important as our feelings, and personal responsibility gives way to collective dependency.
As we move closer to a more socialized form of government THE WILL is replaced by EMOTION, and an ever increasing desire for fairness over achievement.
The media is a reflection of this, as information is replaced by entertainment. Conservatives are forced to get their news from crying voices on the radio and liberals rely on a comedian. Every media outlet competes to tell the same story with more shock value then their competitor. No one wants to be bothered with facts any more.
As the growing emphasis on feelings crowds out reason, facts will play a smaller role in public discourse. – Paul Craig Roberts
The problem isn't so much people as the news media. Unless there's a television news station on which I can find facts and sober commentary? (the closest thing is Dan Rather Reports on HDNet!) It began a long time ago when news went from being a loss leader to being just another profit center, leading to the thought among news directors that their shows must primarily be entertaining, so as to sell more ads.
The end was when Dan Rather was fired for reporting the truth about GWB's military service (or lack thereof). The facts didn't matter to the troglodytes who were more concerned about whether or not the image shown on air was of the actual original document than whether the text was accurate. They still don't. And they don't seem to matter to the media, either.
It has much more to do with dollars than demand. If it were about demand, it would be possible to find some reasonable news outlet. Besides, the more BS the news becomes the easier it is for the powerful to push their agendas unnoticed.
Quote from: nathanm on June 16, 2011, 03:24:56 PM
The problem isn't so much people as the news media. Unless there's a television news station on which I can find facts and sober commentary? (the closest thing is Dan Rather Reports on HDNet!) It began a long time ago when news went from being a loss leader to being just another profit center, leading to the thought among news directors that their shows must primarily be entertaining, so as to sell more ads.
The end was when Dan Rather was fired for reporting the truth about GWB's military service (or lack thereof). The facts didn't matter to the troglodytes who were more concerned about whether or not the image shown on air was of the actual original document than whether the text was accurate. They still don't. And they don't seem to matter to the media, either.
It has much more to do with dollars than demand. If it were about demand, it would be possible to find some reasonable news outlet. Besides, the more BS the news becomes the easier it is for the powerful to push their agendas unnoticed.
Nathan, the document was an outright forgery. That was the whole basis of evidence for Rather's story in the first place.
The real problem as I see it is people are getting lazy in wanting the media to summarize an ever-increasing amount of information available. One favorite editing trick with a print story is come up with a shocking headline and get the most influential, sordid, or salient details in the first two paragraphs.
Hypothetical case in point: Story is that jobless claims were up last month. Headline says: "More People Lose Jobs Last Month!"
In the first two paragraphs, it gives the facts and figures and that's the 10th straight month of jobless claims being up. Finally in the third and fourth paragraph, we learn this was the lowest number of new jobless claims in ten months.
Same story separate publication: "New Jobless Claims Lowest In 10 Months"
In the first two paragraphs you'd get how many people hit the rolls, but also noted would be the good news that the job bleeding seems to be abating as it's been slowing the last two months and it's finally at the lowest it's been in the last 10 months.
If the editor wants to mine good news out of the facts, they will. If the editor wants to mine negative news out of the facts, they will do that as well.
Same with broadcast media. Bill O'Reilly might be summarizing the facts, but also adding his own opinion to come up with his summary.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 16, 2011, 03:44:10 PM
If the editor wants to mine good news out of the facts, they will. If the editor wants to mine negative news out of the facts, they will do that as well.
As will the individual.
Quote from: Townsend on June 16, 2011, 03:55:10 PM
As will the individual.
That is the responsibility of the individual!
We enjoy the freedom of living in our own reality. When two or more share that reality, you have community. When someone wishes to dictate reality, you have tyranny.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 16, 2011, 04:25:36 PM
That is the responsibility of the individual!
We enjoy the freedom of living in our own reality. When two or more share that reality, you have community. When someone wishes to dictate reality, you have tyranny.
First, there are facts,then statistical inference/logic and finally value judgement. Many of our educators and politicians want to start with the last and forget or invent the first two. Value has become subjective. We need quality educators and politicians.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 16, 2011, 04:48:07 PM
First, there are facts,then statistical inference/logic and finally value judgement. Many of our educators and politicians want to start with the last and forget or invent the first two. Value has become subjective. We need quality educators and politicians.
smile! That's the second time I've agreed with you in less than a week.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 16, 2011, 04:25:36 PM
When two or more share that reality, you have community.
Or you get Jim and Tammy Fae Baker et al.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 16, 2011, 04:48:07 PM
First, there are facts,then statistical inference/logic and finally value judgement. Many of our educators and politicians want to start with the last and forget or invent the first two. Value has become subjective. We need quality educators and politicians.
Here's an excellent example from a few minutes ago.
Chris Matthews: "Weiner's Press conference reminded me of the Saddam Hussein hanging today. Even they couldn't do that right."
Quote from: Conan71 on June 16, 2011, 03:44:10 PM
Nathan, the document was an outright forgery. That was the whole basis of evidence for Rather's story in the first place.
..
Actually, it wasn't. The officer's secretary confirmed that the content, at least, was authentic. Hence my dig at the troglodytes more concerned about whether what was shown on air was authentic.
Quote
The real problem as I see it is people are getting lazy in wanting the media to summarize an ever-increasing amount of information available. One favorite editing trick with a print story is come up with a shocking headline and get the most influential, sordid, or salient details in the first two paragraphs.
Hypothetical case in point: Story is that jobless claims were up last month. Headline says: "More People Lose Jobs Last Month!"
Yeah, that happens sometimes, too, but you'll note that video is still where it's at for most people. Specifically TV news. Other than the big 3, which have been suffering from declining viewership for years, most TV "news" consists of Crossfire-like argument between left and right. That's what people see day in and day out. Even when it's not, and hosts/journalists are interviewing political operatives or whomever, they almost never challenge any lies put forth by the interviewee.
It's very difficult to get an accurate view of events without online "media," and even that only works because you have twenty different versions of a story to compare and contrast, or statistics direct from the source at your fingertips.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 16, 2011, 04:25:36 PM
When someone wishes to dictate reality, you have tyranny.
When someone wishes to dictate reality, you have schizophrenia. Reality is what it is. Facts are what they are. No amount of dictating or lack thereof can or will change that.
You can confuse people as to what reality is, ala 1984, but you can't change the facts at a given point in time.
And the O'Keefe videos have been shown to be fraudulent, and yet, they remain entrenched in the minds of the uneducated and uneducable.
Facts are a fungible commodity.