Amusing ourselves to death

[Sheogorath]

I'm not sure what you would really consider the US. We're still a democratic-republic in the sense that we elect officials. I suppose you could say we've become a very corrupt democratic-republic, in that the officials we elect don't do anything, except maybe get rich and get reelected.

And with our apathetic public, 2/3 of the voters just vote for whoever was in office last time, or with party lines. The remaining 1/3 either get cynical and stop bother ('all the politicians are the same, why vote?') or have their votes invalidated by the mass of 'cattle votes'.

Unfortunately I don't think the US can support a revolution, peaceful or otherwise. We don't have the huge under-30 population of Iran.

There is some hope, though. Very few of the young people I talk to, at college at least, are apathetic. Even online, the US citizens I meet are seldom not opinionated. I think, given time, the US may see a reinvigorated voter base, since apathy is gradually, very gradually, losing its 'cool factor'. We're finally starting to cast off the cynicism of the 80's.

I'd say that next decade will see some big changes in American politics. If the younger generations can gain the momentum, then things may change for the better. If not, and if we find ourselves sinking into another apathetic slump, then the US might just not be able to recover, at least by the standard means.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I'm not sure what you would really consider the US. We're still a democratic-republic in the sense that we elect officials. I suppose you could say we've become a very corrupt democratic-republic, in that the officials we elect don't do anything, except maybe get rich and get reelected.

And with our apathetic public, 2/3 of the voters just vote for whoever was in office last time, or with party lines. The remaining 1/3 either get cynical and stop bother ('all the politicians are the same, why vote?') or have their votes invalidated by the mass of 'cattle votes'.

Unfortunately I don't think the US can support a revolution, peaceful or otherwise. We don't have the huge under-30 population of Iran.

There is some hope, though. Very few of the young people I talk to, at college at least, are apathetic. Even online, the US citizens I meet are seldom not opinionated. I think, given time, the US may see a reinvigorated voter base, since apathy is gradually, very gradually, losing its 'cool factor'. We're finally starting to cast off the cynicism of the 80's.

I'd say that next decade will see some big changes in American politics. If the younger generations can gain the momentum, then things may change for the better. If not, and if we find ourselves sinking into another apathetic slump, then the US might just not be able to recover, at least by the standard means.

We can hope.

I don't buy the revolution/civil war stuff, don't think it would happen.

Reason #1 for me is that most of my generation has just enough energy to press "next channel" on the remote. No way they're going to fight a war; they don't even have beliefs to fight for. Just a lot of "whatever."

Interesting point about the lifespan of a democracy; I've thought the same thing many times.

However, the US is not a pure democracy, which changes the equation. Neither is UK. And there haven't really been that many gov'ts with such structure as ours, so it's hard to judge historically.

Something else that makes me sick is how people (US) couldn't care less about the country they live in. So long as they have a sofa, beer, and a football game they are happy.

Less than half the high-schoolers in some states can tell you how many stripes are on the US flag. I doubt more than a few % could tell you what the colors mean.

How many people know the nat'l anthem? How many people know the pledge of allegiance?

And how many of them could care less of what those things stand for even if they DID know???

They have LOST connection to our roots as a country. No; they have THROWN IT AWAY.

Thomas Jefferson:

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. "

The man is SCREAMING at us!

And worst of all, I find that many people of this country see NOTHING wrong with ACTUALLY SAYING that it is the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to sustain our livelihood!

THIS IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY. In fact, average citizen, YOU are subject to responsibility. I'll bet that's a new one on you. And furthermore, I SHUDDER to think of giving the government such powers as sustaining my livelihood. For if this is the case they can just as easily take it away.

Sorry to those who are not the average.

[a completely inoffensive name]

+1 internetz for A.M. above me. However, the quote, "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." Should have the bold word looked at carefully. The quote itself puts me in a conflict over meaning and makes me doubt my previous saying in another thread, specifically the underlined part:

The people are to be in control of their government, but mostly through indirect means because of their ability to be easily manipulated. The trust is actually put in those that are elected, not the general public. If the people are to be considered to be responsible adults, you should wonder why the Founding Fathers did not instead establish a direct democracy?

I wish to see the full letter or published work the quote comes from to see if there is any missing context or explanation around it. Doesn't saying that the rulers should not be trusted with government alone indicate that they are to be trusted with some measure and yet the next statement claims that only the general public and not the rulers should be trusted?

[Lord Winter]

Ariovistus Maximus you do know that most farmers didn't care about politics in Jefferson's time. If they pulled through okay I think the country will last as long as a determined minority understand the work that needs to be done.

[Strike For The South]

Ariovistus Maximus you do know that most farmers didn't care about politics in Jefferson's time. If they pulled through okay I think the country will last as long as a determined minority understand the work that needs to be done.

Agreed. We are much better off now than we were in the olden days.

Some of you need to realize that knowing how many stripes are on the flag and what they mean does not equate a productive populace.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I wish to see the full letter or published work the quote comes from to see if there is any missing context or explanation around it. Doesn't saying that the rulers should not be trusted with government alone indicate that they are to be trusted with some measure and yet the next statement claims that only the general public and not the rulers should be trusted?

Certainly the gov't should be trusted with leadership. Or what's the purpose of government?

But am I going to trust the government to save me while I sit on my duff and get drunk? Ummm, no.

Agreed. We are much better off now than we were in the olden days.

YAY! We can commit the same evils in new and different ways!!! And with new tools in different environments!!! WOHOOOOOOOOO!

Some of you need to realize that knowing how many stripes are on the flag and what they mean does not equate a productive populace.

If this is as deep as you look into things, it's no wonder you're having trouble with this. Try more than skimming the surface...

No, the farmer does not depend on knowing the name of the 1st President to succeed in his profession.

However, when people around me behave like the following, I find it rather discouraging:

George Washington...? Ummmmm, uhhhhh....

OOOOOHHHHHH!!! MICHAEL JACKSON!!! HE'S MY HERO!!!!

It speaks to the condition of society and where it's priorities are. And when it is so painfully obvious that we are more interested in amusement than in the preservation of our freedom, I think it indicates (and history shows) that the loss of freedom is not far off.

By the way, I'd encourage you to check out that word: amuse.

The root word = muse, which means to think.

"A-" is a prefix meaning the absence of

Thus, amusement literally means the absence of thought.

So, when people actually pay money to have their intelligence suppressed, and when people would rather go to amusement parks than to museums (see that word there?) I think we have a problem.

Interesting that we can quote lines from our favorite movies, and we know hundreds of our favorite songs by heart, but we cant recite the the pledge of allegiance or remember the national anthem.

Does it look to you like people are interested in maintaining their freedoms? Looks to me like anybody could step up and rip it away and many people wouldn't notice.

As long as the dictator gives them free beer and lets them keep all their TV channels, he can do whatever he wants.

Of course, when he actually GETS what he wants, the free beer and TV go away, unless it is convenient for him to let them continue...

[Louis VI the Fat]

If this is as deep as you look into things, it's no wonder you're having trouble with this. Try more than skimming the surface...


By the way, I'd encourage you to check out that word: amuse.

The root word = muse, which means to think.

"A-" is a prefix meaning the absence of

Thus, amusement literally means the absence of thought. When people would rather go to amusement parks than to museums (see that word there?) I think we have a problem

I am afraid you mix up Greek and Latin. Indeed, 'museum' is rooted in Greek 'muse'. And 'a' in Greek means 'absense of'.

However, amusement is a French word, via Latin. The 'a' here means 'to', as in the Fench word 'à'. 'Muser', while possibly distantly related to Greek muses, here has a different meaning: 'a trifle', 'a diversion'. (Note the a's here are English 'a', and do not mean 'not' or 'to' )

Amusement then, is 'to divert oneself with entertaining matter'. The very wod preserves
the notion that it is trivial, and that hence there are graver matters. A man's mind should not be exclusively given to the pursuit of only either one.

[Viking]

but we cant recite the the pledge of allegiance or remember the national anthem.

A joy for a dictator would be to have his people learn a national anthem and have them to pledge allegiance. Freedom opens up for diversity; what you describe could only work against it.

[Strike For The South]

I don't really know what your on about other than trying to pump yourself up as the lone freedom fighter in a sea of unwashed peasants.

We gained our freedom when 90% of the country was illeterate and lacked formal schooling. So were going to lose it now?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

A joy for a dictator would be to have his people learn a national anthem and have them to pledge allegiance. Freedom opens up for diversity; what you describe could only work against it.

A dictator can also function quite well if the masses are too ignorant to know what he' up to or to stand up to him. ;)

Stupidity is not freedom. Stupidity lessens your freedom.

Except in the sense that if you are so ignorant that you don't know what freedom IS, I guess you wouldn't miss it...

Education is essential to the preservation of a free state.

Want to verify that with the historical record? Go ahead; it's all there.

You will notice a pattern that the uneducated people are the ones doing manual labor for the educated ones...

I don't really know what your on about other than trying to pump yourself up as the lone freedom fighter in a sea of unwashed peasants.

We gained our freedom when 90% of the country was illeterate and lacked formal schooling. So were going to lose it now?

First of all, I don't see what you're on about me being on something.

I do agree though, that argumentum ad hominem is fun. Shall we pass it around?

If, however, I have really given that impression, and you're not just out to cry "goody two-shoes" because it makes you feel good:

Then I will clarify and state that I am hardly trying to give that impression. If, however, you (that is, a general "you all") can't recite the pledge of allegiance to your country, or if you couldn't pass the citizenship test if you were required to do so, then I suggest you study up on a few things.

I hardly want to put myself on a pedestal, and I think you're making some assumptions to get there.

However, I'm hardly going to back down and say that ignorance is a good, happy thing and that we can just sit around and wait for someone else to work on our problems.

To use your example:

The thing, strike for the south, is that when BOTH you and the bad guy can't read, that's even.

However, when the bad guys start to read and the good guys STILL can't read... then I think it's time to learn a bit.