PACO:
> Most Americans view the Palestinian conflict as one
> with a clearly more moral side. It isn't the side
> intentionally blowing up innocent teenagers, it is the
> side that is willing to donate the organs of the
> murdered teenagers to needing recipients regardless of
> nationality. I doubt most Americans view it as Black or
> White, but they certainly understand which side is
> trying (frequently poorly) to achieve peace, and which
> side is trying (again poorly) to exterminate the other.
NATE:
No, I disagree. This is another situation in which there is NO moral high ground. Violence is plentiful on all sides, and I don't think there are many in that conflict who wouldn't rather have peace.
> DAVOR:
> Shouldn't the discussion be focused at why an
> intellectual pattern(democracy) has degenerated into
> Bush?(ok a bit rigid, I'll admit) or how well Bush
> upholds the fundamental values of the free democratic
> world?
>
> PACO:
> Yes.
NATE:
No. Not focused on it. Inclusive of it. To focus only on that is simply because this is a MOQ discussion site is like tunnel vision; it's intellectually constricting and is one of many things which can create static (or dogmatic or whatever) thought patterns.
> ERIN:
> Questioning Bush's intelligence is not a
> conservative/liberal issue to me. I just listen to
> stupid comments over and over and come to a conclusion.
>
> PACO:
> The issue is to try to separate each candidate's
> ability to lead from absurd caricatures painted of
> them. The "stupid" caricature is a too-common theme
> for Conservative candidates. I fear it grossly
> oversimplifies political discussion. Certainly
> intelligence is an important characteristic of the
> leader of the free world. As is having
> qualifications ...such as inventer of the internet or
> being the inspiration (or as GWB would say, the
> INSIPERATION) for LOVE STORY.
In this case I honestly don't think it's a caricature. The man's an idiot (as illustrated by Erin's list of his many, many dim-witted quotes and claims) and a poor leader (as observed by most everyone here).
> SQUONK:
> Take this garbage over Iraq and its Nuclear
> capabilities? Call that kind of media manipulation
> democracy? Its all done with mirrors my friend...
>
> PACO:
> Must be cool to be immune to it all.
NATE:
Rather a harsh response. I don't recall any book title(s), but I know there is some material by Noam Chomsky which illustrates fairly well how the media influences public opinion. (My memory is fuzzy, so upon reading it again I could very well disagree with his specifics, but I still maintain that mainstream news media is grossly inadequate).
It isn't an immunity so much as a mistrust of mainstream news media, and a curiosity to seek out other independent news sources (http://www.zmag.org for one example).
> RASHEED:
> Also, only about 65% of all registered voters actually
> vote (this is not an exact number, I only remember
> roughly where the statistic lies). That's somewhere
> around 50% of all persons of voting age. Not only are
> most American voters voting against who scares them the
> most, a large portion of the remaining population is
> simply apathetic (or spiteful even).
>
> PACO:
> I would argue that this is an inherent STRENGTH of
> democracy. It allows minorities with CONVICTION to
> overcome apathetic majorities.
NATE:
Rasheed didn't say this, I did. I must emphasize: apathy is NOT a strength. Minorities should not, in my opinion, have that much influence over such important things, over so many lives, just because so much of the population is apathetic. I think a little of that conviction, or "gumption" (as Bob M. Pirsig might say [or "piss and vinegar" as I like to say]) needs to rub off on the the apathetic masses.
> NATE:
> I feel I should also mention that there is, similarly,
> a constant conservative "smear campaign" which maligns
> the liberal end of the spectrum and reduces them into
> charicatures, just as the left does to the right. I
> don't think either side can claim a moral high ground.
>
> PACO:
> Of course. For example, the caricature that every
> Liberal is a Socialist.
NATE:
Not to mention the caricature that ever liberal is a stupid hippy, or a "romantic", or an uninformed liar, et cetera, et cetera ... We at least agree on something. (-:
I think this is a characterization which certain liberals help propogate / perpetuate themselves. I live in a college town (Mankato, MN) where there are liberal / leftist fliers and banners everywhere, most of which contain vague, non-specific messages like "BUSH IS A TERRORIST". If this banner had been followed up by specific examples of U.S. funded state terrorism and whatnot it may have been slightly effective, but in its current state, is a prime perpetuator of the many aforementioned caricatures.
I've become far too hungry to think clearly, so I think it's time make with the eat-eat. There were other things said which I wanted to comment on, but I just don't have it in me at the moment.
Gone fooding,
--Nate
-----------------------
“Remember Nate, don't challenge authority; Outsmart it.” -- Tim's rogue tongue.
-----------------------
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:36 BST