Droppings of joy, courtesy of Bush Administration

[Blindinthedark]

Yes, I definitely would. Thanks for offering!

Consider it done And there's a show that I really want to tape for you about the "Liberal VS Conservative Media in the US". Has lots of stuff about how FOX news is just plain crazy. One of their news casters actually believed that Canada was involved in the Viet Nam war. That stupid blonde girl who sits in on the O'reily show. Nearly pissed my pants laughing.

 

[Oscuridad]

Well, it's like I posted in that thread on the influence of Christianity in U.S. politics, if the shrub and his club are serious fundies, then they're probably trying to bring about that war that is mentioned in the Bible in their effort to bring the Rapture. In fact, the shrub might even see it as his holy duty, cause he's a nutter. And even though I'm not Christian, I have to say that I agree with you: if there actually is any such thing, the shrub sure looks as though he's right, smack in the role of the antichrist.

And they say the west has no Jihad...

 

[Guest]

...One of their news casters actually believed that Canada was involved in the Viet Nam war. That stupid blonde girl who sits in on the O'reily show. Nearly pissed my pants laughing.

WHAT?!?? Yes, please tape that. Geez... just when you think you've heard it all...

Edited to add:
I have to run. Need to get back to writing. *groan* Been taking too many breaks today.

 

[Guest]

The Bush Admin. are warmongers

Prepare for Iran. I could swear it was just the other day that one of the Bushites said, "We are looking for a peaceful solution". I remember thinking, "Solution? You mean there's a problem?" And then it hit me: "Peaceful solution", in Bush-speak, means "We're going to make [another] war".

Iran is definitely next

 

[The Mutt]

I wouldn't call him "evil" but he's not all that bright and easily manipulated by his advisors. Some of his biggest supporters are, as you know, the Christian Right. They have a pretty extreme agenda that Bush is wagging his tail to.

Bush is too stupid to be evil. Now, Dick Cheney? That's pure evil.

 

[Guest]

Canadian data on change in U.S. perspective

At first I was going to put this on an environmental thread, but I really feel this is better suited for this thread. These guys make a very good point. Their data is scary, but they make a good point.


Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Whatcha Gonna Do?
By Bill McKibben
Grist

Wednesday 26 January 2005
Bill McKibben sends dispatches from a conference on winning the climate-change fight.

Middlebury, Vt. - The bad boys of American environmentalism made their case this morning, and they made it well. By the time Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus had finished presenting the data that led to their famous "Death of Environmentalism" paper, most of the large crowd gathered for the "WhatWorks?" conference here in Vermont were convinced that they had seen where the future lay for the climate-change movement - or at the very least, where it didn't.

Dressed in fashionable black and toting their laptops, the pair looked like what they are: one pollster, one PR guy. They didn't fit the cultural profile (hiking boots, ratty sweater) of Vermont
environmentalists, and they'd pissed off a good many in the crowd with their paper's no-holds-barred attack on the big enviro groups. But when they plugged in their PowerPoint, they had the goods. In fact, the data they presented were even more striking than the argument they'd made in their paper.

he statistics came from a data set on North American values collected by a Canadian polling firm over the last decade - and what they showed was that, quite simply, this country is deeply conservative and getting more so. The battle of values has been won, at least for the moment, and not by us. For instance, what percentage of American do you suppose would agree with the following statement: "The father of the family must be a master in his own house"?
1992: 42 percent of Americans agreed
1996: 44 percent
2000: 49 percent
2004: 52 percent

Across 105 different values - everything from "concern for appearance" and "joy of consumption" to "acceptance of violence" and
"xenophobia" - they found that over the past decade, an already generally conservative country has been making a beeline in the direction of status and security. A decade ago, 30 percent of Americans thought men were naturally superior; now the number is 40 percent. No matter what you ask, be it whether "to relieve tension a little
violence is OK," or "it's important that people admire things I own," the numbers show a nation almost inconceivable to your average
card-carrying Sierra Clubber. A decade ago, 17 percent of Americans thought that pollution was necessary to preserve jobs; now the number is 29 percent. In 1992, 66 percent of Americans said they "discussed
local problems with people in my community," a number that has since
dropped to 39 percent.

In other words, the sweet notion that we still live in a world where most people more or less agree with a worldview congenial to environmentalism - and particularly to the difficult changes required to deal with global warming - is simply wrong. Dorothy, we're not in 1978 anymore. Or, as Nordhaus and Shellenberger put it, there's been a
"Fundamental Political Realignment."

In the face of that alignment, they insist, it's pretty pointless to keep doing what you've been doing. Instead, the answer is to look at the core values that progressives share, and then, more importantly, at what they label "bridge values," areas of agreement that "both our people and the people we need to reach could potentially share."They were less specific about what those might be, though they returned several times to their advocacy of the Apollo Project, the effort to address global warming not by talking about carbon but by talking about jobs and communities. Even so, they were unwilling to wax very
optimistic. "I'm not convinced it's a likely outcome that we'll take back the government any time soon," said Nordhaus. Realigning politics, realistically, might take 20 years.

It's true that, as in their paper, the pair constructed a few straw men: The Sierra Club chapter in Boulder, Colo., can't really be obsessed over the question of whether or not dogs should share hiking trails with people. (Can it?) But whenever they returned to the sheer weight of data on how Americans see the world, one could sense the
audience, almost against its will, agreeing. "One of the things we've
noticed is that a Darwinistic economy seems to beget Darwinistic values," said Shellenberger. "There's a drift toward sexism, ecological fatalism, patriarchy." Well, yes - if we're honest, that seems to describe the America we live in right now.

"We're asking you to join us in the deconstruction of environmentalism, not out of a sense of nihilism," said Nordhaus, "but so that we can come together to reconstruct an alternative vision."

There's something almost exhilarating in knowing how bad a
situation really is. Spared the false hope that maybe things will get better on their own, at least you have permission to think expansively about what to do differently.

 

[dracorix]

bill mckibbin article

Hi, Owera,

Your posts are consistently among the most interesting I've seen on Lit. Thanks. You seem to know a lot about a wide range of things & aren't afraid to say them.

In 1992, 66 percent of Americans said they "discussed
local problems with people in my community," a number that has since dropped to 39 percent.

I think that particular figure is the most disturbing... and probably the cause of all the others. The less we communicate with our neighbors, the more we're relying on the commerical media for our "facts," and in practice that usually means TV. Most people know how distorted TV's coverage of almost everything is, esp. local issues, which barely get discussed unless they're crime related or something "fluffy" like some animal doing something unusual.

Before I continue, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to say I write for my area's daily paper & have despised most TV news for years...

Major subjects get next to no coverage on TV -- no analysis of development issues, social trends (other than fashion "news"), poverty, how the world really thinks about us, alternative solutions, corporate control/consolidation, etc. The print media does a much better job of addressing these things, but not as good a job as we should.

In part, I think papers avoid some of these issues b/c they require a lot of time to work with (and therefore $$$, always a touchy issue at a corporation) and they are hard to make "sexy." People need to know about them, but translating complexities into digestible concepts isn't always easy, esp. when you've got just 20" of column space to work with.

With that tendency, and the fact that local newspapers have been declining in number for years, there are fewer outlets for communities to talk within themselves. The internet helps for big-picture issues to some degree, but that tends to create huge semi-anonymous communities like Lit, not connections between people who live down the street & don't know each other's names.

Those who don't know their neighbors are much more inclined to misunderstand them and even become bigoted toward them, and the tighter the cocoon is wrapped, the more isolated people are and the more their views get distorted. It's a vicious circle partly caused by technology.

 

[SensualMale]

And they say the west has no Jihad...

Oh they do It's called evangelism in some circles

 

[SensualMale]

Yaneratie. Okni'se (or however it's spelled. I suck at trying to write in Mohawk)

Ok! Stop sucking at that and c'mere

 

[Guest]

Re: bill mckibbin article

Hi, Owera,

Your posts are consistently among the most interesting I've seen on Lit. Thanks. You seem to know a lot about a wide range of things & aren't afraid to say them.



I think that particular figure is the most disturbing... and probably the cause of all the others. The less we communicate with our neighbors, the more we're relying on the commerical media for our "facts," and in practice that usually means TV. Most people know how distorted TV's coverage of almost everything is, esp. local issues, which barely get discussed unless they're crime related or something "fluffy" like some animal doing something unusual.

Before I continue, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to say I write for my area's daily paper & have despised most TV news for years...

Major subjects get next to no coverage on TV -- no analysis of development issues, social trends (other than fashion "news"), poverty, how the world really thinks about us, alternative solutions, corporate control/consolidation, etc. The print media does a much better job of addressing these things, but not as good a job as we should.

In part, I think papers avoid some of these issues b/c they require a lot of time to work with (and therefore $$$, always a touchy issue at a corporation) and they are hard to make "sexy." People need to know about them, but translating complexities into digestible concepts isn't always easy, esp. when you've got just 20" of column space to work with.

With that tendency, and the fact that local newspapers have been declining in number for years, there are fewer outlets for communities to talk within themselves. The internet helps for big-picture issues to some degree, but that tends to create huge semi-anonymous communities like Lit, not connections between people who live down the street & don't know each other's names.

Those who don't know their neighbors are much more inclined to misunderstand them and even become bigoted toward them, and the tighter the cocoon is wrapped, the more isolated people are and the more their views get distorted. It's a vicious circle partly caused by technology. [/B]

Hi,

Thank you for posting. I think you hit the nail on the head: the local news is filled with stories that are either terribly distorted, or which don't even qualify as news (I'm thinking about your example of some fluffy animal doing something unusual, or the example I saw on my own local news last night, which was about the benefits of going to a good nail salon--and no, I'm not kidding).

But I think you said something VERY important when you wrote, "Those who don't know their neighbors are much more inclined to misunderstand them and even become bigoted toward them, and the tighter the cocoon is wrapped, the more isolated people are and the more their views get distorted. It's a vicious circle partly caused by technology." I definitely agree; there is a lot of self-chosen isolation here in the U.S., especially in the northeastern U.S. Having lived in other places and other cultures, I can say that U.S. culture tends to encourage peopel to be afraid of their neighbors. For example, where I'm living right now it is quite possible (and the norm) to NOT know your next door neighbors, even if you've been living next to them for years. Why? Because there's this tacit "knowledge" that one is not supposed to approach them, ask them what their names are, talk to them, etc. That might be an invasion of their privacy. And if you do say "hi" in passing they tend to look at you like you're someone to avoid, because you've broken the rule that everyone in my area "understands"--which is that you don't talk to people you don't know. And you don't get to know people unless they are part of your biological family, or are coworkers. So to use your example (which fits perfectly in my neighborhood), the people living around me don't know each other's names (unless they check the mailboxes) and they don't talk to each other. Because they don't know each other they are naturally more suspicious of each other. But that suspicion keeps them at a distance, so they have no desire to get to know each other, etc. It's to the point (in my area) where people won't even look at each other when they pass by. That might be considered too threatening. It's totally nuts. And you're right: this is a very dangerous atmosphere because it causes people to retreat into their own homes, to isolate themselves from other community members, and to rely on the mainstream media for information about what is going on around them.

 

[Guest]

Patriot Act II?

The war on terror becomes an excuse to create a police state

This is a very interesting link. I think the Bush administration has WAY overextended its boundaries in what it is doing in the name of "protecting" us and "the rest of the world". How far do we allow it to go?

Just the other day I read an article on Yahoo News about the U.S. government getting ready to wreak ecological havoc near San Diego. Seems someone decided that it is necessary, as part of the "war on terror" to fortify the U.S. Mexico border between Tijuana and San Diego, to "keep out potential terrorists". So the government is planning to dig up a mountain from somewhere else in California, and dump it along the border to make a huge earthen mount alone an area that, according to the article, currently contains some sort of park or preservation area for several endangered species. Lots of people are upset about it, but the government insists it must do this to keep out terrorists. Now, the fact that most people coming across the border from Mexico are Mexicans looking for labor, and the occasional drug smugglers (which are encouraged by people in the U.S. who buy their goods and arrange for their passings) I somehow doubt terrorism, via Tijuana/San Diego is anything to be concerned about. But hey, according to the gov't it's perfectly justifiable to put up this display of exclusivity along a 3 and a half mile stretch of the border, because it MIGHT keep out terrorists. Three and a half miles... to keep out terrorists... who supposedly come in through Mexico... HUH?!? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._latimes/efforttoreinforcebordercreatesdivide

Again, how far do we let this type of thing go?

 

[The Mutt]

Re: Patriot Act II?

The war on terror becomes an excuse to create a police state

This is a very interesting link. I think the Bush administration has WAY overextended its boundaries in what it is doing in the name of "protecting" us and "the rest of the world". How far do we allow it to go?

Just the other day I read an article on Yahoo News about the U.S. government getting ready to wreak ecological havoc near San Diego. Seems someone decided that it is necessary, as part of the "war on terror" to fortify the U.S. Mexico border between Tijuana and San Diego, to "keep out potential terrorists". So the government is planning to dig up a mountain from somewhere else in California, and dump it along the border to make a huge earthen mount alone an area that, according to the article, currently contains some sort of park or preservation area for several endangered species. Lots of people are upset about it, but the government insists it must do this to keep out terrorists. Now, the fact that most people coming across the border from Mexico are Mexicans looking for labor, and the occasional drug smugglers (which are encouraged by people in the U.S. who buy their goods and arrange for their passings) I somehow doubt terrorism, via Tijuana/San Diego is anything to be concerned about. But hey, according to the gov't it's perfectly justifiable to put up this display of exclusivity along a 3 and a half mile stretch of the border, because it MIGHT keep out terrorists. Three and a half miles... to keep out terrorists... who supposedly come in through Mexico... HUH?!? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._latimes/efforttoreinforcebordercreatesdivide

Again, how far do we let this type of thing go?

All arguments about closing the border aside, does moving a bunch of dirt around seem like a sensible way of doing it? Sounds like a fat payday for some crony in the earth-moving business.
And it would never occur to them, I'm sure, to hire Mexican companies to do the work. Good jobs in Mexico will do more to stop illegal immigration than any new hill to cross. Greater manpower and less corruption will do a lot more to stop smuggling than filling in any canyon.

But why worry about the enviroment? The Rapture is a'coming!

 

[WARMACH1NE]

Re: Canadian data on change in U.S. perspective

he statistics came from a data set on North American values collected by a Canadian polling firm over the last decade - and what they showed was that, quite simply, this country is deeply conservative and getting more so. The battle of values has been won, at least for the moment, and not by us. For instance, what percentage of American do you suppose would agree with the following statement: "The father of the family must be a master in his own house"?
1992: 42 percent of Americans agreed
1996: 44 percent
2000: 49 percent
2004: 52 percent

My father had a plaque on the kitchen wall that read:

I am the master of this house, and I have my wife's permission to say so.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Re: Canadian data on change in U.S. perspective

At first I was going to put this on an environmental thread, but I really feel this is better suited for this thread. These guys make a very good point. Their data is scary, but they make a good point...

Hey O, did they ever manage to poll anyone outside the US about these things?

I hope the rest of the world is smarter than this...

 

[Oscuridad]

Oh they do It's called evangelism in some circles

Oh the irony, no?

 

[Oscuridad]

Re: Re: Canadian data on change in U.S. perspective

Hey O, did they ever manage to poll anyone outside the US about these things?

I hope the rest of the world is smarter than this...

I have no information at my fingertips except the bleak prediction of one Brit that the US will not see environmental sense until 2020. I shall have to dig deeper.

But I expect I'm not the O you're looking for.

I can go about my business.

Move along.

 

[landslider]

There are only 11 million to 14 million illegal aliens wandering around the country.

In an era of terrorism, what could be the problem with that?

 

[Oscuridad]

Thinking that they can be stopped by 3 or so odd miles of higher dirt.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

There are only 11 million to 14 million illegal aliens wandering around the country.

In an era of terrorism, what could be the problem with that?

Neo cons brag about hiring illegals to displace union workers. And then they scream about wanting machine gun turrets at the borders...

 

[Oscuridad]

Neo cons brag about hiring illegals to displace union workers. And then they scream about wanting machine gun turrets at the borders...

Careful.

You said "neo-con".

He'll accuse you of cluelessness.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Canadian data on change in U.S. perspective

Hey O, did they ever manage to poll anyone outside the US about these things?

I hope the rest of the world is smarter than this...

That's a really good question. A comparison study would be good. Not that I think the rest of the world would be leaning towards conservatism like the U.S. is, but it would be good to have something to compare to the U.S. data. As far as I know, they did not survey any other countries. But, I could be wrong about that. The reason I don't know is because the data they were presenting was for a conference in the U.S., and about the U.S. So it's possible they only chose to talk about U.S. data for that reason. What I should do is try to search for their names and see if they have anything else published in journals. Actually, I think I'll go do that now. I'm rather curious.

Thanks for the good idea, LT.

 

[jhuson]

.
We should have a CannonBall Run for the presidency instead of elections.

LOL. That is classic.

Welcome to NASCAR NATION, the Carnie Electorate.

 

[Guest]

There are only 11 million to 14 million illegal aliens wandering around the country.

In an era of terrorism, what could be the problem with that?

There is no problem with that. The illegal PEOPLE to whom you're referring are NOT terrorists, and have never shown any interest in being terrorists. Don't blur the issues.

Second, those illegal people are actually benefitting the U.S. economy by working for crap wages, paying taxes they shouldn't even be paying (because they have taxes automatically deducted from their pay but they make so little they are eligible to get that money back, except they aren't legal so they can't file the tax return papers to get the money back--a win/win for the U.S. gov't), those people buy things while they're here, so part of what they earn goes back into the U.S. economy, and the U.S. gets lots of cheap labor, which is great for large businesses.

What could be the problem? Besides serious exploitation of foreigners, there is no problem. What do illegal people have to do with terrorism? Not much. Think about about it this way: the people who destroyed the towers are the only terrorists we've had problems with in a long time. And they did not come via the border with Mexico, nor did they come without some sort of paperwork. Were they here illegally? If not, then mentioned illegal people in the same breath with terrorism is nothing more than being xenophobic. If so, then "homeland security" better be more competent at checking identification in the Eastern part of the U.S.

 

[Guest]

Thinking that they can be stopped by 3 or so odd miles of higher dirt.

You'd think he would've understood that, but hey... three miles must be a big fucking deal. At least, the gov't thinks so

Edited to add: Big enough of a deal that it would create an ecological disaster to do it. But hey, who cares about the sustainability of the earth when there is money to be made and appearances to be upkept? *grr*

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Canadian data on change in U.S. perspective

That's a really good question. A comparison study would be good. Not that I think the rest of the world would be leaning towards conservatism like the U.S. is, but it would be good to have something to compare to the U.S. data. As far as I know, they did not survey any other countries. But, I could be wrong about that. The reason I don't know is because the data they were presenting was for a conference in the U.S., and about the U.S. So it's possible they only chose to talk about U.S. data for that reason. What I should do is try to search for their names and see if they have anything else published in journals. Actually, I think I'll go do that now. I'm rather curious.

Thanks for the good idea, LT.

Okay, I did some searching, and so far I'm not finding any data from Schellenberger on values from countries other than the U.S. However, the article I posted says the data comes from "a data set on North American values collected by a Canadian polling firm". So the route to go would be to find out WHICH Canadian polling firm, because I'm assuming when they say "North American" they mean Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. So I'm assuming the polling firm has more data. Now I have to figure out which polling firm