Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edscharp who wrote (14709)	4/20/2003 4:06:30 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Re: Perhaps you could give us some examples of this and how we've become vulnerable to easy manipulation. This woman is a very powerful example. liberalslant.com <COPY> Is everyone buying into the media brainwashing, the manipulation? Even perfectly wonderful people are turning into the Nazi youth. My heart cries all day at the things to come that are usually caused by such willful arrogance, conceit and complacency. The worst aspects in human nature were awakened, and now mean people feel justified. When psychologically we legitimize our lowest instincts, it is very hard to revert back. I notice right wing rhetoric pervades everywhere; it's unbelievable how it has influenced minds. I love these people. I hadn't realized the harm Bush is doing. It is an insult to humanity. Ignorance is the destroyer; that is what Maya means in Sanskrit. It is not the devil like in the west; it is ignorance. Still, the right wing rhetoric is like a little devil in our head, trying to convince us to change for the worst. It's brainwashing. Yesterday I met a woman, seemingly liberal, wearing a flag. So I commented, "You are a flag lady?" She said, oh yes, and then she looked at me with eyes brimming with joyful emotion and asked, "Did you see the news yesterday?" Referring to the toppling of Saddam's statue. How could I miss it? I knew what she meant, but I didn't make it easy for her, so I asked, "What do you mean?" She said something about the incredible victory. I was stunned, so we started talking and I briefly listed some of the fallacies of this victory: Bush started justifying the war by connecting it with terrorism and September 11. Then he stopped that and went into the weapons of mass destruction reasoning. Then stopped totally that and went into "liberating Iraq". There was no connection with bin Laden. No weapons of mass destruction, and now there's no liberation either. When you kill thousands, destroy all their government buildings, wreck their communications centers, blast their hospitals, ruin their sources of food and water and destabilize the region you pay the costs one way or another. We the common Americans will pay the costs. Meanwhile, Bush and friends will benefit from the oil. She looked at me, understood these facts, and even agreed. Then she went on like a robot, and repeated what she said before, concluding with something to the effect of "Wasn't it wonderful?" It's like the Stepford wives thing. Unbelievable! This woman is a very powerful example. " Article continues at website......several more "examples" are available for your perusal.

To: Edscharp who wrote (14709)	4/20/2003 11:57:59 AM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 21614

No, it is not vague, but a very traditional definition of the 2-party system USA has. Checks&balances specifically includes that at least of the three insitutions, house,congres and president is run by "the other party" (Except for the short times inbetween presidential-congressional elections as they were interleaved as such to specifically avoid the present situation, that is how "traditional" it is) Another factor is the telecom act of 1996 which got rid of the regulation that radio,Tv,etc had some responsibility for being "balanced", that is, the "fourth estate" Not to forget the way the seats on the supreme court has evolved, that is, the fourth insitution. Some point a one starting point, inclusion of "sex education" in schools in early 1970s, resulting in the political organization of "the religious right" in addition to more and more "think-tanks" with little responsibility but all the more influence over both media, elections and thus congress. Not to forget campaign financing. That is, all factors in increasing the "worst part" of a 2-party system, that small extreme groups become the ones who first have to be suitably activated, promises made using smart rethorics, and then actually vote to achive that razor-thin margin of 1-2-3%, especially in key-districts. That is, a system try to balance using what is called a bang-bang feedback system, only two adversarial, opposite possibilities, parties. Usually somewhat marginally stable by having between 3 to 5 (as above) bang-bang systems in the hope that not all will bang in the same direction at the same time. Another 2-party factor is the one of "frustration", that in the process of activating the extreme groups promises must be made, speeches spoken, and after a possible victory in the elections usually little can (luckily) be actually implemented. Plus the basic mechanism that in a 2-party system half of the population loses anyway, the "winner-takes-all" aspect. (or actually some 60-65% in a "third party" case, or 65-85% considering voter activity, due to that same frustration) Ilmarinen One example, one could expect a very thin margin, like the dangling chads in FLorida, would result in somewhat moderate policies, as no clear majority was found among the people. Not exactly the way it then continued and continues. (and the worst, all the rethoric and propaganda needed to avoid that the republic as a whole, or at least as a half, or just the "elite" would (publicly) reflect on these things) Not to forget the "backlash" which in general might follow a triple-bang-bang system when all bangs go the same way, the traditional checks&balances has disappeared??