Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

I work for a company that buys Idaho barley to make malt. The malt is all exported (all of it) to Mexico, where it makes Corona and other Mexican beers. Many of those beers are imported back into the United States.

 

What I'm saying is, these tariff rumors are terrifying.  You see, every beer has slightly different specifications for its beer (pale beers have lightly toasted malt, dark beers have nearly burnt malt. Some beers want low protein count for clarity) The point is, we can't just shrug and start making Budweiser malt.  We have plans to do that, but it is not easy, cheap, or fast.

 

Right now Mexico imports our barley because Idaho makes some of the highest-quality barley in the world.  But even now, they look at Mexican barley. It wouldn't take much of a trade war to convince them to change. I don't do well if my company can't sell malt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another novel joining 1984 on the bestseller list is a novel from the '30s called It Can't Happen Here. Written by Upton Sinclair, a well-known "muckraker" (his novel The Jungle, about the meatpacking industry, had a profound influence on American agricultural policy when it game out), It Can't Happen Here was written in response to the rises of Mussolini and Hitler. It details the rise and fall of an American fascist regime. It seems eerily prescient now, with the difference that Sinclair's character did not have ready access to nuclear weapons.

 

It actually came closer to reality in its day than is comfortable to remember. In the 1920s and 1930s, everybody in the West was terrified of Communism. A lot of people took the view that the Bolsheviks posed such an existential threat to the world they knew that any means -- even the extinguishing of democracy -- were worth it to prevent its rise. The Great Depression and the seeming failure of democratic institutions to deal with it did not help. Neither did good old-fashioned American racism and Anti-Semitism. FDR had to walk (or, in his case, wheel) a dangerous line of trying to revive a moribund economy facing determined opposition to every action he took, without falling into the extreme of authoritarianism. It was a credit to him that he continued to wheel that line up until the war. Even he was tempted to rig the game in his favor (trying to manipulate the membership of the obstructionist Supreme Court was a significant overreach that ended badly) but he was able to avoid most of the excesses of other world leaders of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's reporting like this that sometimes almost makes me sympathetic to Donald Trump's attitude toward contemporary media. The commitment to journalistic standards that was so often touted when I was growing up -- present the facts as objectively as possible, check and double-check them before printing them, clarify the issues for the public -- seems to often be abandoned in favor of clearly biased, attention-grabbing headlines that draw readers to boost sales, but lead those readers to mistaken conclusions. Well, among much of American media, anyway.

 

It's getting really hard to tell the real news from the "fake news," as Trump is fond of calling it. And that's a frightening prospect for a system of government that depends on the public to make important choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ebell, the guy who led the transition for the EPA, said he wanted to cut most of the agency and the budget because state agencies were handling things. As a resident of NC, I know his position isn't consistent with facts on the ground. Most of Trump's cabinet are the same way in the positions they are up for nomination.

 

The fact that someone had to point out that a 20% tariff on Mexican imports would drive prices in the United States through the roof is an indication that Trump and the people around him have problems with reality

CES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's reporting like this that sometimes almost makes me sympathetic to Donald Trump's attitude toward contemporary media. The commitment to journalistic standards that was so often touted when I was growing up -- present the facts as objectively as possible, check and double-check them before printing them, clarify the issues for the public -- seems to often be abandoned in favor of clearly biased, attention-grabbing headlines that draw readers to boost sales, but lead those readers to mistaken conclusions. Well, among much of American media, anyway.

Is this the journalists' fault, or the public's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly either. The quote that comes to mind is "I didn't make the sea, I just sail on it."

 

Journalists didn't make a marketplace that prized the speedy and the salacious.  But, if we have 24 hour news, speed matters. If we need clicks, social media or otherwise, salacious matters. If customers are more likely to select media that reflects pre-existing ideology, maintaining partisan bias matters.

 

Customers could seek out balanced news sources, but that takes work. No, not just work to go look, but a willingness to become intentionally uncomfortable, reading things that fall outside their comfort zone, and then force themselves to fact check things. Effectively, to be part-time journalists themselves.

 

The fault then, is the setup of the news marketplace itself. That's what makes the problem so intractable. The marketplace rewards partisan, salacious, speed-over-accuracy journalists and lazy, comfortable people.

 

Frankly, there aren't many options for changing the marketplace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Day Seven, and Trumps new ambassador to the United Nations threatens the UN.

 

 

"New US UN"?
We're making the rules.  Anyone who doesn't like it will be dealt with.

 

Nikki Haley, the new US ambassador to the United Nations, walked into UN headquarters for the first time Friday and promptly said, "For those who don't have our backs, we're taking names."

The former Republican governor of South Carolina vowed there is a "new US UN."

Haley told reporters, "Our goal with the administration is to show value at the UN, and the way to show value is to show our strength, show our full voice. Have the backs of our allies and make sure our allies have our backs as well."

She then added, "For those who don't have our backs, we're taking names, and we will make points to respond to that accordingly."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if that's your position, you state it privately to the other UN ambassadors. Making such a proclamation public may win you some domestic support, but the resulting anger among the public in the other countries is going to force their leaders to take a hard line so as not to appear weak to their own constituents.

 

Someone should shove Ambassador Haley's nose into the page in the dictionary defining, "diplomacy." :tsk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if that's your position, you state it privately to the other UN ambassadors. Making such a proclamation public may win you some domestic support, but the resulting anger among the public in the other countries is going to force their leaders to take a hard line so as not to appear weak to their own constituents.

 

Someone should shove Ambassador Haley's nose into the page in the dictionary defining, "diplomacy." :tsk:

Precisely, it's not necessarily idiotic to aggressively pursue your agenda. It's stupid to announce it in a confrontational and public manner. Just bad at their job

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, that tends to be what Republicans want in a UN ambassador.  Conservatives hate the UN. They complain about its ineffectiveness and the threat of world government to our sovereignty. Remember when Michael Bolton was UN ambassador under the last Republican administration? He was described as "a nanny who hates children".

 

Trump appointed an ambassador who says things to the UN that Trump's base wants said to the UN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the journalists' fault, or the public's?

 

I've lost nearly all respect for the media, so I'd place the most blame on them.  They really don't even pretend to try anymore.  But, it is a chicken and egg thing, arguably. 

 

As for Trump, I am beginning to half-think he just plain has fun messing with them.  And they're really easy prey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly either. The quote that comes to mind is "I didn't make the sea, I just sail on it."

 

Journalists didn't make a marketplace that prized the speedy and the salacious.  But, if we have 24 hour news, speed matters. If we need clicks, social media or otherwise, salacious matters. If customers are more likely to select media that reflects pre-existing ideology, maintaining partisan bias matters.

 

Customers could seek out balanced news sources, but that takes work. No, not just work to go look, but a willingness to become intentionally uncomfortable, reading things that fall outside their comfort zone, and then force themselves to fact check things. Effectively, to be part-time journalists themselves.

 

The fault then, is the setup of the news marketplace itself. That's what makes the problem so intractable. The marketplace rewards partisan, salacious, speed-over-accuracy journalists and lazy, comfortable people.

 

Frankly, there aren't many options for changing the marketplace.

 

That could be true.  The problem is, we talk like we don't want to do base it on our pre-existing ideology, but we all do.  Reading all of our posts, we all are guilty of avoiding the other side as much as possible.   If a complete political novice read our posts they would come to the conclusion that me and a handful of others believe liberals are the scum of Satan.  ANd the rest believe that conservatives are always chaotic evil.  (and I doubt many other internet sites are different, some more conservative, some more liberal but ultimately it is what it is)

 

A lot of it is human nature, I believe.  But, I think nearly all of us here (and mostly everybody everywhere) is quite a bit guilty of this.  If we say otherwise, we are only fooling ourselves.  I think on a day to day basis us humans find it easy to avoid the truth and fall into a biased world to make it easier to live life.

 

Maybe it really is the chicken and egg situation.  Though I do think most of us here, and the public at large at least mean well, and want to do right. I hope we all (at least here) believe most on the other side are merely flawed rather than evil.  The media?  I think they long ago sold their soul.   I used to think the old days were integrity-filled, but I question that now.   Were they really? Or were they able to hide it better, because their were so many fewer sources of news, that we didn't have enough requisite angles to gleam the truth about them?  I don't have the confidence to say the former anymore.

 

 

Note: I hope I said what I meant to say right.  As I think are biases have all flawed our thinking to a degree, doesn't make us evil or even wrong on the broad perspective per se.  The media's antics in some regards has put me  in a gloomy mood towards them.  And as far as learning from the 2016 election, I believe the media and (lesser extent) the public have learned absolutely nothing.  Or if on the whole they did draw a conclusion, it was to ramp up hate. I guess that has gotten to me a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could be true.  The problem is, we talk like we don't want to do base it on our pre-existing ideology, but we all do.  Reading all of our posts, we all are guilty of avoiding the other side as much as possible.   If a complete political novice read our posts they would come to the conclusion that me and a handful of others believe liberals are the scum of Satan.  ANd the rest believe that conservatives are always chaotic evil.  (and I doubt many other internet sites are different, some more conservative, some more liberal but ultimately it is what it is)

 

A lot of it is human nature, I believe.  But, I think nearly all of us here (and mostly everybody everywhere) is quite a bit guilty of this.  If we say otherwise, we are only fooling ourselves.  I think on a day to day basis us humans find it easy to avoid the truth and fall into a biased world to make it easier to live life.

 

Maybe it really is the chicken and egg situation.  Though I do think most of us here, and the public at large at least mean well, and want to do right. I hope we all (at least here) believe most on the other side are merely flawed rather than evil.  The media?  I think they long ago sold their soul.   I used to think the old days were integrity-filled, but I question that now.   Were they really? Or were they able to hide it better, because their were so many fewer sources of news, that we didn't have enough requisite angles to gleam the truth about them?  I don't have the confidence to say the former anymore.

 

 

Note: I hope I said what I meant to say right.  As I think are biases have all flawed our thinking to a degree, doesn't make us evil or even wrong on the broad perspective per se.  The media's antics in some regards has put me  in a gloomy mood towards them.  And as far as learning from the 2016 election, I believe the media and (lesser extent) the public have learned absolutely nothing.  Or if on the whole they did draw a conclusion, it was to ramp up hate. I guess that has gotten to me a bit.

It is true that, to one extent or another, we are all susceptible to confirmation bias, particularly with regard to things we have strong beliefs about, e.g. politics, religion, ethics etc. Politics isn't a game--the stakes are much steeper and more lasting than any game. However, like a game, there are "rules of play". There is (supposed) to be a sense of "fair play" , "good faith and fair dealing", etc., often based on some at least vague agreement on a common purpose or common good. One of the problems we face, aside from culture clashes et al, is that the two major parties/ideologies can no longer even agree on the general purpose and scope of governance. It's one thing, for example, to look at a football game and disagree about what play the quarterback should call, or whether to go for it on third down or kick a safe field goal. It's quite another to say that the quarterback needs to dunk the basketball instead of making a slap shot on goal. IOW we're not even in agreement on what game is being played!

On top of this now, the distrust of media(which is not strictly limited to right-leaning citizens, we on the left equally distrust CNN and many media sources, albeit for different reasons) has resulted in a bifurcation into partisan media sites which perform our confirmation bias for us, downplaying or ignoring "inconvenient facts" and playing up stories which confirm our biases. Over time, this has created conflicting but parallel "realities" coexisting between left and right. We can't even agree on FACTS anymore!

I don't know exactly what would restore civil discource and societal cohesion. I'd prefer it not be a national crisis. I do think reinstating some form of Fairness doctrine(requiring the airing of other viewpoints in a balanced and neutral manner) and handing redistricting over to non-partisan civil service panels to help eliminate partisan gerrymandering(because having deep red and deep blue districts instead of purple districts tends to reward more hyperpartisan rhetoric and politics). The only other alternative would be that one ideology/party win a series of decisive and enduring political victories, that they accomplish their agenda, and that this agenda be, on balance, sufficiently popular and beneficial to most of the public that there's a paradigm shift in terms of what is taken as unchallenged and basic going forward(i.e., we're back to agreeing what game is being played).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are folks aware that Trump's Executive Order suspending immigration from the 7 countries also applies, as written, to people who are already permanent residents of the US(i.e., green card holders)? These folks have already undergone a year or two of background checks and now live in the US. But if they go overseas(and some of them have) for business, on vacation or to visit family, they are now stuck and cannot return for the next 3 months. Indeed, there are people stuck at airports right now! Also, some of the people from the countries listed have worked with the US government or US armed forces, as interpreters, and now won't be let in for the next few months. Some of them may be killed in that period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...