On 2002-02-22 14:31, TraceyX wrote:


The whole thing was a tragedy. Show a little sympathy.

I am sympathetic, but it was a farce not a tragedy. Dallas in November or MLK in Memphis was a tragedy.

Strong evidence we're still in 3T:

Neal Gabler would define this as an attempt by the entertainment industry to defuse the awful reality of Sept. 11 by converting it into entertainment. In this, they are in concord with the military, that apparently want this to be a "remote control" war. Pure Unraveling-style thinking.

Reality poses two problems for Hollywood: it is out of their control, and the stories are better than their writers can produce. Here we see an attempt to rectify this by reclassifying the real as entertainment. The hype engine that spawned NASDAQ lives on!

Pete Markiewicz,
Indiespace
--------------------------------------
THE WORLD
'Reality' TV Eagerly Marches Off to War
Media: Shows are getting precious access to battle fronts. Producers reject warnings that they'll be tools of the Pentagon.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...607feb22.story

By ELIZABETH JENSEN, TIMES STAFF WRITER


NEW YORK -- Call it "When Reality TV Goes Patriotic."

Desperate to attract viewers to what is fast becoming a struggling genre, networks and producers of so-called reality television have seized on a new concept: heartwarming stories from the front lines of the war on terrorism.

But the Pentagon's decision to allow coveted war access to entertainment producers in order to promote its war effort is raising eyebrows among observers who worry the shows will be propaganda. On one project, the Pentagon is actively involved with developing story lines. There are also concerns from news organizations that have been frustrated for months over strict limitations the Pentagon has placed on reporters' coverage of operations in Afghanistan. The cable music channel VH1 said Thursday it has teamed with producer R.J. Cutler, whose credits include the political documentary "The War Room," for a series of video diaries from military personnel. The "Military Diaries Project"--its tentative title--will put digital cameras in the hands of 60 soldiers to "tell the story of what it's like to be a young man or woman in the armed forces right now," Cutler said.

Also on the horizon is "Profiles From the Front Line," an ABC series from Jerry Bruckheimer, producer of feature action films such as "Pearl Harbor," and Bertram van Munster, whose TV credits include the reality series "Cops." While those two series won't be on the air before summer, CBS will debut "American Fighter Pilots" on March 29. Produced by Tony Scott ("Top Gun"), it was in the works well before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but is being updated to reflect the new reality.

The Pentagon has pre-screening rights over the ABC and VH1 material for national security reasons, as does the Air Force over CBS' show. But CBS and Cutler both said their series retain editorial control. The Pentagon is "not at all interested in editing the stories we're telling," Cutler said.

"We're trying to find people who are articulate, good at what they do, have a sense of humor and want to work with us to tell a story."

Van Munster also rejected the possibility that his ABC series would in some way be propaganda. "I think they're pretty realistic at the Pentagon. This is not aimed at propaganda. We're trying to do something balanced, tell real stories about Americans and the allies who are out there while we're sitting at home."

One producer of "reality," or unscripted, television has concerns, however, over just how much reality will be portrayed.

"I think our fighting men and women have a difficult enough job to do without being asked to perform on camera--as everyone who makes a reality show knows, there is always some performance involved," said Erik Nelson, whose credits include the History Channel's "Nazi America: A Secret History." "And with the obligatory Pentagon public information officers looking over everybody's shoulder, that reality could become even more unreal."

The new programs come at a time when ratings for reality series have sharply declined, with only CBS' "Survivor" continuing to draw strong prime-time audiences. Network programmers have continued to experiment with new variations on the theme, including NBC's "Fear Factor," which has ordinary people tackling death-defying or merely disgusting stunts; and ABC and Fox's competing quiz shows, "The Chair" and "The Chamber," respectively, which subject contestants to physical and mental challenges, including extreme heat and cold.

Nelson called such shows "the equivalent of flu viruses. Every year there is a different strain. Only this time, the reality is much more serious--and gravely consequential." He said he is concerned "that this unreality could ultimately give people a simplistic impression about how easily this war can be won. War is always horrifically surprising, and surprising is the one thing that prime-time entertainment seldom is."

News producers have other worries. ABC News lodged a complaint with the network's entertainment executives over the "Profiles" series, according to an executive there. (ABC News declined to comment.) Other TV news executives said they were taking a wait-and-see attitude. "If they're getting access we're not getting, then there is something wrong," said one senior news executive at another network.

For the Pentagon, "the whole issue really boils down to one size does not fit all," said Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, the spokesman for Central Command, which directs the military effort in Afghanistan. "There are a variety of ways of providing information to the American people. This is a great way."

The agreement with the Hollywood producers comes after five months of acrimony between the Pentagon and news organizations over the strictest rules the military has ever imposed on news coverage.

For months after the U.S. bombing began on Oct. 7, reporters were allowed no access at all to U.S. troops operating inside Afghanistan, and they were barred from traveling to neighboring countries where the Pentagon was setting up air bases. As various units headed for the region, the Pentagon refused to confirm the deployments.

When reporters were allowed to accompany troops inside Afghanistan for the first time, they were for days not permitted to quote soldiers by their full names, and at one point several reporters were locked inside a metal shed for an afternoon to prevent them from covering something.

The Pentagon has begun to waive some of the most stringent restrictions and since January has permitted several news organizations to accompany special operations forces on a mission in Afghanistan.

Joe Saltzman, associate dean of the USC Annenberg School for Communication, called the programs "a perfect vehicle for the government," giving the Pentagon "a certain amount of control" over shows that will "likely emphasize patriotism and good soldiering." As long as they are labeled clearly as not being news, "I don't have a problem with them."

As for the frustration of news organizations, he said, "I don't think anybody is going to be fooled by this." Some viewers will find the material interesting, and "citizens who feel they're not getting the complete picture will be just as frustrated, whether these shows go on the air or not."

Esther Schrader in The Times' Washington bureau contributed to this report.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to http://www.lats.com/rights.

Mr. Saari:

That was a brilliant response. Buchanan is focused on the pride of the neocons. But would you not agree with me that the Bushes and their friends are driven more by avarice? First and foremost, the administration is doing all this to facilitate the oil industry's move from the Gulf to the Caspian. The fact that neocons get aroused at the prospect for their own reasons simply allows for a happy marriage. But the pride of the neocons is not what is ultimately driving this thing. The Gulf supply is dwindling and the Caspian supply is massive and the oil companies must move as far as the Bushes are concerned. Thus we get permanent military bases in Central Asia to protect the oil interests and, as an added benefit, to sustain the arousal of the neocons.

1) I saw Sarah Hughes' pictures online; her face looks so withered and wrinkled that she seems closer to 37 than 17 (although back in 1999 at Worlds when she was 13 turning 14, she didn't have that problem...) - this phenomenom DOES actually seem to happen to more than a few people of my (80-86 and possibly 87) generational wave. As the teenagers in HS get more millennial I guess we'll see this more and more from stress, etc. (at least getting alcohol or R-rated movie tickets would be easier...)
2) While the entire election recount process was a sham (with both parties not working for the TRUTH but to get their guy in the White House), it is obvious (IMHO) that
A) Bush did a lot more manipulating than Gore with the votes (e.g. even the military votes; while Bush's team secretly fought to suppress the military votes from Gore precincts, they loudly campaigned for the ones from the Bush precincts - they went as far as to get overvotes counted in certain cases as a vote for each candidate!) "Under one conservative recount standard, Gore would have won by over 50,000 votes." (probably misquoted; from Jews for Buchanan)
B. Tracy, Jenny, etc. are all right in concluding that more people went to the polls in FL to vote for Gore than for Bush.

I didn't have a source. A friend e-mailed it to me and I posted it. I figured it was so different from what I usually write that nobody would think it was mine. I thought it was funny, didn't you? Don't you get funny stuff sent to you by friends and colleagues?

Are we grim or what?

On 2002-02-22 14:22, takascar2 wrote:

True - if I was running in an election, and 1 million people voted and I got only one vote, I could win if I could rig the system to throw out the other 999,999 votes. Face it, you can win any contest if you count the votes the "right way".

We have faced it. That's just how Team Bush played it. :smile:

What the MIAMI HERALD is saying is "If Al Gore could get enough of his liberal buddies into powerful places, they _COULD_ have rigged it so that he won". I agree

So, you agree Team Bush rigged it, successfully, instead of just letting the people speak. The other equal point here in what you say is that this is why Gore was not successful. He didn't have it all rigged, ready to go. While I've no doubt it is quite possible that such an accident waiting to happen would not have tempted him greatly to do the same, he DIDN'T. This is why Team Gore looked like such hapless fools during the recounts, always on the defensive reaction, exampled by your DNC factoid, once they realized the rules of this Florida game.

Bottom line is, no one gave or should have been allowed to give Team Bush the right or priviledge to do as they did. They usurped our electoral process, and you are okay with this because your guy won?

On 2002-02-22 01:55, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Pat Buchanan writes a good column here describing the Beirut type of situation the Bush administration is inviting by establishing permanent bases in Central Asia. But he seems perplexed as to why the Bush administration would even set up these bases....These bases are/will be necessary to protect US corporate interests. Surely a brilliant man like Pat Buchanan has a clear focus on the big picture here and understands exactly what the Bush administration is pulling.

Oh, I think Pat has very strict notions on what constitutes national security interests. I got a big impression from reading this article that he was trying to stick to painting a Big Picture without getting into too much detail, unless it was historical and clearly public domain. The man appears almost quaintly eccentric sometimes in his notions of manners, respect, patriotism, etc. And as for the Pride thing you discussed with Virgil, I can just hear Pat quoting: "Pride Cometh Before a Fall", and winking with his sly, dry smile.

Also, there is the possibility that Buchanan, like another silenced frustration of yours, Keyes, have had their figurative tongues cut out, and cannot be TOO specific any more. You never know....

Would a strong Buchananite such as Virgil or possibly Barbara kindly explain to me why a cat has Pat's tongue?

Moi, a strong Buchananite? Well, perception is not constant or fixed among men. I won't deny thinking that he can make sense. Maybe I seem to be, from a libertarian's eye. :wink: There are some things on which I disagree with him, though, so I wouldn't have thought of describing myself that way. I do like his ballseyness and I don't think he's the bigot that others try to portray him as (gee, who else tried that? ), not at all. However, the memories of all those CrossFires still torture my brain, when I was thankful for once for the idea of
gun control in order to save me from murder and senseless tv set destruction. He could be quite annoying when not on his best behavior. :wink:

Speak out, Pat!

Well, Stone, if you say so. Cannot resist this one. Tell me what you think. I know you will. :wink:

PAT SPEAKS:

Does Libertarianism Lead to Statism?

Among the adversaries of Big Government on the American scene, few have proven more principled than the libertarians.

Believing with Jefferson that that government governs best which governs least, think tanks like Cato and Von Mises institutes can be found in the van of every movement to roll back taxes or reduce state power. Believing in the adage of the old antiwar activist Randolph Bourne, "War is the health of the state," libertarians have been among the strongest allies of the Old Right in forging a new foreign policy that keeps America out of wars where the vital interests of the Republic are not threatened.

But on open borders, as on mass immigration, libertarians line up with the Party of Government. And given the consequences of these policies in enhancing state power, the relevant question is why? For on these issues, libertarian principles seem to be leading us directly to Big Government at home and World Government abroad.

Since the 1950s, the European Common Market has evolved into a monstrous and intrusive socialist superstate ? the European Union, the very model for world government, now run by faceless bureaucrats who dictate to Europe's nation-states. NAFTA and GATT have spawned new supra-national bodies like the World Trade Organization. While immigration has held down the wages of U.S. workers, where has it reduced state power?

Some 90 percent of the 1.5 million legal and illegal aliens who come here every year are from the Third World. Their crime rate is twice that of the native-born, which translates into diminished security for American citizens and a necessary expansion of state police power ? i.e., more cops, judges, courts, jails, prisons.

As these immigrants are also far poorer than Americans, they are disproportionate users of social services ? i.e., health care, food stamps, rent supplements, legal services and general welfare. Immigrants have become the principal propellants of the growth of the welfare state.

Not only do they consume far more in government services than they pay in taxes, they are the sole reason America must build new schools and hire more teachers, indefinitely. And as many children arrive poorly prepared for school, unable to speak the language, their tests scores pull down the national averages ? and those scores are then exploited to make the case for still more money to an NEA-dominated system of public education.

And this is the reason the GOP, which in 1992 and 1996 called for the abolition of the Department of Education, somersaulted in 2000, and in collusion with an elated Edward Kennedy, voted for a vast expansion of the resources and power of DOE.

Then, there is the political effect of immigration.

Of the two national parties, libertarians tend to nest in the GOP. But consider what mass immigration is doing to that party. In 1996, Clinton carried first-time Hispanic voters 15-to-1. He also swept six of the seven major immigrant states: Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California and Florida ? as did Gore, with Florida in dispute. But of the 10 states with the smallest share of immigrant population, George W. Bush carried all 10. And of the 15 with the fewest immigrants, he carried 14.

Thus does mass immigration not only lead to endless enlargement of state power, it points to permanent minority status for any party of limited government. And thus does the pursuit of libertarian principles, on open borders and ally-ally-in-free immigration, lead to Leviathan, the death of the libertarian ideal.

With an anticipated 75 million immigrants poised to enter the United States in the next half century ? mostly poor folks, far more prolific than our native-born ? there will arise an inexorable need for still more police, jails, prisons, schools, laws, rules, regulations, services and restrictions on all Americans at the local, state and national level.

And so, just as the triumph of libertarian ideas on no-fault divorce accelerated the break-up of families, leading to wives and children thrown into dependency on the state, libertarian devotion to limitless immigration must further enlarge and empower the state. As they stand shoulder-to-shoulder beside Big Government liberals like Clinton, Gore, Daschle and Kennedy ? for open borders and mass immigration ? libertarians might ask themselves: Who is being had here?

Are libertarian principles leading inexorably to statist ends?

And if so, is it time for a long, hard look back at the sacred texts of the classical liberals of the 19th century? Were they perhaps as utopian, naive and mistaken as the Marxists they opposed?

On 2002-02-22 09:43, TraceyX wrote:
This Red Zone/Blue Zone thing is overhyped. Even the "reddest" areas have 40% "blue" people, and vice versa.

The real story of the "Red Zone/Blue Zone" map is that traditional liberalism has declined to the point where it only has a strong majority in the inner cities. This is old news. The E2K map is really no shock.

Get a grip. There is no civil war coming.

Tracey, with a 4T on the horizon, internal conflict is certainly possible, though obviously it's not inevitable. I agree that the split is old news, but the recent election did draw attention to it, in a way that surprised both sides, which had each tended to believe they were in the majority.

On 2002-02-22 19:48, Barbara wrote:

So, you agree Team Bush rigged it, successfully, instead of just letting the people speak. The other equal point here in what you say is that this is why Gore was not successful. He didn't have it all rigged, ready to go.

Actually, Gore did. He just didn't do a very good job of it, and the plan was based on the opposite assumption (i.e., Gore was assuming it would be a fractional Bush popular victory, with him getting the electoral majority. When it came in the opposite way, Gore was caught slightly off-balance.)

The Gore team had the show rigged, or tried to, well ahead. In St. Louis, for ex, where the supposed 'disenfranchised' voter who set the court action to leave the polls open turned out to already be dead, if I recall correctly.

Certainly they were ready to use that legal ploy in St. Louis well ahead of the actual voting.

There were reports, also, from some districts in major cities of 100% turnouts for Gore. If true, this is highly suspect at the least. Even the 'hardest' districts almost always contain at least a few members of the opposition.

In Florida, they had Jesse Jackson ready with phone messages regarding those 'butterfly' ballots well ahead of time. It wasn't a sudden realization that a mistake had been made.

They were ready to go with the butterfly ballot complaints beforehand, just in case.

This is why Team Gore looked like such hapless fools during the recounts, always on the defensive reaction, exampled by your DNC factoid, once they realized the rules of this Florida game.

Team Gore never looked like hapless fools, they looked like people determined to win, but knowing they probably couldn't, under the very peculiar circumstances.

Bottom line is, no one gave or should have been allowed to give Team Bush the right or priviledge to do as they did. They usurped our electoral process, and you are okay with this because your guy won?

Nobody usurped the electoral process, Barbara. America is not a democracy.

It's a consitutional republic, and the fact that a minority vote can occasionally win office is not illegitimate (though it might mean a lack of practical mandate).

And yes, had circumstances been reversed, of course we'd be hearing screams of protest from the GOP. But had it gone legally the other way, it would not have been illegitimate, either (unless literal vote fraud was used).

For example, the Gore team played with the idea of trying to 'turn' one or more Bush electors, which would have thrown the election into Congress. Had they done this, it would have infuriated the GOP, but it would have been perfectly legitimate.

(There are a few State laws on the books in some States regarding so-called 'faithless' electors, but they've never been tested in court and may be unconstitutional).

It's true that Bush had several built-in advantages. The state legislature was GOP dominated, and the U.S. Constitution gives the state legislatures the final say on providing for electoral voting under Article II. But that wasn't a rigging, it was luck of the draw, which favored Bush.

Likewise, Bush's brother was Governor. Again, though, it was mostly luck that brought the whole race down to Florida. It could in theory have as easily been in a State with a Democratic governor and Democratic apparatus. That, too, would not be illegitimate.

On 2002-02-22 10:50, Kiff '61 wrote:
I'm not going to rehash the E2K debacle from start to finish, but I think there's a clear indication that on November 7, 2000, in the state of Florida, more people went to their polling places intending to vote for Gore than for Bush.

Because of ballot irregularities in places such as Palm Beach and hanky-panky with voter lists in minority voting districts, many more potential Gore votes than Bush votes were lost.

That is the real tragedy of E2K, in my book, because it was entirely preventable.

The counts and recounts, and the ridiculous gameplaying in the courts, were a sideshow.

Kiff

It doesn't really matter what they intended. Part of the voter's responsibility is to use the ballot correctly, and in spite of all the complaints, the vast majority had no trouble with those ballots.

Incidentally, in various tests run after the election, using the same type of ballot with other items as a test, people ranging from grade schoolers to nursing home residents managed to use them with nearly 100% success.

On 2002-02-22 09:24, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-02-22 09:18, takascar2 wrote:

From the Heartland - we "God fearing conservatives" will not yield - EVER. If you want a second civil war, you are heading in the right direction.

I prefer to think of myself as God-loving, not God-fearing.

The two actually go hand in hand. (Using the word fear in the sense it was originally intended in the famous proverb.)

On 2002-02-22 09:51, Eric A Meece wrote:

Quote:
Guess what, Eric? The bulk of the American military power is Red Zone oriented. Just something to mix into your daydreams, when you visualize your perfect future.

So the Red Zone, with its staunch belief in state's rights, is going to enforce the blue zones to stay in the union? Not impossible, since the Supreme Court, currently controlled 5-4 by the red zone, went back on just those principles when it interfered in a state election and selected the red zone's choice for president and forced a non-elected president upon the rest of us.

No, Eric, the Supreme Court decision in no sense violated the doctrine of State's Rights. The doctrine of State independence within the Union acknowledges Federal supremacy, within the areas specified by the U.S. Constitution.

Article Two of the U.S. Constitution applies a Federal limit to the authority of the States regarding how electors are chosen. It is not hypocritical to act on this. It might or might not be a good idea, but it isn't hypocritical.

But it would certainly be ironic, and hypocritical in the extreme, if the Red Zoners forced the blue zone to stay in the Union. I suspect however, that because the bulk of economic power is in the blue zone, we could raise the necessary means to defend ourselves against the rabid fascists in the empty quarter and Dixie.

I do owe you a slight apology there, because what I said wasn't meant as a threat.
It was a reminder, because I had the impression that you were implying the use of force.

And no matter how many times you say it, throwing insults around doesn't turn conservatives in fascists. Sorry, it just isn't so.

And by the way, where in my last post did I say anything about vizualizing a perfect future? We would just like to move forward a few inches for a change, instead of being continually held in the dark ages by you hicks and fogeys from the red zone.

You haven't yet provided proof that the things you dream of represent progress.

This would weaken America. So what? I don't share the red zoners' fears that America needs to be number one or things will go to hell because some dictator will take over.

Then I suggest you step out of your fantasies and have long look with your physical senses at cold, hard reality.

What reality?

The reality of unchanging human nature. The world is not particularly less dangerous now than in the past, and the general range of motivations for the actions of humans have not changed measurably in all of known history.

Since this is so long, I'm going to break my response into another posting.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-02-22 22:44 ]</font>

On 2002-02-22 09:51, Eric A Meece wrote:

America is ahead of the other nations in almost all aspects of life. Technology and military power are the most obvious, but the others are no less the same. America is not going to become more like the rest of the world, nor are we going to become more 'enlightened' in the sense that you mean, because America could not survive the experience. Europe had the luxury of setting up its supposedly more enlightened society purely because America could provide the military protection when Europe could no longer protect itself.

You didn't mention any respect in which America is more enlightened or advanced than other nations. Technology and military power are just ability to force our will on things; they don't count.

This is what I meant when I said you were dreaming of a perfect future!

Technology and military power are the things which primarily count, because in the right hands they guard and protect the higher aspirations, and in the wrong hands they provide the power to destroy the higher aspirations.

You didn't mention any other respects. You know very well that we are behind in education, in people in prison, in crime, in drug addiction, in social programs, in health programs, in energy waste, in gun use, in environmental protection, in life expectancy; you name it.

Yes, our educational system is in disarray, and repairing it should be a high priority. But it is in disarray in much because of the liberal, emotional/psychological nonsense that has been worked into the system. It wouldn't actually be that difficult to repair, except for the vast array of interests vested in the current system.

As for prisons, America is inherently more violent than Europe, and imprisoning violent people is enlightened. It's the better choice than the alternative, which is to kill them.

(Here, by the way, is one of the very few ways I'll grant America could learn from the world. I loath the death penalty probably as much as you do, though perhaps for different reasons.)

True, America has more crime than Europe, but it also has more energy and vitality. They are two sides to the same coin. Further, the violent crime rate in America has been dropping steadily, as we get further away from the Awakening, which was a very violent time.

As for drug addiction, it's debatable that we are behind. The statistics are confusing, though you and I may define 'behind' differently in this.

The social programs of Europe are straining its budgets already, and in the future are probably going to have to be cut back. In that respect, America's failure to go that route is probably more progressive, since Europe is likely on a dead end street.

Regarding health programs, it's true the European nations provide universal health care systems. They tend to be bureaucratic nightmares, providing inefficient service and long waits. A clue to their nature is found in the fact that the wealthy in those nations come to America for treatment, while the lower incomes don't have that option.

I'm not saying that America doesn't need to take some steps in this area, but we should actively avoid the mistakes Europe has made on this subject.

Regarding energy waste, research and development continues on more efficient technology to use energy more effectively. America need not be ashamed of anything here, most of Europe's supposed superiority on this matter is empty posturing.

We are ahead of Europe regarding guns. We have maintained and guarded the right of the individual to be armed, and the level of personal armament in America is much higher than that of Europe or Japan. This is a good thing.

I'll finish this in a third post, since it's so long.

On 2002-02-22 09:51, Eric A Meece wrote:

With reference to Europe, you refer to the situation after WWII. Guess what, there's no Hitler or Stalin to threaten them now. What decade are you living in, Cynic?

Eric, there is and will always be a potential Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Shi Huangdi, Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung, Attilla, Alexander, etc, etc, waiting in the wings.

These were, by the way, very ordinary men in their essences for the most part. Every Generation in every time and place contains a few of the sort, who usually get no chance to implement their malice.

Today, places such as Nigeria and Iraq are governed by autocrats as cruel as any you would wish to compare them to. They are held in check, not by 'progress' but by the threat of force. Within the nations of the West, similar men (and women) are held in check by the knowledge that if they try to act on their desires, they will be stopped by force, not persuasion. It's not a question of what decade, Eric. The only thing unusual about those decades (1930s 1940s) was that several of these sorts did manage to obtain power at once. They're always around.

We could have joined Europe in moving ahead all these years later, socially, culturally, environmentally, but we chose to elect Nixon, Reagan and Bush instead. Or should I say, the red zone chose these leaders and foisted them upon us. That was our choice, not Europe's.

And the correct choice, at that. No, Eric, if we had tried to join Europe in their actions, we would have been forced to divert money away from defense, and the USSR would not have had to back down as far as they did.

The USSR was prevented from invading Western Europe by the threat of retaliation, not international law or progress. If America had not defended them, the European nations would have been forced to divert money from their social 'evolution' to defend themselves. In a sense, our huge military budgets, I suppose, did consitute a sort of foreign aid to Europe's projects, by enabling them to spend less on defense.

If America tries to go that route, there's nobody there to backstop us the way we protected and upheld Europe. You're simply wrong, Eric.

Why do you assume that Americans are the only people who understand right from wrong, and are willing to contribute men and money to maintain collective security? On what basis do you believe that America must do this alone? And have you considered what Pat Buchanan reported? It turns out that America, by being the world's policeman, ends up being just another dictatorial power that enforces stagnation and repression on many parts of the world. The last half century proved that beyond any dispute.

Actually, I do vigorously dispute it. And I don't say that only America can do it. I do say that only America can do it for America. There is no other specific single power large enough to do it, unless it first grows greatly in strength.

If America were removed from the picture, the 'more enlightened' societies would have two, and only two, choices: arm up and start operating along roughly American lines, or learn to like living under the rule of dictators. That's it. That's the entire range of alternatives

Again, what do you base your assumption on? Don't you think the whole world together could provide the necessary means to keep the rogue states in check?

Only if some specific government first assembled enough power to impose some level of organization on the natural chaos of international affairs. Some power would have to step into the roll America was absent from, or the ways and means to check the troublemakers would not exist. There's no such thing as leadership by committee.

That's increasingly what's happening already. Who has the most troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, for example?

True, a lot of the peacekeeping personnel are European, but that actually means very little.

America was and is responsible for most of the action to keep the rogue states in check, Eric. Even when we are averse to casualties and use other powers to do our ground work (and that is a potential weakness of ours, I admit), America has provided the impetus.

Kosovo was fundamentally an American show from the word go, specifically a Clinton show. We provided the vast bulk of the air power, most of the intelligence work, almost all of the organizational activity, and if America had done nothing, nothing would have been done at all.

Blue America and Red America could continue to contribute. But blue America would not waste as much money on useless Pentagon projects. We would contribute what other states contribute.

Unless the other states upped their contribution considerably, there would then be insufficient resources to do the job.

If you want the Red Zone to compromise, you'd better be prepared to sacrifice some of your dreams along the way. If your dreams don't
include pragmatic compromises with reality, than you're a disaster waiting to happen if you ever gain any real power.

First, dreams don't have to be sacrificed. They do need to be implemented pragmatically. Second, it is you guys in the Red Zone who have the impractical dreams; dreams of a utopian yesterday where noone has to pay taxes, non-whites don't exist, and people mindlessly obey their preachers on Sunday.

As usual, Eric, you completely misunderstand the Red Zone culture and right-wingers in general. That is not even close to what we are all about!

That world never existed and will never return.

True, and since it's not what we are all about, it doesn't really have any relevance to us.

There can only be one objective reality, and it's the same for everyone. It might conceivably be that all opinions about what that reality is are wrong, but there still can be only one objective reality.

True, but there is no objective reality without subjective reality (see philosophy threads)

Likewise, morality that is not universal is ultimately a shell game. The dream society you hope for will either have enforced moral rules, or will collapse in chaos. No other alternatives exist.

You are the dreamer. The hope that everyone will live under one enforced moral reality is utopian and impractical. Sounds like Communism to me. Get real, Cynic.

I am real. The universal morality I am talking about refers to the Higher authority.
And I know you don't believe any more than I do that human beings are an accidental natural phenomenon.

As for living on Earth, yes, people in a given nation do live under an enforced moral code, called the law. Not all morality can or should be legislated, but basically all law is indeed legislated morality.

Because taxes are too high already.

See! You guys are irresponsible and you don't want to do your part to make society viable. Fine, go live in your world of individual "self-sufficiency" out there in the sticks, and live off the land-- and despoil and ruin your own lands. See where that gets you. The fact is that we already pay lower taxes than other developed countries, and most of it goes to the military.

True, American taxation is not as bad as that of Europe. Further, it's perfectly legitimate for large amounts of tax money to go the military. That's one of the basic purposes of the Federal Government.

No, we don't begrudge taxes for maintaining the roads, the defenses, those parts of the communications system that are best handled publically, and we don't begrudge taxes for aiding the needy (the really needy, that is).

Of course there are individual exceptions, but this idea that conservatives hate all taxes alike is silly. We do maintain that America already takes in sufficient money through its taxes for most needs, and that the tax structure is itself organized in an inefficient and immoral way.

Eric, the world you dream of is impossible. I'm not worried that it'll come to pass, I do fear that the government might eventually try to make it happen, and in the process of failing destroy the West.

The world I dream of will come through education, awakening, and consensus, not by coercion.

If it does, it'll be the first time in history that such a thing has occurred!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-02-22 22:54 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-02-22 23:02 ]</font>

without getting totally involved in this whole meece-cynic debate, i feel i must point out that i take exception to the following quote

On 2002-02-22 22:43, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

basically all law is indeed legislated morality

this is not true, or at least not necessarily true. it can easily be argued that laws, even those that seem to be morality-related, are actually created for the purpose of societal preservation, rather than the purpose of enforcing some sort of objective morality.

obviously, if we didn't have laws against things such as murder and theft, society could not function on the level it does.


TK

On 2002-02-22 23:17, TrollKing wrote:
without getting totally involved in this whole meece-cynic debate, i feel i must point out that i take exception to the following quote

On 2002-02-22 22:43, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

basically all law is indeed legislated morality

this is not true, or at least not necessarily true. it can easily be argued that laws, even those that seem to be morality-related, are actually created for the purpose of societal preservation, rather than the purpose of enforcing some sort of objective morality.

obviously, if we didn't have laws against things such as murder and theft, society could not function on the level it does.


TK

True, but that just takes it one step outward. It leaves the citizen with the question of why he/she should care about the society, assuming he/she is in a position to escape punishment.

Put another way, the question becomes: Why should I care about anything but myself and my own interests? The answer can't be expressed in purely rationalist terms.

On 2002-02-22 21:19, Barbara wrote:

Also, there is the possibility that Buchanan, like another silenced frustration of yours, Keyes, have had their figurative tongues cut out, and cannot be TOO specific any more. You never know....

Unfortunately, it really does make you wonder, does it not? That would be about par for the course with Bushes around. Ridiculous.

Moi, a strong Buchananite? Well, perception is not constant or fixed among men. I won't deny thinking that he can make sense....

I guess I was mistaken. I thought Buchanan was your guy or maybe it is just that you scored highly as a paleocon. In any case, it sounds like I am a bigger fan of Pat than your are! I still have disagreements, some deep, with the man but I am generally positive.

PAT SPEAKS:

Does Libertarianism Lead to Statism?

Among the adversaries of Big Government on the American scene, few have proven more principled than the libertarians.

Believing with Jefferson that that government governs best which governs least, think tanks like Cato and Von Mises institutes....

Barb, I am paleolibertarian and not an "open borders utopian." Indeed I think that position is foolish given our current circumstances. Pat's criticisms are best addressed to the Libertarian Party, not libertarians, and I am sure that he knows this.

On 2002-02-22 21:48, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
Actually, Gore did. He just didn't do a very good job of it, and the plan was based on the opposite assumption (i.e., Gore was assuming it would be a fractional Bush popular victory, with him getting the electoral majority. When it came in the opposite way, Gore was caught slightly off-balance.)

Much of your rebuttal concerns the election nationwide, whereas my replies were to our topic of E2K Florida. But, that's okay. I do limit most of my discussion to Florida, though, where my allegations of undue electoral influence was directed.

Yes, both camps feared and braced for
a national vote loss, and I do remember reading both in many mainstream press articles and the two books I've read on E2K that Gore's campaign man was almost convinced of it. But, when it came to Florida, Team Gore felt they'd have a solid and at least narrow victory.

The Gore team had the show rigged, or tried to, well ahead. In St. Louis, for ex, where the supposed 'disenfranchised' voter who set the court action to leave the polls open turned out to already be dead, if I recall correctly.

I read that, too, but I also read there were plenty of LIVE people in St. Louis who faced closed polls and complained, too.

Certainly they were ready to use that legal ploy in St. Louis well ahead of the actual voting.

Not necessarily, but this proves -- what? As I said, live voters were protesting and asking for help there. I saw two of them interviewed on television.

There were reports, also, from some districts in major cities of 100% turnouts for Gore. If true, this is highly suspect at the least. Even the 'hardest' districts almost always contain at least a few members of the opposition.

This is news to me, but as I said, I stuck to mainstream news.

In Florida, they had Jesse Jackson ready with phone messages regarding those 'butterfly' ballots well ahead of time. It wasn't a sudden realization that a mistake had been made.

They were ready to go with the butterfly ballot complaints beforehand, just in case.

I disagree. Based upon what I read, Jackson was called in that day. Voter complaints began that morning, right away. Many old people and working folk, white or black, vote first thing. They did know who to call to make it an issue, but I also read that Jackson was getting calls from associates who were Democrat precinct chairmen and party workers, grassroots people. There was also a bit of a debate among Team Gore as to whether Jackson would be help or hassle, until it was agreed this was beyond their control.

Besides, Jackson was there intially to support the protests of problems of ACCESS to the polls, not the ballot. State police blockades detaining a high percentage of blacks, black voters being told they were not on the voter rolls when in fact they were registered, that sort of thing.

Team Gore never looked like hapless fools, they looked like people determined to win, but knowing they probably couldn't, under the very peculiar circumstances.

Well, I'll repeat myself from earlier today: perception is not common or fixed among men. I'll stick with my hapless fools take.

Nobody usurped the electoral process, Barbara. America is not a democracy.

It's a consitutional republic, and the fact that a minority vote can occasionally win office is not illegitimate (though it might mean a lack of practical mandate).

Again, you must be talking about nationwide, and the issue was Florida by the time I posted. An electoral process is a legal system of democratic choices, according to the dictionary, and your point about America not being a democracy is unclear to me as I well know we are not one. Did you think I was talking about the electoral college voting process? No.

And yes, had circumstances been reversed, of course we'd be hearing screams of protest from the GOP. But had it gone legally the other way, it would not have been illegitimate, either (unless literal vote fraud was used).

For example, the Gore team played with the idea of trying to 'turn' one or more Bush electors, which would have thrown the election into Congress. Had they done this, it would have infuriated the GOP, but it would have been perfectly legitimate.

(There are a few State laws on the books in some States regarding so-called 'faithless' electors, but they've never been tested in court and may be unconstitutional).

All of this, again, was not within the context of my comments about Florida, about Election Day.

It's true that Bush had several built-in advantages. The state legislature was GOP dominated, and the U.S. Constitution gives the state legislatures the final say on providing for electoral voting under Article II. But that wasn't a rigging, it was luck of the draw, which favored Bush.

Likewise, Bush's brother was Governor. Again, though, it was mostly luck that brought the whole race down to Florida. It could in theory have as easily been in a State with a Democratic governor and Democratic apparatus. That, too, would not be illegitimate.

No, it was more than luck that the whole race was brought down to Florida. Gore's team materially and overconfidently misjudged their support in other key states, but wasn't worried about Florida. Team Bush knew they would need Florida, and what's more, it was a matter of intense family pride that they had to have it. More than luck, it was uberbrilliant and ruthless strategizing a la Rove before the election, to use certain Florida officeholders (you call built-in advantages) to capitalize on their victory: to send multiple ballots to overseas military, to have GOP workers going in and filling out the absentee ballot info that the voter was supposed to have done to be valid, to place the oldest and most unreliable voting machines placed in the heaviest Democraic precincts. And, being in a position to intimately know Florida's documented election history that there would be many problems with both the machinery and the system itself, and knowing that this could only help your own side and hurt the other side by illegitimizing votes. This is what I mean by usurping an election. Inch by inch, not one fell swoop.

Oh, and let's not forget to add that Katherine woman to the list (I can see the heavy makeup in my mind, but cannot recall the last name). She was indispensible to this effort. Another luck of the draw. The kicker, though, was Jeb recusing himself. Ha. That was more substance than form. How helpful, he'd done his job already.

And knowing all this, it's morally and ethically okay with you, Hopeful, because your man won?

Oh, well, regardless, E2K-Florida ironically reminds me of a quote of Josef Stalin's:

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2002-02-23 01:16 ]</font>

On 2002-02-22 21:51, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-02-22 10:50, Kiff '61 wrote:
I'm not going to rehash the E2K debacle from start to finish, but I think there's a clear indication that on November 7, 2000, in the state of Florida, more people went to their polling places intending to vote for Gore than for Bush.

Because of ballot irregularities in places such as Palm Beach and hanky-panky with voter lists in minority voting districts, many more potential Gore votes than Bush votes were lost.

That is the real tragedy of E2K, in my book, because it was entirely preventable.

The counts and recounts, and the ridiculous gameplaying in the courts, were a sideshow.

Kiff

It doesn't really matter what they intended. Part of the voter's responsibility is to use the ballot correctly, and in spite of all the complaints, the vast majority had no trouble with those ballots.

Oh, but intent does matter when it comes to recounts and chads in particular: voter intent is the legal phrase, I believe. This underlying principle is the basis in recounts of several states, Texas, for example, which was used as a legal example for determining the rules of breadth in the recounts. If voter intent had no bearing or weight in determining recount outcomes, there'd often be no reason for hand recounts. In some states, writing the candidate's name on a machine ballot is clear proof of voter intent and thus that vote counts. Perish the thought - Rage Against the Machine!

Incidentally, in various tests run after the election, using the same type of ballot with other items as a test, people ranging from grade schoolers to nursing home residents managed to use them with nearly 100% success.

These two "test" populations, I recall, were the ones Team Bush et al used in order to get the most PR mileage to try to bury the complaints against the butterfly ballot in Florida. Grade schoolers, as smart as they are, are not legal voters, though, so that is not an appropriate sample group, and the exact situations at the polls could not have been recreated in the nursing homes (the crowds, the noise, the stress, the lighting or lack of, little assistance in some places), and thus skewed those results. 100% success? Yeah, it worked great on the half of the nation who wanted to hear those comforting "scientific findings"....

Whenever I've read this argument, and I've seen it more than a few times, I've found it condescending and insulting to the literally thousands of Florida voters who genuinely felt they were disenfranchised on Election Day. It is so typical of Boomer-overboard competitiveness to-the-max.

It would have been so much more dignified, less alienating and even more effective all the way around to argue just the relevant facts: Florida citizens had published opportunities to examine and criticize that ballot before the election and no one chose to, according to its designer, Teresa LaPoure (sic). But no, political operatives had to get into thinly-disguised Yo Mama rhetoric and clearly infer that honorable citizens are dufases. And then, dutiful soldiers such as yourself tell two friends, and so on....

On 2002-02-23 01:13, Barbara wrote:
Oh, and let's not forget to add that Katherine woman to the list (I can see the heavy makeup in my mind, but cannot recall the last name).

Harris.

On 2002-02-22 18:30, mmailliw wrote:
1) I saw Sarah Hughes' pictures online; her face looks so withered and wrinkled that she seems closer to 37 than 17 (although back in 1999 at Worlds when she was 13 turning 14, she didn't have that problem...) - this phenomenom DOES actually seem to happen to more than a few people of my (80-86 and possibly 87) generational wave. As the teenagers in HS get more millennial I guess we'll see this more and more from stress, etc. (at least getting alcohol or R-rated movie tickets would be easier...)
2) While the entire election recount process was a sham (with both parties not working for the TRUTH but to get their guy in the White House), it is obvious (IMHO) that
A) Bush did a lot more manipulating than Gore with the votes (e.g. even the military votes; while Bush's team secretly fought to suppress the military votes from Gore precincts, they loudly campaigned for the ones from the Bush precincts - they went as far as to get overvotes counted in certain cases as a vote for each candidate!) "Under one conservative recount standard, Gore would have won by over 50,000 votes." (probably misquoted; from Jews for Buchanan)
B. Tracy, Jenny, etc. are all right in concluding that more people went to the polls in FL to vote for Gore than for Bush.

William, good to hear from you again! Don't be a stranger. Well, young man, Sarah looks like a baby to me and she has been beaming lately :smile:

On 2002-02-23 02:07, Vince Lamb '59 wrote:

Harris.

Thanks, Vince!

On 2002-02-22 23:22, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

...It leaves the citizen with the question of why he/she should care about the society, assuming he/she is in a position to escape punishment....the question becomes: Why should I care about anything but myself and my own interests? The answer can't be expressed in purely rationalist terms.

again, i respectfully disagree.

the very essence of laws that, on the surface, appear to be legislating some sort of "universal" or objective morality is that no one can be in a position to escape punishment. allowing someone to be, in every practical sense, "above" these laws invalidates the entire concept of legislated morality. if someone is above the law, then they are above morality too, as far as the law is concerned.

and the answer to why one should care about anything beyond one's own interests is simple: one shouldn't-- one's interests are usually best served by following the laws, or at least by following the serious laws. but perhaps the point you were trying to make was slightly different.

perhaps what you meant is "why would people care about anything but their own interest enough to make laws for the purpose of societal preservation?" or "what incentive do people have to forgo their own apparent interest in the interest of societal preservation?". but here again, the answer is that they really don't.

people long ago realized that societal preservation does indeed serve their own interests best, as it removes a lot of the randomness from their lives, allowing them a far greater degree of certainty in their decisions and far less risk. if i can't be reasonably sure that someone won't be able to come and take my family or property from me, what incentive do i have to "play the game" or pariticipate in a society? if everyone in the society feels this same insecurity, how effective can that society be at providing any sort of benefit for its members? without that security, everyone withdraws, and far less can be done effectively, because everyone has to become a generalist. no one specializes, and the species fails to advance technologically or culturally.

anyway, it's late, i'm tired, and we'll have to pick this up at a later date if you want to keep going on it. i just wanted to point out that the argument is actually quite simple, and is in no way invalidated by appeals to universal morality.


TK

On 2002-02-22 23:26, Stonewall Patton wrote:
I guess I was mistaken. I thought Buchanan was your guy or maybe it is just that you scored highly as a paleocon. In any case, it sounds like I am a bigger fan of Pat than your are! I still have disagreements, some deep, with the man but I am generally positive.

****

Barb, I am paleolibertarian and not an "open borders utopian." Indeed I think that position is foolish given our current circumstances. Pat's criticisms are best addressed to the Libertarian Party, not libertarians, and I am sure that he knows this.

Sorry, I did know that but forgot, no big L. I do test high on the paleo-con scale, and flirt with allegiance to Buchanan, but the Nixon connection always bothers me. Doesn't make sense, except as party loyalty.

You and I once discussed a Buchanan-Nader alliance (not official, just in strategy of anti-free trade), and I've since read that the glue might be that Milliken textile magnate from S.C. Do you know anything about that?

On 2002-02-23 03:26, Barbara wrote:

You and I once discussed a Buchanan-Nader alliance (not official, just in strategy of anti-free trade), and I've since read that the glue might be that Milliken textile magnate from S.C. Do you know anything about that?

I've seen a bit about Milliken. But I find the more startling evidence for a viable Buchanan-Nader (paleocon-Green) alliance) in the person of Virgil. Here is a guy who is so paleocon, it isn't funny. He is not an enthusiast. He is not a progressive. He speaks of fallen man who is wicked. He is about the most unlikely sort to be found cavorting with anarchists. Yet Virgil voted for Nader.

So long as the emphasis stays on opposing "free" trade and corporate oligarchy, then a massive new realignment can take place throwing let's say half of paleocons, and the bulk of libertarians, into a working alliance with Greens. If the inertia can be overcome within the Democratic Party such that a Green faction takes over control of the party, then the sky is the limit and the corporatist/fascist Bush Republican Party will be left in the dust.

But you can bet your behind that the money powers behind the Bush White House are well attuned to this and will therefore make every effort to keep the Democrats authoritarian and led by the same useless 3T wonks, tweakers, and tinkerers. The Republicans win if the Democratic fulcrum does not shift toward anarchism, opposition to corporate oligarchy and "free" trade, and principled defense of civil liberties. The corporate powers behind the White House will make very effort to keep that Democratic fulcrum from shifting. They must not succeed.

What if there is a breathrough in the Democratic Party along these lines? Could Ralph Nader prove to be the Gray Champion? If everything I just described should happen between now and 2004 then, purely off the top of my head, I am seeing Ralph Nader win the White House as a Democrat and performing the role of Gray Champion. It seems kind of preposterous this early in the morning however. Let me think about it some more. What do you think?

Let me just quickly address another possibility: Let's say that the money/corporate powers succeed in keeping the Democrats authoritarian and in 3T tweaker/tinkerer mode. The result is that the Greens continue to grow and the Democrats continue to shrink but the divided opposition ensures Bush's reelection in 2004. The money powers will continue the same strategy after 2004 and the Democrats will continue to shrink until the Greens overwhelm them and supplant them as the opposition party by 2008. OR, the Democratic defeat in 2004 will hasten the Green takeover within the Democratic Party. Either way, the Gray Champion arrives in 2008.

So this is a calculus for your Gray Champion. If the corporate money-spawned inertia within the Democrats is not overcome by 2004, then the Gray Champion is elected in 2008. If somehow that inertia IS overcome between now and then, then the Gray Champion is elected in 2004. It is critical that those who give a damn focus their attention on the corporate efforts to keep the Democratic Party in its present authoritarian configuration. These efforts must be flouted and the Democratic fulcrum must shift toward anarchism.

BTW, appearances are deceiving and anything can happen between now and 2004. I believe that recent months have given us an intuitive feel for understanding the shift from 3T to 4T: it is a change in tempo. The regular, routine, monotonous, and predictable rhythm which spanned the 3T and defined its mood is now broken. Events since 911 have occurred in much quicker succession. We have finally broken the calm, "comforting" rhythm of the 3T and we are now experiencing a faster, more erratic tempo. Nothing even close occurred around the Gulf War or at any other point in the 3T.

I suspect that this is precisely what occurred between 1929 and 1931 or so when people were not yet certain that things would never be the same again but nevertheless looked back to the Crash in hindsight once that realization had set in. The tempo must have changed after the Crash and events must have transpired in quicker succession. It just took a couple of years for people to adjust to the new tempo.

With this new tempo, we are now in 4T. Anything can happen between now and 2004.