12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Bill O'Reilly. Shouting and interrupting doesn't make you smarter

He's rational for Fox.

They are actually worse?

[Sarah1281]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Bill O'Reilly. Shouting and interrupting doesn't make you smarter

He's rational for Fox.

They are actually worse?

Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Fox & Friends, Sarah Palin's joining as a contributor...

Yes, just yes. Bill O'Reilly is the sane and rational one.

[USArmyParatrooper]

KnightofPhoenix, then perhaps you can elaborate with specifics. In the middle east how do most people feel about the legalization of abortion or alcohol (and other drugs)? What specific political views that are somehow tied to religion are you referring to?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wow. Now those are people I never  want to listen to, ever.

Unless they are funny.

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

KnightofPhoenix, then perhaps you can elaborate with specifics. In the middle east how do most people feel about the legalization of abortion or alcohol (and other drugs)? What specific political views that are somehow tied to religion are you referring to?

Alcohol is legal in most. 
Abortion is illegal and I do not have stats, but since the issue is apolitical, religion is bound to have more influence on the matter.
Drugs are illegal and while I do not have stats, I know from personal experience that there is little to no corrolation between this and religious views. The most areligious people that I know are in favor of banning (same with abortion actually).

And I just gave you an example. Democracy. There is also foreign policy. Issues on education.
Party affiliation and for what reasons...etc. Naturally, those with more religiousity are going to be more in favor of Islamic parties, but the corrolation is not as high as one would expect.
There is also the issue of identity and how people identify themselves (the stat I have in mind posed the question of whether they think they are Arabs first, Muslims first, or citizens of their country first. All three had the same percentage).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 03:26 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I very closely observed the French elections in 2007 and the recent American elections and wow. The disparity in the intelligence of political debates, the media and just the campaigns in general is astounding.  I was actually impressed at how the most powerful country in the world managed to look so ridiculous (no offense). The sheer amount of political banality is just beyond me.

At first, I wasn't that impressed with the French elections, the debate started nit picking on two or three policy differences that  aren't that major anyways. But after observing the American elections and the media war they were fighting, I quickly revised by opinion of the French elections.

In France, you'd never have something like "Obama girl", a half naked singing busty hottie who is clearly targetting drooling boys. And then in general I noticed the vast difference in the media and how confrontational American media is and how they don't even make the effort of sounding at least a bit unbiased or actually smart (Bill O'Reilly for instance. Shouting and interrupting doesn't make you smarter.), vs the relatively much better quality of the French media. I mean it's very sad that I understand American policy more when I am watching satyrical shows like John Stewart and Colbert Report! And then when I hear that many Americans don't realize that Colbert Report is a satyrical show, I just can't help but facepalm.

I don't want to sound pretentious, but something is very wrong there. I am very sure that Europeans do think that American politics are insane and ridiculous and at times, I tend to think that.

Fox news is the only right wing bastion in the media, but because there are so many conservatives, it does have a powerful influence.

And you are right that European politics tends to be more rational, more serious. Observing elections while living in Britain was interesting and quite the opposite of what I am used to. I put part of it down to the BBC promoting far better debates and issues, as well as attitudes towards politics and social issues in general. During the british elections, i did watch the election news more. In the states, I usually ignore it and try to focus on the reality behind the scenes, such as voting histories and finding out who is supporting them to get an idea of where they are really planning on going.

European politics is more organized, more focused, and more secular in general. I attribute much of this to the lack of religous fundementalism in Europe as opposed to the US,  as well as a generally better education system in most European countries.

And that's another major difference, education. The levels of education vary widely in the US, because it is controlled at the state and local level, with little influence from the federal government. As such, local politics affect education more than national ones do. So people's actual levels of knowledge will vary state by state, county by county. In europe, where education is pretty much national and centralized, has more uniform and higher levels in general. Much of this is do to the geographical size of the US, with a large population unevenly distributed, as well as differing levels of wealth and economy in different regions. the education systems focus on different things.

And in the US, where the masses basically determine the type of media that's popular, this is often reflected in the cheap antics of most elections. the bread and circus bit.  It's a circus, I'll admit, and really dysfunctional in some areas. But in general, it's a system that suits the US national character. Chaos masquarading as civilization. Which is why I personally prefer it, but then again, naturally, I am biased.

I suppose that's why I've developed an attitude of politics as 50% entertainment/50% business. Perhaps the biggest problem US politics imposes for the international community is it's inconsistancy and lack of logical aims.

[Joy Divison]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Wow. Now those are people I never  want to listen to, ever.

Unless they are funny.

Pretend they are satirists and you'll find them quite amusing

It also works when watching Maddow at MSNBC.

[Collider]

Strange that a discussion on Loghain develops into this discussion.

I approve.

[Sarah1281]

Joy Divison wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Wow. Now those are people I never  want to listen to, ever.

Unless they are funny.

Pretend they are satirists and you'll find them quite amusing

It also works when watching Maddow at MSNBC.

Of course, one of our actual satirists is apparently the most trusted newscaster in America.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Doesn't surprise me, I only understand American politics when watching Jon Stewart.

[Sarah1281]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Doesn't surprise me, I only understand American politics when watching Jon Stewart.

And yet you somehow missed the insasnity that is Fox? It's a popular topic on the Daily Show.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Sarah1281 wrote...

 Of course, one of our actual satirists is apparently the most trusted newscaster in America.

Perhaps because Jon Stewart is right: American politics are pure comedy.

[Sarah1281]

I'd say it's more of a tragicomedy. The tragic part, of course, is the fact that it's a comedy.

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
And in the US, where the masses basically determine the type of media that's popular, this is often reflected in the cheap antics of most elections. the bread and circus bit.  It's a circus, I'll admit, and really dysfunctional in some areas. But in general, it's a system that suits the US national character. Chaos masquarading as civilization. Which is why I personally prefer it, but then again, naturally, I am biased. [/quote]
[/quote]

Of course, every society has a system best suitable for it.
I don't particularly mind or care.

Except:

[quote]Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I suppose that's why I've developed an attitude of politics as 50% entertainment/50% business. Perhaps the biggest problem US politics imposes for the international community is it's inconsistancy and lack of logical aims.

[/quote]

Yep, foreign policy.
There is a clear lack of understanding from practically all American administrations of the Middle East (something shared with the British).

They look at the region from a global perspective (cold war, "war on terror"), without understanding the particularities of the region. Their policies there are almost completely detached from regional realities.

And then when I hear in the media and political debate the too simplistic, banal and sometimes outright incorrect potrayal of the Middle East and the issues surrounding it, and how inconsistent and incoherent it is, then I worry that this is one of the main power brokers in the region.

And this really extends to the world in general, as the USA is the global hegemon.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 03:53 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Doesn't surprise me, I only understand American politics when watching Jon Stewart.

And yet you somehow missed the insasnity that is Fox? It's a popular topic on the Daily Show.

I forgot their names I guess.
I stopped watching it a year or so.

Got bored.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yep, foreign policy.
There is a clear lack of understanding from practically all American administrations of the Middle East (something shared with the British).

They look at the region from a global perspective (cold war, "war on terror"), without understanding the particularities of the region. Their policies there are almost completely detached from regional realities.

And then when I hear in the media and political debate the too simplistic, banal and sometimes outright incorrect potrayal of the Middle East and the issues surrounding it, and how inconsistent and incoherent it is, then I worry that this is one of the main power brokers in the region.

And this really extends to the world in general, as the USA is the global hegemon.

That is my biggest problem as well, and why it gives me headaches from excessive facepalming. It doesn't matter who is in office. It has always been my biggest problem with US politics, especially since at one time, I was a member of the military that usually enforces these policies, and got to see how often they were counter-productive to our general national interests. It is also where I got the opinion that subtety and guile were far more useful tools than blunt military force. Which is why i pretty much tend to oppose most military actions anyway, especially as technology provides other, less inefficient and destructive tools to use.

But I think that is an irony of the American population: a nation built from numerous nations of the earth understands little to nothing about them, and how to deal with them. Despite springing from them.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the foreign policy being why it is, is a general apathy towards world affairs by the American public, since it really has been a relatively low priority in terms of issues deciding elections. There is a vague interest, but often limited in scope. However, when it comes to actual military action, Americans are usually pretty isolationist in attitude, unless the country is under direct threat or attack. It's why support was high for World War 2, partially high to apathetic with the korean war, and massively divisive/unpopular in vietnam. Both of the gulf wars were very divided in opinion and support, though the first was slightly more popular than the second.  Americans tend not to fight very well in wars where neither the enemy nor objective are crystal clear. Hence, part of our problems today.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I'd so vote for you Skadi

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
 Americans tend not to fight very
well in wars where neither the enemy nor objective are crystal clear.
Hence, part of our problems today.

And what I worry about is the deliberate simplification and outright disinformation in order to give the imrpession that the enemy and the objectives are clear, when they aren't.

Which brings us back to how the media tries to inlfluence emotions rather than reason.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 04:45 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I'd so vote for you Skadi

Awww, thanks!

And what I worry about is the deliberate simplification and outright disinformation in order to give the imrpession that the enemy and the objectives are clear, when they aren't.

Which brings us back to how the media tries to inlfluence emotions rather than reason.

Yes. Fear. Which becomes anger, which overrides rational discussion of a proper course of action to take. The media is paramount in that department, and it's role in politics is right there with the lobbyists. And since the media of the US is privately owned multi billion dollar business with ALOT of clout, politicians court them alot, while trying to avoid  their ire. 

But the oversimplification worries me as well, because it fosters too much of a black/white view of the world and issues, something which I think runs counter to the fundemental principles of the country, as well as common sense and successful, beneficial foreign policy. I think, however, this attitude can and is slowly changing, though not fast enough for my tastes. I also wish more people would take politics seriously and rationally. It is something I prefer in European politics, than actual serious issues that directly affect the function of the nation are taken more seriously than more controversial/moral ones, even though those issues are different from the ones in the US most of the time. And being overseas, I can't really speculate on what the national mood/tone is back home, since I get mostly news reports. I am a bit out of touch on current issues domestically in US politics, and was actually quite surprised when Obama won. That in itself signals a signfigiant change in national attitudes and concerns since I last lived there back in 2005, or visited in 2008.

And was a sigh of relief for me when I discovered McCain's running mate.

As this discussion has been most awesome and stimulating, I must go to bed, as it's 6a.m. and I hear my coffin lid creaking open. Until tommorow!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Goodnight!

[USArmyParatrooper]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

KnightofPhoenix, then perhaps you can elaborate with specifics. In the middle east how do most people feel about the legalization of abortion or alcohol (and other drugs)? What specific political views that are somehow tied to religion are you referring to?

Alcohol is legal in most. 
Abortion is illegal and I do not have stats, but since the issue is apolitical, religion is bound to have more influence on the matter.
Drugs are illegal and while I do not have stats, I know from personal experience that there is little to no corrolation between this and religious views. The most areligious people that I know are in favor of banning (same with abortion actually).

And I just gave you an example. Democracy. There is also foreign policy. Issues on education.
Party affiliation and for what reasons...etc. Naturally, those with more religiousity are going to be more in favor of Islamic parties, but the corrolation is not as high as one would expect.
There is also the issue of identity and how people identify themselves (the stat I have in mind posed the question of whether they think they are Arabs first, Muslims first, or citizens of their country first. All three had the same percentage).

So let me get this straight. You're claiming views on democracy, foreign policy and education are religious based - and views on legalizing drugs has no corrolation with religious views? You also claim abortion is apolitical. I completely disagree with all of these.

Views on how laws should apply to social freedoms are *political* views, without question. And strong religious views most definitely have an affect on opinions about social freedoms. In many middle eastern countries prostitutes are at very high risk of being killed by their own family. In the US prostitution is considered a minor crime, and in some areas is actually legal.  Anyone who kills a prostitute (family or not) faces decades in prison (at best) and or capital punishment at worst. The difference in the way they're treated by society and by the ruling government IMO directly relates to how relious views affect both.

I picked the most "liberal" ME country I could think of, Turkey, and looked up their laws. In Turkey if a woman is married she must get permission from her husband before she can have an abortion. You don't think religion played a role in such a disregard of a woman having control over her own body? In the US there would be chaos in the streets if any state, let alone the federal government tried to adopt such a law.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

I picked the most "liberal" ME country I could think of, Turkey, and looked up their laws. In Turkey if a woman is married she must get permission from her husband before she can have an abortion. You don't think religion played a role in such a disregard of a woman having control over her own body? In the US there would be chaos in the streets if any state, let alone the federal government tried to adopt such a law.

For this, I would argue that is more likely a cultural thing than religous. There are alot of customs/traditions in middle Eastern societies that predate Islam, and carry on certain tradtions, some of which conflict with Islam. Despite what most might think, the actual position of women within Islam is not of subservience and inferiority. The reason these attitudes prevail in several mideastern societies is due to long standing cultural norms. And of course, certain ways the Koran is interpreted. But I think local culture/social attitudes. 

With the Turkish spousal consent clause, one must look how culturally, family and marriage is viewed in many Middle Eastern societies. The role of a husband and wife, and the family unit as a whole, is far more central to the culture than it is in the west, and has been for millenia.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

I picked the most "liberal" ME country I could think of, Turkey, and looked up their laws. In Turkey if a woman is married she must get permission from her husband before she can have an abortion. You don't think religion played a role in such a disregard of a woman having control over her own body? In the US there would be chaos in the streets if any state, let alone the federal government tried to adopt such a law.

For this, I would argue that is more likely a cultural thing than religous. There are alot of customs/traditions in middle Eastern societies that predate Islam, and carry on certain tradtions, some of which conflict with Islam. Despite what most might think, the actual position of women within Islam is not of subservience and inferiority. The reason these attitudes prevail in several mideastern societies is due to long standing cultural norms. And of course, certain ways the Koran is interpreted. But I think local culture/social attitudes. 

With the Turkish spousal consent clause, one must look how culturally, family and marriage is viewed in many Middle Eastern societies. The role of a husband and wife, and the family unit as a whole, is far more central to the culture than it is in the west, and has been for millenia.

The problem with your agument is twofold. For starters religion and culture are not mutually exclusive. Strong religious beliefs have a profound affect on what is considered acceptable by society, and even what laws are considered acceptable, i.e. political beliefs.

Also, interpretation of religious scriptures is what define's one's religious beliefs. While I completely disagree with your claim that the quran doesn't preach women are to be subservant to men, it is irrelevant in any case. If people believe their religion states women should be treated differently than men, then that is their religious belief.

Modifié par USArmyParatrooper, 23 janvier 2011 - 02:52 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]USArmyParatrooper wrote...
So let me get this straight. You're claiming views on democracy, foreign policy and education are religious based - and views on legalizing drugs has no corrolation with religious views? [/quote]

What? No, I didn't say that.
I said the corrolation between religious views and views regarding these subjects in the Middle East is weak.
That is, knowing the religiousity of a person is not enough to know what kind of views he has on issues like this.

[quote]USArmyParatrooper wrote...
You also claim abortion is apolitical. I completely disagree with all of these. [/quote][/quote]

In our context it is, while in the USA, it's clearly politicized.
Even the most areligious people reject it completely.

[quote]USArmyParatrooper wrote...
I picked the most "liberal" ME country I could think of, Turkey, and looked up their laws. In Turkey if a woman is married she must get permission from her husband before she can have an abortion. You don't think religion played a role in such a disregard of a woman having control over her own body? In the US there would be chaos in the streets if any state, let alone the federal government tried to adopt such a law.
[/quote]

Again, laws and government. I am talking about people.
There is no clear corrolation between religiousity and political views amongst the people. Aka you can't have a clear idea of what a person's political views are, if you base it solely on his religious beliefs, in the ME.
Stats have been made on this, I just provided an example before.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 03:09 .

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

That's basically it. It's a well known problem in U.S. politics, despite congress passing laws to attempt to curb it. The lobbys are just too powerful, they find all sorts of ways around it. And of course, who the hell is really gonna enforce it, since every politician is in power because of a lobby? Lobbies can make or break a person in Wasgington.

It is quite annoying, but since the lobbies are often composed of groups of voting citzens themselves, its hard to really tackle, since they sway large amounts of popular influence and opinion, and combine different types of voters. Though with the right lobby, you're more likely to get your own interests served. After observing European politcs, I can see why they consider it borderline anarchy, and rather corrupt, and at times insane.

I fully agree, which is why I wish we would move to fully publicly funded campaigns. Personally I don't consider money to be a form of "speech," which is why the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing businesses to donate unlimited amounts of cash to be shameful. Even IF you consider cash donations to be speech, since when is a freaking corporation an individual with rights? Billionaires already had enough money to influence politicians, but now they can push the weight of corporporate money as well. When companies like Exxon Mobile can reap over $10,000,000,000 of profit in a three month period, what chance to any of us stand to have our voice be heard? It gives the saying "money talks" a whole new meaning.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

The problem with your agument is twofold. For starters religion and culture are not mutually exclusive. Strong religious beliefs have a profound affect on what is considered acceptable by society, and even what laws are considered acceptable, i.e. political beliefs.

Yes, they are quite often. However, there are numerous cases where cultural tradition trumps religous belief, and cultural attitudes will trump those of religous ones. It is the same in the US.

Also, interpretation of religious scriptures is what define's one's religious beliefs. While I completely disagree with your claim that the quran doesn't preach women are to be subservant to men, it is irrelevant in any case. If people believe their religion states women should be treated differently than men, then that is their religious belief.

I am aware of how religion plays out in this scenario. My arguement is, Turkish law is based far more on tradition and cultural mores, which predate the arrival of Islam to Turkey, than it is on religous views. This is the case in most any country, where a foreign religion was adopted by people culturally and socially unrelated to the religion's founders.