Chomsky: But anyone who fails to fulfil certain minimum requirements does not stand a chance of becoming an established commentator.

What are the minimum requirements of becoming an established commentator then Righthand

DM: So how does thought control work in a democratic society? We know how it works in dictatorships.

Chomsky: As you say, journalists immediately reply: “No one has been exerting any pressure on me. I write what I want.” And it’s true. But if they defended positions contrary to the dominant norm, someone else would soon be writing editorials in their place. Obviously it is not a hard-and-fast rule: the US press...

Democratic...

Chomsky: But anyone who fails to fulfil certain minimum requirements does not stand a chance of becoming an established commentator.

What are the minimum requirements of becoming an established commentator then Righthand

DM: So how does thought control work in a democratic society? We know how it works in dictatorships.

Chomsky: As you say, journalists immediately reply: “No one has been exerting any pressure on me. I write what I want.” And it’s true. But if they defended positions contrary to the dominant norm, someone else would soon be writing editorials in their place. Obviously it is not a hard-and-fast rule: the US press...

Democratic societies operate differently. The line is never presented as such, merely implied. This involves brainwashing people who are still at liberty. Even the passionate debates in the main media stay within the bounds of commonly accepted, implicit rules, which sideline a large number of contrary views. The system of control in democratic societies is extremely effective. We do not notice the line any more than we notice the air we breathe. We sometimes even imagine we are seeing a lively debate. The system of control is much more powerful than in totalitarian systems.

Look at Germany in the early 1930s. We tend to forget that it was the most advanced country in Europe, taking the lead in art, science, technology, literature and philosophy. Then, in no time at all, it suffered a complete reversal of fortune and became the most barbaric, murderous state in human history.

Democratic societies operate differently. The line is never presented as such, merely implied. This involves brainwashing people who are still at liberty.
Even the passionate debates in the main media stay within the bounds of
commonly accepted, implicit rules, which sideline a large number of
contrary views. The system of control in democratic societies is
extremely effective. We do not notice the line any more than we notice
the air we breathe. We sometimes even imagine we are seeing a lively
debate. The system of control is much more powerful than in totalitarian systems.

righthand, I think what you are describing are [url=http://www.google.com/search?q=social...

Democratic societies operate differently. The line is never presented as such, merely implied. This involves brainwashing people who are still at liberty.
Even the passionate debates in the main media stay within the bounds of
commonly accepted, implicit rules, which sideline a large number of
contrary views. The system of control in democratic societies is
extremely effective. We do not notice the line any more than we notice
the air we breathe. We sometimes even imagine we are seeing a lively
debate. The system of control is much more powerful than in totalitarian systems.

righthand, I think what you are describing are social norms. Although you are right, norms are highly effective mechanisms of social control; your description makes the phenomenon sound like a conspiracy. I would disagree with that.

Netiquette is a social norm subset. Most forums prefer and even require civility, which necessarily excludes those who would prefer constant flaming. Doesn't such a requirement have the effect of 'sidelining contrary views'? I think it does, but it's simply a function of the human social dynamic and not of a vast conspiracy.

The fact that norms are often implied or unspoken (as you pointed out) may make them feel secretive. That 'secretive' feeling can lead someone to conspiratorial conclusions where none exists.

I don't doubt that conspiracies occur, probably more often than I'd like to imagine, but not on this pervasive a scale; you have described an ongoing media conspiracy spanning the US and perhaps the globe. It's simply not possible imho.

Although I disagree a bit with your conclusions here, I did enjoy the clip. Keep them coming.

And so if the U.S is not a democracy then I have a few questions:

Why has it been called at various times the "Arsenal of Democracy"?

Why do politicians on both sides of the aisle claim to defend the U.S. core democratic values and wish to export democracy over seas?

If not a democracy (using direct or representational) then what is it? And what is the difference between that and a democracy?

As for rights coming from "God" (and the presumption that they must either come from either God or the State) here is the preamble of the Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more...

read more»

And so if the U.S is not a democracy then I have a few questions:

Why has it been called at various times the "Arsenal of Democracy"?

Why do politicians on both sides of the aisle claim to defend the U.S. core democratic values and wish to export democracy over seas?

If not a democracy (using direct or representational) then what is it? And what is the difference between that and a democracy?

As for rights coming from "God" (and the presumption that they must either come from either God or the State) here is the preamble of the Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish

justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote

the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our

posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States

of America.

That would seem to suggest that the power of the Constitution does not come either from "God" or the "State" but from the people themselves. In fact the Constitution exist to guarantee that these rights are not abridge by the "State".

Also from a document that had great influence in the drafting and creation of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence:

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursu...

read more»

Also from a document that had great influence in the drafting and creation of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence:

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

From the Declaration of Rights of Virginia.

Before you get to section 2, you have to understand the consequential implications inherent in section 1.

a. All men are by NATURE ( ie natural law ) equally free and (equally) independent and have certain INHERENT rights.

b. All power is VESTED in... Vested by whom, government? Wrong, Vested by Nature are our inherent rights.

c. The reason they cannot be infringed upon is because they belong to the individual via INALIENABLE VESTING, not by government granting. What government grants, they can also take away.

It does not help you to be a simpleton. You must recognize the the whole. Not just the parts you think worthy. Your own example points to the necessity of n...

Before you get to section 2, you have to understand the consequential implications inherent in section 1.

a. All men are by NATURE ( ie natural law ) equally free and (equally) independent and have certain INHERENT rights.

b. All power is VESTED in... Vested by whom, government? Wrong, Vested by Nature are our inherent rights.

c. The reason they cannot be infringed upon is because they belong to the individual via INALIENABLE VESTING, not by government granting. What government grants, they can also take away.

It does not help you to be a simpleton. You must recognize the the whole. Not just the parts you think worthy. Your own example points to the necessity of natural law in the American Society. I did not even have to look outside your own quoted points.

Yes that authority is the people. As in we grant that power to the state and could conceivably revoke it. If the power comes from God then that power is divinely inspired and beyond our control to give or to rescind. The problem here is that your excluding the people form the equation. In your paradigm its either the State or God (or the Church to be precise). I suggest (based on the evidence before me) that if the framers wanted to say that these power came from God then they would have said so. Their approach was more humanistic (although certainly informed by the impact of Judeo-Christian philosophies) that is human-centric.

If you where to see the definition of these words in any dictio...

Yes that authority is the people. As in we grant that power to the state and could conceivably revoke it. If the power comes from God then that power is divinely inspired and beyond our control to give or to rescind. The problem here is that your excluding the people form the equation. In your paradigm its either the State or God (or the Church to be precise). I suggest (based on the evidence before me) that if the framers wanted to say that these power came from God then they would have said so. Their approach was more humanistic (although certainly informed by the impact of Judeo-Christian philosophies) that is human-centric.

If you where to see the definition of these words in any dictionary, you would not find any reference to God or the divine. Only because you want to see that there, do find it there.

You bring up no facts, lump concepts together while pretending to have a higher understanding than others and belittle those that do not agree with you. You can not conceive of other understanding than your own and invent or twist the meaning of terms to suit your own concepts and then accuse others of doing the same.

Ex.

INALIENABLE VESTING

What does that mean. You say that the U.S. is not a democracy, I ask you to prove it or at least define what is not. RS jumps into a dsicussion of God. I answer him and then you star confusing terms like "nature" and making statements backed with no facts whatsoever. It is obvious to me that you merely troll these halls to show your su...

You bring up no facts, lump concepts together while pretending to have a higher understanding than others and belittle those that do not agree with you. You can not conceive of other understanding than your own and invent or twist the meaning of terms to suit your own concepts and then accuse others of doing the same.

Ex.

INALIENABLE VESTING

What does that mean. You say that the U.S. is not a democracy, I ask you to prove it or at least define what is not. RS jumps into a dsicussion of God. I answer him and then you star confusing terms like "nature" and making statements backed with no facts whatsoever. It is obvious to me that you merely troll these halls to show your supposed superiority over others and have no interest in serious debate or understanding beyond your little world.

Willheim,
With the excellent job he was doing on you, I'm tempted to leave the field to Ratilfar. The ...
If 'God' is not "found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence", does that mean god does not exist?
...is a long and well tested argument on American Forums. You showed your inexperience by falling for it. God cannot be in these documents as the existence of god is not provable. So any document that relied on god would not be worth the paper that it is written on.

If if you cannot appreciate the niceties of this then you should not have disregarded the very important IF in "If god is not..." Combined with how don...

Willheim,
With the excellent job he was doing on you, I'm tempted to leave the field to Ratilfar. The ...
If 'God' is not "found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence", does that mean god does not exist?
...is a long and well tested argument on American Forums. You showed your inexperience by falling for it. God cannot be in these documents as the existence of god is not provable. So any document that relied on god would not be worth the paper that it is written on.

If if you cannot appreciate the niceties of this then you should not have disregarded the very important IF in "If god is not..." Combined with how don't incude what you are defining in the definition should have been all the clues necessary for you. But what is your response but..
"Invalid" and "Our rights come from God....".

Man, or child, where have you been? Do you only write on an emotional level. This is not your church. I personally am not impressed by your standing up for Jesus. Religious patriotism is useless as a substitute for argument here.

Of course you just dug deeper with your ...
It does not help you to be a simpleton.
...contribution. Do you believe that we are fooled by personal remarks as a substitute for valid argument. Surely you could feel the heat of the depth of your hole. Intermixing god and nature as if the same is pathetic and is even dangerous religion, if god is good.

You came close to hope of rescue with ...

Rights that just magically appear from nowhere are not rights. They are delusions.

...but of course for all the wrong reason unless you understood that god and magic have the same status when granting rights to Americans other than from them selves. This of course is not what you intended, unless you see god as some great magician.

Willheim, your...

Exactly! You know, you have a real problem with clarity. You keep making my point and think you have found some alrming revelation. You are quite a delusional person.

A real cheap thick. On a par with Bush the coward having Kerry's heroism graded. If Ratilfar had used these words then he would have been justified. Then to confirm you level of debate, your input...

Your ignorance is profound.

Just how exactly are rights defined, granted, vested, or inherently derived by "nature", if by nature is not meant divine authorship, which was overwhelmingly obvious in the writings of the founders. Continue on in your NARROW view, which...

read more»

Willheim, your...

Exactly! You know, you have a real problem with clarity. You keep making my point and think you have found some alrming revelation. You are quite a delusional person.

A real cheap thick. On a par with Bush the coward having Kerry's heroism graded. If Ratilfar had used these words then he would have been justified. Then to confirm you level of debate, your input...

Your ignorance is profound.

Just how exactly are rights defined, granted, vested, or inherently derived by "nature", if by nature is not meant divine authorship, which was overwhelmingly obvious in the writings of the founders. Continue on in your NARROW view, which lies, for you, conveniently outside the realm of clear thinking, logic, and facts.

You do have one ability. To ask all the wrong questions that only dig you in deeper. By your higher authority logic, non-believers could not be good citizens of the USA. Maybe they should only be white and Protestant too? Were you educated in America? I despair for the future if... Your...

When faced with valid argument that you cannot comprehend the response should not be to display your incomprehension with more personal remarks...

You are simply an antagonistic and irration. Nothing in your last comment even remotely resembles a rational thought process. Try again.

then...

You are completely and utterly inane. You never refute or object to a single fact.

...is back to the Bush, the coward, grading Kerry's heroism style argument. A PEACH.

Willheim, your...

The US is not a pure democracy. Anyone with a third grade education should understand that.

What on earth. Well, obviously a few didn't make it past second grade maybe the most charitable thing.

Willheim, there is hope for you. First stay off the sauce, although like Bush, the damage may already be done. Maybe it was never there in the first place. Next lay off the personal remarks. If you do feel an overwhelming need to insult clippers just do one thing. PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE! Spending time finding the evidence that usually doesn't exist will disapate your anger. Thirdly, if you are not certain that what you are mad k...

Willheim, your...

The US is not a pure democracy. Anyone with a third grade education should understand that.

What on earth. Well, obviously a few didn't make it past second grade maybe the most charitable thing.

Willheim, there is hope for you. First stay off the sauce, although like Bush, the damage may already be done. Maybe it was never there in the first place. Next lay off the personal remarks. If you do feel an overwhelming need to insult clippers just do one thing. PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE! Spending time finding the evidence that usually doesn't exist will disapate your anger. Thirdly, if you are not certain that what you are mad keen to type will not help your argument then DON'T type anything. Unlike in the schoolyard, what you type here can be reused and reused against you over and over.

Now wasn't that good advise. Ok, don't answer, but I got out of bed early this morning with the intention of steering you in somewhat a better direction. It may be related to the new motor that I got on Thursday that has me so charitable.

Anyway stick with ClipMarks. Your might yet be a great clipper if you stay away from intellectual arguments until, until, until.... Well I would not like to give you false hope, but stay clipping. You do add a certain something to this wonderful site. I suppose you remind us as to how fortunate we really are. Well, most of us. See ye.


In fact, the only thing that it may be lacking is a separate but joined forum for say religion, politics and such. This maybe there is already but I've yet to get there?

America is not a democracy, but I'm not for it becoming one either.

You certainly have me confused. This last sentence just does not hang together. I can go along with 95% of what you write and suddenly you appear to go in the opposite direction to where you would appear to be going but without explanation. You must know that you are doing this. You ain't no Willheim who just likes the sound of words and cares little as to their meaning.

If you are saying that the democratic system in America is so broken that any genuine attempt to fix it, is domed to fail, then I agree absolutely. But in making any such statement you must be prepared to offer a viable alternative to be taken seriously. ...

America is not a democracy, but I'm not for it becoming one either.

You certainly have me confused. This last sentence just does not hang together. I can go along with 95% of what you write and suddenly you appear to go in the opposite direction to where you would appear to be going but without explanation. You must know that you are doing this. You ain't no Willheim who just likes the sound of words and cares little as to their meaning.

If you are saying that the democratic system in America is so broken that any genuine attempt to fix it, is domed to fail, then I agree absolutely. But in making any such statement you must be prepared to offer a viable alternative to be taken seriously. Else there is anarchy with the majority losing out.

We would replace it with a socialist world where truth is king, with no money to control people with, very few people in power so the country cannot be manipulated, every need provided by the state, the wealthy locked up in concentration camps for their crimes against humanity, and freedom of people to gather with their own kind instead of being forced to live together.

Now that might fool the goons, for now. I've being pondering for an answer too. It's much easier to show what is wrong with the present than give good alternatives. I'm quite happy with what we have here but would not presume that the same would work over there.

I'd start by banning all guns on a gradual basis. I'd conside...

We would replace it with a socialist world where truth is king, with no money to control people with, very few people in power so the country cannot be manipulated, every need provided by the state, the wealthy locked up in concentration camps for their crimes against humanity, and freedom of people to gather with their own kind instead of being forced to live together.

Now that might fool the goons, for now. I've being pondering for an answer too. It's much easier to show what is wrong with the present than give good alternatives. I'm quite happy with what we have here but would not presume that the same would work over there.

I'd start by banning all guns on a gradual basis. I'd consider legalizing drugs for a time. Ban all political contributions. Cap election funds at 1% of present. Ban the donkey and elephant parties. All officials would be appointed on merit not election. The judicarry would promote their own. Contribution to the churches would be taxed. The state/county would be responsible for registering ALL eligible. PR would replace 'first passed the post'. Wards would be decided independently to prevent DeLay gerrymandering of boundaries. Eliminate 3 strikes,and half existing sentences. All lobby groups are banned. Foreign lobbyists are detained pending no trail. Tax fuel by 300%. Ban arms manufacture until national debt is halved. Is that enough of a wish list for now. Oh, power exercised under a collegiate system similar to UK with similar ministers. And no relative or spouse of the president can run for any office for 100 years. All giant corporations to be divided in two for each of 10 years.