Orwell Rolls in his grave

[Reaper]

Enjoy

 

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4467655342219448521

[ecoli]

too long for 2:18 in the morning, but I bookmarked it.

 

But, is anyone else sick of people (usually liberal) using Orwell to tie in their corporate/government conspiracy propaganda?

 

(sorry if that's not what the movie is about, I haven't seen it yet)

[foodchain]

too long for 2:18 in the morning, but I bookmarked it.

 

But, is anyone else sick of people (usually liberal) using Orwell to tie in their corporate/government conspiracy propaganda?

 

(sorry if that's not what the movie is about, I haven't seen it yet)

 

Any group has an agenda, its a fact of life. Many times already in Americas short history as a nation government corruption has been found, same with business, and of course the two together.

 

For instance, not claiming corruption but lets just look at this. The American government is supported by tax money, a war breaks out. The vice president which still has ties to a company gets a no bid contract worth fortunes, or rather the company does, the V.P also makes a fortune on this, good or bad? Really the question beyond such a gross over simplification is ethics really. For instance, as a politician, should that enable you to use the government to basically aid your company, and to what extent?

 

One view is that in the military, various positions call for you to have no ties to any aspect of a nation the U.S may go to war with, why do you think this is?

[Reaper]

It does have a liberal bias, but I would not call it propaganda because many of the problems described, especially about the media, have been going on since the Reagan Administration. These problems are well known within the intellectual elite (I doubt the public is well informed).

 

The reason Bush is usually under attack in this is because he and his administration is responsible for allowing corporate influence to get way out of hand.

 

 

The film, by the way, covers everything from public mistrust in the government to problems with voting to corruption within the media. Its not just confined to the Republicans or conservatives, it is also the fault of the liberals.

 

You have to watch it to see what I mean.

[ParanoiA]

The American government is supported by tax money, a war breaks out. The vice president which still has ties to a company gets a no bid contract worth fortunes, or rather the company does, the V.P also makes a fortune on this, good or bad? Really the question beyond such a gross over simplification is ethics really. For instance, as a politician, should that enable you to use the government to basically aid your company, and to what extent?

 

One of the reasons I find this hard to accept is that in America, we can sell a molded piece of plastic for several dollars that costs a nickel to manufacture and make millions of dollars. If you consider how easy it is to make money in america, when you already have money, it doesn't make a lot of sense to manipulate the government in order to do it.

 

Also, private business and government work together in america. As much as we gripe about the size of our government, it is still a limited federal government. So, we depend on the private sector to build stuff for government use. No matter how ethical they really are, they will always be suspect. If you're the typical anti-business american and enjoy distributing other people's money whom you have decided don't need it and didn't earn it, then this simply compliments your expectation. And if you're against "the war", then it naturally feeds into your agenda as well. We should be sure we're not falling for this class psychology.

 

That said, it certainly does look suspicious since it was a no bid contract. How come the administration has never offered an explanation for this? I have little sympathy for any backlash received from this when they won't comment and take these things head on.

[foodchain]

One of the reasons I find this hard to accept is that in America, we can sell a molded piece of plastic for several dollars that costs a nickel to manufacture and make millions of dollars. If you consider how easy it is to make money in america, when you already have money, it doesn't make a lot of sense to manipulate the government in order to do it.

 

Also, private business and government work together in america. As much as we gripe about the size of our government, it is still a limited federal government. So, we depend on the private sector to build stuff for government use. No matter how ethical they really are, they will always be suspect. And if you're against "the war", then it naturally feeds into your agenda.

 

That said, it certainly does look suspicious since it was a no bid contract. How come the administration has never offered an explanation for this? I have little sympathy for any backlash received from this when they won't comment and take these things head on.

 

Solid points I must say. The reason for the no bid that I hear often is the fact that no other private entity was in the position to operate like KBR was, that being said you have private contractors overseas making hundreds of thousands of tax dollars driving dump trucks, and then of course the hired people from say third world nations that make close to nothing doing the same job alongside the contractors, not to mention the armed forces pay rates, but all of that is off topic.

 

I don’t buy into the concept of a necessary evil. That being said its sort of the issue you might find with global warming. Big oil companies will spend millions on simple disinformation tactics, giving the gravity of the issue that forces to me really to have little concern then for the well being of such companies and or trust.

 

To add to this we are talking about in many terms companies worth substantial amounts of money, money and economics being a driving force of course in the modern world sense they have a lot of sway and or power. So to think that maybe its not necessarily a simple act of corruption is an angle to take, but to leave the government open to millions of private interest groups of large bank accounts is in my opinion. I mean who was the last middle to lower income individual to win a presidential election, and for the most part all the money is tied up in republican and democrat, so no third party really, they have no money. Hey, maybe they should get with some corporations. Its sort of leading to in my view a pseudo or faux socialist or even communist regime in a political sense, then again maybe there are all just aspects of a not to well understood nature of the human… Get it, its all monkey business! Sorry bad joke.

 

Ken Lay is another example. He has played golf with most all of our recent presidents, except for Clinton, who said no. Good or bad, well key lay did not seem to be to good.

[Phi for All]

The reason for the no bid that I hear often is the fact that no other private entity was in the position to operate like KBR was, snip

I don't want to take this thread too off-topic but I have to point out that if a contract requires only one company fulfill a multitude of tasks it's usually because a single multi-functional infrastructure will save TONS of money. The architects of the KBR contract ignored the most important business driver behind using a no-bid, single entity solution. It was a proposal tailored to fit a company, not a company in a position to fulfill a proposal.

[Pangloss]

Ken Lay is another example. He has played golf with most all of our recent presidents, except for Clinton, who said no. Good or bad, well key lay did not seem to be to good.

 

And yet which administration prosecuted Ken Lay and convicted him? And which administration sat idly by while Enron fell apart at the hands of greedy bastards costing thousands of good people jobs and investments? While the Clinton/Reno tag team did little or nothing about corporate corruption (and specifically ignored cases involving companies that donated millions to Clinton's campaigns), Bush/Ashcroft did a great deal -- literally hundreds of successful prosecutions.

 

I agree with Lockheed's point that Bush is responsible for increased corporate influence on government. But hat doesn't exonerate Clinton, it indicts him -- much of Bush's failures wouldn't have been possible had it not been for Clinton's actions (or lack thereof).

 

These problems need to be fixed, and the solution doesn't lie in declaring Democrats to be good and Republicans to be bad.

[ecoli]

You have to watch it to see what I mean.

 

 

My original point was more about the use of Orwell. Orwell's name is used as a stamp of legitimacy, when a group talks about some current 'oppressive' power. In my opinion, any 'appeal to Orwell' is akin to the slippery slope fallacy. Especially due to his book 1984, which (as I'm sure most of you already know) depicts a future world, in particularly England, in a state of ultra-communist - dictatorial regime. By using Orwell's name, people try to imply that the current powers are akin to the ones in Orwell's 1984, and that our future will be a world of bleak oppression, with some power controlling our media and our thoughts.

 

If one has a solid argument, there should be no need to reference Orwell so much, like is currently done. I think this is done because there is a lack of real evidence that our current system of big business or big government is going to cause this kind of damage in the long run.

[Reaper]

My original point was more about the use of Orwell. Orwell's name is used as a stamp of legitimacy, when a group talks about some current 'oppressive' power. In my opinion, any 'appeal to Orwell' is akin to the slippery slope fallacy. Especially due to his book 1984, which (as I'm sure most of you already know) depicts a future world, in particularly England, in a state of ultra-communist - dictatorial regime. By using Orwell's name, people try to imply that the current powers are akin to the ones in Orwell's 1984, and that our future will be a world of bleak oppression, with some power controlling our media and our thoughts.

 

If one has a solid argument, there should be no need to reference Orwell so much, like is currently done. I think this is done because there is a lack of real evidence that our current system of big business or big government is going to cause this kind of damage in the long run.

 

Well, then its clear that you either didn't watch it or didn't understand the point of it because that was not what it was about.

 

And so what if made references to Orwell. They were not taking every little thing and slapping "OMG Conspiracy" on it. They allude to Orwell because his books, 1984 and Animal Farm, describe very well the consequences of misinformation and abuse of power, and some of what is going on today does match what was described in 1984. Of course, on a much smaller and less devoted scale. Alluding to a fictional book is not a fallacy, nor does it decrease the legitimacy of the film.

 

 

 

Look at the people they interviewed, and especially look at the reports they talk about and the information presented. This is a big deal. And this isn't restricted to one side of the political spectrum, it is pervasive in American society.

[swansont]

And which administration sat idly by while Enron fell apart at the hands of greedy bastards costing thousands of good people jobs and investments?

 

All of the Enron fallout happened in late 2001. Your wording didn't seem like "Bush" was supposed to be the answer.

[Pangloss]

All of the Enron fallout happened in late 2001. Your wording didn't seem like "Bush" was supposed to be the answer.

 

You're wrong. Enron is a 1990s problem, not a 2001 problem. And one of the reasons Enron happened is a lack of federal attention to a then-known and then-growing problem of inept and corrupt financial accounting practices.

 

I have no idea what the second sentence of your post means.

[foodchain]

And yet which administration prosecuted Ken Lay and convicted him? And which administration sat idly by while Enron fell apart at the hands of greedy bastards costing thousands of good people jobs and investments? While the Clinton/Reno tag team did little or nothing about corporate corruption (and specifically ignored cases involving companies that donated millions to Clinton's campaigns), Bush/Ashcroft did a great deal -- literally hundreds of successful prosecutions.

 

I agree with Lockheed's point that Bush is responsible for increased corporate influence on government. But hat doesn't exonerate Clinton, it indicts him -- much of Bush's failures wouldn't have been possible had it not been for Clinton's actions (or lack thereof).

 

These problems need to be fixed, and the solution doesn't lie in declaring Democrats to be good and Republicans to be bad.

 

I agree. The defense mechanism that is employed here though is a bit of a problem to me, as when does someone decide who as it fault and exactly when? Such as with terrorism, when did radical Islam start to pop up? I mean I get where you are going with such, and different camps of ideologies with different figureheads and so on, but if anything bush is more of a neo-con then anything. As far as Clinton goes, I lost a lot of respect for him when he lied, and I don’t understand why he did it to be honest.

 

Trying to use terms to hand of problems, it just does not seem to work out. For instance the debt being amounted by OIF, this is going to be generations really worth of payments as it stands now, who sets to gain by this in any light? Then again it seems as if Iraq maybe would have not been an issue if Bush sr. finished the job, save for he had more sense then that? You see, its of little consequence to the understanding overall to push issues like that in my opinion. I mean the whole bin laden terror squad was a product of CIA interaction as Afghanistan was an important satellite nation during the cold war, and after the conflict why Afghanistan lays in rubble we simply left. Its the cold war that destroyed Afghanistan.

 

Well, that seems good for now.

[swansont]

You're wrong. Enron is a 1990s problem, not a 2001 problem. And one of the reasons Enron happened is a lack of federal attention to a then-known and then-growing problem of inept and corrupt financial accounting practices.

 

 

I'm wrong? The Enron fallout didn't happen in 2001?

[Reaper]

Trying to use terms to hand of problems, it just does not seem to work out. For instance the debt being amounted by OIF, this is going to be generations really worth of payments as it stands now, who sets to gain by this in any light?

 

 

National debt is a major problem that has been on the rise for several years now. The government doesn't want to address it, and the media doesn't want to talk about it. And this is where serious problems begin to arise, never mind the fact that the corporations have a stranglehold on the competition.

[lucaspa]

Enjoy

 

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4467655342219448521

 

As I read history, the idea that the media is supposed to be "non-partisan" is a relatively new one in our history. If you read the newspapers of the 19th century, they were openly allied with one political party or another and presented biased views.

 

The only way people got "both views" was to read newspapers from opposite sides.

 

The interviewer is upset because Murdoch says he manufactures concern and panic over shortages. Compare to Hearst and his boast that he caused the Spanish-American War in 1898.

 

Now, I agree that conservatives have gotten VERY good at manipulating the news and getting their viewpoint across. (which is one reason I get most of my news from NPR)

 

And these guys are talking about a real danger. Remember, Hitler was elected to office. The Nazis were also VERY good at manipulating the media.

 

But a lot of the responsibility is to the people. If people will not engage in critical thinking and demand impartial news coverage and are content to be "depoliticized", then they get the government they deserve.

 

I agree with Lockheed's point that Bush is responsible for increased corporate influence on government. But hat doesn't exonerate Clinton, it indicts him -- much of Bush's failures wouldn't have been possible had it not been for Clinton's actions (or lack thereof).

 

These problems need to be fixed, and the solution doesn't lie in declaring Democrats to be good and Republicans to be bad.

 

I think you are looking too much at Enron. What set off alarm bells in my head in 2000 was a story that told how much money GW had before he officially declared as a presidential candidate. The story said that he had $68 million. At that time, it was unheard of. And Bush had done no public fundraising. So I asked myself, how does a "candidate" get that much money before he has even started running for the Presidency and before he has done any public fundraising.

 

I concluded that he had huge private and corporate donations. And the "private" donations were from the wealthy individuals running the corporations. Later I watched a PBS documentary on the politicization of evangelical Christians, along with the observation that, if evangelicals voted in a block, they were all that was required to win a presidential election. You didn't need another voting block.

 

It seems to me that a group of wealthy conservatives found a way to "buy" an election. Pick a not-too-strong stooge that was also an evangelical, and then dupe the evangelicals into thinking that the Republicans represented their interests -- by running one of their own and advocating a social agenda for them.

 

But the economic agenda would be for the wealthy donors who bought the election to begin with. And I think it worked.

 

My puzzlement is this election. I would have expected those wealthy donors to pick another evangelical stooge and groom him for the Republican primaries. However, I'm thinking they may have switched parties and are now backing Clinton and Obama. Same goal: protect their priviledges but use the other party.

 

The reason Bush is usually under attack in this is because he and his administration is responsible for allowing corporate influence to get way out of hand. You have to watch it to see what I mean.

 

It's not that it was "out of hand", but rather that it became more visible, open, and too greedy.

[Pangloss]

Later I watched a PBS documentary on the politicization of evangelical Christians, along with the observation that, if evangelicals voted in a block, they were all that was required to win a presidential election. You didn't need another voting block.

 

I believe you may be referring to an excellent episode of "Frontline", which pegged the number (if memory serves) at about 40 million people. Which is actually not enough to win an election at the moment (Kerry lost, for example, with something like 56 million, again going by memory here), but you're certainly not very far off the mark. Christian conservatives have been one of the most successful (and interesting) movements in American electioneering history.

 

 

It seems to me that a group of wealthy conservatives found a way to "buy" an election. Pick a not-too-strong stooge that was also an evangelical, and then dupe the evangelicals into thinking that the Republicans represented their interests -- by running one of their own and advocating a social agenda for them.

 

I think that's a pretty good observation, even if it falls somewhat short of the actual conclusion and even if the word "dupe" is more a matter of opinion than objective conclusion. It may even be the closest anyone's come in American history to actually "buying" an election. A perfect storm of public opinion matching corporate determination.

 

And look at all the reaction it touched off on the left. I don't think the objections to conservative talk radio, for example, were a mainstream opinion (commonly held by moderates) until the 2000 election cycle. Air America launched in 2004. Jon Stewart took over The Daily Show during that time frame (1999). Etc. But I'm getting a bit far off topic now.

[lucaspa]

I believe you may be referring to an excellent episode of "Frontline", which pegged the number (if memory serves) at about 40 million people. Which is actually not enough to win an election at the moment

 

Yes, it was the "Frontline" episode. Whatever "Frontline" said, the number is higher. "In the broadest sense, according to Gallup polls, the number of persons in the United States who described themselves as either Evangelical or Born-Again between 1976 and 2001 fluctuated between 33 percent and 47 percent with a reasonable estimate being 35 percent of the population or just over 102 million people in 2003.[6]" http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v17n2/evangelical-demographics.html

 

Not all of them are political conservatives, but 79% voted for Bush. By my estimation, that is more than 58 million.

 

Christian conservatives have been one of the most successful (and interesting) movements in American electioneering history.

 

You forgot "scary".

 

I think that's a pretty good observation, even if it falls somewhat short of the actual conclusion and even if the word "dupe" is more a matter of opinion than objective conclusion.

 

Most evangelicals are lower middle class or lower economically. The economic policies Bush has been pushing have not been kind to that group. Objective data shows the policies have concentrated more wealth in the hands of fewer people. That means less wealth for the evangelicals. Thinking you were going to get a good economic deal and winding up poorer objectively qualifies as being "duped".

 

It may even be the closest anyone's come in American history to actually "buying" an election. A perfect storm of public opinion matching corporate determination.

 

Which makes me more puzzled why the people doing the buying didn't try to stick to the formula. Right now none of the top 3 Republican candidates for president are acceptable to the evangelicals. I would have thought the people who bought the election for Bush would have picked one of the evangelical Christian Republican politicians and bankrolled him/her for the primaries like they did Bush. Maybe they felt that the policies are so unpopular and associated with the Republicans that they can't get ANY Republican elected? So they have to switch to a Democrate? Or they just decided to sit out 2008 and try to buy 2012?

[Pangloss]

Yes, it was the "Frontline" episode. Whatever "Frontline" said, the number is higher. "In the broadest sense, according to Gallup polls, the number of persons in the United States who described themselves as either Evangelical or Born-Again between 1976 and 2001 fluctuated between 33 percent and 47 percent with a reasonable estimate being 35 percent of the population or just over 102 million people in 2003.[6]" http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v1...ographics.html

 

Not all of them are political conservatives, but 79% voted for Bush. By my estimation, that is more than 58 million.

 

I don't mean to put words in your mouth; perhaps you didn't mean that 58 million christian conservatives voted for Bush in 2000, but that's what it sounded like so let me respond to that, with the understanding that you might have meant something else. My response is that I don't think that's a reasonably accurate number. It's too large.

 

I just went and looked this up, and while the source is only the Wikipedia, if you're uncertain about these numbers I'd be happy to look for a more reliable source on this. It's not my intent to quote the Wikipedia as authoritative.

 

The 2000 presidential election results reported there show Bush at a little over 50 million voters. Al Gore came in at a hair over 51 million. In 2004 it shows 62 million voting for Bush and 59 million for Kerry.

 

And even if we say that it's 50 million (in 2000) instead of 58 million (christian conservatives voting for Bush), that number is still clearly inaccurate, at least in that it's off by one voter (namely me). (grin) Joking aside, you see the problem here, I'm sure -- obviously not every single voter (or even close to every single voter) was a christian conservative. In fact we know this to not be the case; Republicans enjoyed moderate support in 2000 due to Clinton's perceived failings, the economic downturn (bubble burst), security issues (pre-9/11, of course) and so forth.

 

I think a reasonable position might be to suggest that as many as 40% of Bush's 2000 voters did so for reasons that can be attributed solely to Christian conservative fundamentalism. Much of the other 60% could well have taken social conservatism and religious factors into consideration, but I don't believe they voted entirely on those grounds. (This being entirely my own opinion, mind you.)

 

I think this is an important distinction because I sense a note of anti-fundamentalist paranoia hovering in the background of your otherwise accurate and relevent observations. That impact can absolutely be a "whopper" of a factor without declaring every Bush vote to be from fundies.

[Reaper]

But a lot of the responsibility is to the people. If people will not engage in critical thinking and demand impartial news coverage and are content to be "depoliticized", then they get the government they deserve.

 

That's the implication I don't like. The media is contributing to the apathy of the general public.

 

Also, the government they deserve is also my and your government too, so if they get screwed over, so do we .

 

 

Which makes me more puzzled why the people doing the buying didn't try to stick to the formula. Right now none of the top 3 Republican candidates for president are acceptable to the evangelicals. I would have thought the people who bought the election for Bush would have picked one of the evangelical Christian Republican politicians and bankrolled him/her for the primaries like they did Bush. Maybe they felt that the policies are so unpopular and associated with the Republicans that they can't get ANY Republican elected? So they have to switch to a Democrate? Or they just decided to sit out 2008 and try to buy 2012?

 

That's what I'm thinking.

 

I don't know about evangelicals, but I heard that corporations usually donate to both parties because they know that they will get what they want. In short, it doesn't really matter who gets elected.