This is topic "The Establishment?" Who is that exactly? (including discussion about debate) in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.
"These three books will naturally look exactly alike to the Establishment, because all opposition looks exactly alike to them (it always does)"
Well whoever they are, they're obviously idiots, because only stupid people react that way to anything. We were talking about "labels" in a similar thread, but my question here will be a different one.
What group of people, OSC: "The Establishment," are you talking about? The president and congress? university professors? The parents television council? WHO????
This is an honest question, because I am trying to figure out just who the HELL these people are and where they are coming from. I go to a major university, and I have never met anybody like this. I must be too ignorant of my own indoctrination, and of course anything I say is anecdotal, and since I disagree, its also a lie and and a plot.
Very tolerant of YOU sir.
I won't "pretend to be full of loving-kindness" as you accused me of in another thread. I want you to take responsibility for what you say, and name someone whom you know personally, have witnessed personally, who fits the discription, and is a card carrying member of the "Establishment." I'll at least know where this stuff being generated.
And make no mistake that we probably agree on about 98 percent of this stuff, but as you say, I watch people I agree with more closely, because they tend to misrepresent my views most of the time. This is why I don't, and you shouldn't take what a dumb NPR reporter says about ballot counting as an indication of anything other than the stupidity of that reporter. Your too smart to rely on an anecdote like this to look like it actually means anything.
[ March 22, 2006, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Perhaps if you were to take the hostility in your tone down a notch, you would up your chances of a reply. Rather than asking a question you seem to be trying to pick a fight.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
The Establishment? Folks who benefit from things as they are. Since things are not too good, those folks aren't too good either. In my world, they are what I would call the Lawful Evils of the world...
Usually, the Establishment regards the 1% who own 90% of everything and who do not want to loose that ownership to such vague and useless things (to them) as Justice or Fairness.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
it feels good to be part of that wonderful 9% who don't own and aren't owned, doesn't it?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Perhaps if you were to take the hostility in your tone down a notch, you would up your chances of a reply. Rather than asking a question you seem to be trying to pick a fight.
I'm not going to pretend to be full of loving-kindess, I think I said that. If OSC wants to provoke people, then critique them for being "tolerant" then confusion is all that may ensue. So I'll just be honest about how I feel.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: The Establishment? Folks who benefit from things as they are. Since things are not too good, those folks aren't too good either. In my world, they are what I would call the Lawful Evils of the world...
Usually, the Establishment regards the 1% who own 90% of everything and who do not want to loose that ownership to such vague and useless things (to them) as Justice or Fairness.
That's such a general and pointless statement.
Everyone on earth benefits from something, because current conditions allow each person on earth to be alive. Blind finger pointing at vague shadow opressions will get us nowhere, because whoever your accusing of being ignorant of their opressiveness, will be equally ignorant of their "involvement" in these shadowy forces.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
About a third of the way down in the article:
The Establishment:
"The people who decide whether you can get: a doctorate; tenure; a movie made; favorable coverage in the news media; or called an "intellectual.
And those people are overwhelmingly liberal. Not just a little bit liberal. Way, way liberal. "
So the establishment is liberals, I guess, according to Card. Think Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. I'm not gonna disagree with Card, either--there are a great number of "repressive, narrow-minded, unquestioning, cruel, smug, and stupid" people that belong to this "establishment"--some of them are my professors, and a lot of my "educated" college friends.
However...
There is an equal number of horribly ignorant, narrow-minded (repeat list above) of people that are on the same side as Card. They believe just as smugly and closed minded as the liberals--and frankly, there's more of them, isn't there? Bush IS still president.
There's ignorance on both sides. Card likes to blanket all liberals as being smug and closed-minded, secure in their beliefs about being "obviously" right.
But there's some of us out there that do think, and keep an open mind, and still happen to arrive at different conclusions than Mr. Card.
The reason Card sounds so hostile is that the media IS overwhelmingly liberal, and his points of view are rarely presented intelligently by anyone BUT him.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:The reason Card sounds so hostile is that the media IS overwhelmingly liberal.
This is only partly true. Newspaper reporters do tend to be fairly liberal on social issues, but editors lean towards the conservative side. And both are rather conservative on fiscal issues, which makes sense, since both groups have above-average incomes. I don't have the actual statistics in front of me, but I'll try to find a link sometime later.
This website features a poll of news watchers/listeners. More channels have heavier liberal audiences (CNN, CBS, and NPR) but Fox News Channel, the number 1 news source listed, has more than one-and-a-half times as many conservative viewers than liberals.
(Side note) I find it interesting that the Daily Show has about as many conservative viewers as liberal ones.
Honestly, when analyzing the media, don't bother looking at partisanship so hard. FNC, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal (editorial page) will be conservative. And CNN, NPR, and the New York Times (editorial page) will be liberal.
Instead, look for the biases that actually matter. Biases towards sensationalism, pack mentality, shock value, and plain old laziness, for example. It's a whole lot easier to print the fact of an accusation than it is to discern which accusations are true (or at least most likely to be true) and print those.
Why do missing persons cases constantly make the news? How much bearing do they actually have on anyone's life? And why are they all white girls? I don't mean that the media should care LESS for a white girl than visa versa, but as seen on national news, when was the last time a black man went missing?
Alternate point, know what the single biggest economic news story, reliably, is? Lotto winners. Because that's really, very important to 99.99999% of this country.
Case in point: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It took weeks for the major news sources to finally debunk their claims, when the claims shouldn't have been given all that space in the first place because it was all slander. Meanwhile, the damage had been done. I'm sorry that I chose such a partisan example, but I am pretty liberal, and it was the first example to jump to mind. Besides, if you're a conservative, you can probably come up with your own examples of similar cases.
EDIT - I thought of an example. John McCain adopted a Bangladeshi girl from an orphanage run by Mother Theresa. Because she has dark skin, she was used to start rumors that McCain had fathered an illegitemite black child, which were picked up briefly by the media during one of his senate races.
I'm sure you already know this but, regardless, it's a point worth reiterating: The national media is a business. They will get you the best news they can, in the best way they can, exactly as far as it meets the bottom line. And not a micron more.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, the Washington Post tends to be liberal. The Washington Times, however, is of a more conservative bent.
-Bok
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Honestly, when analyzing the media, don't bother looking at partisanship so hard. FNC, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal (editorial page) will be conservative. And CNN, NPR, and the New York Times (editorial page) will be liberal.
I assume you mean the Washington *Times*, since the Post is leftist.
I am not bothered by bias in editorial pages, but in the alleged 'news' itself.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Well, okay, I will be more specific:
1. Military Industrial Complex 2. The USA Federal Government (at the higher levels, the ones that deal with the Mafia) 3. Nestle 4. Coca Cola Co. 5. All the Car companies equally ...
Oh, shit. That's a looooooong list. Sorry, I got bored...
Want me to be more specific?
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Ne'er forget...
BIG TOBACCO COMPANIES!!!!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hey Robin, please watch the language. This site tries to maintain a PG rating.
-Bok
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I think Fox news is a perfect example of how Mr. Card's points of view, or right-wing points of view, are never presented INTELLIGENTLY. Fox news is popular because the way they present the news is often so ridiculous that people watch it as entertainment--not news. Most people I know don't consider Fox News a respectable source, but CNN, CBS, NPR--ie the liberal media--ARE all considered respectable, which is what I mean by the media being overwhelmingly liberal.
And the fact that Fox News is watched by more conservatives just strengthens my point that there are just as many people out there that blindly follow the conservative dogma as there are liberals that jump on Card's "Establishment" bandwagon.
Robin, I think you missed what Card means by the Establishment. Read the article again.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I don't understand you -- do people watch Fox News because it's 'entertainment not news', or because they're 'blindly following conservative dogma'?
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
I think people watch Fox news because it's on at 9 and the rest are on at 10. Personally, sleep trumps liberal bias for me.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I have before pointed out that Mr Murdoch, the man with the single greatest influence over news media, is conservative.
Posted by Kagehi (Member # 9123) on :
TV news agencies might tend to 'lean' a particular direction, but for the most part they are equal opertunity screw ups. What used to be a source of information is now edutainment. As such, only the most blatently entertaining of sensational things get posted. You can see stuff like this in the Iraq coverage, even from FOX. Things like:
Day 1: Report of 4-5 soldiers dying. Day 2-4: Lots of spin and analysis, which generally means trying to shoehorn the news into the consensious view. Day 5: Military finally reports the actual facts (mostly). Day 6: The news talks about captured terrorists, etc., but completely fails to connect the Day 1 report with the new one. Day 7: The on-site reporter, when there is one anymore, finds out the press just got 20% of the facts from the military and mangled it into useless edutainment, which fits nicely into the proconcieved idea of what it all meant.
One "still embedded" reporter, names Michael Yon called the effect the, "Proximity Delay". The guy that actually knows what the #@$#@$ is really going on is the last one to know that its releasable, by which point is pointless to try to correct the other 5,000 fools that have misreported it.
They where all slavering like rabies infected dogs when Clinton got a blow job, Bush has just been more consistent and entertaining for them, even for the ones that marginally support him.
The papers now... They are mostly heavilly partisan, since even the ones like the Times "start" local and the locals are presumed to all have one ideology common with the paper. Thus, you occationally find inciteful and accurate reports about politics and non-local events, but 90% of the rest of it is an embarassing parade of fools, all with one sided views, and many who haven't changed their style or opinions about *anything* since they where hired twenty years earlier. How else do you think some of them are allowed to keep writing some of the stuff they do, or some comics, like the guy that does Dilbert, still get published, when they haven't been inciteful or funny in years?
Liberal, in the media, seems to mean, "Willing to do anything to make a buck, including cutting costs by not actually doing any fact checking or research about the subject first." I am sure it makes money, and finding some out of work nut, that claims to be an expert with a PhD, usually in something irrelevant, but not always (the ones that do have a related one usually prove in five minutes or less that they must have barely passed with Cs or cheated to get it..), to refute some other even bigger nut is certainly entertaining in the same way as say... a train wreck. It hardly qualifies as a) news, b) valid debate, c) factual or d) journalistic.
There is a reason why blogs are ironically finding news faster, getting it more correct, finding things the news agencies miss completely and even "correcting" the screw ups of the major news agencies. The major people pick at the AP feed like they are trying to remove the anchovies from a pizza, have stars do their analysis of what ever they keep, instead of people that know jack about the subject (some even go so far as to claim knowing something about the subject "detracts" from their ability to report it.... Huh!?!? Apparently the right person to do science is the astrology expert and religion should be covered by the guy whose sub-major was origama. lol) and finally, when they screw up, you have to have Tivo to catch the 5 seconds they spend admitting it.
Needless to say, I am all for freedom of the press. However, I really wish someone would point out where this fictional animal lives, so we can determine if it belongs on the endangered species list or the extinct one.... Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I think Fox news is a perfect example of how Mr. Card's points of view, or right-wing points of view, are never presented INTELLIGENTLY. Fox news is popular because the way they present the news is often so ridiculous that people watch it as entertainment--not news. Most people I know don't consider Fox News a respectable source, but CNN, CBS, NPR--ie the liberal media--ARE all considered respectable, which is what I mean by the media being overwhelmingly liberal.
Well said. There is nothing 'conservative' about wall-to-wall coverage of Natalie Holloway. It's just stupid (which, contrary to the opinion of some, is not the same thing as conservative). I hardly watch TV at all anymore, but I offhand I can think of no sizeable television outlet that delivers a coherent conservative message. FNC used to do solid straight news reporting -- I'm talking about when they were new, in the late '90s -- but now they're mostly trash.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm glad we've evolved a discussion I really wanted to have with you all, which is this one about the media.
I have before me an article out of my own school paper, the UCD Aggie, by the features writer Christina Lee. The article floats the supposition that college students are alarmingly unable to function in real life situations, like calculating tips at a restaurant, or reading and understanding a newspaper (a great irony as this article is poorly written and virtually devoid of insight.)
The article quotes the "National Survey of America's College Students" a survey of 1,827 graduates of 80 American universities. Though I haven't read the study, it sounds like unbelievable garbage. One fact Lee quotes is that 1 percent of those surveyed were unable to correctly ad totals for a sandwich and coffee. This sounds to me like an insignificant polling error, 18 people simply didn't pay close attention to the question, or filled in the incorrect bubble by mistake, hardly conclusive proof of anything but the unreliability of poll results.
Second the article says that that half of 4-year and a quarter of 2-year grads have the skills to complete "complex but necessary literary tasks." A complex and necessary literary task according to the article, is reading two opinion peices by two political writers, one left-wing, one right-wing; and understanding how the two differ, ostensibly by identifying the viewpoints of each according to the left/right wing landscape.
Seems okay. Think about it though. What is this study really asking? Can intelligent people tell the difference between political viewpoints, identifying liberal and conservative ideals? Is this not an indication of how familiar a person is with the dogma of one or another political party? I tell you quite honestly that I have read entire articles, books, essays, in which the opinions of one or another political ideology are presented in a clear and concise manner, well supported by evidence, and I have been blissfully unaware of the political affiliations of the authors, until long after. Well written political works don't sound like party puff peices, us and them, right and wrong. An intelligent writer presents his ideas clearly, and pays attention to the opposing viewpoints and evidence in an attempt to prove his or her point. OSC does this too, if you were asked on the strength of a random political article which party OSC "represents," you would most likely be unsure. As long as the particular article didn't contain an overt rant about the evil liberals, you might think he was a liberally minded fellow, (because in some ways, HE IS). It would really depend on you definition of liberal.
So there's the crux of it, this study purports to measure the intelligence of college grads by adminstering what amounts to a litmus test, and seeing if people can identify their particular side.
I (perhaps foolishly) consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person, I've scored 140+ points on unofficial IQ tests, and I couldn't tell you what my own political affiliations are. I think many highly intelligent people see more commonalities than differences between political parties. After all, don't we get to hear every four years about how this party likes "sunshine, lolly-pops, and puppies," but this OTHER party likes them MORE. We don't get much from the "Anti-Sunshine, Lolly-Pops and Puppies Lobby" (ASLOPUPS)
Does a survey like this really test the shrewdness of these students or the level to which they have been indoctrinated with generalizations and useless political information, like the standings of whatever party on whatever issue, as if a party's standing would ever effect the way an intelligent person really feels about anything. The political parties purport to be expressions of the public will, but here we test the intelligence of the public by asking them to interpret the wills of parties, based on what measure of "liberalism and conservatism?"
This whole thing has be quite disgusted. I know OSC would point to this article and say something like, this shows that half of college students are indoctrinated after 4 years, but the 2-year students are more objective, they see the commonalities between both sides more clearly. I would be likely to agree, and I would be disgusted to think that attending college fails to increase analytical skills in a meaningful way, in real world sort of way. Then again I don't know, there are plenty of people who enter college as idiots, and leave as idiots with degrees. But to me it feels like I entered college an idiot, and have been desperately clawing my way to some sort of perspective, only to look around and see I'm the only one I know who's even trying that hard.
I used to think I didn't know something everyone else knew, now I sometimes feel I know too much. I have realized how stupid so many people really are.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Well sheesh, if that's what you wanted to talk about, why didn't you post it in the first place? Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:it feels good to be part of that wonderful 9% who don't own and aren't owned, doesn't it?
Side note:
vonk, I'm not sure you understood the preceding post.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Well sheesh, if that's what you wanted to talk about, why didn't you post it in the first place?
I was kinda ticked, but give me a day to think it over and I can be reasonable. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Wait. Neither do I. But for different reasons
quote:Usually, the Establishment regards the 1% who own 90% of everything and who do not want to loose that ownership to such vague and useless things (to them) as Justice or Fairness.
What on earth.....
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I was kinda ticked, but give me a day to think it over and I can be reasonable.
Maybe you should make it a general rule to reach that basic level of reason *before* posting....
Just a thought, just an idea.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:I was kinda ticked, but give me a day to think it over and I can be reasonable.
Maybe you should make it a general rule to reach that basic level of reason *before* posting....
Just a thought, just an idea.
ummm. No I'd rather not. I never would have posted anything, gotta get it out, bounce your ideas around, see what floats.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah, the forum-as-toilet metaphor.
Lovely.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't understand what is meant by the establishment either. Or intellectual elite... Or liberal. I reckon I am one of them... Since I lean more to the left but I am searching for middle ground instead of being strickly liberal or strictly conservative. Why not be both?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Ah, the forum-as-toilet metaphor.
Lovely.
Umm. Other things float. I wasn't going for that particular image. Lovely of you.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: Usually, the Establishment regards the 1% who own 90% of everything and who do not want to loose that ownership to such vague and useless things (to them) as Justice or Fairness.
I generally avoid this side of the forum, but that's ridiculous. Boo hoo, they have things, and we don't have things. Therefore, the only reason they have things and we don't have things is because they took them from us and/or are keeping them from us, and if there were ANY justice in the world, we'd all have the same things.
Mmm...command economy and forced redistribution of wealth....
-pH
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Do we think the media could be run wholly on a not-for-profit basis? Sounds good to me.
Then there's Government control on media. From what I know, Australia's own PM John Curtin to have ever ethically pull this off. Anyone else read or reading Backroom Briefings?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
doesn't the government control good ol' Rupert? it seems that way to me.
and TL - wasn't he saying that 1% of people are the "establishment" and they own 90% of people? i don't necessarily agree with this, but doesn't that leave 9% that are neither owned nor own? if the numbers were accurate, that is where i would consider myself.
[ March 16, 2006, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Seems the other way to me. The US Republicans and Democrats spend, what, millions of dollars on election campaigns and the like? They get this money from seemingly careless taxpayers, and Rupert Murdoch pockets it. Sounds like a real tool of the US government to me. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yes before you go kicking around accusations about how poorly average americans are treated, let's just look at what they spend their money on. A movie that spends double its production budget on advertising is virtually guaranteed a profitable outing. Political campaigns spend infinitely more on advertising and polling than on doing any real research or actuall plan building. The plan is this: GET ELECTED. Amazingly everybody comes out a whitewashed jerk with no immovable stance on anything he can't get away with over sunday brunch with your grandparents in Wiscoci.
I would argue that this "establishment" we've been talking about, the academic one, seems more dangerous to OSC simply because its not in his immediate power to withdraw his support for it, it isn't elected, it can't be impeached in that way.
But it would seem that he only wants the kind of public figures who smile blindly into cameras and talk about puppies and sunshine, the kind of people who are safe to have around your grandparents, who don't rock the boat. Its funny because I think he's said this is what HE is doing, only he's advocating alot of do-nothing conservatism that likes to ignore vital issues. Not that the "establishment" if it is like the democratic party, is any different.
This is one place where totally agree, if this "establishment" exists in any form and is as closed-minded and tyranical as he claims to vehemently, well obviously nothing so evil should exist. On the other hand I would say look around you, the established rule is everwhere, ---DO NOTHING----ALARM NO-ONE---- KEEP SAYING ITS OK---- IF YOU SAY IT ENOUGH< THEY"L BELIEVE YOU----- DO NOT BE ALARMED---- DO NOTHING......
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I don't understand what is meant by the establishment either. Or intellectual elite... Or liberal. I reckon I am one of them... Since I lean more to the left but I am searching for middle ground instead of being strickly liberal or strictly conservative. Why not be both?
I think what you have posted here partly illustrates one of OSC's points. If you were liberal 40 years ago, you were part of a movement fighting against the established political, social, and intelluctual leaders. Now if you are liberal, he argues that you can identify with those established leaders mentioned above.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I would argue what he is calling the "Establishment" is really just all the idiot sheep who live in America.
The sole difference between the state of things 40 years ago and the state of things today is that now we are highly, painfully aware of the level to which it is possible to sink. Now every moron (like you and me, but think dumber) has his little say and his stupid little analysis on national television, and no-one is the wiser, except for people like OSC who have enough perspective to see that the person is an idiot/liar/charleton.
This is not a break down in our society but a symptom of the level we have reached. Now no-one is a renessaince man because you only live so many years, human accomplishments get recorded in such detail that one line of thought, or research can be carried out over the lives of many people who are geographically seperated. Many people communicate with many others, and advances occur MUCH faster, however no-one has the time anymore to become a really imbedded voice on one sole topic. A PHD seems worthless to OSC, partly because he's forgotten that 90 percent of a college education is teaching you how to think critically. Sadly many colleges have also forgotten this, as they struggle to cram information in by developing an intellectual apparatus that is far to narrow and one sided. On this I agree, but it is the fault of no-one, simply a product of human development.
Eventually I believe all of these problems will settle, as future generations learn the place of computers in their lives, not their lives in computers. For people like OSC this will be tough, probably an insurmountable barrier between one era and another. Even people being born today are educated and raised by parents who did not grow up in an internet culture, and thus we too are experiencing turmoil, along with progress.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I got caught up and skipped the last haf of everything but my opinion of the establishment is notas a cohesive group that runs everything but rather as every single person who takes advantage of a power or responsibility that is granted to them and misuses it, either purposefully or not. From a R.A. who wields the first remnants of power eh has ever had to the C.E.O. who loses touch with his employees and burns them to further his personal goals. From the high school teacher who grades you down because of a grudge to the graduate school professor who refuses to assist you due to a power trip. they are those who have already established them selves in a particular niche and now are attacking those who are trying to further themselves.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Good points. Your saying "The Establishment" is basically those with power trying to keep power. Makes sense to me. Of course it makes me wonder if there are people who use power appropriately, if that American ideal is dead now? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" as the saying goes.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The United States was born out of revolution. Partly as a result of that, we have a deep need to identify ourselves and our causes as being "rebel".
No matter how irrational such a claim might be.
In this day and age you can be an upper-middle class heterosexual WASP, reflective of 90% of your government and business leaders, and still "the man" just wants to get you down.
You just have to shift your view of the oppressor.
Card wrote a very, very good book about writing Science Fiction once upon a time. I'm afraid I don't have it in front of me right now because I lent it out to a friend, but it featured a lengthy character examination that urged writers to not draw characters shallowly, to give them real and believable motivations even when their actions are disturbing or villainous.
If there's one thing that bothers me about OSC's opinion pieces of late, it's the apparent willingness to believe that those whose points of view he opposes in real life don't have the same depth of motivation that he insists upon in fictional characters. However they came to where they stand, it couldn't have been rational, couldn't have been human, couldn't possibly have been as deeply considered and contemplated as his own point-of-view.
Those liberal European intellectuals? They hate America by reflex- it couldn't have been anything to do with starting a war against their loudly stated wishes in their back yard.
Those activist judges? Of course they just want to ram an agenda down our throats, and they haven't given any thought to the consequences of that agenda. Years on a court bench inevitably leads to a decline in sense of consequence.
I hear this kind of thing a lot, and it makes me wonder sometimes if the real reason liberals lose out in the current climate is the unwillingness to sink to what amounts to a war-like dehumanization of "the enemy".
EDIT for clarity
[ March 18, 2006, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
If there's one thing that bothers me about OSC's opinion pieces of late, it's the apparent willingness to believe that those whose points of view he opposes in real life don't have the same depth of motivation that he insists upon in fictional characters. However they came to where they stand, it couldn't have been rational, couldn't have been human, couldn't possibly have been as deeply considered and contemplated as his own point-of-view.
I hear this kind of thing a lot, and it makes me wonder sometimes if the real reason liberals lose out in the current climate is the unwillingness to sink to what amounts to a war-like dehumanization of "the enemy".
EDIT for clarity
I hadn't thought of this. Perhaps substitute "liberals" with moderates. Seems quite a few uber-liberals are perfectly willing to debase their opponents with senseless accusations, that is simply the symptom of extremety in general. If your extreme "right" or extreme "left" your talking about hitler and stalin, enemies who really only wanted both halves of an evil domination cookie anyway.
I've been shocked by OSC's latest garbage because its so out of character for him. Nothing wrong with pulling the guns out and "givin em hell," and there's nothing wrong with not wanting to be "full of loving kindness."
However you have huge problem when you begin to believe that either your enemy is as shallow as you say, or that your audience is stupid enough to head your gross misrepresentations and simplifications of the truth. He can smugly remark that his demagoguery got us all thinking, but clearly we're only thinking about how to let people like him know we're tired of this kind of talk. At least I am.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
It might be useful to keep in mind that this is an OpEd piece, not a book. Going into the motivations of individual intellectuals and judges is a bit beyond its scope.
quote:I hear this kind of thing a lot, and it makes me wonder sometimes if the real reason liberals lose out in the current climate is the unwillingness to sink to what amounts to a war-like dehumanization of "the enemy".
I know you identify with the liberal movement Sterling, but if you don't think liberal leaders have been guilty of sinking to saying the same things as their counterparts, you're being naive or blind. Both sides are guilty of this.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I won't deny that there are left-leaning people, including prominent left-leaning people, who are perfectly capable of a prejudice. I occasionally listen to things like "Air America" (the left-wing radio station), and for every couple of things that have me nodding, there's one that has me going, "Hey, now wait just a minute!"
...But, I've never heard a liberal claim that conservatives were the reason that the terrorists attacked us on September 11. Or that God wanted to punish us for the conservative agenda.
I've never heard liberals refer to conservatives as traitors, or suggest that conservatives should be rounded up and killed.
I'm not everywhere at once; I'll grant, maybe I'm not listening in the right places.
But right now, conservatives control two branches of the United States government, and are well on their way to controlling the third, while the liberals... Write books. And make movies. And even there, I'm a lot more likely to see conservative-themed books on the shelf of my local grocery store than liberal ones, and while "liberal" documentaries make the waves in theaters, the split on the video shelves is approaching 50-50.
Hey, power corrupts, absolute power yatta yatta. Would the liberals be as scary if they had the reins? Possibly. I like to think by the nature of their agenda that liberals tend to be more inclusive, but I recognize that there are people who won't agree with that. But that there are numerous, prominent, powerful conservatives push these particular buttons, in light of their actual positions?... That there are people who announce their victimhood without a second thought or a blush, when their realities mean they ought to be shouting hosannahs for their blessings?...
It gives a rational person pause.
There are real victims out there, and they're giving power to people who are putting poison in their ears. Sure, your congressman voted to enable outsourcing your job to China. But hey, have you heard what your university professor is doing?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:...But, I've never heard a liberal claim that conservatives were the reason that the terrorists attacked us on September 11.
I have heard them blame conservative economic and foreign policies for the hatred that these terrorists have for America.
quote:Or that God wanted to punish us for the conservative agenda.
The fact that the extreme end of the left wing doesn't make this exact accusation doesn't mean their own accusations aren't just as wild and unsupported. All the "Bush planned 9/11" conspiracy theories leap to mind.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: It gives a rational person pause.
There are real victims out there, and they're giving power to people who are putting poison in their ears. Sure, your congressman voted to enable outsourcing your job to China. But hey, have you heard what your university professor is doing?
Haha. Yes, and the fact that OSC mocks the limited power and false status of the "academic community" (as if this were a useful designation anyway) out of one side of his mouth, while screaming about how their corrupting the learning process out of the other is questionable.
I may agree, in fact do agree with his views on the nature of people in general, however this does not excuse his blase attitude towards fairness and reasonable assumptions. It is not reasonable to assume that there is an "establishment" out there and that they are pushing a specific agenda which is "anti-american." It is also unreasonable to ignore the fact that the political power in American today lies with the "conservative" party, while blaming the "liberal" elements in education for all our problems.
Somehow conservative agendas never seem to get the blame for their failures. Either they didn't fail at all (ala Iraq, no seriously) or they failed because the liberals sabotaged everything.
One need only look at the fact that the most populous, most productive, most prosperous state, California, itself the 5th largest economy on Earth, has been outweighed and outvoted by the majority of middle America in the last two elections to see that Conservatives are a touch more activist that liberals after all. It was oft quoted in my highschool government class that if every registered democrat voted along party lines in every election, the houses of congress would be 10-1 in favor of democrats. I don't know if this is still true, but it sounds about right to me.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote: It is not reasonable to assume that there is an "establishment" out there and that they are pushing a specific agenda which is "anti-american."
Give me a time in history in any country where there wasn't an establishment, will you?
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Of course there is an establishment, it is not an official organization or anything but it is there nonetheless, and it is everywhere, and no I am not paranoid.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:...But, I've never heard a liberal claim that conservatives were the reason that the terrorists attacked us on September 11.
I have heard them blame conservative economic and foreign policies for the hatred that these terrorists have for America.
quote:Or that God wanted to punish us for the conservative agenda.
The fact that the extreme end of the left wing doesn't make this exact accusation doesn't mean their own accusations aren't just as wild and unsupported. All the "Bush planned 9/11" conspiracy theories leap to mind.
I'm not denying, for a moment, that there are some ridiculous and scary people on the left. But to my (admittedly limited) perspective, I'm more likely to see them on some blog deep within the links of Google than in the front kiosk of Borders Books.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: NYTimes best seller list, Sept 2003
1 LIES (AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM), by Al Franken. Last week: 1 Weeks on list: 4
4 THE GREAT UNRAVELING, by Paul Krugman. First week on list Weeks on list: 1
6 LIVING HISTORY, by Hillary Rodham Clinton. Last week: 5 Weeks on list: 14
13 THIEVES IN HIGH PLACES, by Jim Hightower. Last week: 16 Weeks on list: 4
15 BIG LIES, by Joe Conason. Last week: 15 Weeks on list: 4
18 STUPID WHITE MEN, by Michael Moore.
Sorry, I didn't spend much time searching to find more recent info, but I think it's safe to say some of these made it to the front kiosk at borders
Air America is just the liberals latest attempt at a radio station. There have been others. And just like the conservatives like Limbaugh, they spew forth the same type of vile propoganda. Face it, both parties are willing to sink equally low in spreading their divisive politics.
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
YOu want to see who this establishment is that runs everything look online for ":The merchants of cool" its basically how 5 companies own 99 percent of everything in this coutry and decide what the next big thing is gooing to be by spying on teens and using moles to go into a skool and chat up a certain product
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote: It is not reasonable to assume that there is an "establishment" out there and that they are pushing a specific agenda which is "anti-american."
Give me a time in history in any country where there wasn't an establishment, will you?
That's my point. You can take such a broad view of "establishment" that a vilification of it is meaningless, tailormade to fit your personal bugbears. Then you can turn around and say, look of course there is an establishment, who runs things after all?
I said specific agenda, there is no specific agenda, there is no well defined shadow "establishment," its a grimm fairy tale the politicians and rabel rousers tell you to get your ire up about the flavor of the month, in a word its crap.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Sorry, I didn't spend much time searching to find more recent info, but I think it's safe to say some of these made it to the front kiosk at borders
Air America is just the liberals latest attempt at a radio station. There have been others. And just like the conservatives like Limbaugh, they spew forth the same type of vile propoganda. Face it, both parties are willing to sink equally low in spreading their divisive politics.
But are they really the same thing?
Compare the titles you list:
LIES (AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM) THE GREAT UNRAVELING LIVING HISTORY THIEVES IN HIGH PLACES BIG LIES STUPID WHITE MEN
...So, the opposition is lying, incompetent crooks. Yeah. Nothing new. Now, here's some titles from the opposite end of the spec:
How To Talk To a Liberal (If You Must) Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism The Enemy Within Liberalism is a Mental Disorder Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
All also, notably, New York Times bestsellers.
Accusing liberals of treason? putting them on the same level as terrorists? Liberals are "the enemy"?
For the last time, yes, there are people on the left who say some unfortunate things. But what is considered mainstream rhetoric is far more threatening on the right.
Even Michael Moore, considered the poster boy by many for the worst in left-wing political punditry, spent an entire chapter in Dude, Where's My Country mulling over finding common ground with people on the other side politically. Some how I don't think I'm likely to find anything equivalent in Coulter or Hannity.
And bumper stickers? Well, they've never been the high ground for political discourse, but then, they're almost as easy to make as comments on a message board or posts to your blog. Take a look at www.cafepress.com if you think otherwise.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Let's be fair, Michael Savage is not a rational or sane person, I don't think his books, (I believe 3 and 4 on your list?) should be considered mainstream, as they are products of a seriously deluded paranoic sideshow of the political punditry world.
I agree with you here, I don't use political bumper stickers, or other slogans for public display because it makes me feel like part of a herd mentality, and it is very passive agressive, like when your neihbor leaves a note on your windshield (don't you hate that?). It makes a statment without inviting response, yet people who sport them consider themselves brave and proud of their beliefs, even though they have the liberty of remaining seperated from those who see the display. There should be less of this unanswerable posturing going on.
"And bumper stickers? Well, they've never been the high ground for political discourse, but then, they're almost as easy to make as comments on a message board or posts to your blog. Take a look at www.cafepress.com if you think otherwise."
However I have to object to what you are doing here, which is very similar to sporting a bumper sticker. When we argue about a topic, I don't think its appropriate to say "look at this if you don't believe me." It simply invites the person to either agree with you or be accused of being misinformed; it also invites others to refer you to their evidence, and stops them from introducing their OWN ideas to the discussion.
Unfortunately I have seen to much of this lately, even real life. Other students refering me to websites which "represent their beliefs," rather than expressing them with words. This kind of manuever limits communication by overwhelming your oposition with a mountain of unanswerable evidence or exposition which is either irrelevent or impossible to validate.
A good debate doesn't include the words: "if you had done the research you would know..." Because "the research" is something that YOU need to do to make the argument. If you can't be persuasive without overwhelming non-contextual evidence, then you don't understand your own argument well enough to defend it at all. I knew someone in a study program with me overseas who made some outrageous claim about gender-identity, that girls and boys are taught to use different muscles through sexism, which is supposedly why men are stronger than women, sexism, not genetics. He kept insisting that if I "did the research" I would know, and since I wouldn't "do the research" I was obviously part of the sexist conspiracy against women to make them weaker. I knew whatever research he was talking about was likely flawed or slanted, and I didn't feel the need to spend my time looking at whatever activist literature he was talking about, (I believe it was a feminism activist website).
As a further aside I have noted of late that the average person I talk to is more and more convinced that having read about a topic makes someone an expert. This is perhaps a sign of the abundant faith that an unwise or impressionable person invests in the rhetoric of others, but it is also a disturbing trend. People now have the idea that you can get your education from a library, a correspondence course or a video, and as a result we are becoming seperated from other people and a real learning and communicating progress. The proper internalization of facts and methods comes best from intimate interaction with peers and teachers, and I fear that we are not only losing the ability to learn, but the ability to teach and listen to each other. A fact out of context can mean many things, which is why you can read a book about every President of the United States, and every book can be true and good, yet you will still not know how to BE president yourself. Being president isn't about knowing what the president knows (especially of late?), instead it is the culmination of a physical learning process and a growth that takes a lifetime of interactions. OSC dismisses much real learning, probably because he recognizes correctly that real learning requires real teaching, which is not always present at an American university. Is this the fault of his generation, the current teachers, or mine, the current learners and students, future teachers themselves.
This is not an attack on Sterling as much as it is an aside on how I feel about standards for debate, sorry if I sound really pedantic at the moment.
[ March 22, 2006, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Savage may be nuts, but enough people agree with him, or at least are sufficiently amused by his point of view, to put him on the best-seller lists.
As to the rest, it was implied that a significant number of liberally-themed books on the bestseller lists is tatamount to liberals doing an equal amount of mud-slinging on a similar level of discourse, a point with which I do not agree. Do you have another way of making that counter-point in mind? I guess I'm not clear on what specifically you object to.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I don't do bumper stickers, I hate them too. I also haven't read 1 book on either of those lists. I'm not going to get into a contest with you in which each of us tries to find the most distateful quotes, books, or any kind of media put out by either side just to prove my point.
I'm just saying that throughout your posts I've seen an attitude of 'liberals take the higher road.' I just think they're both down in the mud and muck. I see that you disagree. Mei you guanxi, it's cool.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I have an incredible amount of faith in people to be stupid, blind and ignorant when it comes to alot of things. Extremism is in general the worst problem that faces our society today.
Whether your talking about a religious fanatic, or a political ideal, if a viewpoint can't change and adapt to the demands of the times, then that is a major problem. Michael Savage prays on the ignorance, xenophobia, hatred and nastiness of stupid people with narrow minds, of which there may be a great deal.
Nevertheless I've always had a little saying that infuriates most people I share it with, because it's so counter to the mob mentality that most Americans seem willing to live with: "If someone isn't a smart as you, their opinion doesn't matter as much as yours."
I love the reactions I have gotten by saying this. I don't mean to say that I am smarter than anyone, or that people should be opressed for being stupid, clearly you can succeed as a mightily stupid person in this country. No, I simply keep this thought in the back of my mind when dealing with people I feel to be stupid or ignorant, I remind myself that their opinions don't have as much weight, because they aren't the result of any real thought. That's all it is, I admire the products of careful consideration and judgement; the culture today tells us that everybody gets his say and everybody is exactly equall. The news will make you think that the opinion of some guy on the street who sits at home playing video games and eating potstickers (my roomate), is a vital and important factor in the shaping of national ideals. It just isn't so. And that's what I think of the Savage nation idiots, I fully expect most of them to be too stupid to effect any real change. Hopefully anyway
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Bao: Fair enough. I just wish to make it clear that there are reasons for why I feel as I do (as I'm sure there are reasons you feel as you do, and some of those are indeed clear to me.)
Orincoro: I agree that extremism is dangerous. I wish I could believe that a large number of ignorant people aren't dangerous. Sadly, large numbers of ignorant people seem to wait for strongly spoken leaders to tell them their problems aren't their fault and present them with a scapegoat.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The Establishment is everyone. Especially those that oppose change. (I'm not saying whether any particular change is good or bad.)
The Establishment has had a powerful rhetorical tool for about a hundred years: claiming to be anti-Establishment. Anyone proposing change in the USSR was "counter-revolutionary." Today, anyone proposing change wants to turn back the clock. (I'm exaggerating. Nobody claims that gay marriage is an ancient tradition. I think.)
I saw this in a cartoon in Funny Times, and keep seeing it elsewhere. The claim that anybody endorsing such-and-such liberal position (in that case, opposition to the Iraq war) is vilified as "radical."
But it's rhetoric. Anybody established is establishment.
-----------------
I'll say something about liberalism in academia, since I'm in that environment.
At my (Southern) college, the faculty are overwhelmingly liberal. They don't persecute conservative students (or faculty). Sometimes I wonder what they're thinking. ("Critical thinking" doesn't really mean "deconstructionism.")
But they're nice people. I read a letter to the editor protesting a cartoon ridiculing academia, saying we never ask new hires their views on politics. She's right. But the cartoonist wasn't writing about *our* college.
When I was looking for work, I was turned down from one job because I kept talking about teaching and research, and the chairman was only interested in whether I could help them reduce the number of white males in their engineering program. I was not just turned down, but yelled at for fifteen minutes, for "intolerance," by another chair. What I said that made him think I was intolerant: I said I enjoyed the departmental meeting. Yes, really. But I said it in a Southern accent.
It happens. But not everywhere.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ah yes, the tolerance and diversity police: the bastions of understanding and enlightenment in the world today
This is the biggest problem I have with the democratic party and its supposed "liberal" attitudes. Liberalism, at least the definition on which I was raised living in San Francisco, is pretty much the same thing as the American dream: everybody gets a chance, and you have to help people who aren't getting a chance. That colored my image of "conservatism," because if it differed in a substantial way, it was that conservatives withheld aid from the people who could not help themselves, on the grounds that this treatment was a help in its way.
Both viewpoints have their problems, and yet most people insist that one will work, the other won't, when in reality neither will, not in the present environment.
The former fails because if you "help" underpriveliged people, you end up patronizing, marginalizing, resenting, and crippling them in the long run. Though they benifit from short term improvements, they have a hard time developing an ability to function independently; or you grow too used to "helping" them, and begin to believe they are inferior and work to keep them "in their place."
By not helping underpriveliged people, you fail to help them, and they can die, kill each other, never improve their own lives, grow to hate you and each other, etc. The benefit is that some will be able to improve their own lives, and not feel patronized; this minority of people will in turn work very hard to make you believe that conservatism is the way to go, since it worked for them, and they don't want to turn around and share their hard earned wealth.
The latter is a good picture of what happens so often, especially in South American countries, where the middle class is some 5% of the total population, however it comprises the overwhelming majority of politicians, tourists to the U.S, and recipients of visitors from here. When US citizens go to South America, middle class people is who they are likely to meet, and that class has a vested interest in making the U.S. believe that current economic policies in the western hemisphere benefit everyone, rather than just that one small class that represents South America. We as Americans like to believe that we can overpopulate on the one hand, AND succeed as "everyman" on the other hand, and that ANYONE can do this.
I often hear that: Anyone can succeed, ANYONE.
True, but the current dynamic demands that not everyone can be that person, and we have a vested interest in making sure that only certain people ever do suceed economically, namely the descendents of already sucessful people.
There is no ready solution to this problem, but despite what I've been told by countless small minded people, the lack of a solution does not predicate that we stop worrying about finding one. I love that part of it the most: the part where I admit there is no ready-made answer, and they say "Ah HAH!" As if anything worth doing must be easy. But this is a cynical rationale, designed to ease the minds of those that would rather not consider the moral uncertainty of the modern world.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Well put, thank you.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: That colored my image of "conservatism," because if it differed in a substantial way, it was that conservatives withheld aid from the people who could not help themselves, on the grounds that this treatment was a help in its way.
I think your perception is flawed. There are people who are harmed more than helped by certain types of aid, as you acknowledged, but I think a more fundamental tenet of conservatism is that such charitable help should be volutary, not enforced by the government. As a libertarian, I'd go further and say that such compulsory tax-funded charity is a form of armed robbery.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In that case, there is no need of any government. Why should your tax dollars go to pay for a road you'll never drive on? You should only have to pay YOUR way, and if you get sick or injured, no-one should help you.
You have to define "charity." Isn't it like charity to provide poor children with education they can never hope to pay for themselves? We consider it a right to go to school, and a duty to pay our taxes for education, and we do it often with little hope of repayment in any way.
The real robbery is the government spending millions on housing drug offenders every year, then ratcheting up the penalties when arrests decrease year after year, in order to maintain the status quo on arrests and "law and order." The real lesson is that the beaurocracy always manages to preserve itself first, and its function second.
This particular point struck me as apros pos because I started thinking about how the negative reinforcement in this situation works SO much better than positive reinforcement. Consider that the rationale for tougher penalties and harsher prisons is "we have to be TOUGH on crime." Whereas the rationale for funding education is "we have to encourage learning."
Imagine how effective a program would be if we said it would "Encourage peacefullness." It sounds impotent, it sounds like it won't accomplish anything real.
Why don't we then say: "Lets go out there and FIGHT blinding stupidity." But we never seem to make that connection, we never fight ignorance, we always encourage participation. We go to "war" against drugs, and poverty, and hunger, but we "encourage" learning and reading. Why don't we fight stupidity? Why?
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
because stupidity is not an empirically determined trait.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: because stupidity is not an empirically determined trait.
yah that's the only reason I'm wrong. Semantics. Of course! Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Kids, if you have to ask who is the establishment, chances are you are already a part of it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
rather than expressing them with words. This kind of manuever limits communication by overwhelming your oposition with a mountain of unanswerable evidence or exposition which is either irrelevent or impossible to validate.