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

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

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

  http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=208

> >   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 http://www.instapundit.com
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
> > article.
> > 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 
http://www.eac.gov) 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:

 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805068848/


 Pierce