IC Forum Archive

FortNinety · Posts: 4591

killy wrote:

Blah blah blah, i've done this, wer wer wer, matter of principle and bur bur bur twisting twisting.

Looks like you actually have a fantastic grasp on the current nature of politics: shouting a bunch of pseudo-heartfelt bullshit without making any sense.

At least I'm, you know, contributing to society, instead of sitting in a corner trying to "prove" to everyone how stupid they are and patting myself in the back for it.

You really come across as a person who seems to "have all the answers" and yet has had relatively littler or perhaps no genuine interactions with other human beings whatsoever, and knows this all to well. Either that or someone kicked sand in your face once and have been out for blood ever since.

And I love how you never seem to avoid the fact that someone has pointed out your inconsistencies.

What the hell am I thinking, you've probably never voted a day in your life, perhaps because you're 16 or something.

FortNinety · Posts: 4591

Crazy Bacon Lips wrote:

I'd like Bush a lot more if he was packing a six-gun.

It'd be great if, at press conferences, he'd pantomime a lasso to "catch" questions.

When he talks, its as if he's aching for a spittoon or something.

veen · Posts: 131

FortNinety wrote:

What the hell am I thinking, you've probably never voted a day in your life, perhaps because you're 16 or something.

actually we went through this before in ye olde tim rogers is a douche thread. killy isn't an adolescent, and he's not stupid. there's something interesting there, it's just hard to discern beneath all the venom. I don't think he's any more or less full of shit than the rest of us, though he's always trying to convince someone that he's less.

extralife · Posts: 3316

veen wrote:

I don't think he's any more or less full of shit than the rest of us, though he's always trying to convince someone that he's less.

Which, of course, makes him more.

Psiga · Posts: 3990

DonMarco wrote:

I AM NOT KILLY, STOP IT PSIGA FUCKING HELL

Wha'? Whaddid'I'do?

And to my knowledge, Bush did go out to the desert. For a little while. To serve mashed taters.

-Psiga

LW Joestar · Posts: 1358

Crazy Bacon Lips wrote:

Do you honestly think that modern newsmedia (newspapers excluded, for the most part) does a good job of informing the public?

Please explain to me how you feel so that we can debate things. I'd rather do that than have us make sarcastic comments back and forth for seven pages.

Ah, I was just messin' around.

To be actually serious for once, no, I don't think that most news media informs us correctly at all. They only go after what they think will pull in ratings, which is usually just insipid controversy, meaningless sensationalism, and hollow speculation.

And people feed on it and accept it as the full story, and it makes me angry. The fact that I used the Daily Show in my earlier comment was being ironic on two levels: 1) It's a comedy show where they read a headline and then make the rest up. Of course it's not REAL NEWS, it's basically what Mystery Science Theater would have been if they read newspapers instead of watched movies. And 2) my friend actually DOES listen to the Daily Show to create his "informed world view". For that matter, he probably thinks the presidential debate in 2000 really DID consist of George Bush singing "Gay Bar" to Al Gore, like in that flash video.

Basically what I'm saying is "you don't know what's really happenning because your sources don't want to tell you all of it, so please stop making judgements based off of table scraps."

Crazy Bacon Lips · Posts: 783

Certainly understandable. High-Five!

Guardian FINAL · Posts: 1137

Okay. To get right down to it, let's say that I want to be more politically active in my country. I have a strong opinion, feel that the events of the last few years and those continuing today are some of the ugliest mistakes that my country has made in some time. I think that Bush has slowly changed his tune from "we need to blow up Iraq because they probably maybe have WMDs" to "we need to blow up Iraq because it is a haven for terrorists who want to eat us." I think that, in the first case, we have a bit of an ego problem by implying that our national security is of higher import than everyone else's in that we are allowed to keep a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons but we cannot allow anyone else to get ahold of even one. In the second case, we are implying that a state can be held accountable for the actions of small numbers of the individuals who reside there -- to say nothing of the sentiment that we are justified in invading a foreign nation and removing its government by force, effectively destroying the country, as long as doing so keeps us safe. Neither of these points even suggests that there are enormous factual presumptions and unfounded intelligence underlying both motives for the war.

How can I communicate to people? Protesters don't have much effect, and certainly their individual voices are rarely, if ever, heard. I could print tons of flyers and put them in stores and on telephone polls, but I don't think my area needs much converting. I could write to my senator, but what does he have to do with the president? What can a person like me do? In other words, explain to me how I am not helpless.

veen · Posts: 131

we are helpless, both because of the flawed, unrepresentational form of government we have, and the propensity of government to enlarge itself, defend itself, tie itself inextricably into the fabric of the nation so that the two cannot be separated in people's minds, and become little more than a complicated front for promoting the agendas of the upper classes. everything is designed, or has at least gradually come to be designed, to take the power out of the hands of the people, and concentrate it in the government and those connected to the government. to the point where it is not possible for the voices of ~50 million citizens to have any impact whatsoever on the single minded, far-right course of the current administration. where the only accountability those in power have is to lie with a straight face at a news conference once a month.

hey, at least the social security thing didn't fly. it's a little surprising to me that nobody has even tried to knock off cheney or rove yet.

JW, two things. no, three things. first, thanks for writing something.

second, the daily show often has more to it than jokes. a lot of it is just meaningless humor, but whenever they take on an important political issue, they consciously use humor to negate all the spin and propaganda, in order to get people to think about the actual issue, and not the obvious lies surrounding it. surveys have shown that their audience is better educated than that of any "real" news channel.

third, while I appreciate your sentiment regarding most news media, that doesn't mean it's impossible for people to actually get at something close to the truth, if they get their information from more trustworthy sources. you can't always assume that everyone's take on a situation is the product of bad information from the mainstream media. it's a hopeless scenario if the average citizen isn't capable of getting at the truth of the issue, even with the most diligent and discerning evidence gathering, and I don't think that's the case.

FortNinety · Posts: 4591

The thing about democracy is that it really requires everyone to work at it together. Things you describe is something everyone should be doing, because unfortunately in this day and age, it takes more than just a few isolated voices to get the political wheels in motion (but if those voices had money, well that's another totally different situation, but I digress).

Unfortunately most folks don't take the initiative, and hey, its everyone prerogative to be lazy I suppose, but what irks me is that so many people are directly impacted by the idiotic administration yet they choose to do nothing. And worse, instead of stewing in a corner silent they are quite vocal but either preaching to the choir and worse just rambling on, wasting energy when it could be used for something constructive.

Yes, there's plenty of evidence to show how stupid Bush & company are, but evidence is useless without action.

If everyone, at least for than 20% of the country would just go out and vote, it would do something, I'm almost certain things would change. Not overnight, but things take time, and if everyone has a defeatist attitude of "why bother, it won't matter" than the only side has truly won (hate to get all cliched and all).

So to answer your question Guardian, if need to convince others to be proactive. You're right, protesting does not work... the problem is that much of it is misdirected or just done poorly.

Guardian FINAL · Posts: 1137

So you're saying I need to tell my three or four good friends how important it is for them to vote... in three years? So you're saying that nothing can be done to stop the fucked up administration until that time?

That's what I thought you'd say.

Since America is so broken, perhaps I should tour other countries as an ex-patriotic American pleading with foreign politicians to put pressure on my lost nation to fix its own systems.

I wish it was the sixties.

veen · Posts: 131

Guardian FINAL wrote:

I wish it was the sixties.

I wish I could be happy.

Guardian FINAL · Posts: 1137

I wish, I wish, I wish

that something would happen.

dark steve · Posts: 3002

Yeah, they sure got a lot done in the 60s, alright.

aderack · Posts: 5018

FortNinety wrote:

When he talks, its as if he's aching for a spittoon or something.

You just put a piece of the puzzle in place, pardner.

LW Joestar · Posts: 1358

What I'm saying is that neither you nor I know the full story about what's going on in Iraq because the news wants you to think we're killing and raping citizens so that you'll watch their show more.

It's the same reason you never see "Chicago Family's Live Saved Because of Gun" and then a story about how someone tried to break in, and they pointed a gun in his face, and the dude left. You DON'T HEAR that, because it doesn't get good ratings.

Today's news media is just Jerry Springer with slightly less hookers, is what I'm getting at.

FortNinety · Posts: 4591

Guardian FINAL wrote:

I wish, I wish, I wish

that something would happen.

Somtimes its not enough to just wish. You just have to do something, because even if you fail, at least you can say that you tried.

Guardian FINAL wrote:

So you're saying I need to tell my three or four good friends how important it is for them to vote... in three years?[

Well, there are elections going on all the time, though it varies depending on where you live obviously. Again, one should be only concerned with the main, Presidential elections.

But yes, tell your three friends and have them tell their friends and so. It only works if everyone works.

veen · Posts: 131

what about independent, not-for-profit media? people who research and gather information and publish or broadcast it due solely to their passion and dedication to real journalism, to doing what is in their power to get the truth to the people? like Democracy Now, or antiwar.com? seymour hersch and bill moyers?

these people and groups may be openly leftist (except for antiwar.com, which is balanced with libertarianism), but they are also honest, and just as motivated to show the misdeeds of democrats as of anyone else. corporate television and newspapers are not the only source of information.

George · Posts: 1656

LW Joestar wrote:

What I'm saying is that neither you nor I know the full story about what's going on in Iraq because the news wants you to think we're killing and raping citizens so that you'll watch their show more.

Raping citizens? The worst I heard was the prison scandal, which they had ON TAPE.

If things are so rosy over there, why are so many soldiers still there? Why are some of them dying? The facts that are worrying people are not sensationalist news reports, it's the fact that the number of attacks has shown no indication of going down. Anyone who thinks the terrorists are just going to get tired are dead wrong - we're the ones with less at stake here, WE'RE the ones who are going to cave in first. Case in point: Vietnam.

LW Joestar · Posts: 1358

George wrote:

Anyone who thinks the terrorists are just going to get tired are dead wrong - we're the ones with less at stake here, WE'RE the ones who are going to cave in first. Case in point: Vietnam.

You, as well as many others, seem either unable, or UNWILLING to distinguish between "terrorists" and "civilians", and THAT'S where the true danger lies.

veen · Posts: 131

so hitchens was just on the daily show. damn it I love that guy, despite his position on current events. he's dedicated to the idea that islamic extremism is the greatest threat to the world, and that it is the responsibility of militarily powerful nations to stamp it out, I guess by installing secular, democratic governments in islamic nations.

moving beyond the whole war and violence issue, to take his position at face value, it still doesn't really add up. first, it's pretty blind and self-serving to only focus on islamic extremism. as if that is the only religion that has ever engendered senseless violence. just because islamic terrorism is the event of the day, does the horrible irony of american christian extremists being the biggest supporters of this policy not occur to him? it's as if he really believes the world can be fixed by combating this one problem militarily. if his goal of fixing the world is really so noble, what about global poverty, what about the excesses of capitalism, or the environment, or other forms of religious extremism... what about all these other huge problems that we propogate with one hand, while "fixing" the problem of islamic extremism with the other? fucking hitchens.

George · Posts: 1656

LW Joestar wrote:

George wrote:

Anyone who thinks the terrorists are just going to get tired are dead wrong - we're the ones with less at stake here, WE'RE the ones who are going to cave in first. Case in point: Vietnam.

You, as well as many others, seem either unable, or UNWILLING to distinguish between "terrorists" and "civilians", and THAT'S where the true danger lies.

What the hell are you talking about?

LW Joestar · Posts: 1358

George wrote:

LW Joestar wrote:

George wrote:

Anyone who thinks the terrorists are just going to get tired are dead wrong - we're the ones with less at stake here, WE'RE the ones who are going to cave in first. Case in point: Vietnam.

You, as well as many others, seem either unable, or UNWILLING to distinguish between "terrorists" and "civilians", and THAT'S where the true danger lies.

What the hell are you talking about?

I mean it's not freaking Gauntlet here, it's not like they're going to infinitely spawn until we take out the generator.

aderack · Posts: 5018

The term is "Terror Cell".

George · Posts: 1656

LW Joestar wrote:

George wrote:

LW Joestar wrote:

George wrote:

Anyone who thinks the terrorists are just going to get tired are dead wrong - we're the ones with less at stake here, WE'RE the ones who are going to cave in first. Case in point: Vietnam.

You, as well as many others, seem either unable, or UNWILLING to distinguish between "terrorists" and "civilians", and THAT'S where the true danger lies.

What the hell are you talking about?

I mean it's not freaking Gauntlet here, it's not like they're going to infinitely spawn until we take out the generator.

What are you saying? That we're going to thin out the middle eastern population so much that they won't be a threat to our army anymore? If so, that's pretty fucked up. If you're saying that the percentage of people willing to become terrorists will go down - where is the evidence of that? And isn't it just as likely that the percentage of people willing to join the Iraqi army will go down? The only change I can see is an increasing desire for another dictator to take over the country. If the Iraqis overwhelming support a dictator the US will probably pull out, saying that the Iraqis have made their decision, and the country will be left exactly as it was when we started, except thousands of people will be dead and the new dictator might be a little more pro-US.

aderack · Posts: 5018

All he seems to be saying is that you made a bit of an unintentional error there where you said our troops (whom we must support!) were in Iraq fighting "terrorists" -- rather than, you know, fighting random very angry people who would be less angry if the Americans weren't there.

Thus the analogy to spawn camping terrorists streaming out of holes in the mountains.

Guardian FINAL · Posts: 1137

FortNinety wrote:

Guardian FINAL wrote:

I wish, I wish, I wish

that something would happen.

Somtimes its not enough to just wish. You just have to do something, because even if you fail, at least you can say that you tried.

I was just quoting radiohead. I didn't mean that. That's why I'm asking what I can do. Also, I disagree with that "at least you can say that you tried" attitude. It's very positivistic, quite tacky and naive. It takes the failure out of failure. But that's off topic.

Guardian FINAL wrote:

So you're saying I need to tell my three or four good friends how important it is for them to vote... in three years?

FortNinety wrote:

Well, there are elections going on all the time, though it varies depending on where you live obviously. Again, one should be only concerned with the main, Presidential elections.

But yes, tell your three friends and have them tell their friends and so. It only works if everyone works.

That's not good enough. That's not doing something. That's doing next to nothing. You're telling me that that is the only way to make a difference?

FortNinety · Posts: 4591

Guardian FINAL wrote:

That's not good enough. That's not doing something. That's doing next to nothing. You're telling me that that is the only way to make a difference?

I'm sorry. I can't discuss further with an outlook like that.

Guardian FINAL · Posts: 1137

like what?

veen · Posts: 131

George wrote:

What the hell are you talking about?

he seems to be picking stances out of a hat. his posts over the course of this thread make no sense whatsover, taken as a whole.

Guardian FINAL wrote:

That's not good enough. That's not doing something. That's doing next to nothing. You're telling me that that is the only way to make a difference?

if you protest, the police will break it up and arrest you, citing silly local ordinances, free speech be damned. if you want to broadcast, the FCC has already delegated all frequencies of radio and television transmission to corporate media entities, at no cost of course, and made it illegal for anyone else to use them.

I don't think real change can be effected by anything short of a total dissolusion of one or both of the major parties, so that greens and libertarians have a real shot at having a voice in anything. or proportional representation, but the major parties will never go for that, as it would threaten their monopoly.

Guardian FINAL · Posts: 1137

And those people are among the richest in the nation, meaning there is little that can be done to threaten their power. And the free broadcasting allotted by newer technologies like iPods and the Internet in general are too crowded and disorganized to be of any use. Nothing is ever going to change and no one can challenge George W. Bush's rule of the universe. Great.

I kind of wish that I would get charged with something I could fight or that I could be involved in some kind of lawsuit with constitutional implications. I wish I could sue Bush. I would win.

Maybe someone should argue for an amendment to the constitution granting freedom of broadcast, arguing that there is an effective block on the freedom of speech through the economic and power conditions that exist for mass communication today, a situation that the men who wrote the bill of rights could not have foreseen.

Maybe someone should sue the government.

edwardappleby · Posts: 129

veen wrote:

I don't think real change can be effected by anything short of a total dissolusion of one or both of the major parties, so that greens and libertarians have a real shot at having a voice in anything. or proportional representation, but the major parties will never go for that, as it would threaten their monopoly.

Proportional representation in the United States scares me as an idea. The kind of smaller parties that could come about and the splintering of the already divided political landscape. The AARP party, the [insert racial minority here] party, the Christian fundamentalist party, some weird American version of the National Front.

Although, I will admit I'm much more concerned about fixing the school system than fixing the political system. This could, however, stem from the fact I think one is a necessary condition of the other.

aderack · Posts: 5018

The idea behind freedom of speech, just to clarify, is that no one will lock you up or fine you for saying that you don't like the current government. It doesn't mean much more than that. It doesn't necessarily grant you the right to express yourself through any means or service you choose.

Where the idea would cover you is if, somehow, you managed to get a range of the spectrum. In theory, the FCC (as a government body) couldn't pull your license just because they didn't like what you were saying.

No one's about to just hand you a way to make yourself heard; you have to figure that out on your own. If you're clever and you put in enough effort, and you actually have something to say, you can, really, do pretty much whatever you want. Start any group or publication. Write a bunch of letters. Do whatever. Build your way up.

Of course, you probably have other things to do with your life. Fair enough. That's a decision you have to make, though.

veen · Posts: 131

why must you be so reasonable, aderack?

no, in a strict legal sense, people don't have the right to protest, under the interpretation of free speech we currently operate. it's my opinion that this is bullshit, that it contradicts the spirit that the nation ostensibly stands for. if a large group feels passionately enough about an issue that they're willing to spend the day in the streets forcing people in power hear them in a direct way, they ought to be able to do so without tear gas and rubber bullets and police provocatours making the situation violent and dangerous, or without being confined to a cage, as was attempted during the last party conventions.

in these situations the actions of the authorities are obviously not motivated simply by a desire to uphold the letter of the law; there's something much larger going on. something more important than following the rules.

but as for your other points, yeah.

aderack · Posts: 5018

Yeah, the protest thing seems at least strongly implied as an inherent right, if you're not otherwise being heard -- even though historically there's been almost no cultural or political support for it except in retrospect. It looks good in history books, say. Tea parties and all.

dhex · Posts: 2963

protesting just isn't the pr bonanza it used to be. everyone does it. it's certainly easier to do than say, the wobblies and their particular version of direct action. coming from a union family, i can say that it's easier now in terms of police hassle than it was 20 years ago, but it's also less interesting. besides, being arrested is part of the point; study the march to the sea and the salt manufacture protests in india during gandhi's experiments there.

guardian, in all seriousness, and sort of along the lines of what aderack said about communications (in this age of NEARLY FREE PUBLISHING no less) what i would recommend is this: find a cause you believe in. a single cause. or an umbrella group who handles enough of the causes you believe in to be worthy of your time, effort and eventually, cash. and call them. call them up and say i live in xyz, can i volunteer for you?

they will then give you a shit job doing something or other if they're large, or they'll be very happy to have you do other less shitty shit jobs (like handing out literature; i highly recommend that as a humbling experience...you also get used to being screamed at by the unstable, which is a plus for anything politically related) and otherwise begin to understand the structure of what they are and how they want to do it. some are well oiled machines, like planned parenthood and NARAL (and operation rescue, actually, during their heyday) and some are very shoddy groups pulled together by passion.

this is ignoring, of course, the fuckup contingent. sadly, in every enterprise, but especially anything political, the fuckup contingent comprises 20 to 80% of the group. they are self-explanatory.

the life of grover norquist is worth studying as well, because despite his daydreaming (and how badly his daydream has gone awry in one sense and how absurdly successful it is in the other) he managed to plan and plan and plan and make something happen.

but yeah, if you want to wave your hands, guess what? ain't gonna do nothing but help your circulation slightly. every little bit counts, because human potential is not some sort of 1 to 1 mathematical ratio - it is an exponential process that is as miraculous as the contents of the fucked up shit truck are horrifying. you never, ever know where the next curveball is going to come from.

aderack · Posts: 5018

Another place to start might be, say, getting an internment at your local public radio station. Finding out who to talk to about stuff, who to submit things to.

Though NPR is on the verge of getting really weird, with the current CPB board...