Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,295
|
Post by Luca on Oct 25, 2019 11:33:53 GMT -8
I have followed politics in the US reasonably well since the close of the Vietnam War. There’s something about the risk of being drafted and shipped to some Godforsaken jungle on the opposite end of the earth that tends to focus your attention. I’m not as well versed or as familiar with day-to-day politics as most of you guys, but I believe some generalizations are valid.
1). The US since the Civil War has been a stable democracy.
2). Despite our differences, most of us want a peaceful and tolerant environment and a rule of law even if we don’t always agree with the individual laws.
3). Americans have usually seen the wisdom in compromise on issues that do not involve clear right/wrong.
4). These are extraordinarily turbulent times, even though I do not believe -as some have said - that we are anywhere near a national division or revision.
Turbulent times come and go but there is something unique about this one, at least in my memory. I had an interesting discussion a few months ago with Conor Friedersdorf, who is a well regarded centrist national political commentator. He pointed out that Donald Trump is a one-offer, i.e., there is no one coming up behind him when he departs who is going to carry on with his public demeanor or bull-in-a-China shop approach to so many issues. He is not going to blaze a trail for others to follow, although others will persist in his policy goals. Future American presidents are not going to behave like him. A return to public decency in the White House will occur.
So he is a part of a triad of unique changes in the political environment. But his contribution will be brief, no more than another 5 years max. What has changed and is not going to improve is the brazen lack of integrity in the media and the widespread loss of journalistic standards and ethics. We can't vote on this, so it's likely going to stay with us and it’s very bad news. The last of the triad is the loss of any attempt at even the appearance of honesty and integrity in so many national politicians. You may believe that "the swamp" has always been this ugly, but it has not. Remember Watergate. Honor seems to have become a quaint relic of former times.
Now that the Rubicon has been crossed in terms of media and political standards, there is no going back. It’s kind of like parochial HSFB when I think about it, to use a bathetic (look it up) analogy. The onus associated with poor journalism and dishonest public speech has very much eroded. I don’t know where these tendencies are going to lead but it’s not into the "broad, uplit sunlands” dreamed of by Winston………………………………………Luca
|
|
duke
Statesman
Posts: 681
|
Post by duke on Oct 25, 2019 11:51:36 GMT -8
Very well said Luca. With the Left in firm control of our educational systems, major newspapers, most of the MSM media outlets except for talk radio and Fox News, Hollywood and social media such as Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, I don't see an easy way to return to a more civil union. Hopefully, these things have a way to swing back and forth like a pendulum, and we're close to hitting bottom and it will start moving in the opposite direction.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,734
|
Post by MDDad on Oct 25, 2019 12:03:55 GMT -8
Well said, Luca. I agree with you that the clownish tornado that is Donald Trump is a one-time anomaly, and that there are no clownish tornadoes anything like him coming along in his wake. Thank God for that.
But I sense a contradiction in your other assessments. On one hand you say you don't believe we are "anywhere near a national division or revision". Yet on the other hand, you believe a "Rubicon has been crossed" and that the current lack of integrity and ethics in journalism and the media, and the loss of honesty and integrity among our politicians "is not going to improve" and "there is no going back".
Should we infer from that that we will be permanently stuck in this septic purgatory where neither our national leaders, nor our sources of information, can be believed or trusted, and where all factual truth is subjective? That is a very bleak and discouraging future if it turns out to be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 25, 2019 12:59:34 GMT -8
Nice post Luca, I agree with all four of your general points.
However, I don't agree with the following:
What has changed and is not going to improve is the brazen lack of integrity in the media and the widespread loss of journalistic standards and ethics.
I see no evidence of a "widespread loss of journalistic standards and integrity". I think this is a basic tenet of conservatism these days however. It's been repeated so often it's taken on a life of its own. But the funny thing is it's never explained. When did this happen? Was it a sudden event or did it happen over time? Was there a cause? Why would professional journalists abandon their integrity?
I think this idea came about around the same time FOX News came about. We no longer have "news". Now we have conservative news, and the dreaded "Main Stream Media". Why? I suspect it's because someone wanted to sell people something. If you want to know who lies to you it's almost always a salesman.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,255
|
Post by RSM789 on Oct 25, 2019 13:21:26 GMT -8
...I see no evidence of a "widespread loss of journalistic standards and integrity"... When something is misplaced or lost in our home, my wife is much more effective than I at finding them. It isn't because of a special skill or some XMan trait she has evolved, but rather a simple process of what happens when she looks. It is her personality, her nature, to not to expect things to be in particular places. When she looks, she is seeing what is in front of her. I on the other hand, come loaded with preconceived ideas. There would be no way that item A would be in location X because it makes no sense that it would be there. Therefore, I see what my mind expects to see, not what is really there. I could list hundreds of examples to contradict your belief, but it would be boring and most likely change neither of our minds. I thought my story might be a better example for you to consider as to why you see no evidence of something that a majority of the nation declares is true. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,295
|
Post by Luca on Oct 25, 2019 16:49:39 GMT -8
But I sense a contradiction in your other assessments. On one hand you say you don't believe we are "anywhere near a national division or revision". Yet on the other hand, you believe a "Rubicon has been crossed" and that the current lack of integrity and ethics in journalism and the media, and the loss of honesty and integrity among our politicians "is not going to improve" and "there is no going back". Should we infer from that that we will be permanently stuck in this septic purgatory where neither our national leaders, nor our sources of information, can be believed or trusted, and where all factual truth is subjective? That is a very bleak and discouraging future if it turns out to be true. I don't know what would compel the news media to start sticking to conventional journalism rather than the journalistic activism we have today. We can vote on a president, but we cannot vote on the media if they refuse to police themselves. I don't see any "Great Awakening" on the horizon as happened in the US in the 1830s. And as long as there are so many polarized and ideologically rigid voters concentrated in certain areas they're going to elect whatever charlatan most appeals to them. There isn't any force or movement compelling things in the other direction. It's like there're no adults in the room. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,295
|
Post by Luca on Oct 25, 2019 17:05:07 GMT -8
Nice post Luca, I agree with all four of your general points. However, I don't agree with the following: What has changed and is not going to improve is the brazen lack of integrity in the media and the widespread loss of journalistic standards and ethics.I see no evidence of a "widespread loss of journalistic standards and integrity". I think this is a basic tenet of conservatism these days however. It's been repeated so often it's taken on a life of its own. But the funny thing is it's never explained. When did this happen? Was it a sudden event or did it happen over time? Was there a cause? Why would professional journalists abandon their integrity? I think this idea came about around the same time FOX News came about. We no longer have "news". Now we have conservative news, and the dreaded "Main Stream Media". Why? I suspect it's because someone wanted to sell people something. If you want to know who lies to you it's almost always a salesman. I don't know how old you are so I don't know how long you've been looking. But I remember as a kid being so puzzled at the Los Angeles Times constantly denigrating Governor Ronald Reagan and trying to convince readers that he was the "amiable dunce" that they would have you believe. They were so far off the mark because they were ideological. I remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for California governor and the Los Angeles Times uncovered a story about an affair he had had. They held onto it for months until just a few days before the election and then broke the story in a deliberate attempt to influence the election in the way they wanted. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. It didn't just start recently but it has significantly advanced in the last several years. If you think it was all triggered by Fox News then I suspect you haven't been watching for very long. Fox News is slanted, but no more than is the New York Times or MNBC or many other outlets I could name. I remember glancing at a Vanity Fair for the first time on an airplane about a year ago and was incredulous at the partisan silliness I was reading. Who writes this nonsense? Why? There are likely plenty of reasons. I think it was Bick who stated some time ago that the news media has become just a business like any other - give the folks what they want. I was too naïve to believe that a year ago but I think he's probably right. There don't seem to be the same ethical constraints at the top and the laxity filters down through an entire news organization. It's a new generation of professional journalists and their philosophy has "evolved". Too often they consider themselves moulders and guides of public opinion rather than reporters.......................Luca |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 26, 2019 3:21:34 GMT -8
I suspect we're not far apart in age.
I agree, but again, when did it start and why? Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America...hard to imagine a newsman with that title today.
I don't know if FOX started it or just cashed in on it, but I think they are part of the problem.
I think that's the meat of the problem. News companies want to compete with one another and they feel they need a different product to sell so we get different "versions' of the truth to digest. Good for them, bad for us.
think the saddest thing about this whole situation is that we don't have an easy way out. Public Broadcasting is relatively neutral mostly because they aren't selling advertising, but the right-wing media machine won't allow them to be considered anything but part of the hated MSM.
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,266
|
Post by SK80 on Oct 26, 2019 6:47:42 GMT -8
Because “public” broadcasting sympathizes mostly with positions Democrats embrace I think it’s why some can only go as far as say they are “relatively neutral” not to say that’s a bad thing in the least. I use to listen often to NPR but they continued down a passive touchy feely road I couldn’t find much perspective from different angles anymore.
I accept where they (NPR) stand and listen on occasion. I think we all know where each media outlet stands and I often wonder if that is exactly the problem. Imagine living in a time (Conkrite) when you could possibly assume or only guess what side of the spectrum a journalist was coming from. Imagine that where you get the story, the facts and you do the thinking, concluding. Today almost every journalist has made the conclusion for you and often so prematurely it’s absurd.
I have little sympathy for the media and the mess they find themselves in.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,734
|
Post by MDDad on Oct 26, 2019 8:37:28 GMT -8
First, if you want to see slanted or one-sided reporting, read almost any American newspaper in the months leading up to the 1860 presidential election. So media bias has been with us for a very long time.
Bick, Luca and VP have all touched on why. News is a business, and businesses are in it to make money. Today, the way to make money is to sell more papers, garner more TV viewers, or induce more website clicks. Much of the American public have been dumbed down to crave sensationalism, conflict and controversy more than the truth, and the media are profiting from that addiction by feeding it.
The way news was reported by Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite would get swamped in ratings and sales in today's America because it didn't titillate or excite.
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,850
|
Post by Bick on Oct 26, 2019 14:07:21 GMT -8
Well said, Luca. I agree with you that the clownish tornado that is Donald Trump is a one-time anomaly, and that there are no clownish tornadoes anything like him coming along in his wake. Thank God for that. But I sense a contradiction in your other assessments. On one hand you say you don't believe we are "anywhere near a national division or revision". Yet on the other hand, you believe a "Rubicon has been crossed" and that the current lack of integrity and ethics in journalism and the media, and the loss of honesty and integrity among our politicians "is not going to improve" and "there is no going back". Should we infer from that that we will be permanently stuck in this septic purgatory where neither our national leaders, nor our sources of information, can be believed or trusted, and where all factual truth is subjective? That is a very bleak and discouraging future if it turns out to be true. Our politicians are delivering the same thing that's being demanded of our media outlets - simple-minded entertainment. They only exist if they give us what we (collectively) want. The only way that will change, is if more demand something different. Simple answer, getting there - not so much, but it IS possible. Not likely to happen in our lifetime, but engaging in constructive debate like this, showing our kids and grandkids how to think critically, and seeking to understand before being understood (aka walking in someone else's moccasins) will get us there. Damn, Luca...bathetic? Let that be a lesson to y'all. Keep yer eyes and ears open, and mouth shut - you'll learn a helluva lot more. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Oct 27, 2019 10:09:12 GMT -8
Well said, Luca. I agree with you that the clownish tornado that is Donald Trump is a one-time anomaly, and that there are no clownish tornadoes anything like him coming along in his wake. Thank God for that. But I sense a contradiction in your other assessments. On one hand you say you don't believe we are "anywhere near a national division or revision". Yet on the other hand, you believe a "Rubicon has been crossed" and that the current lack of integrity and ethics in journalism and the media, and the loss of honesty and integrity among our politicians "is not going to improve" and "there is no going back". Should we infer from that that we will be permanently stuck in this septic purgatory where neither our national leaders, nor our sources of information, can be believed or trusted, and where all factual truth is subjective? That is a very bleak and discouraging future if it turns out to be true. I’m taking a slightly different tac on this. i find it interesting that, as powerful and virtually omnipresent as the U.S, has been on the world stage, I find NOWHERE in Scripture, and I’m talking specifically about prophecies extolling the coming “end times” to which I believe we are close, that the U.S. is not mentioned or even alluded to. But I also see there are some different reasons... or could be different reasons for this: - We are nowhere close to the end of time, so there is plenty of time for the U.S. might to decline;
- Virtually all end time prophecies focus on Israel and the Middle East and other areas, AS they impact Israel. Possibly we aren’t mentioned because we don’t have that great an impact (or any impact); or
- We are close to the end of time and we are witnessing our decline right now.
There might be other explanations that I’m just not thinking if at the moment.
as to Luca’s point about there being no “Red Tornado” succession plan, no, there’s not, but I don’t care. Trump came along at ... and helped create just the right niche he could fill. He has been transparent about what he intends to do and he is going about it as best he can given the vitriol thrown his way every day. I’m not sure we’ll need (and definitely not want) a successor cut from that same bolt of cloth. I figure he’ll come to a point where he’s throwing grapefruits (to borrow an analogy from Major League)... at some point, Lou Brown will walk up to him on the mound and tell him, “You've pitched a helluva game. Why don’t you let us get this last guy out for ya.” At that point, conceivably won’t need his protégée... probably need a Gerald Ford, to just let the Nation heal.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,734
|
Post by MDDad on Oct 27, 2019 10:45:19 GMT -8
As a history (and biology) major in my undergrad program, I've had countless discussions about nations that rise to positions of global power or empire, and why they all eventually decline. The two unbreakable rules are (a) that they do all eventually decline, and (b) that the periods of ascendancy have grown shorter and shorter over time.
Regarding the second rule, we have been the world's preeminent power since at least 1918, and some would say 1899. That is a very long period of time in today's rapidly changing world, and history would tell us that it's past time for a new top dog - almost certainly China.
And as for rule one, it's a sad fact of history that about as many world powers decline because of internal rather than external factors. In other words, for various and sundry reasons, they begin to weaken and rot from the inside out rather than being "conquered" or in some other way overcome by a newer rival. I think many might argue that for America, the internal rotting process has already begun.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 5, 2021 7:59:12 GMT -8
This might fit here...
I don't know if you guys have Meijers Grocery Store out there, but they're big here in the Midwest (like a Walmart, and ours was built less than a block from one of our walmarts)
So I went to Meijers yesterday to pick up a few things and only had a $100 bill on me. I knew better than to try to use it at the self-service check-out, so I stood in line waiting for a cashiers (very few of which are open at any given time).
She rang up my items, which came to just under $30 and this is where it got embarrassing:
I gave her the $100 bill and she looked confused, but then asked me if I wanted change (🤔..."yes, I do want the change").
she hesitated again, but suddenly remembered she could put my payment amount into the register, so she did and the cash drawer popped open.
REMEMBER, the cash register display is now telling her how much money to give me back. it said $73 and xx¢, but there was a problem: She only had 2-20's... and she didn't apparently 2X10=20, and she had a whole drawer full of tens. 🤷🏻♂️
She fiddled with the change slots, apparently befuddled by how to come up with the proper amount, then took the two 20's out, TOOK the (wrong) amount of ones out, which then confused her about the number of 10's to give me... she finally settled on four and if you've been following along, you realize she is now at least $10 over my change amount.
INSTEAD of counting my change back to me, obviously just wanting me to be gone, she handed the stack of bills back in a lump sum and pickled the change on top.
I counted it while I stood there and gave her back $11.
Unfortunately, her day wasn't getting any easier: As I walked away, I heard her tell the next lady in line "I can't change that, that guy took all my 20's." Looking back, I saw the lady was offering her a 20.
Wouldn't that qualify as one of the bigger dangers facing us today? College aged kids incapable of counting currency?
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,734
|
Post by MDDad on May 5, 2021 9:10:43 GMT -8
Wouldn't that qualify as one of the bigger dangers facing us today? College aged kids incapable of counting currency?They can count it. They just can't do subtraction. When you major in ethnic studies or gender appreciation, that's to be expected. |
|
