Media driven people who add nothing to the debate. They are on TV protesting (which does nothing to help the issue) to help drive up TV ratings.
What TV were you watching? The media was loathe to cover the protests because then they would have had to cover the police brutality and illegal arrests. During the convention the "media" were all inside with the air conditioning, sitting on their pundit chairs, interviewing politicians and wondering what Hillary Clinton was going to say.
What left-wing media advertised the DNC protests similar to the way Fox advertised the tea-bagging parties? It is very easy to claim that it is all the same when it very clearly is not the same.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
What TV were you watching? The media was loathe to cover the protests because then they would have had to cover the police brutality and illegal arrests.
FoxNews... is that mainstream enough for you?
Also, I'm not specifically talking about the DNC protesters. I'm talking about any protester.
The ONLY point to what I'm saying is that they don't add anything to the debate.
What left-wing media advertised the DNC protests similar to the way Fox advertised the tea-bagging parties? It is very easy to claim that it is all the same when it very clearly is not the same.
Who said anything about the DNC protesters specifically? Why are you hung up on that? And why must we continue to compare them to the tea-baggers?
I actually supported (in spirit) the DNC protesters, BUT, the fact remain that they added nothing to the debate.
And how do I know that, BECAUSE WE ARE STILL AT WAR. And we have a democrat in office no less. But we're still at war, they did nothing to help the debate. They just became a media tool, in this case, used by FoxNews.
But you have grossly missed the point of what I'm saying. Follow this discussion back and you'll see how it originated.
Protesters (anti-gun/pro-gun, anti-abortion/pro-life, anti-gay marriage/pro-gay marriage, etc.) add NOTHING to the debate. They are media motivated and used for publicity and TV ratings.
The ONLY point to what I'm saying is that they don't add anything to the debate.
I disagree. The town hall protesters and tea-baggers started to shift some centerist democrats and hardened the resolve of some republicans. That is what I was trying to tell you. They DO affect things.
And how do I know that, BECAUSE WE ARE STILL AT WAR. And we have a democrat in office no less. But we're still at war, they did nothing to help the debate. They just became a media tool, in this case, used by FoxNews.
I was totally unaware that Fox news gave ANY significant coverage to war protesters.
Protesters (anti-gun/pro-gun, anti-abortion/pro-life, anti-gay marriage/pro-gay marriage, etc.) add NOTHING to the debate. They are media motivated and used for publicity and TV ratings.
YOU have not demonstrated this. Yes the tea-bagger movement was promoted by FOX but you have not provided the equivalent analogue for liberal protesters. What I am saying is that they ARE different. One is genuine outrage and one is not. One is corporate sponsored and one is not.
Protesting is a fundamental element of our democracy and it does move politicians. Perhaps not as much as we might like but it does. That is exactly why we cannot sit on our hands, pretend we are having a totally rational discussion, and naievly hope that the idiots voices are not being taken seriously.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
I disagree. The town hall protesters and tea-baggers started to shift some centerist democrats and hardened the resolve of some republicans. That is what I was trying to tell you. They DO affect things.
Fair enough, I can agree with that. Those two particular protests did make a shift, at least that's what it feels like it did. And some of the left-media has shown it to be this way. But how long will that last is the real question IMO.
I was totally unaware that Fox news gave ANY significant coverage to war protesters.
Only when it benefits them, like when those FoxNews reporters got roughed up by the protesters. Also, they showed a lot of protesters antagonizing the cops, teasing the cops, trying to get the cops to do something to them. That way they can spin the protesters as the ones at fault for the police brutality, which I'm sure there were a few cases of that.
Yes the tea-bagger movement was promoted by FOX but you have not provided the equivalent analogue for liberal protesters.
I'm not trying to show you that certain news station promote left wing or right wing protests, I'm trying to explain that protests in general (on either side - liberal or conservative) become tools for the media. Whether for FoxNews or otherwise.
Take the DNC as an example. Fox showed it on their station to make their reporters look like the victims.
One is genuine outrage and one is not.
I suspect that conservative protesters (example: protesting abortion) are genuinely outraged at abortion. We can sit here and split hairs as to who is genuine in their protests or not, but I would rather not. I really don't care enough.
I will accept that you support liberal protesters and their causes more so than you do conservative causes. Perhaps that's where your loyalty lies?
Protesting is a fundamental element of our democracy and it does move politicians.
It used to. Civil rights movement, womens lib movement, even the anti-war protest during Vietnam - those were protests that meant something. IMO, the protests of today, while probably sincere to the individual, doesn't have the impact it did back then. I think the internet is a way better tool to express opinion than the media freak show that protests these days usually evolve into.
But I'm OK if we disagree in this particular case. I'm a glass half empty kinda guy anyway.
Okay, so getting back down to what started all this. I seem to recall you thinking that it would be better to have a more open and rational discussion about the issues to drive politics.
You seem to be conceding that politics is in fact often driven by who yells the loudest.
What then should progressives do when faced with an opposition that is totally and expressly uninterested in having an open and rational discussion?
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
You seem to be conceding that politics is in fact often driven by who yells the loudest.
No, no, I didn't. I will concede that the attention of the media to "who yells the loudest" may persuade politicians to look into the causes (example: gay marriage advocates), but overall, I think rational discussions work best.
Like with gay marriage, what good did protesting do in Cali? It was over turned during an election, whether or not anyone dressed like Marylin Monroe screamed at the top of their lungs "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!"
An open debate between the candidates (honest debate, not the loaded bullshit we usually get) may have helped matters more.
What then should progressives do when faced with an opposition that is totally and expressly uninterested in having an open and rational discussion?
Demand from our politicans that the issues be discussed in an intellectual manner. Write to them, express how we feel in an intelligent manner. Have protests, but civil MLK style protests (not the media circus that they become).
Even the DNC protests became ridiculous.
Violence and aggression solve NOTHING. Civility, even when faced with aggression, overcomes in the long run. And that's something that MLK applied to his movement, and one we should take notice of and apply to anything you feel strongly about.
If you're just trying to be the protester with the biggest dick then you'll achieve nothing but ridicule, IMO.
Aislin Bates weighed 6 pounds, 6 ounces at birth. She now tips the scale at 22 pounds.
"She's perfectly healthy, yet she has become a statistic," said Aislin's mother, Rachel Bates. "There's no reason for her to be a statistic as a non-insured person."
When Aislin's father, Rob, worked for another company, Aislin was covered under the company’s group health insurance plan.
Now that Rob is working on his own, he's had to get new insurance. The company, United Healthcard's Golden Rule, sent the family a letter, which says, in part, "We are unable to provide coverage for Aislin because her height and weight do not meet our company standards."
Won't somebody please think of the children!
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
I would agree with you, oni, that the media hasn't helped matters much. For whatever reasons, the media has added fuel to the problem by constantly having pundits on either side arguing, as if it were a matter of being fair. While I am a supporter of intellectual debate, there are not always multiple sides to every issue.
Take the "death panel" debacle. When "death panels" were a big thing, the media channels had pundits arguing that the government wanted "death panels" and other pundits saying that wasn't true. The truth is that there were no "death panels" written into the legislation that had came before Congress - it was all smoke and mirrors. The media, however, acted irresponsibly by giving credence to the people arguing that the government ws going to form "death panels" if the legislation had passed.
The media needs to be more responsible in their treatment of the news and start informing people of the facts and stop legitimizing baseless arguments.
A democracy works because the people are informed and with the amount of disinformation floating out there in this day and age, the media's job is more important than ever.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott ---------------------------------------- Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy ---------------------------------------- You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
Violence and aggression solve NOTHING. Civility, even when faced with aggression, overcomes in the long run. And that's something that MLK applied to his movement, and one we should take notice of and apply to anything you feel strongly about.
As well as Ghandi, the leader of largest peaceful resistance in human history which resulted in the formation of a democratic state.
Even our own military's keystone philosophy is peaceful deterence through display of force. There is a time and place for righteous indignation through show of force but force and aggression should only be used as the last resort when the safety and security of a people are seriously threatened and diplomacy fails.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
Anybody else still defending private health care as the best system?
Pisano, of the insurance trade group, said: "If you put down on a form that you are or were taking anti-HIV drugs at any time, they [the insurance companies] are going to understand that you are or were in treatment for HIV, period," she said. "That could be a factor in determining whether you get coverage."
Some doctors and nurses said that the industry's policy is not medically sound. "The chance of a rape victim actually contracting AIDS is very low. It doesn't make any sense to use that as a calculus for determining who get health insurance," said Dr. Alex Schafir, faculty instructor at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Ore.
Nurses who deal with sexual assault cases say the industry's policy creates a significant problem for those treating women who have been assaulted. "It's difficult enough to make sure that rape victims take the drugs," said Diana Faugno, a forensic nurse in California and board director of End Violence Against Women International. "What are we supposed to tell women now? Well, I guess you have a choice - you can risk your health insurance or you can risk AIDS. Go ahead and choose."
"I think it's important to point out that health plans are not denying coverage based on the fact that someone was raped," said Pisano of the insurance trade group. "But PTSD could be a factor in denied coverage."
So its not the rape per-se, its the effects of the rape that the pre-existing condition.
So these women get raped twice, once by their attacker, and another time by a corporation.
Anyone want to defend the free health care market still?
Is making sure that these companies cannot do this considered welfare for these women or restricting their freedom too much?
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
I was astounded and disgusted, to the point I almost vomited, when I read that article. How much longer can private insurance companies continue to go on doing this to us?
As long as profit is the mandate, health insurance companies will do all they can to try and prevent high risk individuals from getting a policy.
It has nothing to do with basic humanity and everything to do with money.
It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott ---------------------------------------- Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy ---------------------------------------- You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
I was astounded and disgusted, to the point I almost vomited, when I read that article. How much longer can private insurance companies continue to go on doing this to us?
What blows my mind even more are people who have NO STAKE in the health care industry who defend these corporation's "freedom" to do this.
I am formulating a person theory that lower case 'l' libertarianism is a form of sociopathy.
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
Hi Jazzns, hope you don't mind rehashing old arguments. I, like you, enjoy talking politics here on EvC.
I found an article about Chomsky, dated Nov. 20th 09, concerning what we were talking about, and I rather liked Chomsky's advice on what to do with the right-winger community. Thought you might enjoy it.
Here's the whole article, but I'll post the part relevant to what you and I were talking about.
It was an interview, btw.
quote:DK: On that note, I'm also looking to think ahead with what's in the future for the labor movement and the IWW. More generally, if you had one piece of advice to offer future generations of Wobbliesespecially in light of the tough financial times that we are facing and will probably continue to face for a long time in the Western worldwhat would it be?
NC: Well, I get a lot of letters from people. When I go home tonight I'll have 15 letters today from mostly young kids who don't like what's going on and want to do something about it, and [they ask me] if I can give them some advice as to what they should do, or can I tell them what to read or something. It doesn't work like that. I mean, everything depends very much on who you are, what your values are, what your commitments are, what circumstances you live in and what options you're willing to undertake, and that determines what you ought to be doing. There are some very general ideas that people can keep in mind; they're kind of truisms. It's only worth mentioning them because they're always denied.
First of all, don't believe anything you hear from power systems. So if Obama or the boss or the newspapers or anyone else tells you they're doing this, that, or the other thing, dismiss it or assume the opposite is true, which it often is. You have to rely on yourself and your associatesgifts don't come from above; you're going to win them, or you won't have them, and you win by struggle, and that requires understanding and serious analysis of the options and the circumstances, and then you can do a lot. So take right now, for example, there is a right-wing populist uprising. It's very common, even on the left, to just ridicule them, but that's not the right reaction. If you look at those people and listen to them on talk radio, these are people with real grievances. I listen to talk radio a lot and it's kind of interesting. If you can sort of suspend your knowledge of the world and just enter into the world of the people who are calling in, you can understand them. I've never seen a study, but my sense is that these are people who feel really aggrieved. These people think, "I've done everything right all my life, I'm a god-fearing Christian, I'm white, I'm male, I've worked hard, and I carry a gun. I do everything I'm supposed to do. And I'm getting shafted." And in fact they are getting shafted. For 30 years their wages have stagnated or declined, the social conditions have worsened, the children are going crazy, there are no schools, there's nothing, so somebody must be doing something to them, and they want to know who it is. Well Rush Limbaugh has answered - it's the rich liberals who own the banks and run the government, and of course run the media, and they don't care about youthey just want to give everything away to illegal immigrants and gays and communists and so on.
Well, you know, the reaction we should be having to them is not ridicule, but rather self-criticism. Why aren't we organizing them? I mean, we are the ones that ought to be organizing them, not Rush Limbaugh. There are historical analogs, which are not exact, of course, but are close enough to be worrisome. This is a whiff of early Nazi Germany. Hitler was appealing to groups with similar grievances, and giving them crazy answers, but at least they were answers; these groups weren't getting them anywhere else. It was the Jews and the Bolsheviks [that were the problem].
I mean, the liberal democrats aren't going to tell the average American, "Yeah, you're being shafted because of the policies that we've established over the years that we're maintaining now." That's not going to be an answer. And they're not getting answers from the left. So, there's an internal coherence and logic to what they get from Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the rest of these guys. And they sound very convincing, they're very self-confident, and they have an answer to everythinga crazy answer, but it's an answer. And it's our fault if that goes on. So one thing to be done is don't ridicule these people, join them, and talk about their real grievances and give them a sensible answer, like, "Take over your factories."
Jazzns writes:
What then should progressives do when faced with an opposition that is totally and expressly uninterested in having an open and rational discussion?
Do you think Chomsky provides a good answer to your question?
)
™ Version 4.2