World Power

Black Dog · April 14, 2004

Since when does the US president organize professional football leagues and television singing contests?
The US federal administration is one part of federal government which in part is one part of US government which itself is one part of American society.

Unfortunately, the reality is not so simple. Sports, entertainment, industry and politics all speak the same language...money. These segments cross-pollinate and interact (F'r instance, take GE, which owns NBC, makes household items and nuclear bombs. Or take AOL Time Warner, which owns Time magazine, CNN, the Atlanta Braves and more. Now take a look at recent events surrounding the FCC's bid to loosen ownership regulations). It's a tangled web.

The masses choose freely their opiate, I believe.

Oh really? And they are given what sort of alternative to the relentless consumerist sellathon of modern media? Making informed choices requires critical thinking and actual alternatives, both of which western society seems to be running low on.

Hugo · April 14, 2004

And they are given what sort of alternative to the relentless consumerist sellathon of modern media?

They don't have bookstores in your town?

Black Dog · April 14, 2004

Making informed choices requires critical thinking and actual alternatives, both of which western society seems to be running low on.

August1991 · April 14, 2004

Making informed choices requires critical thinking and actual alternatives, both of which western society seems to be running low on.

Precisely. So, BD, you think the masses in western society are stupid and easily manipulated. And you call yourself left thinking? Such thinking strikes me as closer to Goebbels or Stalin.

Has it ever occurred to you, BD, that ordinary Americans are very smart about things that matter to them? And furthermore, they choose what matters to them?

In effect, you are looking at critical thinking about actual alternatives except you don't like the choices ordinary Americans make. Now, who's the democrat?

Black Dog · April 14, 2004

Precisely. So, BD, you think the masses in western society are stupid and easily manipulated. And you call yourself left thinking? Such thinking strikes me as closer to Goebbels or Stalin.

Goebbels, though part of a monstrous regime, had some pretty bang-on assessments of human behavior and the power of media manipulation. Much of what he talked about informs the basics of modern public relations and communications.

I'm in P.R. I don't just think the masses are easily manipulated. I know they are.

Has it ever occurred to you, BD, that ordinary Americans are very smart about things that matter to them? And furthermore, they choose what matters to them?

What matters to most people most are the basics. They want a job, food, a place to live, a cold beer and something to entertain themselves with. Frankly, most people don't give a crap about politics or world affairs (do you agree?). The question is, to what degree is this disinterest promoted and fostered by the media and to whose benefit? How important is a well-informed, educated and critical populace to a healthy democracy and, in today's consumerist, pop-oriented media culture, do we have such a populace?

In effect, you are looking at critical thinking about actual alternatives except you don't like the choices ordinary Americans make. Now, who's the democrat?

I don't like a lot of the choices North Americans make. That includes Toby Keith and SUV's, but I'm not about to deny their right to make the choices (though I would consider changing that stance when it comes to Toby Keith... ) . However, I think it's very important to question the choices we make and their meanings and what the short and long-term effects are on ourselves and the world. What's wrong with encouraging people to think for themselves?

KrustyKidd · April 15, 2004

People, the point I was making by quoting Chomsky was that sports has been around long before Bush etc. If anybody can tell me that the Aborigionals who played Lacross did it to placate the masses while they were on a quest for Global Domination I will know you are certifiable. As I said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The first one that asks me what that is supposed to mean will get my unending ridicule. Anyhow, Chomsky was over the top with that one, in the Tin Foil brigade.

Black Dog · April 15, 2004

People, the point I was making by quoting Chomsky was that sports has been around long before Bush etc. If anybody can tell me that the Aborigionals who played Lacross did it to placate the masses while they were on a quest for Global Domination I will know you are certifiable. As I said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The first one that asks me what that is supposed to mean will get my unending ridicule. Anyhow, Chomsky was over the top with that one, in the Tin Foil brigade.

Let's revisist Chomsky's quote:

One of the functions that things like professional sports play in our society and others is to offer an area to deflect people's attention from things that matter, so that the people in power can do what matters without public interference

Nowhere does Chomsky blame the president, nor does he say anything about global domination. As I said before, this sentiment is nothing new. Ancient Rome had the spectacle of the Coloseum to keep the masses entertained, even as the empire staggered. It's no different today. Not a tough concept to grasp and certainly not the stuff of a paranoid mind.

If you're going to attack what Chomsky says, do so by countering his arguments. Dismissive hand-waving and talk of "tin-foil hats" (a phrase that can't go away fast enough for my liking) doesn't do the job.

KrustyKidd · April 15, 2004

so that the people in power can do what matters without public interference

LOL. And if we sat around and baked cakes he would blame the icing makers for diverting attention from the actions of the Neferious Government?

The way he says the paragraph is as if it is an INTENTIONAL doing, not simply a thing that happened by chance. Like I said, tin foil hats.

Hugo · April 15, 2004

so that the people in power can do what matters without public interference

Oh, and it's certainly working. I haven't heard any outcry over Gulf II, has anyone else? I mean, everybody is so united behind George W. that you'd think it was impossible to even have a different opinion!

Black Dog · April 15, 2004

Oh, and it's certainly working. I haven't heard any outcry over Gulf II, has anyone else? I mean, everybody is so united behind George W. that you'd think it was impossible to even have a different opinion!

LOL. And if we sat around and baked cakes he would blame the icing makers for diverting attention from the actions of the Neferious Government?
The way he says the paragraph is as if it is an INTENTIONAL doing, not simply a thing that happened by chance. Like I said, tin foil hats

I mourn for nuanced thinking. Absolutism rules the day.

KrustyKidd · April 15, 2004

I mourn for people that are so anti government that it clouds their vision of everything. Kerry for example, has no clear defined plan for Iraq except to somehow get UN help (after France and Germany have said they will not co-operate, subsequently canning any possible mandates from the UN) and get Bush out of office. He has followers who also are equally enlightened with a severe plan shortage for this issue. They follow Chomsky like his words mean everything when all he is trying to do is to get people to try and see things from another perspective. His words are by no means an authoritive and final decision, and carry an anti conservative thinking message.

He used football in this little example, why not movies? Why not the bar scene? Why not picnics, celebrations and such? Simple, he wanted to equate this sport with the Gladiator Arena, it sent a message of governmental control of some sinister kind.

As I said before, I like the guy, he should be manditory reading for anybody posting on a serious forum but, is hardly correct in all things. You will note, if you read more of him that he mixes in facts, good solid facts with ommisions that leave the uneduacated and closeminded with no other focal point but big bad US Government. None of his utterences are unbiased, even though he might come off as such, wish he could be as such.

It seems that even he, who probably knows more of the workings of the international world cannot rise above pettiness. As I said before, it would be interesting to have him do a few works on the French, Russians, Germans and the Middle East as a whole with equal zeal to his US bad-all the way books.

August1991 · April 15, 2004

Chomsky quote:

One of the functions that things like professional sports play in our society and others is to offer an area to deflect people's attention from things that matter, so that the people in power can do what matters without public interference

I don't happen to like Chomsky. I read him first as a linguist and although I'm hardly knowledgeable about linguistics, I found him tedious and arbitrary. When Chomsky branched into political argument, I felt more comfortable ignoring him.

Take the quote above, and specifically "deflect people's attention from things that matter". Who decides what matters? If I choose to watch a football match on TV instead of a presidential press conference, who is to say what is more important?

The same is true for "people in power can do what matters". When someone says to me "this matters", I invariably stop listening. It probably matters to the person speaking, I reason, but they are foolishly presumptuous if they think I too will think it matters. And, I reason further, anyone so foolish does not deserve much of my attention.

The whole notion of representative democracy is to elect some people to worry about things that matter. Every so often we check in to make sure things in general are fine because things that matter were dealt with. If not, we randomly choose a new crew and see if they manage better.

Chomsky speaks down to people - and implies they are stupid because of the choices they make. I find this tiresome.

Black Dog · April 15, 2004

The whole notion of representative democracy is to elect some people to worry about things that matter. Every so often we check in to make sure things in general are fine because things that matter were dealt with. If not, we randomly choose a new crew and see if they manage better.

Democracy requires citizens to be informed, vigilant and active. It is not simply casting a ballot once every four years in blind hope that things'll just work out for the best. Jesus, more than half of the people can't even be bothered to do even that and you seem to think people should care less about democracy?

"If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost." - Aristotle

KrustyKidd · April 15, 2004

Ideally,

Democracy requires citizens to be informed, vigilant and active. It is not simply casting a ballot once every four years in blind hope that things'll just work out for the best.

Jesus, more than half of the people can't even be bothered to do even that

Got that right. Although usually politicly opposed, you, August and I share a mutual concern for the process BD. Consider this short editorial I wrote for my website, the last para particularly; PEMBROKE INTERACTIVE.CA

FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY
Drew Bedson - Founder of Pembroke Interactive

I don't think there is a actual true form known as 'freedom' when in a situation of two or more people. Unless they are identical in every way, they will have differences. Freedom is a perfection that, like true Socialism or a 'perpetual motion machine' is an impossiblity in practicality and remains a mental and political exercise. A holy carrot at the end of a stick that will be forever unattainable. We try to balance it with democracy, but when an agreement is made, somebody loses their freedom and another gains more of it.

Even democracy is unatainable. We cannot have a referandum on every issue so, we vote in whom we believe will act in the majority's interest. This leaves the minority without their freedom in many issues, and, even the majority have no freedom until the next election.

What is interesting though, is that the only time that we are truly free is when we are in the voting booth. Those few minutes are the sum total of all the suffering, of all the victims of tyrany throughout human history, multiplied by the sacrifices and efforts of all those who fought to achieve freedom. And how many don't even bother? Victims all. Their one chance to be free for a moment, and they give it up, letting us who do vote have an opportunity to have our way, however narrow our choices are.

4/2/2004

theloniusfleabag · April 15, 2004

Dear KK,

Well said. I am a big fan of democracy, and wish that we could see more of it, especially in Canada. I always vote, when I can. More voting on 'bills' like the US, for example, would be a good thing.

If I may note, democracy seems to be the purest example of 'communism' (or socialism) extant. It serves all the people equally, all people are equal (and free, in the voting booth), and it is never meant to turn an economic profit. The profit democracy brings is social, it is shared equally, (even if it is a loss we share, like our Liberals!) with benefits far greater than anything money can buy.

KrustyKidd · April 15, 2004

If I may note, democracy seems to be the purest example of 'communism' (or socialism) extant. It serves all the people equally, all people are equal (and free, in the voting booth), and it is never meant to turn an economic profit. The profit democracy brings is social, it is shared equally, (even if it is a loss we share, like our Liberals!) with benefits far greater than anything money can buy.

Might sound like two Stars passing on compliments but Lonius, I nearly had to reach for the kleenex when I read your words of wisdom. Normally when I read your drivel I bring over the village idot to decipher it for me LOL, but this time however, it was crystal clear, and so astute.

Well said!

August1991 · April 17, 2004

If I may note, democracy seems to be the purest example of 'communism' (or socialism) extant.

Democracy loses in this good comparison.

But first, let me respond to BD:

Democracy requires citizens to be informed, vigilant and active. It is not simply casting a ballot once every four years in blind hope that things'll just work out for the best.

"Informed, vigilant and active"? What's that? A new drug? Magazine? People are what people are. Let's take them as they are - which is pretty complicated already.

Democracy requires, in my humble opinion, one thing: a civilized way to throw the buggers out. I don't know if you realize that in most countries in our 2004 world, ordinary people are impressed when this happens. Sadly, we Canadians almost take it for granted.

But I don't like democracy. Why? For several reasons, but I'll note the "one person, one vote" idea. That makes everybody the same, which we are obviously not. A few people like pizza alot while others sort of prefer Chinese but not really. When choosing where to eat, should it be one man, one vote? Is that how small groups really decide collective decisions? (BTW, markets don't work that way. If the cigarette market were decided by majority vote, the 75% non-smokers would win the referendum.)

Churchill said it best: Democracy is the least bad method when a single collective choice is required.

d4dev · April 17, 2004

The US will certainly not be able to retain it's current supremacy (and belligerence) in world affairs much longer. The BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are rapidly developing economies, and even now, they don't like the US much. In about 50 years from now, the world will be a much safer and democratic place than it is now.

KrustyKidd · April 17, 2004

Sure hope you are right. The thought of China with a bad economy scares the hell out of me.

As for hating or liking the US, countries don't like each other or hate each other. They form alliances with each other and then those alliances ultimately fall apart after the common goals have been reached. The US for example, provided the backbone of NATO as it protected Europe from the Soviet Union for a half century. During this time they were united against a common enemy and got along quite well. When that threat was removed it got back to the business of everybody vying for dominence with the France, Germans and so on and forth forming new alliances to seek dominence. Part of the strategy is to become more influencial than the US is. No surprise, it a natural progression.

Your comments about the Russians and India etc are very astute, thanks to peace and Democratic and social reform they are about to reap the rewards of capitalism and provide for their people. If you view that as a failure for the US it is not. A prosperous country is one in which peace and security thrives and posses little threat to it's nighbors or the rest of the world.

d4dev · April 18, 2004

As for hating or liking the US, countries don't like each other or hate each other. They form alliances with each other and then those alliances ultimately fall apart after the common goals have been reached.

That is true. However, alliances between countries are based on mutual benefit. I don't see any benefit for the emerging economies in forming a strong alliance wit the US.

For eg, in 1998, when the then Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov visited India, he suggested a Russia-China-India alliance. Although that suggestion was not implemented at that time, it sure is not dead.

Further, it is very difficult for countries to which the US has been openly hostile in the past to ally with it. The US has been hostile to all the BRIC countries in the past. In contrast, the US was never openly hostile to Europe before WW II.

Therefore, there is very little chance that the BRIC countries will forge alliances with the US. Instead, they are in a better position to forge an alliance whithin themselves.

Your comments about the Russians and India etc are very astute, thanks to peace and Democratic and social reform they are about to reap the rewards of capitalism and provide for their people. If you view that as a failure for the US it is not. A prosperous country is one in which peace and security thrives and posses little threat to it's nighbors or the rest of the world.

I don't view that as a failure for the US. Doesn't the US claim to stand for these very values? I only meant that as the world becomes multi-polar, the US will be forced to reconsider it's unilateral global policy decisions.

theloniusfleabag · April 18, 2004

Dear d4dev,

I don't view that as a failure for the US. Doesn't the US claim to stand for these very values? I only meant that as the world becomes multi-polar, the US will be forced to reconsider it's unilateral global policy decisions.

The US allies itself with nations that will generate profits for the US. It will not change it's global policy in this aspect until the American individual is encouraged to worship something else besides his/her self, money and power.

d4dev · April 18, 2004

It will not change it's global policy in this aspect until the American individual is encouraged to worship something else besides his/her self, money and power.

True. Not atleast until it is forced to. And I think that the coming of these countries of age economically, and militarily will surely force the US to start thinking differently.

August1991 · April 18, 2004

How strange to read this thread.

You seem to be discussing hockey teams. Who's on top? Well the US team is strong now but those Chinese and Indian teams are getting strong too. And the Russians? Their coach has figured out how to train well. They'll be back. The US will not dominate forever.

How about treaties and alliances?

The US allies itself with nations that will generate profits for the US.

That would be like the Bruins and the Black Hawks doing a deal against the Leafs. But we all know those Bruins only do deals if they benefit!

Do you mean d4dev, fleabag, KK that countries in our world behave like hockey teams or (democratic) street gangs?

Let me consider Canada and the US. Or rather, let me consider 30 million Canadians and 300 million Americans. Everyday these millions of people, across a border, phone each other, exchange e-mails, send CVs, get jobs, buy stuff, sell stuff, get married, get divorced. The same is true for other countries around the world.

THAT is the modern world. It is NOT a hockey league or competing street gangs. We live in a world where billions of people use sophisticated methods to do deals between each other.

We live in a world where the Bruins and the Leafs get on the ice, and then various players from both teams go into a corner, work out a deal, and score a shared goal. In fact, they say: "Forget this silly game, let's go have a beer instead."

In such a world, it is absurd to talk of the 'US' as a 'World Power'. Unless you mean that Bush Jnr can maybe direct for a few years the US military - subject of course to US Federal Congressional approval.

d4dev · April 18, 2004

It is equally absurd to compare the management of countries to management of hockey teams. What aspect of a hockey team would compare to national defence? Or to the judiciary? Or public transport?

It is quite easy to divert the topic by comparing something to something else which is basically uncomparable to it. It's more difficult to stay on course and refute the existing arguments.

August1991 · April 18, 2004

It is quite easy to divert the topic by comparing something to something else which is basically uncomparable to it. It's more difficult to stay on course and refute the existing arguments.

All through this thread, the term 'US' is used as if it were a single, monolithic entity. It's not.

Furthermore, there's a tendency to view countries as pieces in some kind of board game:

Therefore, there is very little chance that the BRIC countries will forge alliances with the US. Instead, they are in a better position to forge an alliance whithin themselves.

For eg, in 1998, when the then Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov visited India, he suggested a Russia-China-India alliance. Although that suggestion was not implemented at that time, it sure is not dead.

This quote is apt. Primakov, the old Soviet, reflects well the thinking of this thread.

The reality of the modern world is very different. To take the US example, there are 300 million Americans doing God knows what. The cumulative result of all these things is what you call the 'US'.

BTW, these individual Americans are not competing with foreigners or trying to dominate them. For the most part, when foreigners and Americans interact, they both walk away happy.