Wow them "Intellectuals" sure eat that stuff up.

It gives them the self morale superiority to make fun of the way someone speaks.

I heard several faculty members one day making fun of the way Bush speaks. I have been subjected to such ridicule myself. If there were ever a drawback of growing up in small town is the fact we had our own dialect of sorts. Often times I am misunderstood. On occasion answered as if I were stupid.

I pity the fools.

And it's just SO easy to get stuff to stick these days. I think because we BEG to be liberated from reality, to be excused from doing te WORK of rational thought, of being actually intellectually involved.

That's not a bad explanation, thalo.

We are all being led by the nose to make facile, snap judgments... being encouraged to turn off our brains and be satisfied with Bush = Dope or Kerry = Hero; or Bush = Godfearing and Kerry = Tax-raiser.

It may be facile but it mimics everyday life. You can't judge a book by its cover, but none of us has the time to follow a person around 24 hours a day for a couple weeks in order to get to know them well. We simply make informed snap judgments and decide "This guy's a jerk. I'm not hiring him" or "She's a bitch. There'll be no second date." I think that's what the politicos are counting on. They know it's the way we work and they know it works…particularly since we don't have the time (or won't take the time) to go beyond knee-jerk emotional reactions. And these knee-jerk emotional reactions are particularly potent because, first, it takes relatively little time to make these connections and, second, I think people use powerful emotions as a stepping stone to fool themselves into thinking they've taken much more care with their decision then we have. I think we're all aware that most people's lives are too busy to spend much time evaluating candidates like they would a new car. But, of course, no one wants to think of themselves as being shallow, so we construct and connect entire stories and reasoning after the fact to the emotions that have grabbed us. That, I think, is why we see torrents of illogic in support of a candidate (or in dislike for a candidate) that can't be explained with just blind partisanship.

The very vagueness of the "values" that either candidate is trying to take symbolic possession of, should be our warning flag.

In a very real sense, it is us, the voters, who decide how the candidates will run their campaigns. When we reward lies we get more lies. When we reward demagoguery we get more demagoguery. And if people want to sink so low as to make fun of a mispronounced word then go for it. But don't blame the politicians entirely if the gutter politics gets worse, not better.

Exactly, brother Brad. If I were to sum it up, and oversimplify, I'd have to shrug and go "ahh, it's human nature"... but then I'd be doing EXACTLY what I'm often trying to fight. Taking the facile, helpless and hopeless conclusion, and writing a dumbed down destiny for us all.

I think the real answer is to rebel against those destinies which simply reinforce the WORST of human nature. We should be lifting up the ones that ennoble us.

And yet, holy crap, that's friggin' WORK. We live in a diet-pill/extreme makeover culture. If you could lose weight and get fit with a pill, or surgery, instead of years of diet and exercise, we already know what most of us would choose. The easy way out. It's exceedingly tough to sell hard work, patience and perseverence.

Why BOTHER trying to see all sides of a candidate, when we can jump to "he's a jerk" and then go eat frozen custard and not worry about it? We are breeding THOUGHTFULNESS right out of our kids. Very few rise up and begin to love learning in this day and age. They more perform for reward, than they do follow any deep and abiding interest.

The interest that rules the day is always self interest. But history shows us what's happened when we become more enlightened, and think of the bigger picture. Take the Mac then, and the Mac now. Toppling aristocracies then, and milking rubes now. Bravely building a computer that would change the world then, and naked self-interest now.

Except, it isn't about mispronunciations or ill-fated words or phrases. And neither of our top candidates are rubes from the backwaters. They're both fucking Yale graduates. And, like it or not, the Presidency of the United States demands some degree of intellectual skill.

I'll give you a recent example in Bush's explanation on sovereign rights. It is intellectual, political, and personal laziness not to be able to at least discuss a long-standing minority issue without just repeating one word over and over. Is there not an administration policy on this? Is there not some personal core belief about this? Wasn't he a governor of a state with a large indian population? Look, I don't blame Bush if he doesn't know the fucking meaning of "sovereign" or "entity". This isn't an intellectual elitist attack. If he wants to cling to the notion that he is a small-town Texas simpleton rather than the well-educated wealthy son of a powerful political aristocracy, so be it. Explain it in those terms, then. Use the simple language. Stick to the ruse. I'm okay with that. But, please, at least communicate the fact that you understand and have a fucking care. Demonstrate to me, a voter, that you take some care in understanding the issues before us. This isn't just one bad example out of a stellar career. This keeps going on and on. Every main issue, every single one, Bush has shown an incredible ineptitude in understanding and an amazing lack of caring.

Kerry isn't any better, in fact, he is on par. His famous gaffe about world leaders shows the same fucking laziness. He has an amazing inability to articulate the idea that changing one's mind as new facts and new ideas come into the fold, rather than stubbornly sticking to one ideology, is actually good and preferable. And, the fact that he can't explain even his own decisions makes it look like he is as politically lazy as the rest, that he is willing to do what is expedient rather than working to do what is right. And get off Vietnam. I don't care one iota about a boo-boo and a medal. Kerry doesn't have the luxury of being the incumbent, so he has no record. He needs to talk abotu what he will do, in depth. His lack of discussion on what he would actually do about issues like the war, the economy, the environment, Social Security, etc just demonstrates that he is politically, personally, and intellectually lazy as well. At least show a snippet if what you might actually do. I am not going to replace one bumbling lazy idiot for another.

In the end, both these guys have their chains pulled by the ideology of their parties. Probably is true for anyone involved in the two party political game. And that isn't how most of us work, I'd dare say. I'll bet the average American finds things they agree with on both sides. That they would like a little of this idea from the right and a little of this idea from the left. They might even like some alternative ideas that the demogagery of either party excludes. I'd dare say most people would align themselves as independent. But, come election time, the whole billing up to the event is like a Yankees-Red Sox playoff game. And people become either Yankees or Red Sox fans....rabid. That is why the country becomes so split down the middle. You have to choose a side. Is this really what our system is all about?

This sums it up for me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mithradites,

Hey Mith's by the way welcome home.

So what did you do all summer travel India learning to become a Yogi in your spare time?

I wish. No summer is the season to go to the many conferences and sing the praises of my research to the world...er, at least to those other scientists who are interested. Couple that with cramming experiments in between meetings, and trying to write a couple of manuscripts and grants and, well, you get the picture.

I have lurked in and out, but being so busy I hadn't had too much time to post. Good to see you brought this thread back to life, though. I do see thalo's rantings in Apple discussions has spurred a flurry of registrations here in my absence. I just have to laugh.

Darr sounds like you had a productive summer.

I hope the coming months reap the benifits of your effort.

We'll see if they were productive. I still have to get the papers past review.

Here's my thoughts on the two conventions.

The Democratic National Convention was like OSX, alot of slick advertising and promotional fluff to hide a weak platform underneath.

The Republican National Convention was like XP, alot of slick advertising and promotional fluff to hide a controlling platform underneath.

I totally agree, brother miths.

The only time any of it played, was when it was stripped bare, raw and minimal. When Rudy went off the script and just told ground zero stories, When W teared up, it cut through the crap and we saw HIM. I don't know if we saw a leader or not, but it was like the one authentic minute in four days of marketing. Hey, I'll take it.

All this scripted nonsense drives me nuts. It has no bearing on reality. It is basically a rah-rah fest for the unconvertables, and an ad blitz for the waverers. The conventions are pretty much the equivalent of a playmate spread, airbrushed and blemish-free, no reality to interfere with the meat-beating fantasy.

Why not let the candidates, the parties, the platforms all take on the flesh and blood nature that they really are? I'd much prefer to know how people handled themselves freely, off the cuff, without the handlers. It gives me a much better idea of how they will react in the pressure situation for which we are supposedly choosing them. Then again, maybe we are a bunch of fucking chimps. After all, they are trying to get us to pull the right lever for the tasty banana.

quote:

---

I'd much prefer to know how people handled themselves freely, off the cuff, without the handlers.

---

Yeah, me too. And in a debate, which is SUPPOSED to be thinking on your feet, you'll always hear them go scripted if they get into trouble. That's how it's done. The handlers have given them contingencies. I'd much rather they stay in the fight. Look the opponent in the eye, and really rebut what they say. One of the best ways to do this, is call attention to spin rhetoric. The trouble is, you can't really do that, if you're using it yourself.

All this scripted nonsense drives me nuts. It has no bearing on reality. It is basically a rah-rah fest for the unconvertables, and an ad blitz for the waverers.

Darr, I like what Jay Nordlinger says in his article wherein he give his general reflections on Bush's speech:

quote:

---

I want to quote something from a George Will column, always worth doing: "Just as the Soviet press merited close scrutiny because it was closely controlled to serve the regime's purposes, today's conventions give clarity to the parties' thinking."

Don't you wish you had written that? I, for one, am more pro-convention after this season. They are useful jamborees, showcasing politics, providing entertainment — and occasionally shedding light.

---

The George Will article referenced in the above quote can be found here.

Thalo said: And in a debate, which is SUPPOSED to be thinking on your feet, you'll always hear them go scripted if they get into trouble. That's how it's done.

I think the debates are 95% shaped by the questioners (media "experts" who, while trying to come up with the best "gotcha" question, end up asking nothing much at all) and the media (who do not replay the back-and-forth give-and-take of a nuanced debate but condense it all down to over-simplified sound bites). The candidates have little choice. Because the purpose of the debates is to influence people they must deal with the reality of the situation…and try to master it. Again, I think those who are perceived to have "won" the debates tend to be those who give the prepared one-liners with the most spontaneity, making them sound natural, not scripted.

These debates are VERY much driven to near worthlessness because of the idiotic media questioners (I'll exempt Russert from this characterization in case he has moderated a debate in the past). By far, the best questions come from the general public (and I mean the true general public, not the plants in the crowd). Their questions are so far superior to that of the press that the press ought to be quite embarrassed, although I doubt much embarrasses the press anymore.

quote:

---

These debates are VERY much driven to near worthlessness because of the idiotic media questioners (I'll exempt Russert from this characterization in case he has moderated a debate in the past).

---

You said it.

The OS X focus group analogy all over again. You assume you know everything, craft everything around what you ASSUME about people, then make a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I always say, the second you expect the worst from people, you get it.

Okay Dan Rather runs some 60 minutes II story with newly found documents from 32 years ago that every news outlet has been running.

Apparently typographers feel the documents are forgeries . Bad forgeries at that.

How come Rather and all the other news outlets jump at the oppurtunity to smear the President without actually checking the legitimacy of their sources such as the Barnes fellow Rather interviewed?

Rational and irrational.

Yeah, I heard about that. It seems that in their rush away from objectivity that they’ve likely been hoodwinked. Apparently the coup des gras to the document is the use of superscript and the EXACT match between that supposedly old document and a document created by a modern version of Word.

For anyone who thinks there isn’t a liberal bias in the media, just take a good look and CBS; and particularly 60 Minutes.

What was the difference between the RNC and the DNC?

One big difference were the protests in NYC.

The protest's were headed by United for Peace and Justice.

United for Peace and Justice which is headed by Leslie Cagan a known and admitted communist. You can be assured that members of United for Peace and Justice sit around praising the likes of Kim Jong Il as a hero. Castro goes without saying.

The main rallying call of the protest is to remove the coalition troops from Iraq immediately. I wonder if United for Peace and Justice and Leslie Cagan will then go to Iraq to help the Iraqi people?

This is a statement by Kiyoko McRae a representative from United for Peace and Justice as per a UPI article:

"We have entered a new phase of this war since Fallujah; the increased brutality of the attacks on civilians and resistors. The Iraqi people have a right to resistance. We are seeing unbelievable oppression of resistance in Najaf. We need to tell the rest of the world we condemn this. We need to get the hell out of Iraq now!" said McRae.

This statement shows that United for Peace and Justice is for the killing of innocent Iraqi's on a daily basis by the "resistance".

Sunday: protests in New York supporting the resistors.

Monday: 12 Nepalis nationals murdered by resistors because they were budhist.

Nice job United Peace for Justice. Go Resistors.

Where is the rationale?

Could someone please confirm that Dan Rather interviewed an 86 year old secretary to answer the questions raised in the forged documents as evidence that even though the documents are forgeries that what is in them is accurate to the story.

To what story? The story that is fabricated in the forged documents.

People actually have been getting there news from Rather for how many years now 30?

To what story? The story that is fabricated in the forged documents.

That's basically the story, Rico. For quite a while it had been that the document was bogus but the facts behind it were not.

I think it's important to have a semi-reliable and mostly objective press. I was looking for a few good quotes from the Founding Fathers on the need for an informed electorate (and the press is integral in achieving this) and ran across this:

quote:

---

There’s no excuse for an uninformed electorate! Makes sense, doesn’t it? After all, 98% of American households have at least one TV set! Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? After all, we live in a technological wonderland, in which important news just flows into more than 100,800,000 homes every single day! Seems so simple, doesn’t’ it? After all, we simply click the remote, select the network, and become fully informed voters. No muss, no fuss, no bother. Yeah, right!

Fact is: much of the American electorate is less informed than ever before in history. Fact is: on the brink of the must crucial presidential election in recent history, less truth has been told to the American public than ever before in our history. Fact is: There are those who know, and those who don’t. Fact is: There are those who know, and those who think they know. Fact is: only months before American voters go to the polls, we are facing an abysmal information divide.

---

That all sound pretty good, wouldn't you say? Wait for the rest. This is irony supreme. This is the pot calling the kettle black and then some. The essay continued…

quote:

---

In a more ordinary time, that might have been unfortunate. In a less crucial time, it might not have mattered so terribly. But in these perilous times it is absolutely frightening that so many people believe the propaganda that the Rove machine has spewed out for three and half years. It is absolutely alarming that so many people have been taken in by the repeated lies told by George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their cohorts. It is scary indeed, in this decisive time, that so many people accept so gullibly what they are told. But it is also understandable.

---

The mainstream press is overwhelming liberal and I'm quite sure the above statement would resonate with them. Physician, heal thyself.

Brad I love the questionare at the bottom.

They want you to print it out and ask people to rate what they know about each question as though there is no propaganda behind every question they are asking.

Kerry today ridiculed Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Allawi is trully standing up with his life on the line literaly everyday trying to bring democracy to Iraq.

Kerry needs to go out on his windsurfer more often.

Brad I love the questionare at the bottom.

I didn't scroll down that far. I missed that, Rico. As scary a thought as this is, I'm still trying to get inside the liberal mind, particularly the rabid liberal mind, although that distinction may be unnecessary. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for healthy, pointed, and even tinged-with-hostility debate and critiquing. But believe me. I don't get up every morning, face Washington DC (or the EIB Golden Microphone) and chant "Clinton is a liar. Democrats are all scum. Kerry is worse than Hitler." And on and on and on. But I very much get the sense that the liberal way of thinking requires that some kind of mantra be maintained lest their ideas quickly dissolve into thin air (which I think they would since many are unsupported or unsupportable by reality).

So much of this liberal stuff, including Dan Rather's death grip on a phony piece of paper, seems to be the equivalent of club house passwords and secret codes. You use them to show who you are and what you believe. It reinforces one's membership in a club.

I, on the other hand, have no problem saying that Bush is correct in taking the war to the terrorists, no matter how imperfectly. And I will also say that his drug entitlement program is the worse bit of socialist slop. In once sense it's amazing he can (and he can when all is said an done) be thought of as a conservative. But these are all criticisms based, I hope, on reason and critical thinking. God knows what the liberal substitute for this is. But I'm being coy. I've just said what it is. They tell themselves the same lies over and over, like a mantra. They make snappish little questionnaires that aren't about revealing the truth but shaming anyone who thinks differently from them and thus hoping to gain converts, not through the power of intellect, but by the power of raw bullying and propaganda.