Gee ! 9 0f 20 get Canucks bucks in aid

[Shwa]

Good piece here by B. Lilley - so why are we giving China money - again?

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/10/time-has-come-to-get-tough-with-china

Lilley expects morons to follow his tripe because he knows most of them are too stupid to lazy to figure out how our foreign aid works or what the money is actually spent on. Seriously, we "give" them money?

Eh. The CIDA projects are listed on their website for anyone to look at. But Lilley knows most of them won't.

Except for one of the commenters on Lilley's story by the name of Barry Miles who makes Lilley look like the a silly shill.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Shwa

[Shwa]

They have been greatly reduced to make the news more salesworthy, i.e. entertainment. This is well documented in Neil Postman's landmark book 'Amusing Ourselves to Death'. Also, investigative journalism is not funded to the same level - and the press relies more on repackaging press releases.

Except that even with a reduction, there are far more news outlets now and likely a percentage of them do more longer, more serious pieces that existed back in the 1950s. Not counting blogs, web sites, zines, etc.

Things change, and media and government have changed quite a bit since the 1950s. Government provides more services, and is more complex to manage. There are more details and complexity around delivering services than there were 50 years ago.

But there are also more people that are savvy to the details and complexities and who can articulate them to the public reader.

All of these changes represent challenges to the democratic model. Toynbee's model of history saw all of history as a series of challenges and responses. To my mind the issues we're seeing with government now represent a challenge that require a new response.

Like any journalist, historians pick and choose their facts to construct their preferred narrative.

[scribblet]

If any country is dumber on this subject than Canada, it's the USA.

"The Americans also give aid to China which in essence means they borrow money from China in order to give money back to China."

If anything, I'm more concerned about the quasi political pundits and self styled intelligentsia that attempt to justify aid to countries in the G20 than I am of the government that seemingly finds no end to things on which they can waste tax dollars.

It is a puzzlement as to why they want to justify it, especially to countries who's economies are booming. These people would be the first to complain about the deficit yet this doesn't bother them -

[bush_cheney2004]

It is a puzzlement as to why they want to justify it, especially to countries who's economies are booming. These people would be the first to complain about the deficit yet this doesn't bother them -

US aid to China through programs from the likes of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or Peace Corp. serve an American purpose that may not be obvious to those in Canada (or America). Even with Chinese restrictions, the American "ambassadors" can still work their magic.

[scribblet]

US aid to China through programs from the likes of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or Peace Corp. serve an American purpose that may not be obvious to those in Canada (or America). Even with Chinese restrictions, the American "ambassadors" can still work their magic.

Hmm okay, sort of like greasing the wheel ?

Brian Lilley of the Sun quoted Mitt Romney, who I agree with about China. “China is playing by different rules. One, they’re stealing intellectual property. Number two, they’re hacking into our computer systems, both government and corporate, and they’re stealing by virtue of that as well,” Not sure that we should continue to help them do this -

Edited November 12, 2011 by scribblet

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmm okay, sort of like greasing the wheel ?

That's one way to put it....for instance...the Americans foster development of internet access in rural China. This serves American interests in ways not unlike the old days of "Voice of America" broadcasts over jamming in eastern Europe.

The "West" wins when information is available to a broader international audience. The American purpose is clear.

Edited November 12, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Except that even with a reduction, there are far more news outlets now and likely a percentage of them do more longer, more serious pieces that existed back in the 1950s. Not counting blogs, web sites, zines, etc.

Ok. Now we're really drifting the thread here, not that the topic isn't interesting. Up until now, we've been talking about whether the OP is valid. Your point is that the poster didn't take the time to inform himself, but merely accepted the thesis of the editorial.

My point is that government is more complex today, and that voters need information somehow served up to them in a far simpler and far more accessible and usable way than it is today. Otherwise, relevant information becomes the domain of people with specialized knowledge, and we have to trust these people not only to interpret the facts, but to tell us the facts.

You say there are 'far more news outlets now' but that doesn't mean that they provide more information, or better quality information. I would argue that more competition means that they have to be more 'amusing' to attract more readers and viewers. Hence, the world of cable TV news and the constant outrage that they peddle.

But... as I said we're really drifting the thread here. Maybe we can start a new one ? The topic would be media criticism. Now, although I love to talk about it, I don't know if I would be any good at defending the entire field of media criticism if you don't think that it's valid, or if you don't think that media has any effect on the message and so on.

This wikipedia page is about Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death which is a very accessible book, and one that first got me interested in this field when I was in my 20s.

But there are also more people that are savvy to the details and complexities and who can articulate them to the public reader.

Chomsky used to refer to the 20% who are engaged in democracy, who vote and who care. Maybe it's less now. There are fewer people voting as a percentage today. Democracy is a victim of its own success.

Like any journalist, historians pick and choose their facts to construct their preferred narrative.

So all historical theory is subjective BS then ? There's nothing to be learned from history ? Maybe.

[Shwa]

Ok. Now we're really drifting the thread here, not that the topic isn't interesting. Up until now, we've been talking about whether the OP is valid. Your point is that the poster didn't take the time to inform himself, but merely accepted the thesis of the editorial.

Puh-lease. There was no "thesis" in the news story, are you kidding me? LOFL! Lilley was misprepresenting the facts in order to arouse the morons amongst his readership.

My point is that government is more complex today, and that voters need information somehow served up to them in a far simpler and far more accessible and usable way than it is today. Otherwise, relevant information becomes the domain of people with specialized knowledge, and we have to trust these people not only to interpret the facts, but to tell us the facts.

When has it ever been otherwise?

Now maybe you can defend stupidity and/or intellectual laziness on behalf of others, but Lilley is a journalist, a writer for a large media corporation. There is no excuse for him, since he is an interested party. On the one hand, he has his "thesis," but on the other hand, we can't have specialists interpreting the facts for us. Good God, what the hell are you really saying?

You say there are 'far more news outlets now' but that doesn't mean that they provide more information, or better quality information. I would argue that more competition means that they have to be more 'amusing' to attract more readers and viewers. Hence, the world of cable TV news and the constant outrage that they peddle.

There are far more news organizations, providing far more in-depth information on a far wider variety of subjects than ever before in human history. That there are more amusing news hooks, doesn't remove the fact that there are far more serious news stories, videos, blogs, etc. We know more about ourselves and our government that any previous generation and this has come because we have demanded it.

But... as I said we're really drifting the thread here. Maybe we can start a new one ? The topic would be media criticism. Now, although I love to talk about it, I don't know if I would be any good at defending the entire field of media criticism if you don't think that it's valid, or if you don't think that media has any effect on the message and so on.

This wikipedia page is about Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death which is a very accessible book, and one that first got me interested in this field when I was in my 20s.

Feel free, but the thread hasn't drifted that much. Lilley's articles pander to the lowest intellectual denominator of the literate news consumer. The result is a lot of noise that the rest of us have to put up with. I am not about to blame the government for that - are you?

Chomsky used to refer to the 20% who are engaged in democracy, who vote and who care. Maybe it's less now. There are fewer people voting as a percentage today. Democracy is a victim of its own success.

If democracy was all that was considered. But out form of democracy doesn't exist in a vacuum and it can't rationally be looked at as if it does. At least not for very long or when you want to make larger generalizations about it.

So all historical theory is subjective BS then ? There's nothing to be learned from history ? Maybe.

Did I say that all of history is "subjective BS?" Nope. However, I challenge you to prove me wrong on what I stated, that historians pick and choose their facts to construct their preferred narrative. History isn't science.

[Michael Hardner]

Puh-lease. There was no "thesis" in the news story, are you kidding me? LOFL! Lilley was misprepresenting the facts in order to arouse the morons amongst his readership.

Whether or not you agree, there was a thesis: a subject, or point being made.

When has it ever been otherwise?

When has government been less complex ?

It becomes more complex with time, so go back in time and you'll find government that was less complex.

Now maybe you can defend stupidity and/or intellectual laziness on behalf of others, but Lilley is a journalist, a writer for a large media corporation. There is no excuse for him, since he is an interested party. On the one hand, he has his "thesis," but on the other hand, we can't have specialists interpreting the facts for us. Good God, what the hell are you really saying?

I'm not defending stupidity. I'm saying if people don't have the tools to evaluate the truth on their own then people like Lilley have an easier time of it. If this information is even marginally more difficult to find, then it will be marginally easier for someone to spread misinformation.

Before science, we had to rely on the church to tell us that the sun revolved around the earth. Once we had the tools to understand how the universe, it was harder to put one over on us.

There are far more news organizations, providing far more in-depth information on a far wider variety of subjects than ever before in human history. That there are more amusing news hooks, doesn't remove the fact that there are far more serious news stories, videos, blogs, etc. We know more about ourselves and our government that any previous generation and this has come because we have demanded it.

Whether or not there are "more" isn't as important as whether facts are more important in the public debate than they were in the past. There may be "more" "good" information, but if there is far more "bad" information then it doesn't matter. If you sip from the media fountain, there will be less good information there.

But the deterioration of news is a commonly accepted theme in media criticism. Again, this is Postman's area of expertise. I can't guarantee that I can do his ideas justice - you really should read the book if you want

Feel free, but the thread hasn't drifted that much. Lilley's articles pander to the lowest intellectual denominator of the literate news consumer. The result is a lot of noise that the rest of us have to put up with. I am not about to blame the government for that - are you?

It's not about blame. These are new challenges that we need to respond to.

But out form of democracy doesn't exist in a vacuum and it can't rationally be looked at as if it does. At least not for very long or when you want to make larger generalizations about it.

Right. It changes as media and the landscape of political discussion changes, and as government grows to name a few factors. As I said previously, the Newspaper Era was a different era than today with different challenges.

Did I say that all of history is "subjective BS?" Nope. However, I challenge you to prove me wrong on what I stated, that historians pick and choose their facts to construct their preferred narrative. History isn't science.

All I can take from your statement is that you are dismissing the study of history. If not, then what did you mean ?

[Shwa]

Whether or not you agree, there was a thesis: a subject, or point being made.

Oh there was a point alright. I just have a problem with your sullying the reputation of a good word.

When has government been less complex?

It becomes more complex with time, so go back in time and you'll find government that was less complex.

I was replying to the point you had made, which I had italicized for clarity. Experts have always been interpreting or providing expert facts since the dawn of "history." Gawd, look at the big deal with the Church when people wanted to start interpretting the Bible for themselves.

I'm not defending stupidity. I'm saying if people don't have the tools to evaluate the truth on their own then people like Lilley have an easier time of it. If this information is even marginally more difficult to find, then it will be marginally easier for someone to spread misinformation.

And I say: don't believe everything you read.

Before science, we had to rely on the church to tell us that the sun revolved around the earth. Once we had the tools to understand how the universe, it was harder to put one over on us.

Who's "we" and why are you including me?

Whether or not there are "more" isn't as important as whether facts are more important in the public debate than they were in the past. There may be "more" "good" information, but if there is far more "bad" information then it doesn't matter. If you sip from the media fountain, there will be less good information there.

I dunno Michael, that sounds like a cynical impression of humanity. I believe that a smart person won't willy-nilly believe what they say and post BS on an internet forum and leave it at that. A smart person. I happen to believe that most people are smart enough.

But the deterioration of news is a commonly accepted theme in media criticism. Again, this is Postman's area of expertise. I can't guarantee that I can do his ideas justice - you really should read the book if you want

It's going on the list once I have done my priroty projects. However, without prejudicing the read, authors always gather the facts that support their narrative. If you really want to have fun, read the guys who criticize the method of narrative.

It's not about blame. These are new challenges that we need to respond to.

To a degree, yes, you're absolutely right and I see progress in that regard. However, we can't pander to morons or dumb shit down 'cuz ol' Rufus der dunt unnerstan da innernet.

Right. It changes as media and the landscape of political discussion changes, and as government grows to name a few factors. As I said previously, the Newspaper Era was a different era than today with different challenges.

And what I am saying is that in the Newspaper Era there was less serious and in-depth news and opinion compared to today. Even with the crud out there, people can - and do - develop filters.

All I can take from your statement is that you are dismissing the study of history. If not, then what did you mean ?

Of course not, but I think we have to recognize the pitfalls of any - and every - "history" that we come across. History is not developed as an altruistic past-time for the benefit of humanity, like immunizations or potable water projects. Hence the saying, "The victors write the history." (not entirely true, but you get the idea).

[Moonlight Graham]

Lilley expects morons to follow his tripe because he knows most of them are too stupid to lazy to figure out how our foreign aid works or what the money is actually spent on. Seriously, we "give" them money?

Eh. The CIDA projects are listed on their website for anyone to look at. But Lilley knows most of them won't.

Except for one of the commenters on Lilley's story by the name of Barry Miles who makes Lilley look like the a silly shill.

Saying we giv aid to these "well-off" countries is meaningless without context. The aid may have foreign policy purposes not listed in this thread, ie: the #1 recipient of US foreign aid is Israel...and it's not because they are a starving country in need of food & vaccines. Also, how much does Canada receive in foreign aid from China and the other countries we give aid to?

[Shwa]

Also, how much does Canada receive in foreign aid from China and the other countries we give aid to?

In what context?

[Moonlight Graham]

In what context?

I have no idea, investigate what these dollars are for. My point is that every dollar in "aid" has a purpose, and are often just as much about advancing our own interests as any other foreign policy. So much of it, even to the poorest countries, come with strings attached.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Shwa]

I have no idea, investigate what these dollars are for. My point is that every dollar in "aid" has a purpose, and are often just as much about advancing our own interests as any other foreign policy. So much of it, even to the poorest countries, come with strings attached.

Well, do you consider a cut rate on arms to be a form of "foreign aid?"

[Michael Hardner]

And I say: don't believe everything you read.

...

And what I am saying is that in the Newspaper Era there was less serious and in-depth news and opinion compared to today. Even with the crud out there, people can - and do - develop filters.

So, from your posts above it seems that you reject Postman's thesis, as well as possibly media criticism as a body of work, and maybe even the study of history itself.

I'm not qualified to defend such broad areas of study. I have enough time defending science against those who believe (like you do) that the winners are writing the final narrative in terms of Climate Change.

I can see now that the arguments I make on MLW and elsewhere, in terms of what new media can do for us, will never change your mind. If you don't think that the medium is the message, at least to a degree, then we're dead in the water here. Get back to me after you've read the book, though - you may have some interesting insights to share on it.

[Guest Peeves]

So, from your posts above it seems that you reject Postman's thesis, as well as possibly media criticism as a body of work, and maybe even the study of history itself.

I'm not qualified to defend such broad areas of study. I have enough time defending science against those who believe (like you do) that the winners are writing the final narrative in terms of Climate Change.

I can see now that the arguments I make on MLW and elsewhere, in terms of what new media can do for us, will never change your mind. If you don't think that the medium is the message, at least to a degree, then we're dead in the water here. Get back to me after you've read the book, though - you may have some interesting insights to share on it.

......... and when was the last time anyone's opinion 'here' mattered a pinch of coon shit to the r.w ?

It's your opinion that is of value here, not that you should expect your (or others) opinion to convince another or change their mind. Forums aren't about to be meaningful outside of to one or two or three others.

While aid in one form or another may be given to another country, altruistically or for your own agenda, I suggest there i so much baksheesh or waste - fraud involved that it should only be provided with definitive goals.

Aid in my experience has been fraught with so much fraud that it is meaningless to the citizenry and has been used to buy dictators or fund revolutionaries.

I look at the USA and see a country that has provided probably as much or more aid, assistance to other countries than the rest of the world combined. Including the aid in the protection of Europe from the USSR.

Interestingly enough, the countries to which the USA has provided aid have no hesitation in demonstrating against the USA. Some in fact (like Pakistan), are actually enemies for the most part.

I think we need a definition of the term, 'aid'.

To me most aid is unjustified.

imo, aid to countries in the G20 could be better used.

Pork-barrel "aid" legislation had better have transparency of purpose. If the aid goes undefined,I question such expending of tax dollars.

Politicians justify pork and always will, but aid that is in reality just pork pisses me off.

[Hudson Jones]

Totally agree, there is no reason why we should be giving aid in any form to China. Last year we gave 36 million to a country that has over 2 trillion in reserves, along with a huge military. We really need to ask a lot tougher questions about how our foreign aid dollars are used.

I thought I saw somewhere that you agreed to the $3 billion U.S. gives to Israel which goes mostly towards military. Why the double standard?