Newsweek: America the Ignorant
 

Silly Things We Believe About Witches, Obama, and More

http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/0...s-believe.html

That death panel thing drove me nuts, but I don't think that it's necessarily the fault of the average American. It drove me crazy because I was hearing it from major news outlets; "We'll end up with death panels deciding your fate, just like they do in Canada." The lack of basic subject knowledge, from groups that bill themselves as "news outlets", was truly staggering.

That's what I don't get about you Avatar....you read this stuff all day yet you still have enough hope for America to get angry and frustrated.

Its over man, America lost. :lol:

Dammit Josh, I know you're right.

It kills me. I love this country. My family literally came from a nation that had military rule, and I know that I care more than most Americans, but it's perhaps because most here don't really appreciate what they have (or perhaps had, rather).

People would rather watch reality TV, play video games, and read People magazine than pay attention to what's going on in the world.

It sure FEELS that way, doesn't it? I mean, the signs are everywhere....I just read this over the week-end.

http://www.parade.com/news/views/mit...ashington.html

A couple of very telling insights into his experience in Congress...

“Every boundary of decency has been crossed,” he says. “The ‘baby killer’ thing? Within 24 hours, there were websites up designed to make money off it. That’s how far afield we’ve gone. The more personal you make the attack, the more money you can make to defeat your opponent.”

“Add one more element: the very rich,” he answers. “So many good people would be proud to serve, but they wind up saying, ‘If the other guy spends $3 million, what chance do I have?’ The most money and the sharpest attacks tend to win.”

It doesn't seem like it will be long before the curtain is pulled away and we see our system for what it has truly become....that it won't be long before violence is introduced into the system....it's happened before.

http://www.unrv.com/empire/gracchi-brothers.php

The parallels are frightening...if you truly pay attention.

One-upmanship was countered with arguments and these countered with physical force. As the results at stake grew, so did the egos of the individual players. The goal of the betterment of society as a whole was lost, and victory became the only objective. As ambition and personal motivation became the predominant theme of the Late Republic, the social fabric that long held Rome (America?) together, against all odds, was being torn apart.

One thing that gets me, about our elected officials, is just how little we're willing to pay them. People get all up-in-arms about paying some guy, who handles the purse-strings on billions of dollars, a couple of hundred $K a year? Be realistic! If you could pay someone $500K, to save tens of billions because you get better people, wouldn't you?

I think its because the amount we pay them seems to far exceed what they actually appear to accomplish. If there was an easy way to trace how much congresspeople really contributed to a particular accomplishment I think it would be different.

I guess that it's a chicken and the egg situation but if you hire someone to guard a bank, but pay him like the custodian, don't be surprised when money starts going missing. It might not even be because he's stealing it. He might just be inept.

I disagree. I think they get paid just fine, especially when you consider the perks they are able to take advantage of. Their salaries when in office are also nothing compared to what they can make once they leave government service.

In my opinion the largest barrier to attracting better people is the election process itself. It goes on seemingly forever, digs deeply in to areas many people are not really comfortable exposing to public scrutiny, requires the candidate to constantly beg for money, and the reward for success is doing it all over again soon after. Most sensible people would balk at most or all of that. The process sucks and seemingly so do most of the people who excel at it.

Like tweeking legislation to be favorable to companies you happen to own stock in.

This thread is a repost from a couple months ago. I typically wouldn't bother pointing it out but the originator was the same both times. The previous thread ended up discussing "the subject that shall not be named" in the News Desk. For those interested in the previous discussion check the link.

http://www.twowheelfix.com/showthread.php?t=16617

Well, it would seem that I find the same things amusing on a consistent basis. I, sadly, don't portend to have the kind of short term memory that would even allow me to remember having previously posted this. Thanks for pointing it out.

:lmao:

Or awarding contracts to a firm you were CEO of only a couple years ago.

... and you likely still hold a substantial amount of stock in.

"... when they leave government service"? So they work towards that employment all the way through their government service, rather than doing the job that they are supposed to be performing for the American people?

What you're describing creates a situation in which people don't aspire to public service, but rather merely use it as a stepping stone to later success. Pay people in a manner commensurate to their skills. Limit the amounts that can be used for advertising, limiting the ability to "buy an election."

I suspect Homeslice is specifically referring to Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Cheney divested himself of Halliburton after winning in 2000.

Up the money all you want and I don't think it will make any difference. The fact remains that the job sucks terribly and most of the people attracted to the job are emotionally damaged. Make it a million a year and the power and prestige associated with the job will still serve as the primary attraction to the job.

Limiting money spent on advertising creates its own issues as that will most likely be ruled unconstitutional.

Wow this thread has been on topic for way too long.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eBrXMazFs9...00HOTGirls.jpg

And I was stating a broader generalization.

You mean that's currently what the job attracts. Wouldn't someone who is familiar with handling a large corporate entity be preferable to some Zagnut who sought out political power?

I disagree. I believe that it would be more in keeping with the vision of the Founding Fathers, to help create a situation in which men of good conscience could seek office, rather than merely those who can afford to buy power.

i Dissagree With Your Nazi View Point. she Should Be Facing The Other Direction.

Yep, just clarifying the disconnect between your statement and Homeslice's.

Plenty of people familiar with running large entities seek political office. Mitt Romney, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Mike Bloomberg, and the previously mentioned Dick Cheney are some I can think of off the top of my head. The people who are familiar with that are also the least in need of and least likely to be motivated by increasing the money the position pays. The salary isn't what is keeping Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or Ted Turner from entering politics.

That is fine, but the courts have decided that money = speech. Unless that changes the vision of the Founding Fathers is effectively irrelevant. Small restrictions are possible, but a $2,400 limit on individual donations for example hasn't proven to make elections less expensive.

When the top news stories are about Cylee Virus and Paris Hilton or whatever, it's no wonder others hate us.

truth.

I've heard this sentiment a number of times, but seriously, is the somewhat loosely established preference of our population toward entertainment rather than a poorly defined something else really any kind of valid reason for those "others" to hate us? Even if that premise does hold up as valid, what is that "something else" Americans need to focus on instead that would magically temper the rage of those "others"?

When has anyone actually needed a 'valid' reason in order to hate?

Something that isn't as materialistic/superficial?

I'm not picking on Particle Man because as I said I have heard the sentiment elsewhere, but the phrase "it's no wonder others hate us" is to me a validation of the assertion.

By whose definition? It seems those who are most vehement about their hate of the "West" would put anything that isn't studying the Koran and plotting the deaths of infidels in the materialistic/superficial category.

Everyone hates a privileged dumb blonde, with a shallow personality (see: "White Chicks").

Empathy, concern for others, compassion, charity, acceptance, kindness, and friendship (guessing here).

I have a passive apathy about them, not the active hatred I see from some toward this country.

Which nation displays these qualities better than America, especially when compared to those nations who hate America the most? I also don't see these qualities mentioned by or embodied in Muslim extremists as they actively seek to attack America. I think your guess is wrong.

Agreement

Maybe it's the fact, in and of itself, that the "something else" IS poorly defined...

Just guessing since I can't read thier minds......., but maybe they feel that anyone with such a high average wealth (like Americans) should be able to afford travelling more, learning more about other cultures, speaking other languages, etc.

Re: Narcisism, the idea that the world revolves around you.

That thought is well and good, but whether you like it or not our culture is a driving factor in the world. Our cultural influences can be found EVERYWHERE... Our stars are not just our stars... they are international stars. Interestingly enough, I think the one area we have not been able to permeate as well is with sports. Television, film, music, fashion, etc, etc... we have some influence across it all with the exception of sports (for the most part).

I agree, and I find it interesting that many of the Arabs who criticize us have come over here to live and take advantage of what we have. For instance I'm quite sure the 9/11 terrorists were out hitting the strip clubs and casinos while they were over here.

I'm not sure what you mean, but my reply is operating under the assumption that you are saying that part of the problem is we Americans don't care enough or haven't bothered to define it. If that is the case I don't think what you are suggesting is possible. Different people "hate" us for different things. The "something else" will always be poorly defined by us because the concept itself cannot have a set definition.

So you are saying others "hate" America because we are narcissistic about our country, culture, and language resulting in a lack of interest in the countries, cultures, and languages of theirs? Isn't it also narcissistic of them to think we should care in the first place?

I don't think most Muslim extremists would continue to care about us one way or the other if we all turned Muslim and dropped involvement with Israel, and I'm betting that second part is the more important part.

Well, off the top of my head....

... Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Ireland, United Kingdom, Switzerland, France, Spain, Germany, Canada, Austria, Australia, New Zealand, and Portugal as of the Global Humanitarian Assistance 2010 report.

First of all, that report appears to cover only covers one of the qualities listed, charity. Secondly, I'm not sure where in the report you are getting that from.

So in 2008 we were the top donor at over $4.3 billion, over 4 times more than the UK, the next closest "country" and more than double the entire EC. America accounted for almost 35% of all governmental humanitarian aid donated that year. Who did better?

I would have thought you were going by per capita numbers, but the US donated more per capita than at least a few of countries you have listed.

According to that report the US also accounts for significantly more Other Official Developmental Assistance than any other nation with over $26 billion.

I must be missing what you are seeing.

It's per capita, which is a better measure of the individual.

From the last table contained in the report the US exceeds at least Canada, Germany, and France in per capita giving (in dollars per citizen US 14.4, Canada 12.5, Germany 9.1, France 7.2). Most of the ones you listed were correct, but I didn't check them all. Of course that also seems to leave that additional $26 billion Other Official Developmental Assistance the US gave and also contained in that table out of the equation.

ETA: That report also only measures governmental assistance. I'm not sure how much control you have over what your government does for aid, but I don't have much control over mine.

For recent issues like Haiti, our government matched the donations of private citizens.

Recent piece in Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...0.html#s136626

Bingo. Everyone seems to get that Americans are not only ignorant of their culture, but they don't even care to know.

OK, and America is tied for 5th on that list. The end result is I think we can agree that for one of the qualities mentioned on Avatard's list, charity, America does pretty damn well and so does Canada. It is no wonder people hate America.:skep:

You asked what they expect of us. I didn't say we didn't have enough charity. Privately, I'd say we absolutely do. As a government, however, we seem to apply aid poorly.