[Some Ideas on Politics and Media]

I don't know what it says because it's folded over.

But you know it is a message right, you just don't know the contents. The medium IS the message after all. So you unfold and, voila! What is the first thing you see?

[Some Ideas on Politics and Media]

Well thanks. It's a fascinating subject to me.

McLuhan & Frye should be compulsory reads in high schools. They are that important.

[The Communist Manifesto]

I just bought an E-Book and I looked at the free books and one was The Communist Manifesto so I decided to start reading it. I just finished the first 3 parts, not sure how many parts there are but so far I like it. What do you guys think of it?

It's an interesting little book that is worth the read in order to gain a better etic perspective of some of the idealist views on the form of capitalism in operation in the mid-18th century. Naturally you'll want to read 'Das Kapital' which is also in the public domain I believe.

[Persecuted Christians In America!]

Well at least Lowes is standing up for all those persecuted Christians in America. The ones who suffer under the "the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values."

Lowe’s pulls ads from TV show about U.S. Muslims

LOS ANGELES—A decision by retail giant Lowe’s Home Improvement to pull ads from a reality show about American Muslims following protests from an evangelical Christian group has sparked criticism and calls for a boycott against the chain.

The retailer stopped advertising on TLC’s “All-American Muslim” after a conservative group known as the Florida Family Association complained, saying the program was “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.”

The show premiered last month and chronicles the lives of five families from Dearborn, Mich., a Detroit suburb with a large Muslim and Arab-American population.

A state senator from Southern California said he was considering calling for a boycott.

Calling the Lowe’s decision “un-American” and “naked religious bigotry,” Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, told The Associated Press on Sunday that he would also consider legislative action if Lowe’s doesn’t apologize to Muslims and reinstate its ads. The senator sent a letter outlining his complaints to Lowe’s Chief Executive Officer Robert A. Niblock.

“The show is about what it’s like to be a Muslim in America, and it touches on the discrimination they sometimes face. And that kind of discrimination is exactly what’s happening here with Lowe’s,” Lieu said.

Florida Family Association - persecuted to the teeth

[Some Ideas on Politics and Media]

As such, our consciousness is being willingly exported to outside our bodies.

As this passage indicates. Willingness is just a barrier though, always has been. But note that I have edited the product of your consciousness to suite my purpose and this required no willingness at all on your part.

I carry an iPhone, with Wikipedia on it. So I no longer need to remember any general knowledge. I have my personal knowledge, and my wisdom in my brain still, at least at this point.

All of which can make for a dumbed down society on the first EMP.

[Some Ideas on Politics and Media]

I don't think it's about ethics, but rather what works and doesn't work. Our system of democracy makes certain assumptions about an informed public, the role of the press and so on. If those assumptions don't hold, then the system is being used differently than what it was designed for.

Our system of democracy is based on choice. That is, I have the franchise, but there is no compelling reason - like a law - for me to exercise it; and, if I do, to exercise it as I see fit. This is the element of design that over rides all other assumptions. So I can choose not to choose and this fact has been indicated in every single election held in Canada. Ethics is all about choice.

Or, people are happy enough with the system that they don't see the need to bore themselves with such matters and would rather pursue their own interests.

Is that another way of saying what you said ?

Pretty much, but I am not sure "happy" is the correct term. Perhaps satisfied that the choice they make is as effective as it will ever be and thus, for some of those that choose not to participate, a sense of acceptance of the status quo.

You don't see government as being more complex than it was 30 years ago ?

No, it is always relative.

I do. There's always more legislation and more complex and nuanced programs to address a particular problem. We now have maternity leave, subsidized day care, and the list goes on.

Sure we do, but we also have much better ways of accessing or addressing the government which reveals so much more than was possible before. There is more specificity, which can lead to the appearance of complexity, but appearances aren't always everything.

I'm currently rereading 'Understanding Media', and yes he does envision the extent of social media and participation. That is his whole thesis, as he takes a very wide view of how content are consumed by new media.

If I hand you a folded telegram, it is clearly a message from another. But what does it say?

He didn't make analogies between the arrival of print and of television, in fact he said that they had the opposite effects ("explosion" versus "implosion").

In 'The Gutenberg Galaxy' written two years before 'Understanding Media' McLuhan makes a clear and convincing comparative analogy between the periods in which the print and electronic ages arose. The effects of each had similar outcomes on the societies of their days and are worth noting. Like disturbances on the status quo.

This is actually what you and I are doing on this thread right now, alebeit at an utterly insignificant level. McLuhan predicted that these interactions would be externalized, and that our whims would be captured by corporate interests.

Then I shudder when the day comes when a corporation can immerse me in the goose-bump experience of a warm sunbeam coming through a window on a cold winter's day. It will be one hellva way to sell a Coke.

Voting itself may not survive this change. I dunno either. What is clear is that people will be used to having more and more input on things in general.

Don't we already though? Our individual ability to correspond with another, with governments and institutions, are already over-loading the latter's ability to respond according to their own rules. It is amazing to see how much the simple email has replaced such correspondence or the ability to create and message those others compared to 30 years ago. And not just for urbanites either, this phenomenon is extended to rural and remote areas. A prospector can communicate real time from the remotest places on earth.

"And now I will finalize my input by clicking the 'post' button."

Me too! Except I'll click the "Add Reply" button since my medium is more accurate than yours.

[The Problem With Christmas]

Yes. We could all be Stoics, overcoming our passions through apatheiap. I'm just suggesting that the comment could make someone feel isolated or ostracized for not conforming to what is considered the norm. I know you didn't mean to be offensive.

It has nothing to do with Stoicism, where one tries to free themselves from one's own emotions. And I am not apathetic, far from it. This is much different from me being responsible for how other's feel, which is one of the most insidious and persistent delusions in society usually expressed as 'made me feel.' I can't make anyone feel anything and I am not responsible for what they do feel.

[Some Ideas on Politics and Media]

Michael, I have read your OP twice - and flipped through its responses. I still don't get your point.

Nowadays, people around the world can deal/talk with one another far more easily than 50 years ago. (While I rarely use a mobile phone, I happen to think that mobile phones are a great innovation.)

French guys skype women in Belarus, if not North Korea. I read blogs of Iranians.

----

Michael, how do cell/handy phones, for example, affect democracies?

This is one the aspects I am getting at, i.e.the smartphone, that now allows TV, video, text, pictures and direct communications, in a small, mobile device and hints at an immersive, participatory experience. We often think of 'virtual reality' in terms of fiction, but we are seeing devices that allow us to construct virtual realities in a very realistic way, of almost being there.

[Some Ideas on Politics and Media]

MH, this is a really great post. Is this an original idea or did you pick it up somewhere?

It is. This is one of the reasons that MLW is attractive despite the distractions of the loons on the fringe.

[The Problem With Christmas]

How do you think it makes a person feel when you tell them that the way they choose to live their life is "joyless"? That's at the heart of what I'm saying.

Well, I don't believe I can make anyone feel anything and, that being said, I am not responsible for how they feel when they do feel something.

Alas, we have discovered that even olpfan1 feels joy so no harm, no foul.

[Fordtopia: Year Two]

There's no question that Rob Ford is not the most polished talkers. That's why you can easily tell when he was lying during the election. Black Dog seems to think the entire population fell for his lies, I think Torontonians are smarter than that. What do you think? Do you think most people in the city are ideological, selfish, ignorant or gullible?

Perhaps it is more a matter of not having the same sort of character perceptive abilities that you do, according to, "you can easily tell when he was lying during the election." I presume you are speaking only for yourself and are not ascribing your abilities upon the entire population.

That being said, then it is possible that quite a few of them "fell for his lies" in the sense that they believed what he was saying at the time and voted for it. Now I don't believe that "most" people in Toronto are ideological, selfish, ignorant of gullible, but I do believe that with his track record over the past year, Mayor Ford would have a very tough time being re-elected if an election were held today.

[Anti-Bully Legislation]

this legislation is an attack on moral Ontario citizens by the pro gay agents of the far left.

its an attempt to break down the family unit so that children can be brainwashed easier.

Ontarians need to stand up against these sinners and keep their satanic thoughts outside our schools.

BWAAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!

:lol: :lol:

[Do Canadian want MORE politicians?]

He's running huge deficits and spending the money on the most useless things any government has ever spent money on. Meanwhile, he's gutting the programs and services that are needed for the welfare of society. He's cutting with one hand and pocketing more money than he cuts with the other.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, cybercoma, you are ignoring what you had said in another thread about that poster being a troll. Don't feed the trolls!

Public service growth far outstrips population rise, notes show

The federal bureaucracy was slashed during the former Liberal government's sweeping program review in the mid- to late 1990s, which also instituted a hiring and wage freeze on government. Total federal public service employees dropped to around 204,000 in 1998 from more than 250,000 in the early 1990s, say the documents.

However, the number of public servants has soared over the past decade or so, especially during the nearly six years the Harper government has been in office.

The Harper Government ballooned the public service so they could slash it and look heroic. The sort of cartoon politics that appeals to the low-grade intellect of the Canadian fringe right who only have the capacity to understand politics in terms of slogans.

[Conservatives concoct their own creepy reality]

Of Shwa is completely oblivious to the fantasies and fabrications constructed to justify most left wing views. Blind because if 'it's my reality - it must be real' mindset.

I think this is the sort of 'creepy reality' that Caplan is referring to, except on a much smaller scale of course, and that is the construction of the straw man and subsequent embodiment of fear and hatred of the alternatives, whatever their form. It is pretty flimsy construct and could indicate a lack of intellectual capacity on behalf of the poster to conceptualize and rationally discuss abstract ideas. Instead of abstraction, all we have is the familiar distraction.

How dishonest of you TimG, it makes you out to look like an ineffectual fool.

I certainly don't see much I like in fringes of the Republican party (I am a libertarian), but I am getting really sick of this kind of vacuous analysis emanating left wing (or wannabe left wing like Frum) intellectuals patting themselves on the back because they think they are 'smarter'. I see no evidence of that. Whether it is GMOs, Vaccines, Fracking, Nuclear Power, Free Trade, Taxation or Climate Change - what are called 'facts' in left wing circles are really nothing but beliefs/desires repeated enough times until they become 'reality' (at least to like minded supporters).

Gerald Caplan and David Frum, two individuals who routinely put their intellectual and experiencial credentials on the line practically everyday, but are now reduced "vacuous analysis emanating from the left wing" by an anonymous poster on an Internet message board. This is more of the flimsy straw man building of course.

The problem here TimG is that I doubt your credentials stack up against theirs in any sort of relative capacity and the reason I say this is because:

If you don't like this kind of self re-enforcing myth making then criticize but don't pretend that it is a trait unique to conservatives.

No where in the OP or linked article is there any hint that this is "a trait unique to conservatives." In fact, Caplan writes, "Of course the Republicans have no monopoly on inventing imaginary new worlds" Note Caplan's use of the phrase, 'of course' generally used to denote an obvious and well known notion.

So, TimG, you either didn't read the article and assumed it's content, which makes you out to appear like an ineffectual fool, or you willfully ignored Caplan's 'of course' whichs makes you out to appear like an ineffectual fool. Or it may have been any number of reasons in between, with the ultimate result being you look like... etc.

Of course, any rational person can pick up on your limp effort at creating distracting strawmen, which is one of those problems with extreme right wing conservatism hinted at by Caplan. It's creepy. And self-professed-libertarian or not, you fit right in.

[Conservatives concoct their own creepy reality]

Interesting article by Gerald Caplan, from the Globe and Mail, that might resontate a little with some folks here. I am posting it in Political Philosophy because a second part next week will discuss the Harper Government in relation to this construct.

Conservatives concoct their own creepy reality

I first got a sense of how the program worked back in 2004 in a riveting New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind. Mr. Suskind was reporting a conversation he’d had with an aide to George Bush (probably the president’s diabolical Rasputin, Karl Rove), and presented the following mind-bending revelation:

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Quoting David Frum's article from a few weeks ago:

Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority…Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) “the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.”

So I suppose the question might be, is this construction of different realities something new? I mean, we can look at empire from the past and they too were in the business of constructing different realities, especially in the frontiers that they conquered and incorporated various other ethnic groups and cultures. And, of course, all the monument building...

[Some Ideas on Politics and Media]

Sure, but are they ? Do they care ? Civic mindedness is another area where there has been a decline, and the assumed responsibility of the citizen to be informed seems to lacking.

But now you have moved the topic into the domain of ethics which, to me, is what the question will always be about. (I suppose it also touches form/content as well.) People are ethically bound to inform themselves of several things (laws, mores, institutions, etc.) but what constitutes a successful level of being informed? The Fairness Doctrine was a culturally informed doctrine of ethics and, as we move more towards the global village, who's to dictate our ethics for us?

So why should someone go above and beyond the necessary requirements for information? As I have said, people in this post-modern age are better informed about how to get better informed. There isn't the necessary requirement of knowledge unless is suits an immediate practical purpose. Now, supposing this has always been so, we might be witnessing the effects of a kind of future shock in that there is less time for esoteric interests (i.e. in depth political knowledge of the world) because people are no longer working at a secure job for 30-40 years) That is, there are other immediate requirements for different kinds of information than just civics. People are still informing themselves, but about different things.

That, coupled with the increased complexity of government, of legislation, and the inclination of news to entertain means to me we have passed a critical point of self-control. ( "We" here refers to the west, although I'm using American examples throughout. )

I think the biggest symptom of this is the consumption of political rhetoric as truth and yes, this is a problem. But practically speaking, I don't see government any more complex than it was 30 years ago and government information is certainly more accessible than it ever was. (do you remember the racks upon racks of pamplets at the Unemployment Centres just 20 years ago?) And I think the more you know about the government, or the background behind some piece of legislation, the less complex it is. Like anything, really.

We need to either simplify government, or create a new press for the "interested" parties you refer to. Those parties would presumably have more influence, being more engaged and likely to vote.

Interestingly, there are movements afoot to make both of these options happen.

Back in McLuhan's day, and likely for a good portion for the both of us, the news was presented by participating 'experts'(well, dressed like they were experts)to a mostly passive audience. Even McLuhan, as great a historian as he was could not have envisioned the extent of social media and the participatory function of the audience in the creation and delivery of content. He saw this phenomenon when print arose as a medium and he used those societal struggles as analogy of our own when the television age came along. We are likely experiencing the same things with the new media now.

It seems that the next generation will gain important information in ways that we never imagined and I am not referring to the simple technological side of it. "News" may no longer be an apt word for it. This new media might include aspects of direct participation in the experiences of events, that is, the public become interested when they participate or have some sort of direct connection to the events in one way or another. (which reminds me of Orwell's 'feelies') Sort of like an immersion media.

But will that make them better informed or want to go out and vote? I dunno. Perhaps democracy is a means to an end we haven't expected yet.

[Identity of rogue teachers to be made public]

All I can say is that I'm glad that I'm not a teacher. No one has respect for them anymore.

That is simply not true.

You raise some good points, but in the end, I think parents should have the ability to see what kind of teacher is in the classroom.

The College agrees:

However, College spokesperson Brian Jamieson said the changes Broten announced came from multiple conversations the regulatory body had with the minister and her staff.

“We identified that we could do something in relatively short order that makes sense and is much more accountable to the public,” Jamieson said.

[Thread for All the Negative Things the Liberals Did as Government]

Who else disagrees with me?

Everyone except dumb Canadians.

[Identity of rogue teachers to be made public]

Good news! And nice to see the government respond. I read through the Star series and it wasn't pretty. I mean, Rate My Teacher can only go so far. What I didn't know is that BC's had similar problems with the College of Teachers and took drastic measures to correct them. I guess the Ontario College of Teachers saw the writing on the wall, which might be the thin edge of the wedge for more public oversight on the self-interest of the regulatory institutions.

Identity of rogue teachers to be made public

Sweeping changes to how the Ontario College of Teachers deals with verbally, physically and sexually abusive teachers were announced Friday by provincial education minister Laurel Broten.

“Parents deserve to know about teacher discipline,” Broten said Friday, announcing some changes and saying more will come.

The changes were prompted by a Toronto Star investigation published in September. The Star found the identities of bad teachers were often being hidden from the public by decisions of the self-regulatory body set up to protect the public trust. The Star also found that teachers facing charges of sexually abusive behaviour were allowed to avoid a formal public hearing at the College and plead guilty, often to lesser offences and receive a minor penalty, using a dispute resolution process.

Just before the Star published its results, the College quietly announced it had hired retired justice Patrick LeSage to examine how teachers are disciplined. That review is to take until May.

Minister Broten said that, while she supports the LeSage review, parents and the public need change now.

[Thread for All the Negative Things the Liberals Did as Government]

And you wonder why the "dumb" Canadians didn't vote for your guys.

Because dumb Canadians were already committed to voting CPC.

[Thread for All the Negative Things the Liberals Did as Government]

The thing is that people on the right don't consider these things "scandals", they conisder them "politics", and business as usual for bureaucrats and government employees in general.

The reason we don't care about these "scandals" is because we know that any other party will have similar "scandals".

Scandal-plagued Tories become the new Liberals

Chris Selley and the National Post disagree with you, including the use of the word 'scandal.'

The conservatives are the only ones who talk about reducing the size of government, and therefore the potential scope of these "scandals". The other parties want more regulations and government which will result in more misappropriated funds etc.

We don't condone these scandals, but we accept that they are politics as usual.

See Chris Selley and the National Post, above.

We don't bring up the liberals to condone the conservatives, but rather to demonstrate that every government does these types of things.

See Chris... oh nevermind.

You aren't going to convince us to vote for higher corporate taxes, and capping credit card interest rates, and all the other NDP nanny state ideas by arguing "maybe if you elect us we won't misappropriate funds.. We may raise taxes, but we promise not to waste the extra revenue!!"

LOFL!

God? PLEASE! Bring back the Progressive Conservatives!

[Some Ideas on Politics and Media]

This negates Postman's thesis entirely. You really should read his book. If you're saying that our public is generally better informed and in touch with important matters then I disagree entirely.

The decline of newspapers, and of serious news coverage has been lamented for at least 25 years now. Coverage of election campaigns is now almost all of what politics is about on TV news. Legislation is complex and boring, and left in the hands of the lobbyists and legislators who don't even read the bills.

Ah, you see, I never said that the "public is generally better informed" just that there is much more good-and-serious information available. This doesn't mean a better informed public, but it does mean that those who are interested, have far more sources available to them than ever before in human history. And I would say that in the modern age, it is much easier for someone to become informed if they wish, on most subjects.

You have to remember, the term "idiot box" comes from this mystical time that people now lament about. This term was familiar when I was growing up in the 60's. Just because there might have been more quality news, doesn't necessarily mean the public then was generally better informed or even accessed that content to any large degree.

Now, the problem with the mythical 50's & 60's, McLuhan's time, is that US legislators saw a requirement for the Fairness Doctrine, which should give you a hint right there. That is, why did they need to enact this in the first place? Did they enact a Fairness Doctrine for pamphleteers in the 18th & 19th centuries?

So while they can lament the "depth" of a particular topic, they were forced to present an alternative view. I would surmise that this "depth" was based on the social and political mores of a very few controlling interests. So the public might have been generally better informed on one perspective of an issue, but that does not transform them to be better informed overall.

Not so nowadays where an interested individual can gain information on a particular topic or issues from many perspectives up to, and including, information from other individuals who are directly involved in those topics or issues.

So I wouldn't necessarily agree that the modern public is generally better informed except to say that the modern public is generally better informed on how to get informed.

[Alberta Oil Sands]

I'll make it simple for you, though I regret I cannot use words of less than one syllable.

No need to get testy because I pointed out you make false assertions and can't back them up.

Let's say there are 40,000 cod fishermen in Nfld.

The cod fishery collapses. All are unemployed.

20,000 move to AB and find work.

20,000 remain unemployed.

Except you have no idea about the numbers of Newfoundlanders that went to work in Alberta. Now I will grant that you do seem to have reasonable knowledge about the culture that they brought with them, including their social clubs and parties. But let's be clear here fellowtraveller: a few social clubs and parties in Fort MacMurray does'nt equate to "20,000" workers.

Hibernia happens, and needs 20,000 workers.

There are 20,000 workers available, not 40,000 (notice what happened there) and NFLD enjoys near full employment in good jobs for everybody. Just not in Nfld.

Ah, the new math again.

Oh, and the cod fishery was in deep shit for decades before 1992, the exodus used to be to the wasteland of Toronto until that ship sailed. And of course, the work in AB has now attracted successive generations from the Maritimes, not just the 70s generation.

That's nice. But the fact remains that you still haven't proven or provided any sort of coherent evidence that the "chunk of workers" from Newf working in Alberta are responsible for NFLD getting "back on it's feet" after the Cod fishery collapse in 1992. Not even close.

[Some Ideas on Politics and Media]

News as entertainment has pervaded our culture to the point where a generation doesn't know anything different. If you want to see how much news has changed look at old broadcast and note the changes. There were more correspondents in the past, more investment in the idea that there was a responsibility to edify the television viewing public.

This is a difficult concept to reconcile to what I see as the facts, as stated by yourself in your post.

The "old broadcast" sample you provide, the example when there "were more correspondents in the past" was from a pre-cable era where there were a limited number of broadcast news outlets on VHF. Thus, a limited amount of channels, with more correspondents. Also note that since broadcasters had other programming, the amount of time these correspondents had was also limited.

MSNBC, CNN, Headline News, Fox News, Bloomberg, CNBC, and in Canada - CBC and CTV's news networks and local 24 hour news channel like CP 24 provide sensational, and eye-grabbing pieces for viewers who watch TV with the remote control in their hands.

These are but a few of the 24 hour news channels in addition to many more cable and satellite channels that broadcast news to their audiences through various forms, newscasts, news magazines, documentaries, etc.

So the fact of the matter is, there are far more news correspondents now than there ever was in the past, as an aggregate, and I would even bet that there are far more correspondents with a particular station, especially those whose parent companies run the national 24 hour cable news programs.

I would bet the newsroom at CBLT in Toronto has many more actual correspondents than they did in 1974 and, because of the increased infrastructure, they have access to far more than they ever did.

The corollary here is that if they have more access, we do as well. And this is true from a larger perspective when you include all of the news sources as our disposal. The amount of television, print news is vast compared to 1974, now add the endless supply of the Internet.

I see what you are saying, that competition has lowered the standards to a form of infotainment and at a glance this appears true. But this is only a phenomenon of the availability of so many choices to so many more, combined with modern lifestyle. But is is appearances only.

I think in modern times we have far more good and serious correspondents than ever before, doing stories about life that simply was not available pre-cable. I believe there is a very healthy competition in this 'good and serious' modern news that urges correspondents and their broadcasters to not only delve deeper into an issue, filter through far more available research material, but to go to places that simply would not have mattered 40 years ago.

TL;DR: more and better news compared to pre-cable 40 years ago.

[Omnibus Crime Bill to Cost the Provinces Billions]

Are you NS?

I am not sure what this means.

I heard they just let some serial Child Molester off

You "heard." Suuure you did. Cite or it didn't happen.

because he didn't get to trail fast enough?

Was heard-about child molester already a child molester or was he an accused child molester and not convicted? Because if it was the latter, I don't think the term "child molester" your "heard" about is the correct term.

Welcome to the Harper government everyone.

Seriously? You think court cases being thrown out because of delays is a phenomenon of "the Harper government?"

Are you under 21 or something?