Michael Hardner

Aug91: I'm Canadian. Hugo: No, not at all. Only paid political advertising and advocacy. If people don't care enough about an issue to read about it in the paper, find out about it through political party pamphlets etc. then don't spoonfeed them with political ads. And your point on media bias and the stupidity of some of those shows is well taken, but CNN/Fox are still there after the election so presumably they have to try to guard their reputations. And those shows at least have some kind of back-and-forth, although I've read that Fox's show has a lame-duck liberal. I don't know what those are. Are those commercials ? What minority do you speak of ? Well, I don't know what they think. I'm trying to convince people, starting with you, that political advertising is fraught with misinformation. Such advertising is the mainstay of political campaigns. Thus, something needs to be done either voluntarily (this would be the best way) or through public awareness. If Satanist material actually caused any problems then perhaps people could be convinced to ban it. Hate literature is banned in Canada for similar reasons. ...and the bible. I can see that's your next point. This isn't exactly true. I flipped TWICE on this issue. First I heard that somebody had printed a tract that spoke against homosexuals and was prosecuted for it. I was FOR the prosecution. Then I heard that the tract was from the bible. I was then AGAINST the prosecution. Then I read the tract and saw the acompanying graphic. It was a tract of the bible that advocating stoning (or somesuch) of homosexuals. I went back AGAINST the prosecution. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with anti-hate speech legislation, in that it sometimes seems to amount to thoughtcrime legislation. But since it IS the law, the tract in question should have been prosecuted IMO. Now. I only explained my vascillation above to illustrate that I'm not of one extreme or the other when it comes to censorship. In fact, I would say I'm mostly against it. But the political process is the central nervous system for our society. It we allow it to deteriorate in the same way our entertainment has, then we're done for. There are precedents regarding restrictions on television ads. Even in the US, for example, cigarette advertising is banned.

They are allowed to deceive, though. Showing healthy people eating junk food is basically deceptive, although I'm not advocating any restraints on consumer ads. I agree. I think that political advertising should therefore have strict objective limits, or be banned outright. It doesn't serve democracy to spoonfeed the public. What if that "standard" is a healthy democracy with a well-informed electorate ? As for precedents, we're setting them all the time. I have no problem with this aspect. Because it doesn't serve the public good, that's why not. You really aren't getting any liberties in the regard that I'm discussing. I don't know you, but I doubt you have the means to buy network airtime. Your freedom to live in a healthy democracy, though, is being limited by this form of public discourse, such as it is. If legislation isn't practical, then citizens should press for political parties to agree to restrict these types of communications.

Will: As someone who spent a good amount of his life in business, PM PM knows how to invest money. Chretien was a career politician who spent money. Well, given the fact that we have two unpredictable theats that we weren't considering before - global epidemics, and terrorism - I think a disaster fund is called for, and furthermore is prudent. Good point. Transfer payments were cut to the provinces, then the provinces cut transfers to the communities, then the federal government gives transfer payments to the communities. This is nothing more than a political shell game. I'm looking forward to hearing what their plan is...

I should also note that even in the context of a debate, leaders use emotional arguments to the detriment of reason. Chretien's "no two teir healthcare" mantra was convincing to people, and he was able to largely shut down reasoned debate on that topic by appealing to emotions. So even without televised playlets, emotional arguments can and do play a part. We're humans, after all, not computers. But there's enough room for that sort of thing without having to rely on one-sided filmed mini-dramas.

H&A: I don't think it's about dispensing information at all. What kind of "information" do commercials give ? Often, they show people in a certain demographic using a certain product. Do you "learn" about soda by watching a commercial play volleyball on the beach. Of course nobody thinks that advertising affects them, but it does work so some of those people may be wrong. There's an example in Al Franken's latest book of a political television advertisement that was used in a midwestern state to sway support against changing estate laws. It showed a young couple opening a letter from the government that said they owed money because they had recently inherited their parents' farm and owed estate taxes. Of course the couple was in distress because they didn't know what they were going to do etc. etc. Such an ad appeals to the common wisdom, and as such I wouldn't blame anybody for believing it. But it was deceptive. It didn't explain that there was a one million dollar exemption to the law, for one thing. And there were other issues. Did the ad LIE ? No. But clearly, the couple wouldn't have been perceived as being millionaires. The commercial was an emotional playlet, using drama to depict a middle class couple beset upon by the government. This is the type of thing that the forefathers didn't anticipate when drafting the constitution. Showing a mass audience a deceptive and emotional drama to sway their vote doesn't aid democracy IMO.

Improved standard of living generally means more money, I think. There are other ways for people's lives to improve but we're talking about economics here. Take the labour factor out for a second. If you do that, then you'll find that costs generally fall over time and therefore producers can produce more with less. Where do these cost savings go ? Reduced prices ? Somewhat, yes, but also to increased profits.

Sorry. I thought you were drawing some kind of parallel between posting on a web and producing a TV commercial. Well, why would people advertise at all if it didn't work. Advertising works. But television advertising doesn't express ideas, or build on rational arguments. They use persuasive means and dramatic effects that can be misleading. A back-and-forth argument is a better way to glean information, don't you think ? That's what the forefathers thought. They knew that the press would be a good way to exchange ideas, and for people to make informed choices. I for one don't think that I could get 1% of the information from a TV commercial marketed towards a mass audience, that I get from these boards. I thought you were using the Academy Awards as an example of allowing free speech. I was just pointing out that it's a pretty narrow forum. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to speak their minds, if that's what you're saying. Rather, that television commercials don't amount to free speech.

Sorry, Charlie. This is a retort, posted with adequate opportunity. If it was an emotionally manipulative post, you could easily point that out in your counter-retort. The proportion of people will access to the internet is many thousands time the proportion of people who can afford network airtime. I think a forum is more of a "real world" than the world of television, generally speaking. Yes. Good point. And that age ended hundreds of years ago. It was written in response to suppression of the printed word, and free speech. It couldn't have possibly anticipated electronic mass media. Interesting. So all one has to do to get a chance to voice their opinion on television is win an Academy Award ! Eeeeeeasy.... Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest what Russia is doing is a model, or even a good idea. It's a springboard for discussion.... BOING

With WHICH programmes ? Sure, a country could progress socially, and in any other way you care to name. But why are you again avoiding the point ? The point is about standard of living increasing over time... I'll try again: Technological progress generally improves over time. Do you agree/disagree ? Technological progress results in diminished costs, and therefore more wealth for producers ? Do you disagree/agree ? If you agree with these premises, then you must agree there's no material reason for standard of living to diminish over the long term.

Article Does this legislation go to far ? I think so. But generally, should there be limits to free expression of individuals and organizations ? I think that television advertising is one area that needs to be severely curtailed. Television ads increasingly use emotionally manipulative playlets to make a point, rather than rational arguments. Also, a television ad provides inadequate opporunity for retort, and is only available to groups with access to large pools of cash. What do you think ?

Amazingly, you're now advocating increased government intervention in the market. This is one of the hallmarks of socialism. The government has a responsibility to make the business environment competitive, so that the economy may prosper. But at a certain point, propping up dying industries is a lost cause and it's in everyone's best interest to let that business die.

Hjalmar: What is progress then ? Technological progress means that productivity increases over time. This is a historical fact. This type of progress reduces the cost of producing goods, and increases the aggregate wealth as time goes on. Economics teaches us that a rising tide lifts all boats. This means that a better economic situation helps everyone in society. So, standards of living should therefore increase. You're making socialism into a bogeyman here. Rather than posting your views on their parasitic recuitment practices, why not post what specific programs you disagree with ? Socialism and capitalism in its pure forms are dead, and today we have a hybrid of both these systems. Go after specific programs in your arguments, rather than generally attacking philosophies of the past. What give-aways do you speak of ? Welfare ? Do you think that there are enough welfare recipients in society to make a difference, politically ? Be specific.

Ok.

Aug91: MacLuhan also speculated that the state would be changed beyond recognition in the electric age. I think you can say that the state peaked with the fall of the Berlin wall. With global trade, immigration and decentralized electronic commerce, the state matters less and less with each passing day.

Aug91: Well, MacLuhan was definitely more about probing and encouraging speculation than drawing pat conclusions about technology. And individuals may choose whatever technology they like, but they must live within a larger society that is outside their control. Unless you're a Unabomber type, living alone in the wilderness, you're affected by the trends of society and the world as a whole.

Nor do I. Certainly there were things that were imperfect, especially when viewed in the light of today's egalitarian beliefs. But the system was born of that era, and proved the best suited to govern in that era. We definitely have a more inclusive system, but the system we have wasn't meant to have issues decided in soundbytes. This isn't the same as saying democracy is in decline, rather that we're using an old engine that needs to be reworked.

This is fine, but the labour market needs to be managed as well. You've run away from your initial statment, though. Why shouldn't living standards increase as productivity and progress does ? Isn't that the the point of an economy - a rising tide lifts all boats etc. ?

Hugo: Hmmm. I guess it depends on whether you consider ape squawks as "language". This seems like a semantic argument. In either case, something called "language" developed and shaped the social intercourse of humans. Ok. Sort of, but not exactly. It hasn't simply been a case of things gradually growing and changing over time. Jarring changes in social organization have occurred due to technology. It's not so simple as someone starts using a new tool and it gradually improves lives. All technological changes upset the social order. This is an important distinction from thinking that we simply "use" tools, and that human interaction generally doesn't change significantly over time. All of what you say is true. But this harkens back to another discussion on this board regarding the differences between corporations today and those of 75 years ago. The changes that have occurred since then are not simply quantitative but qualitative as well. Democracy in the television age is not simply faster and more succinct than that of the newspaper age. It's more emotive, more reactive, and less rational. This isn't something that anyone would have anticipated when television was invented. Yet, our democracy was "developed" hundreds of years before television took hold of democracy. It would be nice to think that our institutions and our technology are completely under our control, but they're not. Our institutions (ie. American style democracy) were developed in the 18th century, largely as a reaction to philosophical writings of that era. At this point, television has wormed its way into our society, eating holes in the device called constitutional democracy. It seems to me that we agree on much, except possibly the degree to which we control and understand our institutions and our technologies.

BD: I would say that that is a tough argument to make. I do think that concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few leads to more devastating boom-and-bust cycles. This makes sense because our consumer economy depends on consumers having earning power. Hjalmar has consistently ignored this point, alternately stressing that "we need to reduce union wages" and "union wages will inevitably be reduced". One only has to talk to people who lived through the depression and the war to realize that the social institutions that arose after those disasters were responses to popular demands for a better life for all. EDITED TO ADD: And also a response to that large part of the world that had embraced communism as a solution to improve the life of workers.

But I'm saying that homo sapiens didn't always have language. And social organization takes many different forms. Nations didn't always exist, nor did democracy, institutions of justice and so forth... Each institution developed as a reaction to new technology that forced a human reorganization. In this way, technology affects us in far deeper ways than we understand. It's not just a matter of us "using" the technology - it "uses" us too in a sense. The proposed application of a new invention called the telegraph was to allow people in different cities to play chess with each other. The inventor couldn't have anticipated its use in the civil war, its contribution to the rise of mass media, weather prediction etc.

Why shouldn't we ? Progress seems to happen continually, and with progress we have improved productivity and more surplus goods. Living standards have generally increased throughout history. Why should we stop now ?

But striving for perfection is something we all must do. I don't know. Was that the month of your birth ?

Uh... if this is the linchpin of your argument, it's not exactly true. Language developed as humans evolved. Unless you're a creationist...

Hmmm... Hjalmar, many many people were unemployed for YEARS during the depression. It's hard to envision the electorate enduring such suffering without expecting help from the government. Such help could take the form of extended EI benefits, early retirement, workfare, government investment in capital projects and so forth. I don't know if these things are socialistic or not but they definitely involve state intervention in the economy.

Auguste: (Sorry, but it sounds more like a first name.) I'm not so cynical yet as to discount the idea that he may have felt that it was WRONG to do so. My optimism also extends to the other two major party leaders, by the way. I think Harper and Layton have both been taking the high road as far as I can see.