Freedom

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000@18 May 2003 - 18:06
clocker, i can't tell if you're disagreeing with my point or not,

---

You can't tell because, as yet, I'm trying to figure out what your point is. By saying "it's no coincidence" are you implying that there is a conspiracy to bias our media?
Given my internet access I can expose myself to the particular biases of newsreporting from anywhere in the world.
Who do you recommend for completely unvarnished coverage of world affairs?

Filtering (spinning) is always a problem, myfiles, but how can you deny the variety of views and sources in the U.S.?
Surely you don't think other democracies outstrip us when it comes to sheer 'quantity' of media?

Not the U.K.

Not continental Europe.

Nowhere else, either; nothing can be had anywhere that cannot be had here.

I speak, of course, in terms of availability-those who choose to remain ignorant are doomed to remain so due to mental laziness compounded by the incredible volume of data that they are bombarded with.
We had the discussion (you remember) earlier about the need to seine 'news' intake-some are incapable, and in many cases, I believe, should be applauded for their apathy; I prefer they stay away from the voting booth. :D

Actually, you may be on to something insofar as a lessening of the "snowed-under" effect, in locales where news is less 'prevalent', would necessarily lead to easier digestion of same? :huh:

I think myfiles was meaning the American public at large..

Surely it's quality over quantity. ;)

I've been saying for years now that people who want to vote (in any country) should have to pass a basic knowledge test. ;) One person - one vote doesn't work out too well if Person A is well informed and makes his well-informed vote and Person B watches FOX news while waiting for Jerry Springer and picks Canidate B because "his name looks good."

Unfortunately, it's not a popular opinion. :D

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@18 May 2003 - 19:25


Unfortunately, it's not a popular opinion. :D

---

I think it's a great idea.

For everyone.
I think it's wishful thinking to believe that the population of your country ( wherever it may be) is any more knowledgable than that of the US.

clocker i've got a flu and am minutes away from slumber, but depending on what you mean by 'knowledgeable', i think perhaps we disagree after all. I am convinced, and i don't think it would be very hard to support my opinion with innumerable studies, that the average american is exceptionally ignorant regarding world affairs and world history. obviously the american elite (scientists, intellectuals, etc) do not belong to this group, and lead in any number of fields of study...this is often cited as a dominant characteristic of american society, the best of the best, the worst of the worst.

j2k4, my observation hinges on the distinction between quantity and quality (the former in the descriptive sense, not necessarily good/bad). americans are overwhelmed all right, but the *spectrum* of political thought is remarkably narrow...communists parties, for example, are common-place minorities in European politics. the very thought of a respectable communist party is oxymoronic in the USA. likewise, very right-wing parties are more common in Europe as well, though the performance of jorge hader not so long ago makes me think the right is generally less popular than the left. (please don't bother labeling me a communist, i'm not).

what i'm saying is basic common sense: big tough jocks and beautiful sexy prom queens don't have to consider the many perspectives of the world, as they mostly get what they want anyway. the survival and success of smaller countries, like those of europe, depend on their ability to appreciate nuance and variety. an informed american public is not required, as the economic and military power of its government and business leaders does not require it.

feel free to argue with me on this, but again, i don't think what i'm saying is radical.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@19 May 2003 - 02:25
I think myfiles was meaning the American public at large..

Surely it's quality over quantity. ;)

I've been saying for years now that people who want to vote (in any country) should have to pass a basic knowledge test. ;) One person - one vote doesn't work out too well if Person A is well informed and makes his well-informed vote and Person B watches FOX news while waiting for Jerry Springer and picks Canidate B because "his name looks good."

Unfortunately, it's not a popular opinion. :D

---

ninja i sympathize with your frustration, but you're opinion is inherently anti-democratic. You simply can't hold such an opinion and claim to believe in democracy. the solution is eliminating ignorance, not the ignorant. which is much harder to do, and infinitely more valuable.

Not at all. ;) If you look back to the ancient Greeks, people had to meet certain standards to be able to vote. It's not "anti-democratic," it's a throwback to the birth of democracy.

But then again, most of my posts here tend to the anarchonistic side of things. :(

:ninja:

Edit: And I never said eliminate the ignorant. It would leave far too many countries almost barren.

Well I'm back
I have'nt checked this thread for a couple of days.
I had to go all the way back to page 2.
After reading page 2 I just have to say ;You were'nt attacked!
Now I'm not screaming that but you just have to understand that the USA changed on 911.
That was a major well orchestrated attack.
If terrorists had blew up the eiffel tower or..........nevermind that thought
I just can't find a suitable comparison to the WTC/Pentagon.
The heart of our economy/symbol of a society and the center of the nations defence.
I'm originally from NYC I was born there and I've stood atop those towers.
I saw them everyday and you could tell where you were just by looking for them.
Americans by in large are usually quick to forget(look at the Clintons) and if enough time passes without anything major happening this will fade(to a certain extent)as well.
The terrorists ironically invited the US to their neighborhood by commiting such an attack.
C'mon any country attacked in such a way is going to respond.
The middle east is just where they are.
They hate us!
We support Israel and they have this unquenchable hate that dates back to biblical times.
They and the rest of the world know that if not for this support Israel would either be destroyed already or "driven into the sea"......I don't know.
If the US all of a sudden decided to turn it's back on Israel I suspect the amout of terrorism and hatred against the US would drop dramatically.
This is not gonna happen!
I'm not jewish but God forbid that this should ever happen.
They have nobody without us.
Thats it for now. :rolleyes:

Israel have weapons of mass destruction, a questionable human rights record, and have ignored a few UN Resolutions.

I personally don't feel sorry for them at all.. Israel is to Syria and Lebanon etc what Iraq was to the US.

You are right that the USA changed on 9/11. I don't blame them for that though, it was horrific. However, terrorism has existed in the wider world for many more years than that. In the UK we have had the threat of terror from the IRA for 3 decades. Our business centres, hotels, and even crowded pubs were bombed, costing many lives. They even attempted to mortar-bomb the house of the prime minister!

9/11 was a very very harsh wake-up call for America, but it forced them to acknowledge their responsibilities for the problems in the world, whereas before that they could keep them at a safe distance. Now I just feel that they are dangerously lashing out at easy targets, in a bid to be seen to be doing something. However, All they are doing is becoming more and more unpopular with the Muslim and the Arab people.

None of us can sleep safer in our beds tonight because Iraq has been "liberated". The war on terror is not a war you can win with superior firepower, because you are fighting the hearts of people who believe in the absolute right of what they are doing. How can you stop a suicide bomber who believes he will get his reward in the next life? And how many future suicide bombers will be created from all the orphaned children from the latest conflict?

I wish I had some answers, but I haven't. Sooner or later someone's going to nuke a city, I actually think it may even be London (where I live), in some ways I'm hoping it will be, because I don't really want to see what the "coalition" will do after that... :(

I think, from the standpoint of international opinion regarding the U.S., the world is a very small place.

I will do my best to avoid sounding presumptuous here, but:

The U.S. is a republic, democratic in nature, though, surprisingly to some, not by actual definition.
It is peopled largely by (as MagicNakor has said, and I agree :) ) those who demonstrate an astounding degree of ignorance/apathy/wrongheadedness, some of whom vote, some of whom don't vote, and, even more regrettably, some who actually have a hand in running the big show.

It is terribly ironic that one of the most prized rights here (the right to vote) is not treated with the respect it deserves.
The right to remain apathetic, ignorant, and intellectually lazy gets more consideration, and it is in this unfortunate circumstance we find the seed and fertilizer for that which we have come to refer to as "THE MEDIA".

For the relative few who actually care, and exhibit the requisite degree of understanding (I count US, here), this is untenable, so we look for solutions:

1) The 'Qualified' voter-fine with me, as long as I decide who's qualified.

2) 'Educated' voter-after considering the lazy, the indecisive, the 'under-intellectualized' (the truly stupid), and the willfully ignorant (the misguided),
I am not enthused at the prospect of even a modicum of success.

3) Solidification of a philosophy via the passage of time (getting your candidates elected time after time after time).

Of the options extant, the first two offer vast comedic possibilities, the last, an eternal headache.

One (possibly the only) positive result of the events of 9/11 was that it woke people up; given it was only a year-and-a half ago, we should assume these recently awakened neophytes are still suffering from an under-nourished thought process, and are struggling to assimilate a coherent view as regards the current array of intertwined concerns.

Terrorism itself largely defies understanding (although a thoroughly muddled 'rationalization' is possible); when considered in the overall context of the mideast, Israel/Palestine, etc., compounded by an emotional urge to view it all through the 'lens' of September 11th?

I don't wonder why things are messy right now, but having ground my rose-colored glasses underfoot on the occasion of my high school graduation, I have to say, realistically, that only time will tell who, or what, is right.