The Ideologically Autistic,
Propagandist Constructs,
& The Illusory "We the People"
Posted by
Eric
at
11:15 PM
Team Bush has done for us as a nation what a rapist does to his victims...
The world is not what it was twenty years ago. For that we can thank Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Revisiting the moral-hypothetical, "If you could travel back in time, knowing what you know now about these two men, would you kill them?" Did Hitler wreak as much havoc in his day, as these two men have in ours? Look at what they have done. They've given voice to perversion. Given voice to ignorance. To inanity, narcissism, and sophistry. And worse, they have overthrown the world by giving us, their victims, a false sense of enlightenment and personal control over our own lives. But we are more slaves now than at any other time in history.
There's a lot to be said for Conservatism-- not in terms of politics, but rather, in terms of policies --and the same is true of Liberalism. Both ideologies demand some measure of responsibility of the masses, but the focus of said responsibility finds Liberalism and Conservatism often at odds with each other. The concept of responsibility, socially speaking, has been replaced with a counterfeit; what passes for responsibility now is a cunning, orchestrated, and worthless fake, sold to an ignorant populace by hungry, arrogant, and condescending men who believe, to their core, that the rest of us are incapable of managing ourselves. This is the lie they tell us. And like good children, we believe.
We accept what we read. We accept what we're told-- not to the man, but enough of us to make turning this state of affairs around extremely difficult, and nigh on impossible. It is incredibly unlikely that enough Americans will stand up and make taking back our government even a remote possibility. We saw a glimpse of what was possible last summer in the immigration debate, but again, the numbers that stood up against amnesty for illegals was enough only to make enough elected officials question the repercussions of ignoring "We the People" ...to change their minds about voting FOR legislation that might cost them their place among the stars. Sometimes that's all it takes.
But what if we wanted to repeal the 16th or 17th amendments? Could enough Americans band together from two-thirds of fifty states and successfully demand these amendments be repealed? I do not have enough faith to believe this is even a remote possibility. If we repealed the sixteenth and enacted a consumption tax we would save hundreds of billions a year in compliance costs alone. But too many people like the current tax code-- would like to make it better, in fact, by raising taxes on the rich, defined as anyone making over 200k a year.
Is that rich? Should tax rates for the "wealthy" return to, say, 39%, would they still be rich? And, philosophically speaking, what gives the right of any government to tax any of its citizens so exorbitantly? a piece of parchment approved by 535 men and signed into law by one? The stroke of pens by so few men to rule over 230 million men?
What is poor? Really? In America there are very few genuinely poor people. In Understanding Poverty in America Robert Rector and Kirk Johnson, Ph.D. put some perspective to that question. But because this paper is the product of research conducted under the umbrella of the Heritage Foundation, almost half the nation will refuse to consider its findings. The justice in "taxing the rich to feed and care for the poor" is too attractive an idea for those who love the 16th amendment, to ever consider a change so fundamental as replacing the tax code with something else. Even if it were better.
Speaking yesterday before a crowd of adoring voters, Senator B. Hussein Obama has this to say:
"If you work in this country, you should not be poor!"
What about the french fry cook at McDonalds? He only gets 35 hours a week and makes, maybe, 25 cents over minimum wage. He works. He should not, therefore, be poor. Well, what then must be done to make him rich?
Tax the rich at higher rates so that our french fry cook can take advantage of evening classes at the local community college with a government Pell grant? If he gets grades good enough to win a scholarship at a four-year, he can then move on to become "acceptable" enough to the REAL workforce of America and join the ranks of the "gainfully" employed. If he really applies himself, our ex-french fry cook can make the entrepreneurial spirit catapult him to above 200k and beyond where the government that helped him out of the fryer-- and into the fire of governmental greed --where he now pays 39% on everything he earns in taxes. So what has he gained? He's making 201k a year but taking home only 138k. How much was that Pell grant again? 1500$ a year for, say, 3 years? So that's 4500$ for which he now pays back 62k? a year? Does that make our government the greatest loan shark in the history of the world?
Our fry cook is now a CPA. He's traveled a long road that now carries a heavy toll to the tune of $62,000 a year. That still leaves him with a lot of cash, yes, but how much does he really need? He likely still has a Playstation, a car, a roof over his head, food in belly, clean water, nice clothes, a nice TV, cell phone, computer... all the things he had when he was a fry cook.
The difference is primarily in the quality of his possessions-- A nicer car, a nicer roof over his head, better food, much nicer clothes, a bigger TV, a better computer. It's a question of degrees. Degrees that say nothing about our ex-fry cook's ability to manage his money.
But men like B. Hussein Obama believe that simply working should be enough to ensure a life, at the very least, in the warm embrace of middle-class comforts. Nothing wrong with that. But it takes more than simply working. It requires HARD work and perseverance for MOST people to live comfortably. And in today's world it requires working MORE than 40 hours a week. The 40-hour work week will only guarantee a life of mediocrity. AND that's assuming one is fiscally responsible with the wages one earns. Platitudes like Obama's are worthless in the greater scheme of things; what amount of rhetoric ever put food in hungry mouths?
But Liberalism can't see the truth in this. It is locked in its own world of repetitive behaviors, spinning in sheer delight the dance of ideological autism. In fairness, modern Conservatism isn't much better. The current struggle in this country, then-- between Conservatism and Liberalism --is little more than a façade. The real problem is government, and the frighteningly small number of men and women who decide how we shall live. But that's not to say the constructs of Liberalism and Conservatism serve no purpose.
Propaganda is the primary control mechanism of ALL governments. Some are merely more insidious than others. What passes for propaganda in Gaza and the West Bank, for example, is just as destructive (though in different terms) as propaganda here in the U.S. The only real difference is that propaganda here in the U.S. very rarely leads to killing innocent people. Both entities educate, and propagate attitudes and policies the government wants in place. but governments need a mouthpiece, and up until the mid-nineties Liberal media had a lock on the microphone.
In comments on a previous post it was stated,
You have to outlay thousands/millions of dollars to get your name publicized to voters. Then once you have the job you have to start preparing to run again in six years.
Sad, but true. And it's the mindset of far too many Americans. Granted, it takes lots of money to run for higher office, but where does that money come from? From donors. How do aspiring politicians get that money? By making themselves available to the public-- public appearances and stump speeches. They have to be able to resonate with the people they're trying to win but, realistically, they can only physically reach people within the sound of their physical voices. Unless Media carries their voices for them.
Media lost its monopoly on the hearts and minds of many Americans over a decade ago, thanks to men like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. But that didn't stop the Media. Now they create the news via the Poll, and they use their subjective findings to control, and often manipulate, what we think about any given situation or public/foreign policy-- as well as those who make it. They decide what gets aired, and WHO gets aired. Especially politicians. Media all but decides who we get to vote for in general elections-- and to no small extent, primaries. Media is in the business of building up and tearing down façades, and in today's 24hour news cycle, they are constantly building. Ostensibly for truth.
It doesn't always work, however, as evidenced by the meteoric fall of Dan Rather, but that only makes those who still enjoy the lofty heights of heaven more careful in their innuendos and distortions. They have learned the art of obfuscation and have become the great manipulators of "We the People."
To say Media carries water for Washington, however, is a misnomer. They carry water for those politicians who line up with the ideology Media itself seeks to advance. And then, only those politicians who do not publicly embarrass themselves-- and Media for having supported them.
"We the People" decide very little these days; it is all pretty much decided for us. We are governed, for the most part, by people who have taken their positions for granted-- as their due. And we, their loyal fief-bound tenants, perpetuate their status, and their belief that they deserve their seats among the stars. We can on occasion pull a star from heaven, but mostly we simply replace them with others who rarely burn brighter than their predecessors. "We the People" have, in effect, abdicated our position of supreme authority over the governance of this nation. We traded our birthright for a pot of porridge.
What then can "We the People" do? Short of Revolution?
Honestly? Nothing. Because not enough people care enough to challenge the federal government. We are a fearful people, and fearful people do not overthrow governments.
What then? We overthrow attitudes. And that is only accomplished at the expense of great loss of life and liberty... or long years of suffering and servitude. The state of this nation-- and the world --is not the fault of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, they are not near as evil, as say, Hitler was evil, Bin Laden IS evil, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is evil, as Kim Jong Il is evil. Computers are not evil, but the uses to which they are put CAN be, and often ARE evil.
Both Conservatism and Liberalism see Freedom of Speech as sacrosanct, but both have differing views on what should be hindered, and what should be given freer rein. Multiculturalism and Political Correctness-- both Liberal artifices --have wreaked havoc on this nation, making it all but impossible to criticize what genuinely needs criticizing. Simple truth is, not all cultures have equal value. Not all divisive labels are evil. We have become a nation too afraid to speak its mind for fear of offending someone. How then will we ever take back our country? Especially when our country perpetuates, as a distraction, the pointless and reckless sophistry coming from both sides of the aisle; especially that kind quoted at the top of this page? Irresponsible and profitless sophistry.
Welcome to America.
45 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are you SERIOUS? You would really rather shut off freedom? REALLY?
Then choose you this day! A country that gives us all freedom to believe -- or NOT to. Or some sick place where we're told how to think.
I'll take my chances with freedom, thank you very much -- and, in the name of the Liberty of Christ, I will stnad aside and let the great masses have their own freedom, for good or ill, as God and His Grace see fit.
Brother, you just boggle my head dang near plumb off sometimes. :-)
BTW, here's an answer to a question you asked me directly some time back, and I paraphrase: "Don't you long to see Jesus?"
NO! I see Jesus in the face of every person I see, if I just am willing to see!
"The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand," Jesus is said to have said. Here. Now.
If He comes in the sky, GREAT. His first question of you will NOT be about you! The first question of you will be about everyone AROUND you.
What the heck do you think He meant?
Lordy, if I could erase acopalypiticism from the memory of the Body of Christ, I'd do it.
I'm not castigating technology, or freedom. I'm lamenting the evils that come with them.
You think that "some people" have told us that we're not capable of managing ourselves and that we have believed it?
Do you have a source? A quote, some numbers or any evidence to support this allegation?
And are you suggesting we ought to want to repeal the 16th Amendment -
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
As I've pointed out before, there are some basic questions that would have to be answered before we take away our ability to tax ourselves to pay for the common wealth. I've not heard some pretty basic questions addressed. So, no, I don't think the People will buy into a scheme that leaves basic questions unanswered.
And do you really want to repeal our process of electing Senators?
Or were you just grabbing two Amendments at random, for the purpose of making a point?
I think the People are very capable of making these sorts of decisions and, given reasonable arguments, we are open to change. It doesn't happen very easily, but then, I think most of us think this is a good thing. We're pretty satisfied with our Constitution. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good.
Of those who don't vote, aren't even registered to and think all politicians are alike, how many of them do we even want votin'? Of those who do vote, so many are just so rock stupid, party affiliation notwithstanding. It's serious business and only adults need apply. Too many who vote simply shouldn't be if one considers real understanding of the candidate and how that candidate is the best choice of those running as the criteria for responsible voting. "It's time for a change and I like his message." No. Sorry. You go study some more and come up with a better answer before you vote.
So the 535 men who approve pieces of parchment are are there by the votes of people described above. The intelligence curve of the voting population is too low. This is so very apparent to me as I look to see who the senators are from my state. I have the great displeasure and gastric distress to say that "P" Dick Durbin and Barry Obama are from my state. So you can see how low the intelligence curve is in Illinois. You should see our governor! (The curve here used to be higher. We had Henry Hyde.) And the GOP is a shambles here, though I think it's getting it together.
So now I want to engage the process and I'm working up the spine to join the local GOP org in my area to see what's what. Those 535 came from somewhere and somebody let 'em out. And the result is what we live with today.
I also wanna say that the uprising over the immigration situation was indeed our country working to govern itself. People engaged and things happened. I would wager, however, that there was nowhere near 200 million involved. The point is that you don't need everyone, since everyone ain't comin' anyway. You need people calling and writing and emailing. That's dealing in a greater currency than currency, votes. The more the merrier, but the lowest limit is in the mind of the individual politician. It might only take 100 people calling for one politician to change, whereas the next won't budge unless 1000 call.
To put it plainly, the quality of our system and our politicians is a direct reflection of the quality of the people who vote.
It was, indeed. Those who stood on both "sides" of the immigration issue spoke up and let their voices be heard.
An even better illustration of the People standing up against our gov't are the unprecedented tens of millions (hundreds of million worldwide) who stood opposed to the Iraq invasion.
And the Bush gov't did GREAT and grievous damage to the notion of Democracy and our Republic when he ignored world opinion and (astoundingly) US opinion! to go ahead and invade Iraq, despite the outcry.
It's that sort of thing that can cause the People to lose faith in the System or, more ideally, to dig their feet in the ground and work all the more diligently to stand opposed to such wrong behavior.
Jan 2009 can't come soon enough.
The Democrat who takes Bush's place (and the many Republican Congressional seats) will have their own set of problems, but change will occur. And if these replacements continue to make serious mistakes, we'll just have to replace them.
Eric is on to at least one thing, I think: our System of choosing our leaders is compromised and needs reform.
OK. I understand. I've just always seen the ills as part and parcel OF it. But I simply don't know what it is exactly that makes you so lamentational. I stare at the news for a living every day, too. ...
Ya know ... it's not freedom you lament, because freedom is inert. And it's not some disembodied "ills."
I think it's PEOPLE in general you don't like. How close am I to the quick? :-)
It looked like you read my comments, but you either didn't catch the point or you disagreed with it. I say the system is not the issue any more than democracy itself is. How the people under it function within it is the problem. Though turnout has been pretty good in IL for the primary, overall our national turnout is rarely as good as it should be. Do we even get 60% of elligible voters showing up? And again, of those who do, how many are really qualified to cast a vote in the first place? Sure, by virtue of citizenship we are all elligible, but I'm talking about knowing the candidate for whom one votes. I don't believe that even half of the Obama supporters have any idea of what kind of things this creep supports or doesn't support. I can believe that there are a ton of fools who vote on emotion alone or superficial crap like "charisma" and unfortunately there will always be.
At the risk of changing the subject, Dan also assumes that the numbers of Americans opposed to the Iraq invasion surpass those who supported the notion. Less than a year before 9/11, nearly everyone supported Hussein's removal. It merely took someone with spine, that is, Bush, to actually take action towards accomplishing that. As I near the end of "Truman", by David McCullough, the parallels are striking between he with Korea, and Bush with Iraq and terrorism in general. In any case, if he didn't take the action he did, he'd have opposed the will of other people. In addition, many of the same ignorant citizens, ignorant by choice, opposed that action taken by Bush. Those who understood the stakes supported it.
It seems to come down to the fact that Marshall and Eric just don't like people - beyond that, they seem to find them loathable, disgusting, ignorant and beneath them.
So long as that reform doesn't involve eradicating the Electoral College System. Do that, and many states will never see a campaigning presidential candidate again.
"they seem to find [people] loathable, disgusting, ignorant and beneath them."
Speaking strictly for myself, I find Apathy, Ignorance, and Blindness "loathful and disgusting," and yes, they are beneath me. But people in general? Not at all.
More to the point, it seems you are supposing that people today are worse, somehow, less worthy of our Republic than people in the past were.
We are humanity. Flawed, but made in God's image and with God's Spark within us. Always have been. Always will be.
You seem to think that some people don't measure up and -do you go so far as to think shouldn't be allowed to vote?
I, on the other hand, trust the people to do the best they can. They'll disagree with me, sure. They allowed Bush to take office and I seriously disagreed with that - especially after the fact when we saw that he was not merely a buffoon but had some seriously dangerous ideologies he wanted to enact.
Our candidates, like us, are flawed, as well. And so, in the end, we will have a flawed gov't.
But that has always been the case. Do you think back when you had to be a landed, literate man that people always made the best decisions - always read up on the candidates? I doubt that you're wanting to return to those days(I hope?)
You see, I trust the people not because I think they'll always make the best choice, but because it's the best we've got.
So I'm not inclined to disenfranchise anyone. I'd just vote to try to clean up the system and continue to work on educating one another.
Like it or not, we're all in this thing together (to quote a little Old Crow).
Great to hear, Eric. As long as you don't make the fatal assumption that those who disagree with you are apathetic, ignorant and blind, merely because they disagree with you.
In which case, you'd be saying "People in general - you know, Good people like me? I like them fine."
I'm sure you don't think that, though. It just sounds like it sometimes.
Rather, I find it part of the human condition to not be able to care at all times, to be informed on all issues. We're not God, after all.
And you know what, God doesn't expect us to be God (in fact, God might take umbrage at that notion). Instead, we are to be holy as God is holy. We are to be perfect, as God is perfect.
But by "holy" and "perfect," the scriptures are not teaching us to be something we can't be. We're to be perfectly human - Perfect in the sense of a Perfect dozen of eggs. We're to be whole, what we were designed to be.
And so, I don't beat myself or anyone else up too much for those times I'm ignorant, those times I lack concern. My God is not a god that encourages self-flagellation but rather, a God that encourages to keep striving by God's grace, the best we can to be loving, responsible humans.
But that's chasing a wild heir, I suppose. Sorry.
So, what reforms would you like to see in place?
Here's a few ideas...
1. IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) It lets you weigh your votes (I'm putting a 1 next to the Green party candidate, a 2 next to the Dem candidate and nothing next to the Republican). This would allow third and fourth parties to have more sway and thereby strengthen our democracy. What if you could vote for a Third Party Libertarian without fearing "losing" your vote - how would that affect our elections? Candidates would be forced to take into consideration minority opinions.
2. Advertisements could only show what a candidate supports - a candidate's planks and positions. You'd run on your positions, not on tearing down the other candidate with sometimes open lies.
3. I agree with you that we want to keep our electoral system in place, although I'd be open to tweaking it. I support it for the same reasons you do.
For starters, there's some thoughts I'd have. In general, I'd like to see money become less a criteria for running for office, as I think it corrupts the system.
I think humans, being born in depravity, have taken the ball and run with it, as humans are wont to do. Those things are the result of free will.
1) "An even better illustration... tens of millions... worldwide... against the Iraq war."
So what. I care about what foreign people think of our government proportionate to how much our government cares about pleasing the world before the people who voted them into office. That was the problem with John Kerry who said he'd put any decision about defending America to an "international test." Sorry. The president is elected to defend this nation, against all enemies, foreign or domestic. He is not subject to any other governments approval for anything. Out of courtesy, it is often necessary to consult with and gain support from other countries, but our president gets permission from no one but us to do what he has to do.
2) "...despite the outcry"
What outcry? From whom? There were some nations who thought it a bad idea, but there wasn't an international hue and cry against invading Iraq. Certainly not within the U.S. Representatives and Senators alike were clamoring all over each other to see who could be more patriotic.
3) "...seems you are supposing that people today are worse, somehow, less worthy of our Republic than people in the past were"
A thought I had not considered. But.... any nation who will not defend itself from foreign aggression does not deserve to exist. America hasn't the stomach for a protracted war of ANY stripe. Contrary to what many well-meaning Americans may think, the world is far more dangerous today than it has ever been. Despite that 'God spark' you speak of, man is still capable of grotesque evil... beheadings for the sake of religion springs immediately to mind. If America is not willing to confront this evil... leaving Islam out of it.... then America doesn't deserve to exist. Our GOVERNMENT exists to protect our borders, sovreignty, and citizenry. Peace talks have demonstrated, beyond a doubt, that "Talk"... asking them to not kill us... does not work. So what other solution is there? Fence ourselves in and become virtual prisoners? Look at what's happening in France and England... Think it can't happen here? Think again.
Still, I'd like to think we DO deserve to exist as a nation. The question then is, What defining quality exists in the American breast that deserves to survive what is coming?
4) IRV... Good idea. Implementation is another matter. The devil is in the details, as they say.
5) "Advertisements could only show what a candidate supports..."
An idea just as bad as McCain-Feingold... an abridgment of our 1st amendment right to free speech. McCain-Feingold should be repealed immediately.
-----
Clarifying my mention of the 16th amendment: The 16th has resulted in a body of legislators which seeks to focus more on national issues than those important to their own home states. There was a time when Senators were chosen by the state legislators to represent their state in Washington. Can you honestly tell me that Ted Kennedy, or even Lyndsey Graham represent their respective states more than their Party or Party Issues? The states suffer because of the 16th amendment.
Lastly, for now... I still like the idea of a lottery system for House representatives. Every registered voter is eligible to serve their district in Congress, and if chosen they are required to serve for one term, with six months additional to break in their replacement. My what a different country this would be! The People would actually be represented!
Also, I like the idea of 2 years of mandatory military service immediately after high school.
I could say far more... but it's getting close to news time.
Well, now, knowing that you don't care what others think is why my FULL quote (as opposed to what you pasted) said TENS OF MILLIONS OF US CITIZENS (Hundreds of millions worldwide).
And you go on to say, "What outcry? From whom? There were some nations who thought it a bad idea, but there wasn't an international hue and cry against invading Iraq."
Eric, this is simply wrong. Factually wrong. There has NEVER been an invasion more thoroughly opposed worldwide beforehand than this one.
Hitler's invasion of Poland didn't get the opposition that this Iraq invasion did.
And our Gov't BETTER care what tens of millions of citizens think.
Bush ignoring this US and World outcry is EXACTLY one of the largest reasons why the Republicans are so messed up right now. People are sick of the Bush way. Of the "conservative" way as supported by some 10-20% of the people but opposed by the rest. You couldn't get a conservative candidate to even come close to winning in the Republican contest!
And Bush ignoring the will of the People is doing great damage to Democracy - much greater damage than any potential terrorists can possibly muster.
The president is NOT elected to do anything of the sort. He is elected to defend the CONSTITUTION.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
THAT is not the same thing as defending the country!!!! And your and millions of others' confusion on that most important point is the very problem.
Why? What will "tens" of millions do that hundreds of millions will not?
"Factually wrong."
Why? Because you say so? "Tens of Millions of US Citizens" is a subjective count. You look at all the opposition there is today and project that back to the beginning of this war. How many "tens" of millions vocally protesting? Certainly not upwards of 100 million, otherwise this war would have been over before it began. On top of this you conveniently dismiss HUNDREDS of millions who were FOR the war... at its beginning.
Revising and extending my remarks about the oath of presidency... the oath is two-fold.
a) "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,"
b) "...and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
As to the first, the Office of "President" comes with an additional title "Commander in Chief." That's right, he's in charge of the military and all things related to the defense of this nation; its borders, its sovereignty, and its citizenry. My mistake above was injecting "enemies foreign and domestic" but this is most certainly implied in his role as Commander in Chief.
Secondarily, the president is to "preserve, protect and defend" to "best of his ability" the Constitution.... to the BEST of his ability. Because of the doctrine of "Separation of Powers" he is permitted only so much. He cannot trump Congress or the Judiciary accept by either the Veto pen or Executive Order; but against the Judiciary his primary weapons are Court Appointments.
So... I'm wrong to confuse my oaths (the oath I took was obviously not for president). I'll endeavor to be more careful in the future.
But getting back to Dan's point... I respect your position Dan, I just disagree... Surprise! I believe you are quite sincere when you say this war was near universally opposed by US Citizens-- that was your implication, least --but this just wasn't so. You cannot dismiss the near "universal" support for the war (on BOTH sides of the aisle) out of hand. Yes, some in Congress opposed it, but that number was small. Very small. Furthermore, this war would never have lasted this long if Congress were truly afraid of those who opposed the war. Who they WERE genuinely afraid of, were those who supported the war.
You may roll your eyes when you read this, but Media plays a big hand in what news people hear-- yes, it's true, without media we'd all be ignorant rubes; blissfully unaware of anything happening, even in the next town. Is the news factual? Is it editorialized? Or blown out of proportion? Why, just this evening, the CBS evening news skewed their reporting, with obvious intent of purpose, to suggest Huckabee showed bad judgment by accepting money from Kenneth Copeland, yet in the next breath, praised Bill Clinton for learning that his defense of Hillary has the undesired result of stealing the limelight from his candidate wife. Talk about editorializing... this was not news, it was pure partisan hatchetry. What about Hillary's poor judgment in associating herself with Norman Hsu?
Something else you may not realize. When you watch your local news, the only news they actually report is local and regional news. Everything else is sent to them via their parent network-- the video, the scripts --and your hometown anchors faithfully read whatever is sent to them. This is not their fault. Local networks don't have the resources, let alone the budget, do do their own reporting on national and international issues. Trust me on this, I have it first hand. You are not going to make me believe that everything I hear on the news is actually true. I know better.
I know enough to realize that while the facts may be accurate... in terms of figures... their (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN... etc) interpretation leaves much to be desired. We're talking about an entity that creates its own news with every opinion poll. If nothing else (and trust me, there really is little else) Clinton left this nation with a legacy of Polling to prove ones point, or to direct the publics' understanding of any given issue in a specific desired direction.
Again, you're projecting today's reaction to the war (which is greatly tuned to the negative by Media) backward. Very little news is coming out of Iraq these days. Why? Because there's only a fraction of the death and mayhem between the two rivers today as was a year ago. Media is certainly not going to spend much time praising the successes of our military. Not when they've bent over backward the last 5 years tarring and feathering the military and the Commander in Chief all this time. The Media is NOT going to do anything that makes them look like they're praising Bush. That would be anathema to them.
So Media will continue to parade their shibboleths before viewers who don't know better than to believe everything they hear and everything they see and everything they read.
I believe you are quite sincere when you say this war was near universally opposed by US Citizens
I didn't say that the war was "near universally" opposed by US citizens. I said it was opposed in historical numbers.
The FACTS are (and let's not rewrite history):
On the weekend of Feb 15 2003, millions of people took to the streets in the US to show their opposition to the imminent invasion of Iraq.
I was in NYC that weekend and the numbers were astounding. Not only that, but the protesters shut down the streets and, you know how the surly NYC drivers reacted? With near-universal honks of support, thumbs up, peace signs and nary a snarl of disagreement.
Do you know how many Pro-War people took to the streets that day? I don't either, but I saw at least five.
NYC was just ONE city, similar protests took place on that weekend around the US and around the globe, numbering in the tens of millions on that weekend alone.
And THAT was just one weekend.
Are you forgetting the millions that turned out in protest those first months of the proposed and then actual invasion?
This was not a media-contrived non-event, this was unprecedented in history opposition to a war.
ER in a nutshell.
LOL!
So was WWII.
Yes, there was a good deal of disinterest and opposition, even, to entering the war, but not in the numbers or strength as we saw in the Iraq Invasion. This was a historically unique event and Bush invaded anyway, doing great damage to our Republic.
"Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies" did not rise above 11 percent in any country. Support for a war if mandated by the UN ranged from 13 percent (Spain) to 51 percent (Netherlands).
Particularly interesting are the eight countries whose leaders declared themselves to be the New Europe, to much acclaim for their courage and integrity. Their declaration took the form of a statement calling on the Security Council to ensure "full compliance with its resolutions," without specifying the means. "
--Noam Chomsky
The Iraq War and Contempt for Democracy
Here in the US-- On October 11, 2002 a resolution that authorized President Bush to use force in Iraq passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House by 296 to 133.
The largest anti-war protest was on February 15, 2003 involving between 300,000 - 400,000 protesters in New York City, with smaller numbers protesting in Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and other cities.
With New York being the largest, it's unlikely there were 10's of millions of protesters in the street demanding we NOT invade Iraq.
The Bush Administration asked for domestic authorization for the invasion, and got it in October of '02. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". While the resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, Americans polled in January 2003 widely favored further diplomacy [we weren't complete barbarians!] over an invasion. Later that year, however, Americans began to agree with Bush's plan. Americans overwhelmingly believed Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction: 85% said so. Of those who thought Iraq had weapons stashed somewhere, about half were pessimistic that they’d ever turn up. By February 2002, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
I know you were impressed by what you saw in NYC, but that is not a fair indicator of how well received the war was at and before its start up. TRUE! Support for the war has waned, but not so much as to make Democrats in congress pull the plug.
As to the war, Truman went through the same thing with Korea. His approval ratings were crap at that time. He had communism to fight, Bush has Islamofascism. Both need to be fought against. Not everyone has the brains to understand that.
I don't support restricting anyone from voting. I encourage everyone to take it a bit more seriously and learn about the candidates enough to be able to explain substantively why they deserve a vote.
I would say that YES, things are worse now than they were in earlier periods, in regards to having quality politicians worthy of our votes. I'm just not sure how I'd back that up just now at 1:30 AM. I could point to the Dem hopefuls, but that's too easy.
It doesn't matter that we were created in God's image. We, as you have said, are not gods in any respect. So by whom we were created doesn't enter into it, and bringing it up was lame. We are ignorant by choice in these matters. There are plenty of ways to check up on at least the candidate of one's choice, if not the whole field. And that it might always have been this way is no excuse. I emphatically do NOT trust the people to do the best they can if we have people like Obama, Clinton and McCain as the remaining choices. (I don't think Huck's gonna make it, but he ain't no prize, either.) It took "We the People" to get us to this point. Why should I trust the people?
No. I do not support restricting anyone from voting if they are eligible under the law. I do support the idiots staying home.
Last news cycle that saw unedited news coverage was 9/11 when, if you had been watching CBS, would have heard a woman screaming on national television... "O MY F-ING G-D!" ...Disgraceful.
And yet Media would have us believe that their edited "packages" are unbiased. They're not.
Great points, Marshall. However, they don't show all of the gay pride parades. They usually leave off the full frontal nudity, S&M, etc. sections because showing the whole truth would not promote their agenda.
A lesbian who marched her kids in a parade once objected to those parts of the parade and how they put them right next to the family sections. On the one hand I shared her concern. But on the other hand I wanted to say, "Hey lady, that's kind of judgmental of you, isn't it? Who are you to criticize them?"
Well, I don't know what to do with that, if you can't accept obvious numbers - look at the photos and count the millions if you want - then I don't know. On Feb 15 alone, there were tens of millions of people in the streets worldwide, millions in the streets in the US. That's just a reality. Accept it or not.
I'd cite some sources, but since you're just going to dismiss them as part of a media conspiracy, what's the point? (Although, I will point out that the Guiness Book of World Records lists the 3 million actual people who protested in Rome as the world's largest antiwar protest in all of history).
As to your citing the fact that Congress passed a resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq, all that proves is that these Dems are not as "liberal" as you think they are. Or even willing to listen to the People.
Shameful.
"If you can't accept obvious numbers... On Feb 15 alone, there were tens of millions of people in the streets worldwide, millions in the streets in the US. That's just a reality."
What Dan has done... intentionally? unintentionally? ...is revise and thereby misrepresent his original argument which was.... [emphasis added]
"[U]nprecedented tens of millions (hundreds of million worldwide) who stood opposed to the Iraq invasion.
There were, obviously "millions" in the U.S. Your original assertion was TENS of millions, implying a much vaster number, comparatively speaking. Unprecedented? Quite likely since there are far more people in America today than at any other time in American history. The same is true worldwide. But this in no way means there was an overwhelming groundswell of opposition to the lead-up of the Iraq invasion. In short, the protest in America alone was not significant enough in numbers, nor sustained long enough, to get politicians to sit up and take note (which is all that matters in AMERICAN politics).
Please note that I provided some corroboration for my own statements, and please also note they came from liberal sources.
I'd also like to point out that your most recent comment suggests that I denied your NEW assertions that, "there were tens of millions of people in the streets worldwide, millions in the streets in the US." [Feb 15, 2003]
But this is not true. I actually sorta/kinda/perhaps agree with THAT statement. But that was not your original argument. And the context of my statement was a refutation of your assertion which you based upon your own eye witness account of "A" protest in NYC.
I said: "Forgive me Dan if I choose not to accept your eyewitness account of one city as definitive proof that the war was greatly and[sic] opposed by tens of millions nationwide. Maybe worldwide... but not in the streets." [emphasis added]
I did not deny millions in the U.S., nor did I deny TENS of millions worldwide, though I did shadow that with doubt. 3 million in Rome does not amount to TENS of millions, which by simple definition must number above 20 million people worldwide, though 30 would be a fairer number. I don't think you have that number. Not that can be proven at least. Furthermore, every article I've read calls the number in Rome differently-- 3 million being the high-end number. The big question then is, what methodology was used to arrive at 3 million protesters?
But this is beside the point which is, Were there tens of millions [30 million or more] people protesting throughout the world in organized marches? At any given time? I'd say No [Estimates put the number BETWEEN 8 and 30 million worldwide over two days-- the weekend of the 15th & 16th of February 2003]. Were the protests sustained to really drive home a point? No. Want to make a point? Consider the current Writers' Strike. THAT is a point being made.
"If you can't accept obvious numbers..."
Which is the problem I have your assertion. The numbers are anything but "Obvious," which implies incontrovertibility; if a number is obvious there can hardly be any controversy. right?
Are 8-30 million protesters in 800 cities around the world large? Yep. But compared to what? A worldwide population of 7 billion? So let's say 18 million people which is the halfway mark between 8 and thirty inclusively. 18 million divided by 7 billion gives us a rather insignificant minority...
0.0025714285714285714285714....
It's time to start thinking globally; that's one of Liberalisms mantra's, is it not? Well, by that standard, .0025 is too small a percentage of voters for a WORLD government to look twice. I repeat and clarify: opposition by less than 1/10th of one percent of the voting base to ANY planned policy is not sufficient to scrap the plans of a one-world government, any more than the protests of under 30 million NATIONWIDE is enough to cause the US to NOT go forward with a planned invasion. That number, by the way is .1% of 300 million. NOT insignificant in size, but quite insignificant in scope. Just one percent of 300 million.
But American politicians do not answer to world protesters, let alone relatively insignificant ones. Our leaders are elected, ostensibly, to represent the will of the AMERICAN people. And 1% of OUR population in protest, is not a big enough number to thwart the engines of war.
To clarify, then: There were millions protesting in the US on that one day - Feb 15. Tens of millions protesting over the months before and after.
What is that ratio for each person who is protesting? Dozens? several? I don't know that anyone knows, but certainly others. For instance, at my church, there are some 75 or so of us who would probably describe ourselves as strongly opposed to this invasion. On Feb 15, two of us went to NY to protest, maybe 15-20 protested here in town, but that means that at least 3x as many strongly opposed to the invasion were unable to take part in a protest (or, in some cases, prefer to do their protesting in other ways than marching in the streets).
You're burying your head in the sand if you don't think this invasion was strongly opposed here in the US and around the world.
Even after all that deception/misleading information, only 1/2 of the public supported the notion of invading Iraq, and the ones who did (many of our representatives included, or so they say) did so because Team Bush assured us that if we didn't, we'd be looking at mushroom clouds over the US and that they "know where the WMDs are..."
It wasn't until after the actual invasion that a majority approved and that was largely because that's just what people tend to do: Support their homeland when a war is on. In fact, you heard that repeated over and over and over: "I was opposed to this before hand, but now that we're in there, we got to win it!"
But surveys and polls and media are all part of the Great Satan and are not to be believed. But then, if they're not to be believed, then on what basis SHOULD we invade? Bush's best guess? Clinton's best guess?
Again, I don't trust the gov't that much to go around invading nations unprovoked. To do so is an attack on our nat'l security - pre-emptive invasions like we had with Iraq make us LESS, not more secure.
But we've been through all this before. So, believe what you will. Trust your gut if you must.
Thanks for stopping by. Welcome, and feel free to visit with us again.
You're kiddin', right? Presidents invading on the basis of surveys, polls, media? Must be someone for whom YOU voted, Dan. The guys for whom I vote invade based on the best intel available, such as it may be.
[leaving national healthcare out of it-- an abysmal failure in Britain and elsewhere]