• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Revised Afghan ROE...

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The media, as a group, definitely tended to put the efforts of the Bush admin in a negative light.

While accurate reports were provided, and could be found if someone wanted to look, they didn't get the headlines/front page/above the fold presentation that the negative reports did.

I'm curious, do they still give the death count each time someone is killed, or did that stop with the inauguration?

There's little doubt that there is rampant bias in the mainstream media. Most of it is left bias, but FOX is probably the most egregious and flagrant among them. Is the media as a whole fair & balanced? Probably not. But to suggest that they're in collusion with the enemy is simply ridiculous. Like Flash indicated, if you're getting your "news" from CNN or FOX, well, you get what you paid for. 99 percent of that stuff is shallow fluff anyway - why even bother, unless you're just into being entertained. For real news, you have to dig into some of the more serious venues. I recommend reading some from both the left and right perspectives so you can better understand all sides of any given issue. You don't have to agree with any one side, but it helps your understanding of your own position, and every once in a while, you might just realize that the "party line" talking points you've been agreeing with all along don't measure up to reality, or even your own feelings.

Food for thought,

Brett
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
THe problem is that most people don't take the time to "dig into" the news, which results in an ill-informed electorate. Not good for a democracy.

If people insist on being idiots, that's not my problem. The American people get exactly what they deserve - a broken, bloated government filled with shrill religious zealots and Greenpeace members who have no idea what it means to be leaders or consider the true national interests of this country.

Brett
 

exhelodrvr

Well-Known Member
pilot
If people insist on being idiots, that's not my problem. The American people get exactly what they deserve - a broken, bloated government filled with shrill religious zealots and Greenpeace members who have no idea what it means to be leaders or consider the true national interests of this country.

Brett

I would say that it is your problem, seeing as you're an American.
 

SkywardET

Contrarian
Easy now, folks. Go easy on the salesmen. They are just trying to sell interesting dramatic idiocy so that we are collectively complacent and do not bother to question our government, even in violation of our civic duty.

It's not about left or right, as those are really side shows. It's about money and control. The proof is that we are now in President Bush's third term.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Freedom is messy. You can lead a horse to water.......

Exactly. It's not my problem in that I'm powerless to change it, so I don't worry about it. We've got it easy in this country. As a result, people are lazy and apathetic. This isn't going to change unless were conquored by another or otherwise subjugated. Unfortunately, that's human nature.

Brett
 

Mumbles

Registered User
pilot
Contributor
Thought this might be germane to the conversation....

Exactly. It's not my problem in that I'm powerless to change it, so I don't worry about it. We've got it easy in this country. As a result, people are lazy and apathetic. This isn't going to change unless were conquored by another or otherwise subjugated. Unfortunately, that's human nature.

Brett


In 1787 when the United States drafted its constitution for a democratic government of the people, for the people and by the people, Professor Alexander Tyler (University of Edinborough –circa 1787) wrote about the stages of birth and death of democracy. According Alexander Tyler it takes an average of two hundred years for a democracy to mature, reach its crescendo and then revert back to bondage.

There are eight stages of democracy he observed:

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.

Nascent democracies in the past have had growing problems and trouble getting off the ground. Some countries have sea-sawed between autocracy and democracy (e.g. Pakistan). Iraq is struggling against all odds to provide freedom to its people after the fall of a brutal totalitarian dictator. Russia is still experimenting with its newly found freedom. Germany suffered set backs from fascism earlier in the 20th century. Japan emerged a free country after its monarchy. Iran’s theocracy has a strong hold on its people thought there is a ground swell of discontent as people yearn for more freedom.

Yet, world’s oldest democracies appear to be suffering form apathy, an insidious process that can have disastrous consequences. The democracy in United States is in the process of creating a dependency class because of voter complacency and apathy. Americans who cherish their liberty are now seeing it slowly being eroded by the government that they elected and created. Most defenders of democracy feel that democracy needs to be defended constantly. It cannot be taken for granted. It needs to be protected, nurtured, improved on and then passed on to the next generation.

The democratic process is a gamut that hits many bumps in its long journey. There are times when it looks hopeless and to be withering. But once the people have tasted freedom, it is hard to take it away. Unfortunately, the obstacles that prevent democracy from blooming, sometimes last for generations. Generations of people around the world have endured autocracy and dictatorship, totalitarianism, fascism, monarchy, oligarchy and even anarchy without knowing freedom.

The United States government and democracy has been in peril many times in its history. Many of its leaders and presidents were unsure about maintaining democracy and liberty during their tenures. Abraham Lincoln who avoided a division of his country into north and south had lamented, “I am struggling to maintain the government, not to overthrow it. I am struggling especially to prevent others from overthrowing it.” John F. Kennedy in his State of the Union address on January 30, 1961 said, “Before my term has ended, we shall have to test anew whether a nation organized and governed as such as ours can endure. The outcome is by no means certain.” There always has been a pessimism regarding the endurance of democracy over many centuries.

Winston Churchill, in his speech to the House of Commons on November 11, 1947 said,

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except al those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

– Neria Harish Hebbar, MD
 

SkywardET

Contrarian
???

Explain.
Put plainly, the list of substantively different policies between administrations is small, while the list of substantively similar policies is large. One of President Bush's platforms was no nation building, yet "things changed." One of President Obama's platforms was to end the war, yet the "overseas contingency operations" are expanding. President Bush started the major bailouts of failed institutions, while President Obama has vastly accelerated the same economic policy. President Bush consolidated control of education with No Child Left Behind. Now, President Obama appears to be working to consolidate control of health care with the upcoming "reforms."

The major differences are in rhetoric, not policy. A perfect example would be the Uighers. Four have been sent to the Bahamas and the other thirteen to the Republic of Palau. The Republic of Palau! That's the most beautiful place on the planet, and if you ever get the chance to go there you should take it. Yet Gitmo remains open. We have rhetoric towards Iran that is less harsh than before. Now there are fewer of the "if we/Israel were to decide to strike, here are the sights we/they would need to hit" types of neocon mental masturbation on places such as Fox News (not to pick on Faux alone, as that would imply that CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and others are legitimate, which they are not; I'm just sayin'). The revised Afghan ROE are an extension of the softer rhetoric, but substantively we are expanding the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

I have barely begun to scratch the surface though. What of the USA Patriot Act? "No-bid government contracts" compared to "no-contract government/union takeover" of companies?

Both administrations have thusfar been very similar. The most striking differences between administrations? The different flavor of unsubstantive minutia.
*Language Warning*
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
99 percent of that stuff is shallow fluff anyway - why even bother, unless you're just into being entertained. For real news, you have to dig into some of the more serious venues.
Brett

I have read plenty of in depth, "thoughtful", reporting that is full or bias and pure crap. I submit that the ratio of good and fair reporting to crap is no better in a lengthy multi part newspaper article or a magazine feature, or hour long t.v. documentary special as to your basic front page wire service article or 3 minute piece on t.v. news. Hell, the book stores are full of rendered copies of all sorts of trash books that purported to be quality in depth analysis, the inside story, have exclusive access, etc. Just because a report is on the short side, or appears "shallow" doesn't mean it isn't accurate or fair. Sometimes there just isn't enough to a story to satisfy some folks' urge to deconstruct, justify, and analyze everything to the point of useless blabber.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I have read plenty of in depth, "thoughtful", reporting that is full or bias and pure crap. I submit that the ratio of good and fair reporting to crap is no better in a lengthy multi part newspaper article or a magazine feature, or hour long t.v. documentary special as to your basic front page wire service article or 3 minute piece on t.v. news. Hell, the book stores are full of rendered copies of all sorts of trash books that purported to be quality in depth analysis, the inside story, have exclusive access, etc. Just because a report is on the short side, or appears "shallow" doesn't mean it isn't accurate or fair. Sometimes there just isn't enough to a story to satisfy some folks' urge to deconstruct, justify, and analyze everything to the point of useless blabber.

So you're defending the 24 hour news networks as accurate, high fidelity, quality reporting then? Roger, noted. Anyway, my point is that you need a variety of sources from all points of view (or bias) to call yourself informed.

Brett
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
So you're defending the 24 hour news networks as accurate, high fidelity, quality reporting then? Roger, noted.
What, no smilies? No winks, no eeks, no frowns? Because if you really think that is what I said in my post you quoted then your reading comprehension is crappy (something I never thought I'd say about you), or you are an asshole (something frequently said about you, but never by me before ;)). All news is on a 24 hour cycle now. It just doesn't apply to cable t.v. news. Publishing something 48 hours after the event doesn't somehow make it more accurate. Even the best reporting can be over come by events making it, well, inaccurate. And just in case your reading comprehension has deteriorated with your advancing years, I was saying the in depth coverage is proportionally just as biased and inaccurate as "shallow" t.v. and McNewspaper reporting. It is still a human product when the day is done.
Anyway, my point is that you need a variety of sources from all points of view (or bias) to call yourself informed.
I agree, as should any fair and intelligent citizen. So you must watch FOX News, no?
 

mmx1

Woof!
pilot
Contributor
I agree, as should any fair and intelligent citizen. So you must watch FOX News, no?

I get more than my recommended daily allowance at work. Not a statement about the ready room climate (any more than it would be if MSNBC were on), but just that cable news is about as informative as SPIKE's ultimate warrior, or "top 10 weapons systems", or even the Airwolf episodes that someone ran last week.

Passes the time, but don't confuse it with anything useful.
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
Information's great. News (even though it's generally NOT 'new) is great. News saturation is not so great. Debate is O.K. (notice I didn't say 'GREAT'??) ... informed action is better.

Options, informed conclusions, commitment, focus, relevance, and ACTION are crucial in this life however ...

One thing I've noticed for many, many years while 'chatting' in cockpits & Ready Rooms -- and it's replicated on this website .... check, check ... it's actually TWO things that some of you guys 'miss' in the daily exercise of "who's right-who's wrong" ... specifically the
'news' debate" in this thread ... :)

1. You have to have some 'standards' of YOUR OWN. Things that YOU believe to be true ... things that you'll take out your sword and draw a line in the sand over ...

2. You have to have some CORE BELIEFS ... that ol' bottom line that you won't retreat past ... core beliefs of your own.

Otherwise ... ???

You are at the mercy of what someone/anyone tells you ... you're just twistin' in the wind ... and you're subject to every recycled thought that comes along ... in short: y
ou're a chump. :)

No matter how 'smart' you think you are or pretend to be ... :)
 
Top