I just ran across the following that seems salient. Quote: "In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy." - Fran Lebowitz.
Simple and to the point. Neil, I have little with which to compare our respective homelands when it comes to media, debate and academia other than what is discussed here. My sense is that there is a great deal of similar current methodology when it comes to ‘news’. Murdock led the way. He even bought up much here. TV has become almost entirely unwatchable these days. What is presented as news all too often is nothing but opinion and infomercials. The steady encroachment of the market into news and entertainment is legion and well documented. I often wish to turn off cable TV and then remember a few sources on the never advertised nor even identified show titles ‘public access TV’…something relegated to less than last page status here. C-SPAN, Democracy Now!, a few cooking, humor and mystery programs and one of the main stream’s best news sources, The Daily Show, are about all that come to mind as being worth glancing at. Intelligently and cynically the cable access provider markets package deals of TV, High Speed Internet and Phone in such a way so as that if one were to remove TV, the ‘package deal’ once lost, results in a cost that is pennies in difference. But again, this misses the earlier point that ‘we’ do not have direct access in general nor necessarily the time, expertise nor inclination to present ‘commercial programming’. Yes, Samizdat may be all that is left! That method does sympathize with my personal ethos and requires me to seriously reflect on my own slothfulness and ignorance. So far, blogging has not been attractive to me; however, it might be less ‘work’ than posting here. The rub is that I appreciate the rainbow of views here. Such eclectic experience and thinking helps to stay off mental atrophy. Also, so far, my experience with most email groups is that the content is vapid at best, philippic at worst. For years, one group I’ve been a member of has been posting both large quantities and qualities of political, economic and a little scientific and philosophical data each and every day. I have reacted to this barrage of opinion in numerous ways…many of which result in my finding such a style to be unattractive. I have participated in a plethora of spiritual and philosophical groups…in any final analysis, of little value in the current context. Truth is that I do not even know in any clear or succinct way what is of value! This being a sad admission yet a truthful one, all notices of redundancy aside. I do know numerous topics that I feel strongly about, yet any sort of true gestalt alludes me. Ultimate and unified knowledge arises in meditation and on occasion in daily life. My work recently has been in the communication, clarity of and internalization of ideas. It has only been a couple of years now that I have attempted longer and more involved posting and thinking rather than quick and clever sound bites. What the Wittrs group purports to strive for, even though extremely specialized, sounds laudable yet they clearly are falling quite short. In many ways, it even is a good analogy to the proverbial Tower of Babble. Of course, the later applies to almost every type of printed discourse. How to progress differently shouts at me from every turn. Help! On Oct 2, 9:21 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I really would like a discussion on this Bill. My own thoughts tend > to be 'mixed up' and even as a scientist I was best when blurting > stuff out for others to 'chase down the evidence' (or do the maths > which I always hated after I'd worked out what to do). I'm finding > I'm pretty unskilled in general Internet use - as compared, say, to > academic searching. I probably try to juggle too many balls - but > most linear argument has really failed before it starts. We get less > US media here than we once did (at least on TV) and I haven;t been > over for a while. There is almost no worthwhile debate here - the > rare exceptions tend to be in tabloids picking up an issue (this is > what happened over 'Baby P'). I haven't found much beyond the general > media either - but this may be my incompetence. Academe is dead. > This all seems very strange just at the point where widespread > technologies should be taking root. My guess is the US is a bit > better, but not much. My first thought is we need a Samizdat! > > On 2 Oct, 17:01, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “… The media is little better than an adjunct to 'business as usual' > > rather than a fourth estate….” – Neil > > > All too true Neil. I have been contemplating this a lot recently. The > > best conclusion I can come up with historically when it comes to the > > last century or two in the West is that the major (“main stream”) > > media has been at least partially supported by “business as usual” > > thus reflects and is representative of it. This would have included 1) > > advertising, 2)ownership, 3)writer & readership (visual presenters & > > viewership). So far, there are no surprises. Even unique and > > apparently independent printings of leaflets and booklets in the past > > has, on the whole, been relegated to those educated enough to be able > > to write and who have access to the printing presses. So, in a way, > > such presentations would on the whole appear to be representative of > > the elite. > > > Today, even though we have blogs on the internet, what dominates the > > bandwidth is the commercial sites as far as I can tell. So, when it > > comes to opinions, the voice of the ‘common man’ seems to miss being > > recorded historically overall. My guess is that this has always been > > the case. As an aside, other than for some concert compositions based > > upon popular melody and song, even for music this has been the > > historical reality! > > > On the other hand, as a child, I do remember the protestations about > > maintaining the independence and objectivity of “a fourth estate”. In > > my circles, I remember an ethos that, at least gave lip service to > > this. Whether it was a way to cover the fact that the papers were > > voicing agreed upon views or not is another issue. > > > Over the years Neil, we have questioned how to bring about change in > > this and other areas. Other than my perhaps naïve start above, do you > > think it deserves a separate topic with further analysis? > > > Upon further review of your last post, I see that you have the ability > > to quite succinctly address numerous points in a rather holographic > > way. IF I could do this in a better informed way, I would. Currently, > > going to the specific and dissecting it seems the best I can do. > > > On Oct 2, 6:16 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Democracy clearly isn't just about voting occasionally for parties we > > > probably think are corrupt. In the UK we have slipped to the cynical > > > position that all candidates are broadly the same, self-interested > > > jobsworths - I used to hear this regularly in years gone by and think > > > it was a very unworthy position - now I believe it is the sensible > > > position, though only if we genuinely want to change the system. The > > > changes needed are 'big' but not impossible or ideological. It's > > > obvious our main political parties do not want to take part and are > > > really only interested in 'business as usual'. > > > Our government is focused in Westminster and one has to wonder why > > > this has to be the case given electronic communication. There is no > > > real way to monitor what our MPs do or to get rid of useless or > > > corrupt ones. My guess is that most of them are both and that this is > > > inevitable because of the party system, but I would stress I don't > > > know this as the information for informed decisions is not generally > > > available to us - we have to make 'guesses'. The media is little > > > better than an adjunct to 'business as usual' rather than a fourth > > > estate. > > > > I want to see a smaller State. We have massively expanded the public > > > sector - so much so it is impossible to gauge the real size as we have > > > all kinds of off-balance sheet finance initiatives, QUANGOs and > > > charities providing basic services. Sweeping this away would almost > > > certainly cost 2 million jobs and I have no belief private sector > > > entrepreneurialism can fill the gap - this kind of economics has long > > > been a lame duck itself. My guess is that 6 million people are > > > already unemployed and many others under-employed. There are massive > > > deficits in our pensions and welfare and at the same time we have a > > > very large body of jobsworths on very high salaries adding to the > > > pension burden. The answers are miles away from any proper public > > > dialogue. > > > > On 2 Oct, 13:16, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Great point, rigsy. The structure of government and function of > > > > leadership of any group should be determined by its developmental > > > > needs. I think what Chomsky is calling for is more purity in > > > > democracy, less corruption, more voice for citizens and organizational > > > > opportunities for subgroups. Democracy in the true spirit of > > > > democracy. The challenge, is to create a form that will serve the top > > > > and bottom levels of development for citizens, those self motivating > > > > and sustaining, those not. Chomsky's view isn't new but it is > > > > timely. The American transcendental poets each spoke of > > > > individuality, freedom, citizenship and the mandates of democracy and > > > > were a big influence on the politics of their time. > > > > > Souvenirs of Democracy. by Walt Whitman > > > > THE business man, the acquirer vast, > > > > After assiduous years, surveying results, preparing for departure, > > > > Devises houses and lands to his children—bequeaths stocks, goods—funds > > > > for a > > > > school or hospital, > > > > Leaves money to certain companions to buy tokens, souvenirs of gems > > > > and gold; > > > > Parceling out with care—And then, to prevent all cavil, > > > > His name to his testament formally signs. > > > > > But I, my life surveying, > > > > With nothing to show, to devise, from its idle years, > > > > Nor houses, nor lands—nor tokens of gems or gold for my friends, > > > > Only these Souvenirs of Democracy—In them—in all my songs—behind me > > > > leaving, > > > > To You, who ever you are, (bathing, leavening this leaf especially > > > > with my > > > > breath—pressing > > > > on it a moment with my own hands; > > > > —Here! feel how the pulse beats in my wrists!—how my heart’s-blood is > > > > swelling, > > > > contracting!) > > > > I will You, in all, Myself, with promise to never desert you, > > > > To which I sign my name. > > > > > On Oct 2, 12:00 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Citizens can be content in empires and monarchies, as well, if there > > > > > is peace and security, fair taxation and laws, accepted social strata > > > > > and freedoms, etc. A vote doesn't mean much if you are saddled with a > > > > > corrupt government/politicians and call it a democracy, republic or > > > > > the city council. And if nations decide to defeat trade rivals by > > > > > unfair practices, they are probably asking for wars/war monger > > > > > dictators who appeal to the basic needs/wants/resentments of their own > > > > > citizens. > > > > > > On Oct 1, 10:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Exactly the issue Neil…’we’ cause the problems and on many different > > > > > > levels. However, I’m not sure it is due to lack of democracy…not > > > > > > saying this is not the cause, just not sure. > > > > > > > The ‘old’ unions had their function and arose in a different time > > > > > > based upon specific needs. All such things change. And is it really > > > > > > a > > > > > > mystery as to why specific characters arose to power? I’m not sure > > > > > > this is a puzzle at all. > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 3:44 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Indeed Orn - there is definitely a baby in this bathwater. I > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > hope never again to experience the 'Zil Chill' of the former > > > > > > > Soviet > > > > > > > states or the grim feelings I've had elsewhere away from these > > > > > > > shores, > > > > > > > though we need to understand we cause many of these problems by > > > > > > > failing to achieve more democracy. I'm an old union man, but > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > want to see a return of the old unions - however, a new form of > > > > > > > insured representation for all is possible. If 'democracy' could > > > > > > > produce Hitler we need to know why and how - even Mugabe was once > > > > > > > voted in for real. > > > > > > > > On 1 Oct, 17:41, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > As critical as I am of the ‘democracy’ that I know, mostly with > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > intention of retaining and/or improving it, I am quite thankful > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > this lifetime was not spent in Cambodia or other such > > > > > > > > countries. The > > > > > > > > current experiment is preferable when a comparison to what is is > > > > > > > > conducted. And, when compared to the codified words “…in order > > > > > > > > to form > > > > > > > > a more perfect union…”, the ongoing > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
