[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

From: Pierce T . Wetter III
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:14:32 -0700

Pierce T.Wetter III wrote:
[*] I did, even though I despise GWB and his cronies, and think they
    causing more harm to the U.S./world than any president I can
    (yes, more than Reagan).

  It's really been discouraging me lately the level of hatred I see in
US politics lately. It started building in the Reagan era, wasn't too
bad in the elder Bush era, built up again in the Clinton era, and has
peaked (so far) in the Bush era.

Are you aware that the living conditions of people are worsening,
and that the rich/pover disbalance grows?

  In .ru or .us?

  Anyways, I'm talking about my observation that the level of discourse
has gone down recently, and now you're talking about economics.

Anyways, here's an interesting article on what we're seeing in the US right now:

  I don't blame people for being upset with any of those
presidents. Most people get their information from the media, and if
you watch the media, you'll find lots of reasons to hate any of those
people if you care strongly about almost any issue. Its important to
realize that the media doesn't distinguish between rhetoric and fact,
and that their goal is not to inform the public, but to gather viewers.

You assume that media has an almost complete control over people thoughts.

 No, I merely assume that most people get their information from one
of the mass media outlets (television,print, newsmagazines). I wish more
people got their information from places like
which promotes a wider range of views.

While it (the media) would have liked it, and while it`s largely true,
people still have to find food, housing, work, culture, education, medicare etc.

The way how these needs are satisfied does have it`s fair share of
defining their opinion wrt the current govt.

Sure, in the US if the economy is doing well, the President tends to get reelected. However, the economy is strongly influenced by peoples opinions and those opinions are strongly influenced by the media.

  Presidents in general tend to be more centrist then left or right
wing. Reagan was effectively pro-choice, Clinton was pro business, and
so on. But if you listen to the media, they'll quote people who said
Reagan was a Nazi, and other people who say Clinton was a Communist.

  Neither is a true, Clinton and Reagan probably had more in common
then they were different. But if you're speaking to a rally of
Democratic or Republican supporters, you'd never say "ah, that
opposition really isn't that bad, they're ok guys." No, you demonize
them. Which is ok at a Democratic or Republican rally. But then the
media starts reporting that rhetoric as if its true.

What you say here might be more or less true, but is fairly irrelevant.

The president is only a tip of the iceberg, unless he`s got an individuality strong enough to actually radiate his will all the way through the govt machine.

Otherwise you have to get a broader view -- namely you have to stop
talking about the _president_ and start talking about _presidency_.

I.e. the circles have power upon president, and circles which have power
upon those circles.

If you don`t do that -- and to do that you need to perform some research --
you won`t get a realistic picture on what`s happening nowadays.

Er, ok. I'll see if I can't make a specific point, since I could argue that you're making my point for me, because the players often don't change much between administrations.

In the literature my wife gets, Bush often gets blamed for the US withholding funding from some UN birth control initiative. So he's blamed for being an anti-woman nut who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant in poor countries (that's practically a quote).

Bush actually had very little to do with it. During the Clinton administration, Congress passed a bill forbidding the US to give any sort of birth control aid to countries that forced women to have unwanted abortions. i.e. China, which actually does that and which both sides of the abortion debate in this country can agree is just, well, evil.

Both Clinton and Bush have tried to work with the UN to fund "everything but China", given that China isn't going to change its policy anytime soon. Clinton got a pass on this by the left, because they felt he was "their guy and doing the best he could". Bush gets vilified.

So people who didn't like Bush get yet another reason to hate Bush, because most Americans think that poor countries need more birth control, not less. Yet Bush had very little to do about it.

  This spiral of hatred bums me out. So now Tom posts a link to this
Which is so typical of the media hysteria machine. Let's fisk it.

Tom, i presume, did some research -- and was scared. Unlike you.

No, Tom didn't do any research beyond reading the CNN article. He jumped to the conclusion that it was DHS, when actually it was a bipartisan commission with members who have some pretty impressive history in fostering free elections in other countries, leading voter registration drives, getting people to vote etc.

[ some long and boring story dissection skipped ]

  The thing is, this is so typical of the media, that they feel they
have to spin controversy out of everything. This is so
not-news. Fascism is not gaining ground in the US. Tone down the

Um? How does this follows?

Because accusing the people on the EAC (go read their resumes on of being fascists is like accusing a cowboy of being lazy.

Did you have read snippets from Samuel Huntington? I guess no.

  Ugh. Not Samuel Huntington and that clash of civilizations nonsense.

How come whenever I read something from some university professor who doesn't have a clue, he's always a professor of "International Relations" or "Middle Eastern Studies"? It really bugs me that people in other countries always insist on reading our nut jobs instead of our more thoughtful writers.

Thinking that arabs are somehow "different" and therefore might not want democracy just pisses me off. Those are the same idiots that used to argue that Russians weren't capable of democracy. Do you agree with them?

 Here's a much better book, and its history, not opinion:


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]