I agree with the argument. Where's the nerble? Once I find a copy, I'll obviously explore his points further. You don't read a blurb on a book jacket and see if it 'tickles your fancy'?

No, because I'd throw every book out of the window that didn't involve punk rock or space aliens.

Classic-fucking-Dave. You want to explain how it's "Buuuuuuuuuullllllllllshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttttt"?

Not really, I just didn't think it made any sense.

No, I don't agree. My point is you cannot separate the good government that helps, and the government that reduces individual rights to shit. They're both facets of the same institution, worldwide. It's like having your cake, and eating it too.

Really? You can't seperate the highways and the constitution from Dick Cheney and Richard Nixon? I don't buy that.

Government bodies are hardly the same institution, when they are different people doing different jobs for different reasons in different time zones. The only thing that really ties to together the work of the state is that it is (supposedly) work that we have come to consensus on, that it should be done. This isn't always the case, but without some of that work we'd be sitting in the mud and wiping ourselves with moss while the King rode past on a stallion.

I think there is some truth in the idea that Americans are naive and do not understand subtleties when it comes to politics and power.

Americans are also used to having their leaders, presidents especially, raised on a pedestal and revered, but not in the same way as, for instance, a European monarch used to be.

There is the myth, for instance, of our leaders often rising from the humble beginnings of common men. They then embody the nation in a way completely differently from a monarch that came from royal lineage.

It's why someone who appears too smart can have a difficult time getting elected to the presidency. A leader in the U.S. has to at least appear to have that common touch.

This is probably a legacy of the initial American rejection of royalty in the first place.

Skronk wrote:

big_dave wrote:The apocalypse is always around the corner, just up ahead, it is never happening as we speak.

Who says we aren't in the midst of one right now, or even well beyond one of the worst?

I think apocalyptic thinking, or the fear of, and, in some ways, the hope for apocalypse, has always been an essential part of the American psyche.

It's also it's Achilles heel.

Skronk wrote:Who says we aren't in the midst of one right now, or even well beyond one of the worst?

Someone who lived through a wave of local terrorist reprisals or campaigns, or a serious economic crisis might find an American saying that a little laughable.

GWB is one of the worst things to happen to America in 30 years, but there is hardly blood in the streets and no food on the shelves. You're more likely to see a widening class divide and erosion of rights for the majority.

Mark Hansen wrote:Americans are also used to having there leaders, presidents especially, raised on a pedestal and revered, but not in the same way as, for instance, a European monarch used to be.

It's a double edge. Americans are free to toy with ideas like aristocracy, rags-to-riches and the like, without having something like that in living memory or in festival gear like the UK monarchy.

On the one hand I find it hard to imagine that American voters are more ignorant or malicious than UK voters, because people are people. But on the other I think some objectivity is lost with serious issues if you've never experienced or at least had a family member experience extremes yourself. It was shocking to see that some Americans in interviews on UK TV obviously believing that 9/11 was, globally, the worst catastrophe in recent history, but understandable considering that a persons capacity for objectivity most dissolve when faced with such an thing.

Compare the American media reaction to SARS with the British reaction. We have had CJD, nuclear scares, various flu's, e-coli in major supermarkets and schools, foot and mouth. Our media just filed it next to those, whereas the USA media seemed to go into overdrive. Seeing as I don't talk to that many yanks offline, its fair for me to assume that this is due to some other reason than the American public being pampered and lacking in perspective. More like a lack of vocabulary in your media for dealing with real-life horror when it has never had to report its own Government sending in troops to massacre dissidents or that a food eaten by 75% of the population might be deadly.

That was a very bad post but I'm basically saying that maybe the public isn't to blame for the "American" lack of perspective.

big_dave wrote:

I agree with the argument. Where's the nerble? Once I find a copy, I'll obviously explore his points further. You don't read a blurb on a book jacket and see if it 'tickles your fancy'?

No, because I'd throw every book out of the window that didn't involve punk rock or space aliens.

I'm sure they've got some series out that mixes punk and politics. They've even got ones mixing philosophy with the Matrix.

big_dave wrote:

Classic-fucking-Dave. You want to explain how it's "Buuuuuuuuuullllllllllshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttttt"?

Not really, I just didn't think it made any sense.

Does this not register?

Big business is hand in hand with big government, and I don't see the solution in escalating government control. It's one in the same when the reigns of power are boiled down to one or the other. There has to be room enough for outside growth or else greater and greater monopolies flourish. Government is a good example of a monopoly.

big_dave wrote:Really? You can't seperate the highways and the constitution from Dick Cheney and Richard Nixon? I don't buy that.

A highway is not inherently a government product, but that's beside the point. The point is, it's naive to expect the positive when history shows where a bigger government leads.

big_dave wrote:This isn't always the case, but without some of that work we'd be sitting in the mud and wiping ourselves with moss while the King rode past on a stallion.

All we've done is exchange a visible king, with one that controls us from our pockets. The ends are the same. They'll probably always be the same, whether or not it's a libertarian or socialist government.

The point I've been making is not concerned with this tax or that one, but a society that has a government that grows outside the controls of it's citizens is doomed. So why would I want a system that gives me the illusion of control, and safety but still relies on coercion and manipulation?

big_dave wrote:Someone who lived through a wave of local terrorist reprisals or campaigns, or a serious economic crisis might find an American saying that a little laughable.

GWB is one of the worst things to happen to America in 30 years, but there is hardly blood in the streets and no food on the shelves. You're more likely to see a widening class divide and erosion of rights for the majority.

So Americans can't speak out about their troubles because the UK has had harsher things to deal with? Our government is definitely more dangerous than whatever the IRA could bring.

Don't for a minute equate my talk of an apocalypse to "George Bush". I don't paint societal ills on whatever the television throws at me, even if it's a fitting figurehead.

big_dave wrote:Compare the American media reaction to SARS with the British reaction. We have had CJD, nuclear scares, various flu's, e-coli in major supermarkets and schools, foot and mouth. Our media just filed it next to those, whereas the USA media seemed to go into overdrive. Seeing as I don't talk to that many yanks offline, its fair for me to assume that this is due to some other reason than the American public being pampered and lacking in perspective. More like a lack of vocabulary in your media for dealing with real-life horror when it has never had to report its own Government sending in troops to massacre dissidents or that a food eaten by 75% of the population might be deadly.

More like over zealous 'journalists" selling entertainment than actual news. It's no surprise when the media here glosses over or ignores the government actions. They're bought and paid for.

MTV, fast cut journalism. All adrenaline, no substance for the most part.

I'm sure they've got some series out that mixes punk and politics. They've even got ones mixing philosophy with the Matrix.

As much as I like me some Zizek, I'm not touching "The Desert of the Real".

A highway is not inherently a government product, but that's beside the point.

Neither are monopolies, censorship or genocide.

The point is, it's naive to expect the positive when history shows where a bigger government leads.

And you choose to ignore half of the equation for the sake of argument.

All we've done is exchange a visible king, with one that controls us from our pockets. The ends are the same. They'll probably always be the same, whether or not it's a libertarian or socialist government.

When this metaphorical King is a thousand public servants working to public benefit, I don't mind them getting my tax money.

The point I've been making is not concerned with this tax or that one, but a society that has a government that grows outside the controls of it's citizens is doomed. So why would I want a system that gives me the illusion of control, and safety but still relies on coercion and manipulation?

Exactly what scary thing are you expecting the government to do, that good public service and free speech might just be the "illusion" to blind you to this Scary Thing?

This attitude - sure they'll give you health care, rights, equality, schools, and everything. But it's just a trick! They'll just use it to do something bad. What bad could it do?

So Americans can't speak out about their troubles because the UK has had harsher things to deal with? Our government is definitely more dangerous than whatever the IRA could bring.

No, I'm saying that the language and the perspective is jarring considering the difference in background. Americans have every right to speak about their troubles, but when you speak about hypothetical troubles people who have had more immediate experience might not take it the way you intend. Good example: the BNP in the UK claim that Whites are victim of systematic prejudice and their heritage is being corrupted, Muslims go batshit at the insensitivity of the claim. The same way that countries with real, local terrorist activity may react strongly to American pundits claiming that hypothetic terrorism against American citizens must take priority.

You say your government is dangerous, I'm saying "where?". There is no blood in the streets, no ghettos, and fairly decent living. If you have to point to Chemtrail and 9/11 Conspiracies to prove that point, I'm not really interested.

Don't for a minute equate my talk of an apocalypse to "George Bush". I don't paint societal ills on whatever the television throws at me, even if it's a fitting figurehead.

Again, where? Amero, ID chip implant? What have you got to lose?

Skronk wrote:More like over zealous 'journalists" selling entertainment than actual news. It's no surprise when the media here glosses over or ignores the government actions. They're bought and paid for.

Would you count discussing terrorism, Hitler and Ron Paul on this board as entertainment or actual news?