U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

Alt2War · 2004-06-02 17:04:52

Alt, what is more important, free education and healthcare or freedom in general. Free speech, free assembly, freedom to not be grabbed from your home in the middle of the night and hauled away never to be seen again and freedom to walk down the street with you wife or girlfriend without fearing that some government thug is going to decide he wants to have her and there's not a damn thing you can do about it?
Nazi Germany had a wonderful state welfare apparatus too. Is it really worth it?

I would prefer a destitute and moraless society with individual freedoms, over a wealthy one without.

Luckily individual freedom has historicly led to wealthy,productive societies.

I can see how, if it works, an Iraq with personal freedom can in the long run lead to a wealthy productive society.

What I fail to see is how an Iraq with personal liberties directly translates into a whole middle east full of warm fuzzies.

DonPanic · 2004-06-02 17:06:08

LO

We should have focused more on building bigger transports and less on building lighter vehicles. Lesson learned.

I'm afraid you didn't learn much, you should have focused on Iraqi's and Iraqi institutions security, not let museums, hospitals and banks being looted,
you still think war machinery, no doubt you're strong at,
do think about men, please !
Then we can have agreements
CC, I don't know what "Freedom" is, maybe a propaganda word
I just know which rights I want to fight for

Alt2War · 2004-06-02 17:49:26

Alt, Don; I know you opposed the war. You've made your case. There are valid arguments. But when you carry on like those last two posts you sound like loons. I'm trying to help you here, seriously. Think about what you're saying. Think about the implications.

Yes, think

you say: Once the arabs see Iraq with all the good things that come with democracies, it will somehow magicly cause all arabs to rebel and demand democracies for themselves.

I say: How do you come to that conclusion?

As far as the social progressiveness of Iraq:

The Iraqi Constitution of 1970 included women's rights for voting, attending school, owning property, and running for office.
Still, the status of women in Iraq has not always been the best because of other cultural and economic factors such as the aftermath of the 1991 war and economic sanctions.
School attendance for girls has not been prohibited although more boys than girls have been enrolled, especially in rural areas.

Women of Iraq, though, still hold one the highest literacy rate in the arab world.

from:
http://dhaka.usembassy.gov/state/StateP … _2004.html

Overcoming the legacy of Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship will not be easy. All Iraqis recognize that justice and reconciliation constitute a formidable challenge. Nevertheless, Iraqi society and the Iraqi people bring remarkable assets to this challenge. First, Iraq has always had one of the highest literacy rates in the Arab world, along with one of the highest percentages of university graduates. Second, Iraq has long had a relatively large and active middle class, coupled with a strong tradition of civil service and effective government institutions. Over the last two decades Saddam deliberately chose to emphasize differences and drive communities apart. The task now is to counter this effort and restore community tolerance and rebuild community relations.

Like it or not, believe it or not; Iraq was one of, if not the most progressive arab nations on many fronts.

Yet these prgressive social benefits did not spread to it's neighbors.

It would seem the 'keeping up with the Jonses' thoery is not nessicarily true. Iraq has a strong middle class, but it's neighbors do not.

So what is it that we hope to provide Iraq that will do this magical change in the middle east?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 18:58:33

CC, I don't know what "Freedom" is, maybe a propaganda word
I just know which rights I want to fight for

Please define them.

you say: Once the arabs see Iraq with all the good things that come with democracies, it will somehow magicly cause all arabs to rebel and demand democracies for themselves.
I say: How do you come to that conclusion?

I have never said that. What I have said is that a functional free republic in the region will give an example to secular Muslims of what is possible. It will fuel the desires of many in other countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria) for similar changes. It's not a magic fix, it's a step.

On a more practical level, it removes one source of terrorist support and opens a base of operations for US forces in the region and if we play it right, an oil producing country that isn't part of OPEC.

Yes, I know the drill. It's all about oil. Ho hum.

As far as the social progressiveness of Iraq:

We're talking about a regime that tortured dissidents, institutionalized rape, plundered the country and treated its resources and people as the property of the ruling family. "Social progressiveness" means precisely dick when it all hinges on the whim of a psychopathic thug and his two rapist punk sons. Having the highest rate of literacy among women is meaningless in comparison.

Stop looking at the 1970 constitution and look at reality.

Like it or not, believe it or not; Iraq was one of, if not the most progressive arab nations on many fronts.
Yet these prgressive social benefits did not spread to it's neighbors.

Freedom and "social benefits" are not intertwined, more often than not they're at odds. All the free government goodies in the world are meaningless when some murdering bastard decides whether to rape your sister and cut out your tongue on a whim.

Or we can take your position, just to illustrate the absurdity. Damn that Hitler was on to something. Good roads, low crime, everyone had a job. That damn lyin' Roosevelt made us go in there and take down the most progressive country in Europe and for what, Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Bunch lyin' dogs, the whole lot of 'em. Things were great with Hitler and we went and plunged the whole country into anarchy. It's a quagmire, we've been occupying the country for a year and no end in sight... ???

Palomar · 2004-06-02 19:31:19

...what is more important, free education and healthcare or freedom in general..freedom to walk down the street with you wife or girlfriend without fearing that some government thug is going to decide he wants to have her and there's not a damn thing you can do about it?
Nazi Germany had a wonderful state welfare apparatus too. Is it really worth it?

*I'm with Cobra on this one (despite my frequent disagreement with him generally, and my often-stated doubts about the Iraq war). I'd much rather be in a situation where I might have an increased measure of freedom after the bullets stop flying (the war) than to continue living in a society where no one is allowed to come to my defense nor am I allowed legal recourse against thugs in control (i.e., Qusay Hussein) who made it a habit and a "game" of abducting and raping women. Those women had -zero- legal recourse, none; neither did their partners. Imagine living in a hellish society like that. Well-equipped rape rooms with no opportunity whatsoever to take your assailant court or see him punished. NO THANK YOU. I'll take my society over that nightmare society any day.

Cobra, the Nazis had a state welfare apparatus? ??? Sincere question. Based on what I've read and heard, the Nazis had no tolerance for "weak" and "undesirable" people period (whether lazy, mentally retarded, crippled...except Goebbels...spelling?...he had a club foot, didn't he?). Unless the "welfare" you're referring to was akin to corporate welfare or just a *temporary* "helping hand" to working people in a bind. The Nazis were ruthless and unmerciful. So I'm curious for you to please explain.

--Cindy

Alt2War · 2004-06-02 21:40:43

I have never said that. What I have said is that a functional free republic in the region will give an example to secular Muslims of what is possible. It will fuel the desires of many in other countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria) for similar changes. It's not a magic fix, it's a step.

This is my argument that by itself potentially, possibly, mayby fueling the desires of many in other Arab countries for a free Republic does not justify 800 dead Americans, 9-20 dead Iraqis, 100+ Billion, and a fractured diplomatic world.

The cost does not balance with the benefit.

I would also argue that the effect of a free arab republic on it's neighbors dissenters is much less than certian. So given this scenerio alone as justification, the cost is massive but the result is uncertian.

I believe that this is yet another grab-bag smoke screen rationale. We seem to be grabbing on to one rationale until it is proven erronius or misguided, and then we put up another one. In the shuffle, shifting from one rationale to the next, we get the sense of reason, purpose, and nobility.

On a more practical level, it removes one source of terrorist support and opens a base of operations for US forces in the region and if we play it right, an oil producing country that isn't part of OPEC.

If, by terrorist support, you mean support for Palistine, I will disagree with you on the how we define the Palistinians.

If by Terrorist Support you imply some sort of link to Al-Quida or 9/11 (pre-gw2), I would like to see what your proof of such a connection is. The Bush administration cannot seem to find any.

...opens a base of operations for US forces in the region...

THIS is a real reason.

Nobondy will mess with Israel. Period. We can roll tanks on any nation in the middle east now in less than 24 hours.

Our bases in Saudi Arabia became an enourmous liability to the Saud royal family, and were one of Osama Bin Ladens origional two reason for targetting America.

...if we play it right, an oil producing country that isn't part of OPEC. ...

If every cent from every barrel of Iraqi oil, working at full capacity, were sent to US coffers, it would take about 12 years to pay off just the first $87 Billion.

Iraqi oil itself does not justify the cost.

If you take into account the oil of Saudi Arabia, though, we are talking serious force on the ground to ensure the stability of the flow of Oil.

Ever flowing oil is an essential requirement for the survival of western civilization, in the near term at the very least.

Saudi Arabia is currently unstable, to say the least.

"Social progressiveness" means precisely dick when it all hinges on the whim of a psychopathic thug and his two rapist punk sons.

your missing my point.

What will the neighbors of Iraq see that will move them to envy and wish to emulate? Iraq has a long row to hoe before any of the appreant benefits of a market economy will begin to show, hobbled by the unregulated monopolization of essential servces by foreign private industries. Pre-Invasion levels of industry, unemployment, healthcare, and education are goals yet to be met.

If you mean a religiously tolerant, socially liberal government, the cards are already stacked against such a government. It took the murderous hand of Saddam and the might of the US military to keep iraq from falling into a Shite based thocracy led by clerics. It is the nature and culture of modern Arabs to gravitate towards an islam based religion, and those that desire religious and social freedom in Iraq have quite a battle on their hands.

Arab Cultural Identity and Islam are currenty tied together. It will take much to seperate the two, perhaps generations.

I find it implausable that simply forcing Iraq into a representative republic will do, by itself, any more to change the culture and mindset of Arabs in the near term.

The effects of the future government of iraq on it's arab neighbors are far from known.

Bill White · 2004-06-02 21:52:13

If you care to review the posts, about six months ago I called for many, many more soldiers and a $500 billion to $1 trillion dollar US investment in Iraq, for reconstruction.

Cobra is correct - - IF a free and stable Iraq is formed, it will undermine the surrounding Arab states. THEREFORE, the surrounding Arab states will do everything in their power to stop that from happening (including and perhaps especially Saudi Arabia - - help us for the news cameras and fund al Qaeda when no one is looking.)

We cannot win this on the cheap.

= = =

Hee! Hee!

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … 445]Enough said about this. . .

Okay, I need a quote:

Bush, who barred Chirac from his ranch in Texas last year, even indicated he was now ready to host the French leader. "If he wants to come and see some cows, he is welcome. He can come and see some cows," he said.

Alt2War · 2004-06-02 21:59:41

IF a free and stable Iraq is formed, it will undermine the surrounding Arab states.

What leads you to this conclusion?

DonPanic · 2004-06-03 02:49:23

LO

CC, I don't know what "Freedom" is, maybe a propaganda word
I just know which rights I want to fight for
Please define them.

Cobra is correct - - IF a free and stable Iraq is formed, it will undermine the surrounding Arab states.

Among rights, a homeland free from foreign dominators who come with bombers to tell me what is good or what is bad,
a homeland ruled for and by citizen fellowshipness, is that too tought to understand ?

Bush, who barred Chirac from his ranch in Texas last year, even indicated he was now ready to host the French leader. "If he wants to come and see some cows, he is welcome. He can come and see some cows," he said.

Chirac has near its own place splendid Charolais and Cantal cows he can look at without disguising itself with a cowboy hat...

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-03 06:18:32

I'm afraid you didn't learn much, you should have focused on Iraqi's and Iraqi institutions security, not let museums, hospitals and banks being looted,
you still think war machinery, no doubt you're strong at,
do think about men, please !
Then we can have agreements

My desire that American troops go into harm's way with the best possible equipment is about the men.

Cobra, the Nazis had a state welfare apparatus? Sincere question.

Yes, a rather elaborate one. However like everything else in Nazi Germany, it centered around racial background. The unemployed were assisted financially and given help finding work. The Lebensborn program cared for orphan children, both German and foreigners of suitably aryan stock. Medical care was subsidized. There was even a program offering government subsidized vacations for German workers.

It's not really too surprising when one considers that every word in National Socialist German Workers Party was put there for a reason.

Among rights, a homeland free from foreign dominators who come with bombers to tell me what is good or what is bad,
a homeland ruled for and by citizen fellowshipness, is that too tought to understand ?

Okay, define "citizen fellowshipness." If you mean the rule of law and government officials not treating their people like commodities for their own amusement, a brief period of 'foreign dominators' is needed.

Soon the Iraqi's will have their sovereignty back. IF they ask us to leave we'll almost have to. If they collapse into anarchy it shows that a heavier hand was needed for longer. If they manage to pull it together and become even a mildly liberalized Arab state, we will have brought progress, and in time they will recognize that. I'm hopeful for the latter, but fear the former. Either way, saying that the war was a greater evil than the Saddam regime is a morally indefensible position.

Unless, of course, one takes the position that American or British lives are worth more than those of Arabs, then your argument becomes perfectly coherent.

Palomar · 2004-06-03 10:26:17

*Anyone see Bill O'Reilly last night? I caught the last 35 minutes.

Mike Wallace of CBS news ("60 Minutes") was in hot water. At some Memorial Day commemoration where he and another veteran (war and journalistic) presided, they discussed WWII and the current war. Wallace compared the Iraq war to WWII -- unfavorably, i.e. we had allies then compared to few to zero today; we had well-defined enemies then, compared to today. Well, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that's what I recall from the interview w/O'Reilly.

Apparently a couple of goons in the audience didn't like Wallace's remark (considered him "traitorous"...so much for our oft-vaunted "dissension"); at least 2 big strapping fellows began heckling and at least one of them apparently starting behaving in a challenging way (what, beat up two old men...how brave). Wallace defended himself (rightly) by asserting freedom of speech and expression. I guess some people still don't get it; it's for the other person too, who might disagree with you.

Anyway, I see this over and over; some public figure gives a personal opinion and a bunch of people get a bee up their butts, begin demanding retractions, apologies, etc. The disrespect the "average Joe/Jane" show for others' rights really makes me wonder how much longer this society can survive.

I wonder if that Tory in Thomas Paine's day wasn't right about being devoured by a lion (monarchy) versus being consumed by packs of rats. Not that I want monarchy any time soon, but still. :-\

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-06-03 11:02:35

IF a free and stable Iraq is formed, it will undermine the surrounding Arab states.
What leads you to this conclusion?

Arab leaders hold their power by blaming the West (and Israel) for the misery of their own people.

Where I disagree with Cobra is that I do not believe GWB ever had any intention of giving the Iraqis any real freedom. It all boils down to GWB changing the meanings of ordinary words. I believe the Roman Tacitus once said:

"He made a desert and called it peace."

Current examples:

Freedom and democracy;
Real soveriegnty;
Compassion (as in compassionate conservative); and
Exploration (concerning space travel).

By changing the meaning of words, GWB can say something many of us would agree with and then do something entirely different.

= = =

Thucidydes teaches that in times of crisis words lose their ordinary meanings. GWB (and Rove and FOX) are masters at exploiting that truth.

= = =

Edit to add the first and last paragraphs from Tom Friedman' NY TIme column:

Surely the most chilling aspect of the latest terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia against foreigners at the Khobar oil center was in reports from the scene about how the Saudi militants tried to kill or capture only the non-Muslims, and let Muslims and Arabs go. The Associated Press quoted a Lebanese woman, Orora Naoufal, who was taken hostage in her apartment, as saying that the gunmen released her when they learned of her nationality. They told her they were interested in harming only "infidels" and Westerners.
Now where would the terrorists have learned such intolerance and discrimination? Answer: in the Saudi public school system and religious curriculum.
* * *
A few years ago, Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed those of us who advocate energy conservation as dreamy do-gooders. Had he spent the last three years using his bully pulpit to push for conservation and alternative energies, rather than dismissing them, we'd be a lot less dependent today on foreign oil. Oh, that is so naïve, says the oil crowd. Well, what would you call a Bush energy policy that keeps America dependent on a medieval monarchy with a king who has lost most of his faculties, where there is virtually no transparency about what's happening, where corruption is rampant, where we have asked all Americans to leave and where the education system is so narrow that its own people are decrying it as a factory for extremism? Now that's what I'd call naïve. I'd also call it reckless and dangerous.

Bottom line? We changed the wrong regime.

Alt2War · 2004-06-03 13:37:15

IF a free and stable Iraq is formed, it will undermine the surrounding Arab states.
What leads you to this conclusion?
Arab leaders hold their power by blaming the West (and Israel) for the misery of their own people.

Dont follow how this leads to your conclusion.

Lets just admit that that Democracy Domino theory is unproven, uncertian, and shaky grounds for basing premptive war.

Alt2War · 2004-06-03 13:52:57

*Anyone see Bill O'Reilly last night? I caught the last 35 minutes.
Mike Wallace of CBS news ("60 Minutes") was in hot water. At some Memorial Day commemoration where he and another veteran (war and journalistic) presided, they discussed WWII and the current war. Wallace compared the Iraq war to WWII -- unfavorably, i.e. we had allies then compared to few to zero today; we had well-defined enemies then, compared to today. Well, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that's what I recall from the interview w/O'Reilly.
Apparently a couple of goons in the audience didn't like Wallace's remark (considered him "traitorous"...so much for our oft-vaunted "dissension"); at least 2 big strapping fellows began heckling and at least one of them apparently starting behaving in a challenging way (what, beat up two old men...how brave). Wallace defended himself (rightly) by asserting freedom of speech and expression. I guess some people still don't get it; it's for the other person too, who might disagree with you.
Anyway, I see this over and over; some public figure gives a personal opinion and a bunch of people get a bee up their butts, begin demanding retractions, apologies, etc. The disrespect the "average Joe/Jane" show for others' rights really makes me wonder how much longer this society can survive.
I wonder if that Tory in Thomas Paine's day wasn't right about being devoured by a lion (monarchy) versus being consumed by packs of rats. Not that I want monarchy any time soon, but still. :-\
--Cindy

When I was raised in SE Iowa, it was often said "I might not agree with what you say, but i will fight to the death to insure that you have the right to say it."

That does not seem to be the sentiment of today.

clark · 2004-06-03 13:59:27

shut up.

Palomar · 2004-06-03 14:02:21

When I was raised in SE Iowa,

*Go Hawkeyes! I know Iowa quite well...

--Cindy

P.S.: Likewise, Mr. SoCal.

clark · 2004-06-03 14:06:23

How did you know my last name?

How well does Iowa know you? ??? :laugh:

DonPanic · 2004-06-03 15:09:20

LO
To night a french TV channel replays "e Longest D"
for 60th D Day anniversary.
Feel like missing parts of the movie when you don't have a panoramic screen

Palomar · 2004-07-21 09:03:27

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … akers]Read me

*Christians can't simply glance at their watches?

Muslims can't simply try to remember what times of day to bow to Mecca? (An everyday routine should certainly be easy to remember!)

What about the rights of people who don't want to hear either (living/working in the immediate vicinity)? ???

--Cindy

P.S.: I can't help but wonder if the vote turned out as it did for fear of people screaming "racism" if it turned out otherwise. And nevermind what's going on in Darfur/Sudan right now...

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-21 09:28:48

Yes, this was quite the brouhaha yesterday as the votes came in. All the local radio shows were yappin' about it, none of them saying anything of note as the issue is a little too touchy.

P.S.: I can't help but wonder if the vote turned out as it did for fear of people screaming "racism" if it turned out otherwise.

Yes, almost certainly. Hardly anyone in the area wants the blaring mosque loudspeakers, but many people voted for it anyway or just sat it out. There was also another racially charged issue up that day as well, regarding some apparent intimidation with a school board election. Anyone that went out to vote had a double hit to take.

What about the rights of people who don't want to hear either (living/working in the immediate vicinity)?

The implication seems to be that they don't matter as they have no "religious freedom" issues at stake. I'm thinkin' of starting a religion that requires absolute silence oh, eight times a day and go get into the fray. Loudspeakers make the gods angry... and car alarms. Shh! Cell phones channel the devil... devils. Lots of 'em. With claws and witty jibes.

Tired today, don't mind my rambling.

Palomar · 2004-07-21 09:37:15

The implication seems to be that they don't matter as they have no "religious freedom" issues at stake.

*It could be handled as a "freedom FROM religion" issue -- ?

Anyway, in California the ACLU is going after a particular (city?) flag there which features a distinct Christian symbol (from the Spanish Conquistadore influence I guess). They want it removed, period. Nevermind that the goddess Pomona (also a religious symbol, non-Christian of course) is also on that flag (::edit:: ACLU -isn't- going after the goddess Pomona).

It's been illegal to have nativity scenes set up in public places for a long time.

So...if the ACLU can move to stop people from having to *SEE* religious expression, why not also *HEARING* it?

Weeeeeee! What a dilemma!

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-21 10:14:11

It's been illegal to have nativity scenes set up in public places for a long time.
So...if the ACLU can move to stop people from having to *SEE* religious expression, why not also *HEARING* it?

because it's more anti-Christian than anti-religion in general as Christianity is seen (by some) as the religion of, well, the oppressor, whitey, whatever. Christian symbolism in public is forcing the religion on people, but public displays of other faiths are about diversity. Stupid games.

Palomar · 2004-07-21 10:37:12

It's been illegal to have nativity scenes set up in public places for a long time.
So...if the ACLU can move to stop people from having to *SEE* religious expression, why not also *HEARING* it?
because it's more anti-Christian than anti-religion in general as Christianity is seen (by some) as the religion of, well, the oppressor, whitey, whatever. Christian symbolism in public is forcing the religion on people, but public displays of other faiths are about diversity. Stupid games.

*I agree.

Apparently the ACLU is more interested in heading up a culture war (even based on race) than anything else.

Nevermind, of course, that Christianity got its start in the Middle East...right next to Islam. Hmmmm...maybe it's time to adopt Shaun's sig into my own. :laugh:

--Cindy

Earthfirst · 2004-07-21 11:00:18

I think that us culture is haed towards a more conserative trend. For the last 20 years society has been going towards anything goes. That is just a given because of the wave a PCness that has spreed every where. Like with homesexuals its true that they were mainstream 20 yrs ago, most of them stayed out of the lime light becauase of fear, or shame form family, but now we have to accept them because its PC. Which is fine, they are humans and have the right to live. But they are sinners and should be saved. Which might mean forced labour camps, crazy houses, or repateriasion camps as a solution. As it is now the bar is total swing towards liberal pcness, homosexual marrage, will and grace, quree eye for the streight guy. When the bar shifts drastic thing like I wrote could happen.
With pron and society many people have had enough of the main stream acceptness of smut, the break point was the super bowl half time show. I see big deal so showed one breast, were all animals so why should are bodys be so evil?
But many people see any nudity being sexual in nature, reason being in america you are only nade with other people when you mate"have sexual things" so kids should be protected, even though most dont even understand why their parnets make such a big deal over one boob.
Now the FCC is craking down with smut and fining people, things turned conservitive.
With the ACCLU why are they making such a big deal out of the ten commands, or baby jesus. When they should be protecting the little people from the gov, or companys. Humans are smart right? I think that all humans can deal with a little cross or commandments no matter their age, if you belive it great, if not you can deal with the that over people have faith in the un seen, their faith does not negate your existance. So be liberal and resepect others even if you think they are wrong. Removing the cross will not change their mind about god, so just leave it alone or the aclu and judge could find them self up on a burning cross them selfs.
:realllymad:
It is hard to say how far the conseverative shift will be, my quess it will be in direct proprotion that the liberal shift was, negating most of what has happened in society for the last 40 yrs, although many thing will stay like civil rights, women rights, and others. Because society sees them as being fair and just. Many of the things have already been negated, women rights that the radical femist brought in favour of a more realistic woman rights "Women and men cant be total equal, this fact goes back to our evolved women are good at family things, men are good at hunting and building things, it does not men and women cant equal just not 100 the same. Are genes natural makes us different so lets be proud and selibrate the differences not make every one the same."
This cylces of morals and decaye, can be followed down though history with many civs. Ares is just the current cylce it does not makes use better than are ansecters just a part of history. 2001-1960's moral decay and liberalsim, 1960-1945 conservative, 1945-1941 war time anything goes. 1941-1929 great depresion era liberalness out of desperation helps out many but ww2 realy end the depresion. 1929-1919 converatism probation, yet leads to jazz era speak easy, and gansters. 1918-1917 ww1 conservative. 1917-1900 still realy vitorean conservative but progressive like teddy roseavelt bring many positive changes. 1900-1865 victorean age, but wild west anything goes. I could back all the way to rome, greace had the same cycles, often world events or laws would tigger a shift in society which could last hunderds of years, but ofthen the two existed side by side in society untile events make one trend more prevalent. 1950 beat nicks-1960' hippies who dont like war and other events make the shift from conservitive to liberal Pc 1990 america.
You get my point, I think because of the current 24 hour media it could speed up a shift in society soon.
What do you think?

Palomar · 2004-07-21 12:29:15

*Okay, I'll bite. NOT directed towards anyone personally, by the way.

Here's what I think: This nation is being ripped to shreds by the "Conservatives versus Liberals" mentality.

People like Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Al Franken, etc., are certainly entitled to their opinions. So am I, and in my opinion they are simply provocateurs. Anything for a reaction, anything to get another headline or a higher rating...at the expense of the public mind. This is another form of Bread & Circuses, IMO.

The result? The general public gets confused, fed up, discouraged. It's like trying to find one's way through a blizzard.

The result? A stupefying sort of paralysis. That, or going "whole hog" by jumping on one particular bandwagon and tearing down (without even knowing why half the time, I suspect) the "opponent." Turn off your mind, affix a label to your lapel and "go with the flow" of GroupThink. :down:

I try to see the positive and negative aspects of politics overall. I probably fail miserably half the time -- but I try, and without resorting to "bandwagon hopping."

Conservatives need to get a grip in one particular respect at least, IMO: Change is inevitable. Quit trying to be The Parent.

Liberals need to get a grip in one particular respect at least, IMO: Quit the Whining Child routine. Not everyone is going to agree with you.

Opposites can be healthy and beneficial to a point; it can serve to motivate and assist in evolution of society and etc. But there comes a point when opposition continues to cycle more and more violently into a mad tailspin -- destructive.

Opposites can complement one another...but we are WAY beyond that now, politically speaking, and it's pretty much destructive.

The divisiveness we're seeing has become nothing short of vicious. It is hurting this nation.

Anyway...my 2 cents' worth.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-06-02 17:04:52

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#52 2004-06-02 17:06:08

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#53 2004-06-02 17:49:26

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#54 2004-06-02 18:58:33

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#55 2004-06-02 19:31:19

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#56 2004-06-02 21:40:43

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#57 2004-06-02 21:52:13

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#58 2004-06-02 21:59:41

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#59 2004-06-03 02:49:23

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#60 2004-06-03 06:18:32

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#61 2004-06-03 10:26:17

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#62 2004-06-03 11:02:35

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#63 2004-06-03 13:37:15

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#64 2004-06-03 13:52:57

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#65 2004-06-03 13:59:27

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#66 2004-06-03 14:02:21

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#67 2004-06-03 14:06:23

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#68 2004-06-03 15:09:20

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#69 2004-07-21 09:03:27

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#70 2004-07-21 09:28:48

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#71 2004-07-21 09:37:15

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#72 2004-07-21 10:14:11

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#73 2004-07-21 10:37:12

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#74 2004-07-21 11:00:18

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#75 2004-07-21 12:29:15

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

Board footer