Glad to see you're on more often. Hope it lasts.Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Posts
- 3,018
Glad to see you're on more often. Hope it lasts.
Right-wing propaganda. Of course all the American MSM except NPR has a right-ward slant, but with Fox they have no pretensions of hiding the fact.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
I call him "Busciolini". Pierre Laval is another analogue, but I can't so distort his name.
I too rely largely upon non-cable sources, which implies newspapers on line and broadcasters from countries in which liberal democracy is more intact -- like, paradoxically, Germany, Italy, and Japan.
When FoX Propaganda Channel doesn't have effusive praise for the Bush administration or a defense of its misdeeds it resorts to crime stories -- the gorier the better. If you see enough of that you will get a view of humanity at its bleakest extreme. The latter reflects Rupert Murdoch's "journalistic" tradition of the Yellow Press.
When FoX was hyping the disappearance of Natalee Prettygirl in Aruba I invariably recognized that a signal that real news was to be found elsewhere -- scandals involving the Bush Administration. My sympathies remain with her family, to be sure.
[Direct Bush=Hitler]
[Indirect Bush=Hitler]I too rely largely upon non-cable sources, which implies newspapers on line and broadcasters from countries in which liberal democracy is more intact -- like, paradoxically, Germany, Italy, and Japan.
[Attempt to separate Fox news from those more worthy]When FoX Propaganda Channel doesn't have effusive praise for the Bush administration or a defense of its misdeeds it resorts to crime stories -- the gorier the better.
[Attack journalistic integrity]If you see enough of that you will get a view of humanity at its bleakest extreme. The latter reflects Rupert Murdoch's "journalistic" tradition of the Yellow Press.
[Throw in example with regard to playing to the dumb masses, which are found mostly among the Republican ranks]When FoX was hyping the disappearance of Natalee Prettygirl in Aruba
[Real news is only something that agrees with my politics]I invariably recognized that a signal that real news was to be found elsewhere -- scandals involving the Bush Administration.
[Throw in politically correct statement that everyone can agree with]My sympathies remain with her family, to be sure.
I think I get it.
Last edited by Matt1989; 07-18-2007 at 12:12 AM.
It would be hysteria to compare Dubya to someone so evil as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam... especially when he hasn't been murdering people directly. The compromises to democracy in America under Dubya are unprecedented in scope and inexcusability in American history.
FoX "News" is awful. We all know Rupert Murdoch's reputation before he created FoX "News" -- and it remains much the same, except for more bias attached -- when it isn't political -- to stereotypical yellow journalism. It was awful a hundred years ago, and it is no less despicable today.
Think of it -- FoX News got egg on its face when it beat everyone else to the announcement of the death of Pope John Paul II. Except that the old Pontiff was still hanging on -- if marginally. That's not a political goof; it's journalistic incompetence. It would have been laughable were it not for the unfunny subject of the death of a Pope.
I'm not going to denounce cable news as a source... if it is good. FoX isn't good. It is mind-rot when it isn't overt propaganda. When the news that others present violates its agenda it diverts itself to gory or titillating crime. Sure, it can be objective when it so chooses -- when the news is what its bosses want. When reality contradicts the desires of management, FoX goes silent or resorts to diversions -- such as gruesome crimes that attack any semblance of safety in viewers' minds, making them seek "tough-on-crime" and "tough-on-terror" solutions that once implemented make people soon feel less secure about leaving the 'safe' cocoon. The more scared that people are, the more vulnerable they are to crude manipulation of their insecurities.
People who relied upon FoX "News" were shown to be more likely than those who relied on Big 3 (CBS, ABC, and NBC) network news, other cable (including CNN and MSNBC), or newspapers or internet sources, to believe any of the following statements, all of which were demonstrably false:
1. That Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at the time of the US invasion of Iraq
2. That Saddam Hussein supported active terrorism and had links to al-Qaeda, and
3. That the invasion of Iraq was well received elsewhere.
All three statements are demonstrably false -- which suggests that those who were relying upon FoX "News" were being badly informed by their favorite source.
People who relied entirely upon the 30-minute network news were almost as likely as those who relied upon FoX "News" to be misinformed. The 30-minute network newscasts are superficial enough that complete reliance upon them ensures one is 'under-informed' irrespective of the events.
But with FoX "News" it is worse; people watching FoX were investing far more time in an effort to be informed than were those too lazy to watch anything other than the heavily-digested 30-minute network newscasts. Far from being under-informed they were being mis-informed, if not deluded. FoX "News" was far more compliant than any other so-called mainstream medium to follow the lead of the Bush Administration. It was less likely to indicated that any reality other than that which the Bush Administration said. That's bad journalism by definition, and journalism that relies entirely upon persons willing to distort or deny the truth might as well be the propaganda of deliberate or deluded persons.
------
FoX is paradoxically the most 'talky' of all the cable news sources; it has debates -- but they are on fine points of difference of nearly like-minded people. Liberal and center alternatives exist only as strawmen for facile demolition.
Genuine news, I assure you, need not agree with my politics. FoX is no more an unbiased view of the world than is Michael Moore's left-wing (if at times witty or poignant) sermonizing or Rosie O'Donnell's crackpot pronouncements formerly on The View.
I'd say that AP wires are quite likely the best contemporary news sources because the reporters lack the time in which to distort news to fit some view of the world. To discover how the rest of the world views American actions, one must look to foreign sources. With a dishonest Administration that speaks no ill of itself, one is wise to check alternative sources, especially when the "Establishment" media defer at every turn to the Great and Infallible leader. (Corrupt, controlled, and cowed media are essential to dictatorial regimes; cable news other than FoX are no longer cowed or corrupt).
Last edited by pbrower2a; 07-21-2007 at 02:40 PM. Reason: more to the debate
Actually, it's just the opposite. Fox News receives far more
scrutiny, and is therefore far more balanced. What you see on MSNBC,
CNN, and the network newscasts is almost never scrutinized or
questioned, and so it's full of bias and misstatements.
Here's are some things for you to think about:
- CNN had to retract its accusation that the U.S. military used nerve
gas in a mission to kill American defectors in Laos during the Vietnam
War.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/02/tailwind.johnson/- The BBC is so blatantly anti-American that they simply made up
"facts" in order to make Tony Blair look bad. When a Blair official
committed suicide, an investigation led to the "Hutton Report," and
the conclusion that the BBC had lied. They were severely reprimanded,
and their budget was cut.
** Why is BBC so blantantly anti-American? - joke of the day
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e050331#e050331- Politicians and journalists have no idea what's going on in Iraq,
and just make up facts as they go along.
** Guess what? British politicians and journalists are just as ignorant as Americans
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070114b#e070114b- The BBC recently killed an Iraq war story because it's "too
positive."
** BBC kills an Iraqi war story because it's "too positive"
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070411#e070411- Even Bill Clinton thinks that the BBC is anti-American.
** Tony Blair and Bill Clinton blast BBC's anti-Americanism
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e050919#e050919- Incidentally, the BBC has recently humiliated itself again by
showing clips that present lies about the Queen. The BBC has
repeatedly apologized, but there's a new investigation afoot. The
error was made by the entertainment division, but the investigation
is spreading to the news division.- Dan Rather on CBS News reported on a so-called 1973 memo
criticizing George Bush. The memo is obviously a forgery, as anyone
who used a typewriter in the 1970s would know, and is now accepted as
such. But Dan Rather has never apologized for what turned out to be
a lie, and he ended up being deservedly disgraced and humiliated, and
forced to resign.
** Whoever forged the CBS documents is an idiot, about 20-25 years old
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e040913b#e040913b- When Donald Trump went on a lengthy rant, calling Bush the "worst
President" in the nation's history, CNN played the rant over and over
again -- probably over 100 times -- over the next few days.
** Donald Trump goes on a hysterical rant on CNN
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070319b#e070319b- "Journalist" Seymour Hersh (along with John Kerry) expresses the
idea that American armed forces are like Nazi storm troopers.
** John Kerry and Seymour Hersh trash the armed forces.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e061103#e061103- When Joe Biden appeared on Meet the Press in April, and said one
unbelievably stupid and moronic thing after another, newsman
Tim Russert never confronted him on a single thing. By contrast,
when Democrat Bill Richardson appeared in May, Russert confronted him
on almost everything. That just shows how airheaded these
journalists can be.
** Senator Joe Biden wants to move troops from Iraq to Darfur civil war
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070429#e070429
** The "Anbar Awakening" may be good news in Iraq.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070528#e070528
I actually don't try very hard to keep track of leftist lies; there
are too many of them, and I don't have the time.
I occasionally also criticize rightist lies, as when I criticized
conservative Brent Baker for claiming that a new Great Depression was
"absurd," and backed it up by showing that he doesn't know how to
compute compound interest. However, it happens less often because
any rightist lie is immediately challenged all over the place, while
leftist lies are accepted as great wisdom, and are generally
unchallenged.
** China's skyrocketing trade surplus causing compulsive xenophobia in Congress
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070513#e070513
If you want to read lots of examples where the leftist media lies,
then read a conservative source like http://www.newsbusters.org/ or
watch Bill O'Reilly. It's true that they're biased to the right, but
on a scale of 1 to 10, their bias is a 5, while your bias is to the
left, and your bias is a 10.
It's also true that the Fox News Channel is biased to the right, but
their bias is a 2 or 3, while CNN, MSNBC are biased to the left, and
their bias is an 8 or 9.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear Matt,
Well, thank you for that. I try to get here as often as possible,
but I don't usually have too many choices. For what it's worth,
whenever I'm not earning a living, I'm doing something for my web
site, so I'm always faithful to the cult.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear Mr. Saari,
This is a response to your message in another thread.
This is a very interesting question because the reasons being given
for hating Bush, in the Senate, in blogs, and on this forum, can only
be described as fatuity bordering on gibberish.
We know from Congressional Quarterly articles and other
articles that politicians and analysts are incredibly ignorant about
what's going on in Iraq and the world. As I've said before, Joe Biden,
for example, is one of the stupidest people I've ever forced myself to
listen to. We know that Democrats and Republicans are equally
incompetent. And we know from senior editor Lawrence F. Kaplan of the
liberal pro-Democratic opinion magazine The New Republic that:
(1) These politicians are morons; (2) They go out of their way to
avoid learning anything; (3) They make up any "facts" they want, since
they don't know anything; (4) They couldn't care less what happens in
Iraq. They just want votes.
** Guess what? British politicians and journalists are just as ignorant as Americans
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070114b#e070114b
** Senator Joe Biden wants to move troops from Iraq to Darfur civil war
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070429#e070429
** The Democrats are just as incompetent as the Republicans.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070502#e070502
It's worthwhile looking again at what Kaplan said:
Furthermore, vitriolic hatred directed at Bush is happening to leaders
of Crisis era countries around the world. I just wrote an article
about it's happening to Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.
** Pakistan's High Court hands President Musharraf a humiliating defeat
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070721#e070721
It's comparable to the hatred that's been directed at leaders of
other countries in generational Crisis eras -- George Bush, Tony
Blair, Ehud Olmert, and increasingly toward Nicolas Sarkozy, for
example. And in China, with tens of thousands of regional
anti-government riots occurring every year, the hatred of Hu Jintao
must be enormous.
Strauss and Howe identified this behavior as typical of Crisis eras.
An similar amount of vitriol was directed at FDR by Republicans, and
at Lincoln by Democrats. It's worth remembering that the vitriol
directed at Lincoln was so great that even as late as 1864 the
platform of the Democratic party called for negotiations with the
South to end the civil war quagmire, and to let them go on as a
separate country, with slavery continuing as before.
So the question you're asking is typical of Crisis eras, and the
interesting question changes from "Why do people hate Bush?" to "Why
does this vitriolic hatred and self-inflicted stupidity always occur
during Crisis eras?"
What never ceases to amaze me is how total falsehoods have become
commonly accepted "truths" today. Two of the most prominent of
these sets of falsehoods are related to how we got into Iraq, and to
the "global warming" fad.
In these and other areas, facts are totally irrelevant; all that
matters is politics. There are no fundamentals, and indeed, no one
seems to remember anything that happened prior to 2004. Some can't
remember anything that happened prior to last week. Every news event
is interpreted in only one way: Whether Republicans or Democrats will
gain from it.
In particular, President Bush has become the focus of all blame for
everything. I'm always bemused by how he's alternately portrayed as
being the stupidest President in history, because his policies are
presumably stupid, and the most brilliant President in history,
because he was clever enough to single-handedly impose these policies
on an unwitting Congress and the American people.
The common wisdom is that if President Bush disappears, then all
problems and anxieties will disappear at the same time. The leftist
Boomers want to relive the exciting Vietnam days of their youth, and
feel the same erotic sense of excitement that they got when Nixon
resigned.
http://www.airfarceone.net/rightyreference.html
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...ead.php?t=2987
We've already seen this after the Democrats won last November, and
again after Rumsfeld resigned in December, and the Iraq Study Group
plan came out.
I wrote about this in December, and described it as one of the most
bizarre days in history, even by Washinton standards.
** Can we "flip Syria" and solve all the Mideast problems?
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e061207#e061207
David Gergen said, "This is the best moment we've had in over three
years." Everyone in Washington was absolutely giddy and giggling with
joy.
At that time, it was believed (incorrectly) that with Rumsfeld gone,
and with the Democrats about to take power in the Senate, Bush was
being defeated just as Nixon had been defeated, and the leftist
Boomers would return to their own glory days, and return to those
glorious, wonderful days of the 1970s all over again.
It's now perfectly clear that all those beliefs were completely
wrong. The Democratic congress is totally incompetent, just as
incompetent as the previous Republican congress was. The leftist
Boomers in Congress look like a bunch of idiots (especially after
that all-night session), and have had no ability to effect any change
at all in Iraq.
And yet, none of that matters. One set of incorrect assumptions has
proven completely wrong, and now new sets of incorrect assumptions
have taken their place.
It's quite fashionable on the left these days to find some way to
compare Bush to Hitler.
So I'm going to make a different but related comparison: Historians
have long wondered how it was possible for almost the entire German
population to support, directly or indirectly, the policy of Jewish
extermination under Hitler.
Germans were in a state of great anxiety in the 1930s, they came to
accept as common wisdom that Jews (along with Communists) were to
blame for every problem. The facts had nothing to do with it. No
matter what the problem was, the Jews were at fault. Therefore, all
their problems would be solved if there were no Jews, just as all our
problems would be solved if Rumsfeld were gone.
This is what happens. What we're seeing today is really amazing:
The Metastasis of Blame.
(As an aside, the word "metastatis" is one of my favorite words. If
you'd like to know why, just google the words, "xenakis metastatis.")
Here's the process: The public identifies on one person or one group
of people that may have made mistakes. At that point, we might refer
to the blame as relatively "benign."
But as time goes on, the blame grows and metastasizes, adopting a
"malignant" form. At that point, the blame becomes common wisdom,
and the target is blamed for everything. The target is objectified
and turned into a non-human object of hatred.
It happens all the time in crisis wars. The English living in North
America blamed their English brothers, cousins and friends for any
hardship, leading to the Revolutionary War. The French blamed the
"aristocrats" for all economic hardships. The South blamed the North
for everything. Then the Democrats blamed Lincoln for everything.
The Republicans blamed FDR for everything. The Democrats today blame
Bush for everything. Actually, the world seems to blame Bush for
everything. If Bush had actually accomplished all that his opponents
accuse him of, he'd be the greatest genius in history.
How is this all possible? It's really all quite explainable through
the study of "cognitive dissonance."
** This week's idiot of the week: Robert Reich
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070212#e070212
In that article, I quoted at length from a book about a 1950s group
that had predicted that extraterrestials known as the "Guardians"
would come on a specific date; the people in the group would be
saved, while everyone else on earth would die.
When disconfirmation occurred, members of the group did not give up
their earlier beliefs; instead, they turned their previously secret
group into an openly and actively proselytizing group. You might
call this the "The Metastasis of Belief."
On the day giddy, giggling day last December, when David Gergen said,
"This is the best moment we've had in over three years," the people in
Washington adopted a set of expectations similar to a belief that
extraterrestials were coming to save them.
Disconfirmation occurred when the new Congress failed to accomplish
anything. With regard to the Iraq war, its only accomplishment was
to fund an increase in troops (the "surge").
When disconfirmation occurred, "The Metastasis of Blame" occurred,
and Bush became, to a greater extent than previously, a target of
blame for everything.
And so, Mr. Saari, I've tried to give an answer to your question, the
reasons why Bush is hated so much. The direct answer would be: There
is no reason, and there is every reason. The reasons are fantasies,
just as relevant as the reasons why extraterrestials will come to the
earth in flying saucers, and save only the true believers.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
From what I've seen, the hysteria isn't just confined to Boomers any more.
As I see it, values are a filter through which one understands and manipulates reality. A culture or subculture might be a large group of people with similar values. A crisis is generally a time when the old values do not work anymore. New problems have arisen. The old values are not evolved to allow a true perception of the new problems. The old values do not include good solutions to the new problems.
Still, values do not change lightly. People stubbornly cling to existing values. Old values must fail in a spectacular and emotional fashion before a large fraction of the people become open minded enough to seek pragmatic solutions to the new problems, then synthesize new values that allow one to perceive and act in some synch with the new reality.
While a big enough string of disasters will open the minds of many of the people, there will be those immune to reason, those who will cling to dated values regardless of obvious and onrushing disaster. For much of FDR's presidency, there were those who did not believe in government attempting to regulate the economy, did not believe in the safety net programs, did not believe the US had a role in protecting democracy abroad or defeating fascism. A few years later, the opposition party embraced the military industrial complex, and declared that politics ends at the water's edge.
Fourth turnings force pragmatic problems that are too large to ignore. When people get tired of the flux and upheaval, the working solutions are declared holy, the leader who found them is sainted, and a rigid culture is created that won't be able to handle the problems that will arise several more generations down stream.
But some of the vitriol comes from those who are so rigid in how they perceive the world that they cannot perceive and solve problems that did not exist when their value set was first created. Another good sized part of the vitriol comes from those who are confronted by the new problems on a day to day basis, and are prevented from solving said problems by leaders clinging to dated values.
My opinion on John X. keeps getting lower and lower after his last few posts. Sorry, anyone who thinks that any of the MSM is left-wing was read too much right-wing BS. CNN seems to have become more and more like Fox in recent years.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Oh, boo hoo hoo. Sniff, sniff. I can't bear the pain. I think I'll
go cry myself to sleep. Sob.
John
Dear Bob,
I agree with this, Bob, but the problem that I have is that today's
"values" aren't values. Today's "values" are pandering to polls and
squeaky wheels, and caving in when things get rough.
You've been around for a while. And I'll suggest the same thing for
anyone else who's been on here for a few years.
Track down your postings from 2002 and 2003, and show us that your
values today are the same as your values then.
I know for a fact that a lot of people have changed their values.
What would the "values" be today if there hadn't been an Iraqi
insurgency?
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
You use the Democrats missing July's Petraeus and Crocker briefing at the Pentagon to support this notion. However, the 50 House members and 40 senators that did attend were evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. More telling is that if one digs just a little further, one will find that at the heart of the low attendance was this Administration's trademark of ineptitude -
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...ing/index.html
It is one thing to conclude that anger is heightened at the cusp of a 4T, it is quite another to suggest that it is misdirected or stupid. Future history books will treat Bush's occupation of Iraq as today's history books would have treated FDR, if he had decided to forgo the destruction of the Japanese fleet after Pearl Harbor in order to invade Mexico. Or, how we would now think of Lincoln, if after the First Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas), he had decided to just ignore the Confederacy and instead send the Army of the Potomac into the wilderness to destroy ever last rabid squirrel --- hoping ,by example, to show the South the virtue of the Union and motivating them to forgo their peculiar notions of not only secession but slavery as well.
Often anger is a justified and rational response when confronted by stupidity --- particularly when said stupidity needlessly gets a lot of people killed.
So you have joined the ranks of the latest fashion of being a "partisan scold" --- a pox on both houses, right?
This is the false refuge of those who are right wing-nuts who may not yet have seen the writing on the wall but can sense in the surrounding ether the coming recognition of their lost cause. Or, it is a place of worship for those predisposed to posing the question "can't we all just get along," and if present on December 8, 1941, would have joined those suing for a quick settlement with the Japanese, or those in 1860, trying to eek out just one more compromise.
-- Given the target of your rant (e.g., "The leftist Boomers want to relive the exciting Vietnam days of their youth, and feel the same erotic sense of excitement that they got when Nixon resigned"), it's fairly easy to assume which group you belong but I haven't made up my mind about it yet.
You are like a parent at a birthday party that punishes every kid for the ill-behavior of just one or two. A responsible parent would instead quickly show the boorish minority the exit and let the party happily proceed. That's what's going to happen in '08.
Comparing the Holocaust to Rumsfeld's forced resignation, or even to Bush's impeachment?! Please, I hope you can conjure up just a little shame for that reach.
Yes, it is obviously not logical to blame a person or group for everything wrong with the world and assuming that their departure will eliminate all problems. It is not illogical, however, to come to recognize that certain individuals or groups stand defiantly in the way of the means to better address at least some of those problems. To conflate the latter into the former is clearly just another form of the hysteria or the "cognitive dissonance" that you rail against.
Don't worry, John, I understand if you put some aluminum foil on your head that should keep the aliens from melting your brain. Can't speak for any damage already done, however.
Last edited by playwrite; 07-24-2007 at 12:26 PM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
I did some searching around. I came up with a post from 9.11.02 called, "A New Birth of Freedom." It seems as much a values post as any I saw in an hour or so of poking about.
I think my values have remained consistent, though how one speaks of specific issues has shifted. There remains a core problem of division of wealth and power. These problems might be as much ecological as economic or ethnic. Too many people. Not enough resources. Automation of farming moves people from rural ares to cities. Such ecological stresses manifest in poverty and ethnic strife.Hari
I think on 9.12, I posted that 9.11 was not the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, but was more like the 29 Crash. FDR's "Four Freedoms" speech in which he advocated superpower style intervention world wide came nearly a year before Pearl Harbor. At Pearl, the US had already committed to a big government that intervened in the economy and had left isolationism behind. The stock market crash occurred at a time when the nation had not yet girded itself for a major change, and had not identified the direction of change.
I have since seen several posts mentioning a year's pause between the crash and the start of serious debate on whether and how the nation might have to change. During this pause, there was strong hope that things might return to normal. When it became clear that things were not returning to normal, the regeneracy got serious, the debate that led to FDR's New Deal and the US as a superpower began.
I quite concur that there have been many mini-catalysts illustrating different problems. 9.11, E2K and Enron illustrate many flaws, foreign and domestic. The debate, however, is centered on Iraq. Should we invade?
My own views suggest we must address the underlying issues beneath the assorted catalysts. Can we create a political party that cares more for the people than the special interests. Can we (should we) aid and enable people far abroad in resolving their ethnic and economic difficulties. Must we, if we do not aid and resolve other people, at least free ourselves from economic entanglements with regimes that do not respect human rights, and engage in terror (use of violence against civilian targets.) Our support of Israel and Saudi Arabia has made us part of their internal struggles.
More basically, can we entangle ourselves in violent injustice at a time when fanatics are learning to wield weapons of mass destruction. Yes, we can and must fight terror. No, we cannot reward terror by caving into demands. No, because a terrorist fights for a given cause, we cannot assume the terrorist's cause is unjust, we cannot fight to make sure the injustice stands.
Capitalism and democracy have almost triumphed over the older autocratic feudal, fascist, communist and theocratic forms of government. However, capitalism and democracy are still tainted by echoes of old imperialism. The West once blatantly took lands from native peoples using force. The West once seized cheap raw materials from distant lands, creating vibrant economies at home, while leaving the land from which the resources were taken in poverty. These actions were unjust. While there is less injustice now than long ago, the question is whether we shall strive to significantly reduce what injustice remains. This one question has many military, ethnic, religious, political, economic and ecological ramifications. I do not believe the solution will come by military force only.
But my vision is hardly the consensus of my nation. We are not yet united and agreed on a course of action. As the course of action required is complex, we won't achieve consensus for some time. Meanwhile, the problems seem inescapable. The pressure is too great for the boiler. Leaks will continue to spring up. Catalyst events will continue. The basic question is whether the military industrial complex can continue to work for profits, or whether the interests of the people can triumph over the interests of those seeking or holding power.
FDR supposedly created the military industrial complex to spread the four freedoms - from want, from fear, of worship, of speech - everywhere in the world. It is self evident that governments exist to secure these rights. If said governments no longer work in the interests of the people, these governments must be changed.
Or, so a wise man once suggested, roughly three times four score and seven years ago...
The Bush 43 administration did indeed go into the Middle East more concerned with establishing military dominance than with the welfare of the locals at heart. They have shown little inclination to attack underlying problems. They went in with a peacetime army on a peacetime budget.
Where I've shifted is that I used to favor foreign interventions that furthered the interests of the local population. (I did not favor an Iraq intervention. I believed military dictators could and should be contained rather than destroyed.) I am now concerned with ending an intervention which the local population dislikes, which has resulted, essentially, in the creation of a failed state. I am concerned that because the Iraq War was botched badly, the US will be reluctant to launch other operations which are better focused to resolving base issues.
Upon the matter of _my_ God-King, and _yours_
Dear Mr. Xenakis,
I seem to be at odds with your understanding of the tenets of the Civil Religion of Our Commercial Republic. I do not follow your attempt (shared by those made giddy by inhaling Progressive phermones from the athletic suspensories of actors long dead and solons still with us) to use the possessive pronominal adjective when describing Federal officials. Is Speaker of the House, the Hon. Nancy Pelosi, your Speaker or is she rather of the House itself?
It has been asserted that the POTUS, being elected by a widely franchised selection of Electors on a National basis, should be held as the Civil Religion's example of Caesaropapism. But, I do not subscribe to this form of what Mr. Seamans so ably styled God-Kingery. I think the POTUS is the Chief Butler of the Nation. Sometimes he has liasons with the downstairs maid, sometimes he makes away with the spoons. But, he is not my Chief Butler, but the Chief Butler of Our Commercial Republic (It is not the Commercial Republic of those dubiously documented alleged workers but of Its citizens, hence the Our.)
But, as I explain he is not my POTUS* anymore than Nancy Pelosi is your Speaker, these worthies belong to the Republic, which in turn belongs to its holders. I think the argument to remove the remove of that distance is largely, or perhaps only, advanced to socialize the expense of the unitary executive upon the wider citizenry. I think it, this collective guilt or collective pride, false doctrine, this replacement of the with my or our or your and is the result of heresy of the sort that your Commonwealth is quite famous for.
Your Ob. Sv.
VKS
_____
*My, one and only POTUS to date (chosen by the Electors of Minnesota upon my instruction), was the victim of attack by a member of a leporid colony and of insult by the present POTIROI (or his fellow Medes). He went on to make some dubious banking dealings and virtued humanitarian projects.
My U.S. Senators were the Hon. Rudy Boschwitz (IR) and the Hon. Rod Grams (R). The rest of Minnesota's Washington, D.C. delegations are the responsibility of Minnesotans other than I.
And good luck getting Mr. Saari to comply with any sort of modern language construction or use...
Dear Bob,
The reason that I suggest going back and looking up old postings is
to address exactly this question -- whether people who claim to have
opposed the Iraq war at the time actually did oppose it. I've found
that many people have very poor memories of what they used to
believe.
I spent a few minutes in the thread that you referenced, looking at a
few pages just before and just after the one you quoted, and all I
could find was one reference to Iraq:
Interesting.
Incidentally, I've never either supported or opposed the war in Iraq.
My position, that I reached in 2002 after I had begun to understand
TFT, is exactly the opposite of yours: That the Iraq ground invasion
HAD to happen, and was unavoidable once Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
I just wanted to post something to let everyone know that the
nightmare is apparently beginning. Everyone is oblivious to what's
going on, but this is a classic generational panic and stock market
crash in progress, the first since 1929. If any recovery occurs it
will be only brief. The direction now is down. Within a few months
it's going to be a very different world. Details are on my web site.
Be very careful. There will be lots of desperate people around, and
they won't hesitate to scam you, rob you, or kill you. Don't spend a
penny on anything you don't absolutely need. A dollar that you save
now may save your life a year from now, or save you or your daughter
from going into prostitution. Keep an eye on your friends - many of
them will be losing their homes. Don't trust anyone who tells you
about "easy money" - there's no such thing any more.
I wish I could say that this will pass soon, but it's going to be the
worst nightmare of any of our lives, and it will continue for many
years. As I always say on my web site, it's like an approaching
tsunami: You can't stop it, but you can prepare for it. Don't be
surprised if your life changes drastically. The only people who will
survive are the ones who are lucky or who are as prepared as
possible.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
I don't think it's yet fair to dub this the New Depression, but it definitely has the potential. The thing is, in recent years we have had one-day nosedives (after 9/11 and again on February 27 of this year) that were mere corrections. I'm hesitant to yet call for the long-due stock market crash. But if this is it, then the Dow is merely lagging behind the real estate market in indicators. The housing bust started in late '05, early '06.
There was a similar scare about 13 months ago, but this is MUCH MUCH worse and the chances of there being a crash are much much higher. I think the market fell about 7% from the peak last year. We're now at 10% and the drops are much more sharp.
The thing that differentiates this from previous scares is the generational aspect. It's a mood thing, not a numbers thing, but we are starting to see real fear and confusion start to take hold. I've been fooled before, but I THINK this is the real thing.
(I wrote this fast)
The markets are about to close and the Dow's recovered big from the 300-point loss earlier. Looks to almost break even.
That was anti-climactic.
EDIT: Dow now in positive territory.
Hey, I thought it was pretty climactic. It's not every day that you see a 330 point drop recover in a matter of hours.
John, can you detail how you calculate the "actual value" of the stock market?
Last edited by Matt1989; 08-16-2007 at 05:18 PM.
Wouldn't that be a worldview or paradigm? I'll give an example.
Suppose one believes that the probability of a terror attack will increase if the US doesn't respond forcibly. That is, terrorists, like bullies, are emboldened when their victims don't fight back. The first statement is is a prediction about what really will happen. It is based on the second statement, which the holder believes to be a truth about how the world operates (that bullies back down when confronted). Both statements can be made in objective, value-neutral terms.
Compare this to the statement "strength is good, weakness is bad". This statement is not objective, it is value-laden (that is, it is a value). Now, there may well be a correlation between the holders of this value, and holders of the above worldview, but that are not the same thing.
