Is this biased reporting?

[Eirinjas]

I have social democratic tendencies.  I agree with your sentiment that there is little socialism in the trends of American domestic policy. 

Your comments smack of student activism, and while I'm sure that they are heartfelt, I would suggest that you reflect a bit more before adopting such a view without compromise.  Your general sentiments about capitalistic excess are worth exploration - unfortunately, your all or nothing approach has been done to death...a century ago.  Anarchism is not a viable alternative - In America, neither is outright socialism.  I'm not sure what the answer is - perhaps democratic reform within the liberal paradigm could lead to more humanistic attitudes towards the weak and poor?  It's an open question whether the strict constructionists in America would ever accept that.  What I DO know is that the answer is not simply the application of another one-size-fits-all 'ideology implant,' as you seem to be implying ought to be the case.
[right][snapback]93388[/snapback][/right]

Socialism in American industries in the 1800's worked fine until the Capitalists attacked it as well as the Anarchists that rose to defend it. Why is Anarchism synonymous with chaos today? Because of the campaign by the Capitalists to paint them as dangerous, destructive individuals who want to destroy society with their reckless disregard for all things. For Capitalists in that day to break strikers and to attack Union meetings with extreme, government capitulated violence (police brutality); crippling, maiming, killing; was fine, but when those same strikers, or union men/women turned around with like violence - they were called terrorists and criminals and whatnot.

Look back to what happened to the Molly McGuires: they were arrested by "phoney" law enforcement, were tried in a "phoney" court, and ultimately executed for their crimes against the coal magnates. It was the state government of Pennsylvania and that of the federal government that permitted the coal magnates to create and perpetrate their own law enforcement, justice system, and punishment against the Molly Maguires. Nothing about it was actually legal. That is but an example of the dirty history we have in this country. Unions that help ferment a brotherhood of labor so that workers may get their fair shake are demonized while the very wealthy (Rockefeller) are put on pristine pedestals as the model for what it is to be an American (be insanely wealthy, shaft your near poverty workers, beat them when they get out of line, and hang them when they complain).

To suggest that Socialism or Communism or Anarchism have been tried and proved to be failures - excuse me? What? Where is the big, morally correct example of the success of Capitalism? There isn't one. Capitalism demands war and fuels it (yes, including Iraq), fuels poverty, and necessitates an economic caste system. Capitalism itself is driven, in large part, by market speculation - so it's most important element, money, is at all times unstable. At all times, in a Capitalist system, someone's needs are not being met - and in America we are talking about millions of children who are starving! So, Capitalism is not successful at all. In fact, one of the only reasons it has outlasted the systems of other societies is because we bomb the #$%& out of them until they accept our way of doing business. We never allow successful examples of Socialism or Communism to go unpunished. Look at how we've tortured South America. Take Cuba, for instance, which has continued to do well even despite the trade embargo we've made them suffer through.

Capitalism and war go hand-in-hand. When you go off to some foreign land to fight a war - you do so to secure a market, or a resource, or a source of cheap labor for the Capitalists.

Anarchism and Socialism are malleable whereas Capitalism is not. Capitalism is compelled by the making of money and can therefore never be without moral compromise. Anarchism and Socialism are about equality in the distribution of labor and income, and in attaining true freedom through the deconstruction of government by handing the power directly to the people. You can vote all you want - Republicans and Democrats will always support the plutocracy at the expense of the American people.

P.S. China holds all the economic cards now. They could send us into an economic depression tomorrow if they wanted to. So much for the success of Capitalism.

[Eirinjas]

You're jumping a little too quickly on the "ism's" and "fundamentally" too quickly to get what happens in society.  Some people do in fact make decisions to support of oppose something because of an ism, but a lot of people mainly seem to support something because they think it will work better for them, or that it will help some group, or they have just one particular thing they want and will work with whoever can get them that thing.  Because of this, a society will very easily become a mishmash of things that different ism's would support.

As for being "fundamentally" something, what exactly does "funadmentally" something mean?  I could come up with any system that is just a mishmash of different parts, perhaps I suggest free food for everyone, no health care, regulations on sex related morality, lots of tariffs, a medium sized military, money support for religions, and lots of control by smaller state type things.  How would someone sort out what it "funadmenatlly" was?  Assuming I could get the right groups working with me, I could possibly get all these into action. 

To use an analogy (this might kill the argument, but I really like it), think of "nature vs. nurture" arguments you may have heard of.  Almost all processes that go on in life are a combination of these two, so arguing about which is the "fundamental" cause would be pretty pointless, as both have effects.  If anything, they are "fundamentally" chemicals reacting with each other, and/or electricity in nerves, and/or forces on something's body.  Maybe some things are more effectecd by genes, some by embryo chemicals that happen to be there, and some by environment, but that doesn't mean they are "fundamentally" something.

The point of all this is that you can't go out and blame "capitalism" for something that exists in a society just because that society fits a lot with some "prerfect capitalist" society.  You could be dealing with something from some other philosophy, or more likely you are dealing with something that has nothing to do with some governing phikosophy, just some feelings people have.
[right][snapback]93374[/snapback][/right]

The foundation of our domestic policy is government-sponsored Capitalism, and Capitalist-sponsored government. Remember, we live in a country ruled by a Federal government - not a Democratic one. Voting for a President every 4 years is not Democracy. Imminent domain, wage-slavery, poverty, militarism, pollution, and a host of other ills are all results from the corpocracy of our country.

Why don't we have socialized medicine? Because if we had socialized medicine there'd be little need for medical insurance and that is HUGE business for that tiny labor market that produces zero physical commodities.

Mull this over: There were two people in American history who suggested we print our own money instead of BUYING IT WITH INTEREST - meaning: we could eliminate our national debt if we didn't have to pay $1.35 for every $1.00, for instance. One was Abraham Lincoln and the other was John F. Kennedy. I wonder what happened to them.

[Eirinjas]

Not sure where you got your red herring in re race or color, but that his your invention in this conversation, not mine.  Dont' try putting words in my mouth.  I'll spit them at you.

Occhi
[right][snapback]93350[/snapback][/right]

Ghostiger:
"So is it biased that this report never mentions that the rioters were black?"

Occhidiangela (in response to Doc):
"Do you now understand the issue Ghostiger is raising?"

[Eirinjas]

The system as it stands today is a fusion of Enlightenment ideas and ideals put into practice, which always suffers compared to theory, and which you, in your narrow, reductionist view choose to characterize as Capitalist -- an intellectually dishonest and fundementally false descriptive to anyone who peels back even one layer of the onion.  Nothing is that pure.

The system is comparatively more Capitalist than Socialist, when viewed next to modern day Sweden, and comparatively more Socialist than Capitalist when compared to  the US in 1895 or the U.K. in the Victorian era.  In those days, the various robber barons and/or aristocrats worked relatively unfettered by regulation, State/Federal regulation, which grew in the 20th century as the influence of Socialism moderated the Capitalist excesses of the 19th century.  The system is far more Humanist than Theocratic, based on our Constitution.

You lose, again, and will continue to do so until you get the other half.

For you to assert that a nation-state would be better off under Anarchy is a sign of your utter ignorance of what Anarchy is, and what it leads to.  For you to excuse acting out violently, in a riot, as a suitable response to social unfairness is an insult to the patience and lawful struggle of lawful activists such as Rosa Parks, who recently passed away and who took the moral high ground (see my much earlier comment) and worked at making a difference and overcoming a social obstacle.  That work was done within the context of lawful activity.  A riot is the lazy criminal's response to the prospect of having to work to make a change.

Go to the back woods of Zaire, perhaps Sierra Leone or Liberia (heck, parts of Afghnistan or Iraq will do nicelyl) and experience Anarchy. 

While you are at it, stay there.  With any luck, you will get shot and die, and the world's aggregate ignorance will decrease slightly.

May I suggest  http://www.travelocity.com/  for your airpline reservations?

Occhi
[right][snapback]93375[/snapback][/right]

Again, I never said that the rioting had an "excuse". I never said the rioters should be "excused" from criminal prosecution for ANY reason. I merely stated one of the reasons for the outbreak of violence - economic conditions. You then decided to twist that as you saw fit. You invent your own perception of reality as you see fit.

It's you who does not know what Anarchism is. Here's a definition for you to be educated (if possible) by:

Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of all forms of social hierarchy. In place of centralized political structures, private ownership of the means of production, and exploitative economic institutions such as rent and profit, these movements favor social relations based upon voluntary interaction and self-management, and aspire to a society characterised by autonomy and freedom. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary interaction of free individuals, and the idea that communities and individuals have a say in decisions to the degree that they are affected by their outcomes.

While opposition to coercive institutions and socially constructed hierarchies are primary tenets of anarchism, anarchism is also a positive vision of how a voluntary society would work. There is considerable variation amongst anarchist philosophies. Opinions differ in various areas, such as whether violence should be employed to foster anarchism, what type of economic system should exist, questions on the environment and industrialism, and anarchists' roles in other movements.

The terms "anarchy" and "anarchism" are derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a stateless society with voluntary social relations.

[Ashock]

Why is everyone arguing with a child? Mentally or physically or both, this ignoramus is a child. Leave him alone to study his cliffnotes on the world.


Bleh, what a waste of time.



-A

[Eirinjas]

Eirinjas, what you said in these paragraphs has caught my attention.

Perhaps the issue of color didn't have anything to do with "the story", however your example of Woodstock is very poor. First of all, you contradict yourself in the first paragraph stating that reporters might not of seen race as an issue, then you go on with an example (presumably you got your information from the same everyone else did, a.k.a. the media, unless you were there personally) of white people rioting; how contravene.

Secondly, I personally know people who attended said "Woodstock" concert a "few years back," and most of these friends were Mexican. Some of my good friends at the time were broke-as-a-joke. By generalizing this incident, you my friend are no better than whoever you were pointing your finger at! Perhaps race was at issue, or perhaps not! Regardless, it is how you went about showing off your example that has gotten under my skin!

http://www.cmcstudents.com/classic/woodstock.html

Regarding the initial discussion, I'd rather stay mute until I knew more facts.
[right][snapback]93372[/snapback][/right]

MOST of the kids at Woodstock were white just as MOST of the people in Toldeo who were rioting were black. Not an issue of race - an issue of economics ("broke-as-a-joke"). My use of the qualifier "ALL" was misplaced but my argument stands.

[Eirinjas]

Dear insulting one.

Despite how little I think of your ideas, Im really not interested in talking to you about them.

Im more interested in discussing is it fair for a reporter to be biased if he/she feels a moral compulsion to be biased.
[right][snapback]93381[/snapback][/right]

Excuse me? Where and when did I insult you or anyone (other than Occhidiangela who insulted me first)?

It's virtually impossible to be non-biased. The way I see it, the article gave the all the facts that were necessary, as I implied in my original post to this thread.

[Nystul]

Mull this over: There were two people in American history who suggested we print our own money instead of BUYING IT WITH INTEREST - meaning: we could eliminate our national debt if we didn't have to pay $1.35 for every $1.00, for instance. One was Abraham Lincoln and the other was John F. Kennedy. I wonder what happened to them.
[right][snapback]93391[/snapback][/right]

By all means keep going, but don't expect anyone to agree with you.

Do you understand what would happen if the government simply printed enough money to cover the national debt? Do some research on hyper-inflation in Central America, and see how well this option has worked out when it has been put into practice during our lifetime.

[Guest]

I didnt say you inulted me. I do think in this thread tangent you are the one who first shifted the argument towards insulting.

[Occhidiangela]

Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a stateless society with voluntary social relations.
[right][snapback]93393[/snapback][/right]

You advocated Anarchy in your comment as a preferable system, and have now added clarity of your position. Thanks. :) As I understand your position, you see as a preferable social system Anarchism as you describe it. Problem is, the

Voluntary Social Relations

you appear to hold in such esteem (based on your stated preference by three orders of magnitude for Anarchy over the current societal hermaphrodite we operate under) most often turn IRL, via a positive feedback loop, into Anarchy such as the modest examples I offered to you. I understand your interest in theoretically appealing Utopias, you are in good company with both Plato and Marx on that score. Back in a world where breathing is required, Anarchy, as in a degree of chaos, is what happens when structure, social structure, dissolves. That rarely induces Utopia, thanks to a remarkable absence of Voluntary Social Relations avbailable when the previous social contract is done away with. Life does not allow cut and paste, it requires transition and transformation. Why do you tnink Anarchy as you see it, as a Utopian dissolution of social strucures, is unachievable in both an industrial and post industrial society? For starters, there is the matter of infrastructure.

The evidence is all over the place for how rare such a desirable transformation into "Voluntary Social Relations" is, but feel free to sit in your Ivory Tower and wish it were otherwise. I also wish it were otherwise, social strife is frequently destructive.

I also wish that those who choose to blame an imperfect system could come up with a better, implementable system.

If wishes came true, I'd be happy and you'd be shark bait.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Ghostiger:
"So is it biased that this report never mentions that the rioters were black?"

Occhidiangela (in response to Doc):
"Do you now understand the issue Ghostiger is raising?"
[right][snapback]93392[/snapback][/right]

Right. As you have reconstructed, I did not introduce the "race card" you tossed into our diversion of the original discussion. Our disagreement can continue in fine form without that piece of flame bait.

Occhi

[Eirinjas]

By all means keep going, but don't expect anyone to agree with you.

Do you understand what would happen if the government simply printed enough money to cover the national debt?  Do some research on hyper-inflation in Central America, and see how well this option has worked out when it has been put into practice during our lifetime.
[right][snapback]93398[/snapback][/right]

That's not what I'm talking about. Where do you think the Banks get their money? They print it. We are basically taking out loans from the Federal Reserve (which is a private and NOT a Federal agency at all). Why did the King of England wage war on the colonies? Because he learned that the colonists had their own money (scrip) which had no interest and to which he was not party to. So he made it illegal. Benjamin Franklin loved scrip and boasted about it in his European visits.

[Eirinjas]

Right. As you have reconstructed, I did not introduce the "race card" you tossed into our diversion of the original discussion.  Our disagreement can continue in fine form without that piece of flame bait.

Occhi
[right][snapback]93414[/snapback][/right]

Twist all you want, it doesn't change the facts. Ghostiger asserted that the race of the rioters was an issue that the reporter(s) ignored out of bias. So, race was an integral part of an assertion made that you agreed with.

[Minionman]

I see we either have a "don't feed the trolls" type of situation, or someone who's head is a little too full of ism and needs to take a look around for some real information.

[Occhidiangela]

Why don't we have socialized medicine? Because if we had socialized medicine there'd be little need for medical insurance and that is HUGE business for that tiny labor market that produces zero physical commodities.
[right][snapback]93391[/snapback][/right]

You ask a good question but you arrive at an incorrect answer based on a flawed perception of cause and effect. I am not particularly pleased by HMO myself, having dealt with them for some 10 years now.

The American medical system began as a private exercise. Doctors were not government servants. As the population grew, as medical methods changed and evolved, and as the demand on medicine changed, medicine adopted some of the advantages (and disadvantages) of economy of scale from the industrial revolution and industrial methods.

The system of companies offering managed health care, as we know it, was already in place by the 1960's (probably before that, Blue Cross/Blue Shield has been around for a while) and funded for many by corporate America via the collective bargaining agreements the Unions (a socialist element of our society) were able to wring out of management. It boiled down to a business tax, a cost of doing business if you will, levied by Labor as condition for work/services rendered.

The decline of Unions in the past generation, linked to the decline of American industrial infrastructure and the rise of an unstable and decentralized labor force, combined with the unwillingness of the tax base to fund a national system, has transferred the cost of health care from some "they" to "you get what you pay for." Farmers used to deal with that sort of problem by forming Co-ops. The HMO is not a Coop, sadly, it is a business that has to stay in the black to provide its service over time. That adds overhead expense a Co Op wouldn't. I imagine we share a distaste for both health care costs and HMO infringement on medical practice.

The root problem is the rise of health care costs, (for what return value?) not who we pay to manage health care, since the doctor needs to be paid for his services in any case.

In the process of this change, economies of scale available from "buy in bulk" capability of a large (capitalist) enterprise got lost. The hidden benifit of the "tax on business feature" was that it kept "everyone's taxes" for sustaining a federal medical program down to a dull roar: the Medicare tax we pay.

Change costs. One of the costs of the transformation of the workplace has come a change in how one enters into contact for health care. The corporate security blanket is gone for many people. Is that to be replaced by a government security blanket? Who pays for it? There is no free lunch. Government is funded by taxes, so transfer of the costs from the corporation to the government would necessitate a revenue/tax increase. Aversion to taxation is a common cultural thread for Americans.

While HMO's add overhead, they allegedly (not sure I buy this) achieve modest cost savings via bid and contract, a variation on the economies of scale idea. Do you assume government can and will do the same?

If you suggest the system change from a tax on business to a tax on the citizen for funding health care, you might want to offer a rigorous cost analysis of the two structures. They both require an overhead, a bureaucracy, to administer the system. If you have done such an analysis, by all means post it here, or provide a link (not a trivial analysis) to defend one approach over another. If you can show that the public bureaucracy can offer a better performance for the dollar value than the present system, I am all ears. I don't think that has been shown yet.

We have an element of socialized health care called Medicare. I am not sure I'd care to convert all health care to that format, since its capability and scope is at the fickle whim of both the voter and the legislator. Think about what that means: your neighbor can vote against your health care plan.

The policies behind any national health care seems to be aimed at keeping health care affordable and available. This is similar the cheap/affordable food policies of the past 70 years. With costs continuing to rise, either premiums rise or taxes rise. Are you sure the taxes will actually be spent on health care, even if the tax increase is presented as being to handle health care costs? I have my doubts.

The efforts to socialize medicine early on, going back to FDR's day, ran into a system already in place. Was it worth the political effort to discard that system and replace it with a government run system? For whatever reason, no.

If a government run system can be shown to be abetter cost to benefit exercise, then bring it on. The cost is the thing, not who we pay to administer the system.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Twist all you want, it doesn't change the facts. Ghostiger asserted that the race of the rioters was an issue that the reporter(s) ignored out of bias. So, race was an integral part of an assertion made that you agreed with.
[right][snapback]93430[/snapback][/right]

I think you are confusing who posted what, and for what purpose. My comment to Doc was an attempt to get him to focus on the issue of censorship, or self-censorship, not a statement that I agreed with Ghostiger about the matter of what race had to do with the reporting. Doc appeared to have latched onto the fact that the Nazis were involved in the story, and he seemed to think Ghostiger was "playing the race card."

I then went on to my usual paid political announcement about free speech.

Your quoting out of context in an attempt to color my response demonstrates an error of understanding on your part, and possibly some muddy prose on my part. :unsure:

Occhi

[Eirinjas]

You advocated Anarchy in your comment as a preferable system, and have now added clarity of your position.  Thanks.  :)  As I understand your position, you see as a preferable social system Anarchism as you describe it.  Problem is, the

Voluntary Social Relations

you appear to hold in such esteem (based on your stated preference by three orders of magnitude for Anarchy over the current societal hermaphrodite we operate under) most often turn IRL, via a positive feedback loop, into Anarchy such as the modest examples I offered to you.  I understand your interest in theoretically appealing Utopias, you are in good company with both Plato and Marx on that score.  Back in a world where breathing is required, Anarchy, as in a degree of chaos, is what happens when structure, social structure, dissolves.  That rarely induces Utopia, thanks to a remarkable absence of Voluntary Social Relations avbailable when the previous social contract is done away with.  Life does not allow cut and paste, it requires transition and transformation.  Why do you tnink Anarchy as you see it, as a Utopian dissolution of social strucures, is unachievable in both an industrial and post industrial society?  For starters, there is the matter of infrastructure. 

The evidence is all over the place for how rare such a desirable transformation into "Voluntary Social Relations" is, but feel free to sit in your Ivory Tower and wish it were otherwise.  I also wish it were otherwise, social strife is frequently destructive. 

I also wish that those who choose to blame an imperfect system could come up with a better, implementable system. 

If wishes came true, I'd be happy and you'd be shark bait.

Occhi
[right][snapback]93413[/snapback][/right]

There are fine examples of Anarchist movements that did succeed: post-revolution russia before the Bolsheviks stole power, socialist zionist settlements in the area of Palestine earlier this century before Britain screwed everything by selling out the indigenous Palestinians, or the East Wind community in Missouri, or the countless others around the world that we all but choose to ignore.

A better implementable system? That's ignorant. No system is ever perfect and it takes vigilant and constant retooling, but some are inherently better than others. I'd be surprised if our own system of government lasts another 30 years the way it's going.

Wishing I was shark bait just underlines what a hateful person you are. I may not care for you, but I do pity you.

[Eirinjas]

I see we either have a "don't feed the trolls" type of situation, or someone who's head is a little too full of ism and needs to take a look around for some real information.
[right][snapback]93434[/snapback][/right]

It's just this post that you made that IS trolling.

[Eirinjas]

I think you are confusing who posted what.  My comment to Doc was an attempt to get him to focus on the issue of censorship, or self, censorship, not a statement that I agreed with Ghostiger a bout the matter of what race had to do with the reporting.  Doc appeared to have latched onto the fact that the Nazis were involved in the story, which I don't think was the central theme Ghostiger. 

I then went on to my usual paid political announcement about free speech.

Your quoting out of context in an attempt to color my response demonstrates an error of understanding on your part, and possibly some muddy prose on my part.  :unsure: 

Occhi
[right][snapback]93437[/snapback][/right]

No, what it demonstrates is a lack of clarity on your part. I quoted exactly what you said - I took nothing out of context. You could have applied qualifiers to your response to Doc to make it clear that you did NOT agree with Ghostiger's assertion that race was an important issue that the reporter(s) ignored but you didn't. That's your failing, not mine.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of all forms of social hierarchy. In place of centralized political structures, private ownership of the means of production, and exploitative economic institutions such as rent and profit, these movements favor social relations based upon voluntary interaction and self-management, and aspire to a society characterised by autonomy and freedom. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary interaction of free individuals, and the idea that communities and individuals have a say in decisions to the degree that they are affected by their outcomes.
[right][snapback]93393[/snapback][/right]

"All animals are created equal . . .





BUT





. . . some animals are created more equal than others."

You've got a great political ideology -- for ants and bees. For intelligent beings, it is a passing phase from moros to sophos usually occurring shortly after puberty.

Anarchy? Sure. But remember that, "Anarchy only works as long as everybody follows the rules." There's always going to be someone who is (or thinks he is) smarter, faster, and other -ter's that aren't coming to mind, than the norm. And that person (let's call him the Wolf) sees the rest of society as his prey (let's not call them "The Sheep" -- that's been done and overdone). So for protection, the weak will find a Wolf to follow, and competing Wolves will fight, and ranks and tiers of Wolves will be generated, and lo-and-behold, the Anarchy will give way to Feudalism. For the rest of this story (so far -- we've not yet exhausted that road), find a good Western History book that covers the twelfth to twentieth centuries.

Oh, and by the by, the USA is not a democracy. Democracies only work for groups up to a few thousand. The USA is a republic, a much more sensible form of government.

You remind me of the Welsh and Scots separatists. A desire to return to a perfect time that only existed in romantic imagination. Your opinion is your opinion, but it would hold more weight with me (and many others, I'd guess) if it were based on facts from this universe, this era, and this species.

--Pete