RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual?

RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/17/2012 10:59:30 AM)
Okay, if it is your perception that things are working really well in this country, then obviously we are approaching this from very different perspectives. Is this why the American electorate is so very happy at how the last decade has gone? Because everything is just great here? [&:]

servantboy47 -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/17/2012 2:09:42 PM)
It's very obvious that Americans are anti-intellectual, they elected Obama.

GotSteel -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/17/2012 2:27:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Saying we should have 'smart' representatives and a 'smart' electorate seems wishful idealism. Not bothering to say it seems defeatist, at the very least....

GotSteel -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/17/2012 2:31:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Realistically, what would you change? Good question, much more useful than going on about philosopher-kings. Vocal groups in this country have a say disproportional to their size. As such I propose that those of us who consider education and intelligence to be essential attributes for our elected officials should raise awareness. That we should talk about this on the internet and in our communities. Maybe get a bumper sticker or wear a pin when you go vote. Here's a T-shirt. [image]local://upfiles/566126/EFB9FD6F577748F18925C9FEC3B52BCE.jpg[/image]

Zonie63 -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/17/2012 3:25:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Another interesting sidenote about sports and intellectualism is that more people seem to get excited over college athletic programs than their academic performance. Perhaps that's one of the roots of the problem? Probably. That the jocks are more popular than the nerds seems to apply to elections as well.

vincentML -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/17/2012 3:41:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Okay, if it is your perception that things are working really well in this country, then obviously we are approaching this from very different perspectives. Over the arc of our history America has made commendable progress in promoting individual liberty, equality, and wellness. It's been a struggle. American history has not been boring. Pretty damn exciting, I think. Although not all good. quote: Is this why the American electorate is so very happy at how the last decade has gone? Because everything is just great here? [&:] Over the past thirty years or so we have been transitioning from an industrial society to a service society, so our world is out of joint . . . just as it was during the transition from agricultural society to industrialization c. 1870-1930. A similar dislocation is going on now. Labor was cheapened then by mass immigration and new technology (mainly specialization on the assembly line) Today it is cheapened by manufacturing outsourcing and new digital technology, which take work away from the middle class. Money travels around the world today faster than my daddy could retrieve the evening newspaper from the front lawn. So, we are faced with growing skill and wealth disparity. People find their 20th Century skills are not worth so much anymore. They are terribly insecure. Yes, there is a lot of unhappiness, finger pointing, name calling, and reactionary political emotion. These are dangerous times. We are on the precipice of sliding backwards into Boston Harbor with bags of dumped tea. We stand to lose the social safety network because of misguided blaming. It will be a shame if all those advances are lost to the demagogues of the Right. However, I find no satisfaction in chastising America for being anti-intellectual. It is an ineffectual strategy. Sure, people vote dumb. Anyone who votes against my candidate and against my ideology is voting dumb.[;)] The solution is for the Left and Center Left to take back electoral power from the Ayn Randians, the Bible literalists, and the know-nothing Tea Party. That requires money and campaigning. Let's hope there is still time, or at least that the Left retains more than 40% of the Senate to stall the loss of social progress.

Zonie63 -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/17/2012 3:49:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: But then we're still left with the question as to what the qualifications should be for "leader." I submit that regardless of what you think a leader's qualifications should be the only real thing that qualifies a leader is if anyone is following him or her. Yeah, that makes sense to me. I was mainly bringing this up because there was the issue of some leaders being "unqualified," with no defining characteristics of what that actually means. quote: quote: But on the subject of ideas and ideology, that may go back to party and factional loyalty I mentioned upthread. If a person is ideologically aligned with either the Democratic or Republican parties, they might not care so much that this candidate or that candidate is "unqualified" (or even a bumbling fool), because they may be voting more for the party and their ideological platform than any individual candidate. They're also looking at the lesser of two evils. I think people might be more inclined to vote for the airhead who agrees with them over the genius who disagrees with them. Firstly, the "bumbling fool" is tested by a campaign in a primary contest. Well, that may be the first problem. If primaries around the country are anything like we have here in Arizona, then even the primary candidates can often be a rather sorry bunch. It doesn't surprise me (when idiots get elected) on Election Day, since there's only two choices, but oftentimes I have cause to wonder: "How in the heck did this guy make it past the primaries?" If there's any room for election reform in this country, it's in the primaries and the overall process of parties choosing their candidates. (I also think that presidential primaries should all be held on the same day for all states, some time in September before the election, so that there's only three months of electioneering.) quote: Secondly, it seems that you are starting to allow for the possibility that voting is not necessarily a rational activity. There are always emotional dimensions to the choices we make, aren't there? Oh yes, I agree fully that voters definitely put their emotions into their voting choices.

Zonie63 -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/17/2012 4:14:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Realistically, what would you change? Good question, much more useful than going on about philosopher-kings. Vocal groups in this country have a say disproportional to their size. As such I propose that those of us who consider education and intelligence to be essential attributes for our elected officials should raise awareness. That we should talk about this on the internet and in our communities. Maybe get a bumper sticker or wear a pin when you go vote. Here's a T-shirt. I think one reason vocal groups in this country have a say disproportionate to their size is because of too much voter apathy, I'm sorry to say. Half the adults eligible to vote in this country fail to do so. So, the squeaky wheels get the grease much more expediently than those who remain silent. I can see where some people are probably smart enough, but they're just plain tired. They're sick of politics and all the bullshit, so I can see where some might just throw in the towel and give up trying.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/17/2012 5:30:41 PM)
Voter apathy also represents a type of anti-intellectualism. That Americans who don't even choose to vote sit back and criticize what goes on in the country is the ultimate statement about our "dumb" approach to politics. I see voter apathy as simply another facet of the same problem. And it all leads to continued bad leadership. When will the American populace wake up/grow up and understand what politics and leadership requires? Probably never, but I can still complain.....[&:]

thompsonx -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/18/2012 10:07:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Anyone under about 55 knows very little that wasn't spoon fed to him by Granma (I think that's how the Cuban's version of Pravda is spelled) and the Castro Brothers' approved educational system. Concerning things like the "gulf of tonkin incident","the bay of pigs incident" "the cuban missile crissis" who had the more accurate reporting granma or cbs,abc,nbc,washington post,new york times,la times? Why don't you pull all the articles out of archives and give us a full report.[:D] Were you not aware that the gulf of tonkin "event" never happened and that was the lever that took us fully into vietnam and 60,000 body bags? Were you not aware that the bay of pigs was a cia opperation? Were you not aware that it was kennedy and not kurschieve who blinked? Were you not aware that because of that the u.s. has signed a treaty pleging to never invade cuba? It was in granma but not the nyt,wp,lat or any mainstream u.s. newspaper or news program. Tonkin happened, just not the way we said it did unfortunately. The others Im aware of except Kennedy and Kruschev both blinked. They decided they wanted the human race to continue. Bay of Pigs a CIA op? Is there anyone on the planet who does NOT know that? As for the others, Im waiting for you to dig up the Granma archives. You're so sure they were totally truthful, show us. Even though your post is a hijack, I want to see those links to Granma and the other sources crossreferenced and labelled. You were the one who questioned the accuracy of "granma". I asked you to validate your statement concerning certain specific subjects as they related to the accuracy of "granma". So far you have failed to do so. When I make statements of fact I have always been able to validate my position. Why should you be held to a different standard?

YN -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/18/2012 10:14:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Voter apathy also represents a type of anti-intellectualism. That Americans who don't even choose to vote sit back and criticize what goes on in the country is the ultimate statement about our "dumb" approach to politics. I see voter apathy as simply another facet of the same problem. And it all leads to continued bad leadership. When will the American populace wake up/grow up and understand what politics and leadership requires? Probably never, but I can still complain.....[&:] That apathy is a sad fact world wide in countries that do not have compulsory voting. Not that compulsory voting is necessarily a good thing.

thompsonx -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/18/2012 10:31:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantboy47 It's very obvious that Americans are anti-intellectual, they elected Obama. Were you unaware that presidents in the u.s. are appointed not elected?

thompsonx -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/18/2012 10:38:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Voter apathy also represents a type of anti-intellectualism. That Americans who don't even choose to vote sit back and criticize what goes on in the country is the ultimate statement about our "dumb" approach to politics. I see voter apathy as simply another facet of the same problem. And it all leads to continued bad leadership. When will the American populace wake up/grow up and understand what politics and leadership requires? Probably never, but I can still complain.....[&:] If you are offered a choice between being beaten with a wood baseball bat or a aluminum baseball bat, and then castigated for crying out in pain at "your choice"...????

Aswad -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/18/2012 12:25:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Hell's bells! Politicians are us, to be sure - but they're 'us' with added power. Whatever happened to 'power corrupts'? Nup. I want politicians to have at least a little fear that we, the electorate, have some small say in whether they stay or go. The UK is a different situation than the US as regards the buying and selling of representatives, so a different tradeoff. Still, as I explained, you'd still be getting party-accountability, even though there would be personal anonymity, which would matter a fair bit for the UK situation if I understand your model well enough. That said, I'll admit that it was probably a brainfart as-is. IWYW, — Aswad.

vincentML -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/18/2012 2:11:30 PM)
quote: If there's any room for election reform in this country, it's in the primaries and the overall process of parties choosing their candidates. (I also think that presidential primaries should all be held on the same day for all states, some time in September before the election, so that there's only three months of electioneering.) Zonie; the political parties are NGOs. They are private clubs. I don't think the states can tell them how to nominate their candidates.

PeonForHer -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/18/2012 3:41:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Hell's bells! Politicians are us, to be sure - but they're 'us' with added power. Whatever happened to 'power corrupts'? Nup. I want politicians to have at least a little fear that we, the electorate, have some small say in whether they stay or go. The UK is a different situation than the US as regards the buying and selling of representatives, so a different tradeoff. Still, as I explained, you'd still be getting party-accountability, even though there would be personal anonymity, which would matter a fair bit for the UK situation if I understand your model well enough. That said, I'll admit that it was probably a brainfart as-is. IWYW, — Aswad. Party accountability wouldn't matter greatly to me, Aswad. Here in the UK the party line is very strong indeed, especially amongst the (currently ruling) Conservative party. Even in secret I think it likely that most Conservative members would go with the party line. Accountability to the electorate would matter to me greatly, though. I do agree that the problem of powerful interests 'buying' the votes of members of a given parliament would be wiped out if said members were to vote secretly, but that's a small gain against the huge loss of accountability to the electorate. I'm very much of the view that our government and members of parliament are our servants rather than our masters. We need to be able to see what our servants are doing, because servants can be dishonest . . . .

Aswad -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/18/2012 10:55:56 PM)
Yeah, after pondering it a bit, I'm going to have to dismiss it as a brainfart myself, too. Oh well. It wasn't the first time I've had a stupid idea. [:D] IWYW, — Aswad.

Zonie63 -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/19/2012 4:12:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: If there's any room for election reform in this country, it's in the primaries and the overall process of parties choosing their candidates. (I also think that presidential primaries should all be held on the same day for all states, some time in September before the election, so that there's only three months of electioneering.) Zonie; the political parties are NGOs. They are private clubs. I don't think the states can tell them how to nominate their candidates. Interestingly enough, there's a proposition on Arizona's ballot this year which proposes that the State do exactly that: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_%22Open_Government_Act%22_Initiative,_Proposition_121_(2012). quote: This measure will allow all Arizonans, regardless of party affiliation, to vote in a single open primary for the candidates of their choice. The two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary will compete in the general election. There will be a level playing field for all voters and candidates, and the current system of taxpayer-funded partisan primaries will be abolished. This reform will promote open government and encourage the election of candidates who will work together for the good of the state. I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. I like the idea of an open primary, but I don't like the idea that only the top two candidates compete in the general election. Why only two candidates? Why not 5 or 10? That's how it should be. We need more choices.

vincentML -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/19/2012 5:39:53 PM)
quote: Interestingly enough, there's a proposition on Arizona's ballot this year which proposes that the State do exactly that: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_%22Open_Government_Act%22_Initiative,_Proposition_121_(2012). Verrrrrry interesting. Is there anything in the initiative to prevent the Parties from holding nominating conventions? Assuming there is not since it would violate the right to Assemble, I would guess, what outcome would you expect when the Parties sued to have their candidates on the ballot?

Zonie63 -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/20/2012 3:34:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Interestingly enough, there's a proposition on Arizona's ballot this year which proposes that the State do exactly that: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_%22Open_Government_Act%22_Initiative,_Proposition_121_(2012). Verrrrrry interesting. Is there anything in the initiative to prevent the Parties from holding nominating conventions? Probably not, although I think they would have to pay for it without using public funds. http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop121.htm quote: Proposition 121 provides that individuals may organize or join political parties and that political parties may elect party officers, support or oppose candidates and otherwise participate in all elections, if the party activity is not paid for or subsidized using public funds. All voters, candidates and political parties must be treated equally, regardless of party affiliation or lack of affiliation. When registering to vote, voters would be allowed to state any party preference in their own words and would not be limited to selecting from a list of recognized political parties or affiliations. quote: Assuming there is not since it would violate the right to Assemble, I would guess, what outcome would you expect when the Parties sued to have their candidates on the ballot? I actually expect that this measure won't pass.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1132813