OP/ED: America Bashing: National Sociologism

I don't have a total blind allegiance, but the harsh and shrill hatred of Bush from the left here and in Europe has just become so nasty they've really lost all credibility with me.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I don't have a total blind allegiance

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well I support my government 110%, voted for George Bush and Republicans to the Congress so if you say you hate my government, you're also hating me since i helped vote them into power and agree with most everything they do.

Thats hardly a conducive attitude for entertaining the possibility your government is wrong. If you dont class that as blind allegiance than I dont know what is.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
But the harsh and shrill hatred of Bush from the left here and in Europe has just become so nasty they've really lost all credibility with me.

So its not really the quality of the objections we have against Bush, its more the volume of it all (in decibels and number)? Shouldnt that flick the switch of "why the hell are so many people against Bush here?" in your brain instead of the "for godsake give it a rest you're making my ears bleed" switch?

Shrill and harshness are subjective terms and only apply when you are on the opposing side of something. If you agree with Bush's policies be prepared to defend them then. Do not try to discredit all dissenting posts in their collective entirity merely because youre tired of hearing about it. That is not denying ignorance, thats perpetuating it.

[edit on 5/6/05 by subz]

Originally posted by Passer By
There are ways of defending yourself through purely passive, peaceful means.

This statement is fundamentally wrong. If you have to defend yourself at all, then "passive, peaceful means" will only ensure that you become the victim of whatever is being done to you. Same for countries as it is individuals. Why? Because you have to place yourself at the "mercy" of whoever is trying to do something to you. But, if they were "merciful" at all in the first place, you wouldn't be in this situation. There is, of course, a risk in fighting back. But there is also a possibility you won't have by being passive - you could stop the aggressor from hurting you AND perhaps discourage others from trying the same thing in the future. Being passive will only encourage others to try.

This is such a simple concept that everyone knows to be true from their own personal experience. As some would hope for, the world would be a much better place if, in fact, you could stop an attack by giving the attacker flowers. Truth is, unfortunately, it just never happens that way in real life.

First let me state that I am a captialist, I have faith in the market as long as the market itself hasn't been poluted by corperations. ... that said....

Centurion - No one is suggesting giving someone flowers or hugs or any of the other silly assumptions you have made.

Let me give you an example. I box. I have had 12 amatuer fights and a couple of exibitions. I can literally mess someone up in a personal sense. Does that give me the right to use my influence on people? IMO no, that would be me being a bully. Much like America has become. Mainly because of that type of childish BS. Might does not make right even under the most cursery examination IMO.

I defend myself passively. I allow others to know that I can defend myself should the need araise. I then make it very easy to get along with me(By showing things like respect, friendship, compassion, etc) and make the cost of attacking me exceptionally high. Not that maybe George will punch me so I'll beat up Mary(Isn't that what is going on in the middle east now?). In other words I make it exceptionally easy to be my friend, and rather hard to be my enemy.


What America is doing is the opposite and it shows. 9/11 was a small peice of payback for a lot of trouble over the course of decades. Fair ball if you want to go after them, but then you ignored the people that hit you and lied and went after people that did nothing to you. Like me attacking Mary because George hit me in the above example. That is a straight up, no doubt b**ch move. Going after an easier target? Using fake data to justify it, and then ignoring the people you actually KNOW have those WMD because they also have a military. it is isn't a big shock to see that most of the world see America right now as a power drunk bully.

Now, consider if passive defense was used? If the American people would have decided to see what actually happened, instead of signing away their freedoms and giving cart banche to the admin to start any half brained war they want. All I have to say is that you are fighting people that did nothing to your country, based upon known lies told by YOUR president, because of those lies told thousands of American families are ruined, not one WMD has been liberated(But lots of oil has!), Terrorists are increasing n numbers, dictators and crazies all over the world know now that war is envarible and first strikes are now on the board - including with Nukes. All of this is the result of not following a passive defense mode.

Originally posted by Majic
You may have the best of intentions, but once you establish yourself as “anti-American” -- even if the label is unjustified -- your message will be ignored.

So is that why my post escaped response?

The Subtle Facist States of America crack was probably a bit much.....however, that does not make any less relevant the points I brought up. We can talk all day on the mainstream political issues, but the crux of the matter isn't going to be dealt with until we start thinking critically, rather than reactionary.

...but the crux of the matter isn't going to be dealt with until we start thinking critically, rather than reactionary.

It's not quite what you were intending, i think, but this statement comes close to one of the several cruxese of the matter.

Most Americans simply don't care. Their lives are full enough for them, with consumerist goods, brands, services and the status they confer. The concern for personal, daily issues is all that matters to most people (and especially contemporary Americans), as SourGrapes yard example demonstrates.

Sure, this quality is not unique to Americans, though the excesses might be more extreme owing to wealth of individuals and profit for corporations. But currently (since the middle half of the last century), the US dominates world economic, geopolitical and social scenes. Thus, the lack of real knowledge and interest in the citizenry becomes more apparent, as the government veers further and further away from the interests of the people... especially considerring that only corporate money will get a candidate elected (with few exceptions). And only playing the game with political parties will keep you there, and get your legislation through...

If there is any truth to the above, then the only way to steer our governmentto a good course is to elect people worthy of office... not for one party or another, but the candidates themselves. these may be people who are not particularly charismatic, they may offer challenging views, eschew corporate financial aid, or even be *gasp* yourselves. It may even be dificult finding them, since media air time is so expensive... it may take work!

But until this happens, there will be as much greed as there is good coming from the US... and no one can really help much. only the citizens can do this, and it takes effort, self-education and understanding.

Such a thing, however, competes with the instant gratification of consumerism... so, good luck, eh?

Would you be so kind as to define sociologism?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Would you be so kind as to define sociologism?

GMTA; especially senior citizens.

I have been wondering the very same thing I frankly was affraided to ask for fear it would make me look stupid. It is not even in the dictionary so only can assume it is one of those new words not yet out.

Don't feel bad. I have a BA in Sociology and I had to look it up. I would like Majic to define it, so that I understand just what his point is. Like a lot of academic terms, sociologism varies in meaning from one paradigm to another, although the meanings are generally related.

.... Thus, the lack of real knowledge and interest in the citizenry becomes more apparent, as the government veers further and further away from the interests of the people...

I beg to differ with you sir. The intrests of the people are exactly what government serves. The problem is that the intrests of the people themselves (by and large) are based on bread and circuses (as some science fiction writer once wrote). American voters nowdays rarely know what any candidate for public office really stands for or against. Our political races are popularity contests.

[Sorry about that.

[edit on 5-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Astronomer68

.... Thus, the lack of real knowledge and interest in the citizenry becomes more apparent, as the government veers further and further away from the interests of the people...

I beg to differ with you sir. The intrests of the people are exactly what government serves. The problem is that the intrests of the people themselves (by and large) are based on bread and circuses (as some science fiction writer once wrote). American voters nowdays rarely know what any candidate for public office really stands for or against. Our political races are popularity contests.

This assumes that any government officer actualy does stand for something. Having watched a PC member cross the floor and join the fiberals last month I can honestly tell you no politician actually stands for anything other than their own pay check.

When brass tacks come down there isn't a politician in any party today that actually is willing to take a stand and risk his/her free lunch at the trough.

Stop paying them and they'll listen.

Well, we tried to institute term limits for congress and got slapped down. I really believe our politicians would exercise some statesmanship if they knew they would only be there for a short while.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Well, we tried to institute term limits for congress and got slapped down. I really believe our politicians would exercise some statesmanship if they knew they would only be there for a short while.

Or that you would kill them if they didn't do what they said they would. The very notion that politicans control the country(And I am speaking on behalf of both Canada and the States at the moment) is assinine to me. How these dweeds are allowed to do this is amazing to me. Here we have a government that has pretty much told us they lied, cheated, stole our money, gave it their friends, took more money, gave it to themself's and what do we do in Atlantic Canada? Vote in the fiberals again. Amazing.

People think I am messed, but all I want is to find a small place up in Northern Ontario in the back woods and just screw it. There is nothing that can be done to help out the country when people are more worried about their stupid little jobs instead of doing what is right.

Parliment and Congress are not ineffective because the representatives therein don't do their jobs, the are ineffective precisely because thay do their jobs so well. They were elected by a constituency to serve their intrests, not the intrests of the rest of the country. We fervently hope they will look after the country at large instead of getting whatever they can just for their voters, but few do. Instead, they fight amongst themselves trying to get more for their voters at the expense of the other voters.
But look at some of the voters. Here's an example: A school bond issue comes up locally and gets soundly trounced because it would involve raising sales taxes. A homeless bum/wino who doesn't have any children in school or any real intrest in the outcome of the vote still gets to vote. He naturally isn't going to vote for the issue because it will take a few cents from his pocketbook. Meanwhile a single family mother with three kids who will suffer when the issue gets defeated votes for the issue. Now I realize that's democracy, but it certainly isn't right that her vote should effectively be nullified by his. He has no stake in the outcome of the vote and could really care less how it goes, none-the-less his vote counts just as much as hers.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Parliment and Congress are not ineffective because the representatives therein don't do their jobs, the are ineffective precisely because thay do their jobs so well. They were elected by a constituency to serve their intrests, not the intrests of the rest of the country. We fervently hope they will look after the country at large instead of getting whatever they can just for their voters, but few do. Instead, they fight amongst themselves trying to get more for their voters at the expense of the other voters.
But look at some of the voters. Here's an example: A school bond issue comes up locally and gets soundly trounced because it would involve raising sales taxes. A homeless bum/wino who doesn't have any children in school or any real intrest in the outcome of the vote still gets to vote. He naturally isn't going to vote for the issue because it will take a few cents from his pocketbook. Meanwhile a single family mother with three kids who will suffer when the issue gets defeated votes for the issue. Now I realize that's democracy, but it certainly isn't right that her vote should effectively be nullified by his. He has no stake in the outcome of the vote and could really care less how it goes, none-the-less his vote counts just as much as hers.

Not that I disagree with your take on it, but isn't that assumption that that wino can only think of himself and will, when able, screw everyone else? Do you do that? Do you know anyone that clearly only thinks for themself's, instead of the greater issues?

I know I do(the huge minority though), but I look at those people the same way I look at a three legged cheeta. Some what of a sick joke, to give the worlds fastest animal only three legs, or to give the worlds smartest animal only half a brain.....


So, let me ask you this. Assuming you had a genie bottle, how do you fix this?

Originally posted by Astronomer68
...The problem is that the intrests of the people themselves (by and large) are based on bread and circuses (as some science fiction writer once wrote). American voters nowdays rarely know what any candidate for public office really stands for or against. Our political races are popularity contests.

I'm not sure, Astronomer68, that we're saying anything contradictory, you and i. I'm actually placing some of the blame on the people themselves, because they demand nothing more than the waterred down media for education on the candidates (if nothing else).

So of course, once the candidates get elected (by largely corporate money spent on advertising, etc...), they talk more about the two or three issues their marketing / demographic experts tell them to, and then represent the corporate interests that helped get them elected, and will again next time. Well, that, and a couple of good appearances on TV saying all sorts of nonsensical rhetoric that gets the constituancy all riled up now and again.

Yes, Astronomer68, quite a circus indeed.

Actually, TheStateMachine, you are right. Astronomer said pretty much the same thing. You are also correct when you say that your direction wasn't exactly what I was angling for, but I do believe you have hit upon an important nail squarely on the head. Society today is defined by convenience as money can buy it. Most people, who possess an education that reinforces this concept, only concern themselves with how best to attain their personal comfort and security.

This kind of apathy, which is expressed as dutiful patriotic acceptance, is why this nation is full of people who will turn a blind eye to what is truly going on. Our educational system is centered on specialization so that the majority of people are only familiar with an aspect of life's experience. As a result, people are attribute trust and wisdom to a person because of title and not because of any cognitive recognition of proficiency. That is to say, people trust the badge or the scrubs because of their pre-concieved notions rather than any real objectivity. It's easier for people to accept what they want to believe, that everything is okay and all they have to do is what they have always done and everything will turn out okay.

This reality is such that the real information isn't discussed openly......and with the way we have raised our population, I can't even make a case that the population deserves to know because I doubt they would know what to do with it.

And thus, we arrive at the conspiracy theorists Catch-22-------Does it matter whether or not "the truth" comes out in the open if noone is willing or even capable of hearing it?

I don't believe this country was originally set up with equal voting rights for all. The founding fathers knew the truth of what we are saying here today. It was many, many years later that universal suffrage was instituted. Personally, I think we were wrong to grant everyone an equal right to vote. I think that voting ought to be classed as a priviledge, not a right, and the priviledge should have to be earned in some way. A period of service to the country (by both young men and women) should be required before a person is granted full citizenship and only full citizens should be allowed to vote. If that concept is to radical for you then think up some other concept that would allow people the priviledge of voting, but change our current system in some logical way because it sure as hell doesn't work the way it is.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 6-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 6-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Majic
This is an opinion piece,

****
In other words, not only am I certainly wrong in some or all of my viewpoints, but this essay cannot possibly express them in their subtlety,

******

I'm guessing that cassini, Amuk, kinglizard, Gools, cmdrkeenkid, worldwatcher, like myself, took the weekend off & engaged in tanning - BBq's - and overall American style debauchery that they let this tripe slip through?
It is neither CURRENT or an EVENT to hear another JINGOIST decry the scrutiny that this Administration forces via their hubris & clandestine nature.
And while it garnered the usual chorus of TWAT votes from those happy to hear any validation of their myopic view that has hastened today's mutated fascism, in something sounding like erudite prose, it is, by all synopsis, measure & declaration by the author, unsubstantiated opinion and willfully wrong conjecture.


How many, exactly, OP/ED diatribes are going to be thrown as RED MEAT to all the armchair warriors & guardians of American Moral standards, before something is set that automatically sends it to SlugFest or BTS?

Majic: it's called a
BLOG

Get one, they're free, link to it in your sig file, post to your hearts content on the decline of board quality THERE, as the hypocrisy in your continued breast beating about the state of ATS seems to escape you in threads like these.