Support NeoGAF

[Instigator]

What caused you to be so cynical and fatalistic, Phoenix?

 

[Phoenix]

What caused you to be so cynical and fatalistic, Phoenix?

I'm a realist moreso cynic/fatalist. I've read enough history about what the US government has done up to and during the Cold War and have no expectations that many of these behaviors 'died out'. When push comes to shove, its a given that many of the conventions that we subscribe to will be pushed aside in favor of preservation of the state. That's just the way of things, and I have come to accept that.

 

[Phoenix]

As much as that is probably true in a pragmatic sense, it sounds like you are saying that ANY government is unaccountable to its people. The media serves as a proxy voice for the people, and is supposed to ask the questions which Joe and Jane Public would ask themselves, if given the opportunity. If those questions can be easily dodged or answered with lies, then what recourse do ANY of us have to serve as a check on governmental power?

You are dangerously close to saying that truth doesn't matter, and I'm surprised you'd take that position.

Not quite the position I'm taking. I believe that truth DOES matter, but I don't think that the media can be held as a responsible party to ensure that the truth gets out. Even the media has its own interests. Most of them ARE businesses so I expect them to do what is not just in the best interest of the public, but also what is good business sense.

I have come to accept over the years that the only way the government is EVER accountable to the people is to drag that government into the judicial branch of the US government. I don't see anything else as keeping the government accountable. For example, I've seen stories on black farmers and the complete shut they've undergone over the years, but only after continually taking their plea to the courts was something actually DONE. While they are still being screwed, only through the courts did they have any meaningful power. When legislators infringe on the rights of the people, the press can't really HELP us. The only thing we can do is bring to the judges of the land our grievances.

The media is good at what its supposed to be doing - informing us of what's going on. It isn't there to fight for us, or corner the dogs of American government. Its great that there are times when there is good investigative reporting that I see on my local news channel about how people are being ripped off and the like. But that by itself is meaningless without the people actually getting off their asses and themselves doing something.

I personally believe that the people and their lack of activism in many things being about the problems and sit around waiting for 'someone' to save them from their situation. The only person who can 'save' us is US. The only people who can possibly convey our disgust with various things going on is US. Tom Delay is 'fearful' of activist judges... he should be fearful of activist 'Americans' who are sick of his bullshit and come up with a way to actually do something about it.

It is not the press' responsibility to save us.... its ours.

 

[Instigator]

I'm a realist moreso cynic/fatalist. I've read enough history about what the US government has done up to and during the Cold War and have no expectations that many of these behaviors 'died out'. When push comes to shove, its a given that many of the conventions that we subscribe to will be pushed aside in favor of preservation of the state. That's just the way of things, and I have come to accept that.

Those behaviours do not need to die out, nor would it be realistic to expect them to, they just need to be kept in check. That's a realistic goal, something to hope and fight for, all the time.

But you can still surrender while the rest of us fight.

 

[Diablos]

God, when will it end.

Bush's second term is like a really bad dream that's just going to lead to another one.

The arrogance, the ignorance, the sugar coating, the lies, the ridiculous claims to boost their own egos. I can't pay attention to this stuff much anymore because it drives me crazy.

 

[Phoenix]

Those behaviours do not need to die out, nor would it be realistic to expect them to, they just need to be kept in check. That's a realistic goal, something to hope and fight for, all the time.

But you can still surrender while the rest of us fight.

Nah, I'm in law to get ready for the REAL fight. I plan to actually FIGHT the fight, not sit on the sidelines and talk about it. I'm done with that side of things.

 

[Instigator]

Nah, I'm in law to get ready for the REAL fight. I plan to actually FIGHT the fight, not sit on the sidelines and talk about it. I'm done with that side of things.

Get real, you'll end up being a corporate lawyer or something.

 

[Phoenix]

Get real, you'll end up being a corporate lawyer or something.

Nah, if that's what I wanted I could remain where I am and just soak up money in the computing space. Being a lawyer will be a decrease in money for me by a considerable margin - I don't intend to go through the hell of lawschool just to bullshit around with corporate issues.

 

[Azih]

It just doesn't happen, they like having viewers.

I think the issue here is that viewers in other western democracies tend to like their leaders being skewered by the media when it's warranted. Edit: And not just liking to see the leaders of the 'other' side being skewered. But any of them.

You assume these guys don't know how to get out of an argument they know they will lose

Plus I do not agree with your contention that politicans would be able to get out of a line of questioning since they're trained to do so. Blair, a politician much more skilled than Bush and a much more adept speaker than anything the U.S administration has to offer (mainly because the man has to actually you know debate his opponents every day) gets roasted regularly.

The Daily Show had a hillarious segment a few weeks ago (where's the damn new episodes Comedy Central?) where they compared a typical Bush town hall meeting to one by Blair during his election campaign. Blair looked like he'd been chased by rabid hound dogs by the end of his segment (and only barely escaped) while Bush was getting such hard hitting queries as 'I would just like to say that I think God every day that you are our President'. And the Blair skewering wasn't being done by journalists, it was CITIZENS.

 

[Dan]

The Daily Show had a hillarious segment a few weeks ago (where's the damn new episodes Comedy Central?)

The hiatus is over, new stuff begins tonight.

 

[Boogie]

I personally believe that the people and their lack of activism in many things being about the problems and sit around waiting for 'someone' to save them from their situation. The only person who can 'save' us is US. The only people who can possibly convey our disgust with various things going on is US. Tom Delay is 'fearful' of activist judges... he should be fearful of activist 'Americans' who are sick of his bullshit and come up with a way to actually do something about it.

It is not the press' responsibility to save us.... its ours.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for"

God's Politics by Jim Wallis.

 

[Phoenix]

And the Blair skewering wasn't being done by journalists, it was CITIZENS.

You either misread or didn't understand my posts which suggest THIS VERY THING....

 

[Dan]

:lol

What a shocker. Bush stumbles over the English language while talking down to his audience. I would have burst out laughing, which I just did in the privacy of my own home.

 

[Guileless]

This Amnesty International guy is just as full of shit as Cheney. It's easy for Cheney to dismiss him when he talks like such a hyperbolic Chicken Little: ""We have documented that the U.S. government is a leading purveyor and practitioner of the odious human rights violation."

Does anyone here think that there aren't far worse prisons in the world than Guantanamo? People there are gaining weight, and they are allowed to pray in some capacity. The Red Cross visits regularly and sees things it doesn't like, as it would in virtually all prisons if given access, but it's not completely shut out.

Amnesty International has a commendable mission, but it is obviously allowing its political leanings to interfere in this case. That's why the Bush administration and its allies can brush them off so easily. If they made a more sober statement with some perspective, it would be much harder to dismiss.

 

[fortified_concept]

This Amnesty International guy is just as full of shit as Cheney. It's easy for Cheney to dismiss him when he talks like such a hyperbolic Chicken Little: ""We have documented that the U.S. government is a leading purveyor and practitioner of the odious human rights violation."

Does anyone here think that there aren't far worse prisons in the world than Guantanamo? People there are gaining weight, and they are allowed to pray in some capacity. The Red Cross visits regularly and sees things it doesn't like, as it would in virtually all prisons if given access, but it's not completely shut out.

Amnesty International has a commendable mission, but it is obviously allowing its political leanings to interfere in this case. That's why the Bush administration and its allies can brush them off so easily. If they made a more sober statement with some perspective, it would be much harder to dismiss.

What the HELL are you talking about? Just because there are worse prisons than Guantanamo doesn't excuse ANYTHING. And fyi there are testifies from people all over the world that have been abducted by CIA and tortured in various prisons. There was a show the other night especially for these abductions and I saw over a dozen interviews. Amnesty international has proof, they're not talking out of their ass like politicians.

 

[Boogie]

What the HELL are you talking about? Just because there are worse prisons than Guantanamo doesn't excuse ANYTHING. And fyi there are testifies from people all over the world that have been abducted by CIA and tortured in various prisons. There was a show the other night especially for these abductions and I saw over a dozen interviews. Amnesty international has proof, they're not talking out of their ass like politicians.

I think what Guileless means is that the line that the US is "the leading purveyor of human rights violations" is showing a political slant, because it's saying that the US is worse than regimes such as China, or North Korea.

They could say that the US is involved in "gross violations of human rights" without saying that the US is the "leading" violator, I guess.

 

[Instigator]

I think what Guileless means is that the line that the US is "the leading purveyor of human rights violations" is showing a political slant, because it's saying that the US is worse than regimes such as China, or North Korea.

They could say that the US is involved in "gross violations of human rights" without saying that the US is the "leading" violator, I guess.

Semantics.

I could interpret that the US is the self-proclaimed leader of the free world, showing all its allies and enemies how to get away with human rights violations. A shining example to would-be purveyors of torture.

 

[fortified_concept]

I think what Guileless means is that the line that the US is "the leading purveyor of human rights violations" is showing a political slant, because it's saying that the US is worse than regimes such as China, or North Korea.

They could say that the US is involved in "gross violations of human rights" without saying that the US is the "leading" violator, I guess.

Nope I still don't get it. You mean he read the whole article the only thing that annoyed him about ANYTHING in it was the word "leading"? This is inconceivable. And since there have been reports of abductions and torturing all over the world, the word is not that misleading.

 

[Guileless]

The US has the Freedom of Information Act, a free press, and laws against torture. Violations of these laws occur. We hear about them on 60 Minutes or in the Washington Post. Charges are made, lawsuits filed, investigations carried out, people get punished. This process does not happen in most countries where torture is institutionalized and there are literally no checks on what the government does with its prisoners. Those countries are the leading purveyors of human rights violations.

US government employees have violated and will violate human rights. The line between intense interrogation and torture is blurred and has been crossed. But this country, with its system of laws and institutional controls, is not the leading purveyor of human rights violations. I think that the people who believe this, like this AI guy, are not viewing the issue with an unbiased perspective. And while many of you here agree with him, his words are not going to get through to someone who does not already agree with him and are thus counterproductive.

 

[bob_arctor]

The US has the Freedom of Information Act, a free press, and laws against torture. Violations of these laws occur. We hear about them on 60 Minutes or in the Washington Post. Charges are made, lawsuits filed, investigations carried out, people get punished. This process does not happen in most countries where torture is institutionalized and there are literally no checks on what the government does with its prisoners. Those countries are the leading purveyors of human rights violations.

US government employees have violated and will violate human rights. The line between intense interrogation and torture is blurred and has been crossed. But this country, with its system of laws and institutional controls, is not the leading purveyor of human rights violations. I think that the people who believe this, like this AI guy, are not viewing the issue with an unbiased perspective. And while many of you here agree with him, his words are not going to get through to someone who does not already agree with him and are thus counterproductive.

I think basically saying "Well, at least we aren't as bad as so and so" is equally counterproductive. If the U.S. is the higher standard in the world, and this administration is very quick to toot its own horn, then they have to know they are judged accordingly. The U.S. even being mentioned with these allegations sets a bad precedent for the rest of the world.

 

[Dan]

US government employees have violated and will violate human rights. The line between intense interrogation and torture is blurred and has been crossed. But this country, with its system of laws and institutional controls, is not the leading purveyor of human rights violations. I think that the people who believe this, like this AI guy, are not viewing the issue with an unbiased perspective. And while many of you here agree with him, his words are not going to get through to someone who does not already agree with him and are thus counterproductive.

It needs to be clarified that Amnesty International said the US was "a" leading purveyor of human rights violations, not "the". There's a significant difference.

 

[Azih]

You either misread or didn't understand my posts which suggest THIS VERY THING....

I dunno, I figured some of your points (the ones I was addressing anyway) were

a) media doesn't go after politicians aggressively because viewers don't like it

whereupon I pointed out that from where I'm standing this is a pretty uniquely American phenomenon.

and

b) that politicians are skilled enough to deflect arguments that they know they'll lose

against which I stated that even a politician as glib and suave as Blair can get pinned down and absolutely punished by people who aren't even trained and hardened journalists. That british journalists do so routinely I didn't think was worth pointing out again as that mp3 posted in this thread was enough evidence of that.

 

[Guileless]

I'm not saying that the US isn't as bad as country X, I'm saying that the differences are so great as to not even be comparable in any real sense. The US has expended blood and treasure to improve a country from which a plan to murder 3,000 of its people was planned with the blessing of the government.

Most people just aren't going to listen to somebody that completely ignores that to complain about a small number of prisoners who have clearly gained weight during captivity and could pose a threat to more civilians like those who went to work at the WTC on September 11.

 

[Instigator]

a small number of prisoners who have clearly gained weight during captivity

lol

Gaining weight in captivity is not a sign of good treatment. It could just be that there are not allowed much physical activity or they've been fed bad fatty food.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I think what Guileless means is that the line that the US is "the leading purveyor of human rights violations" is showing a political slant, because it's saying that the US is worse than regimes such as China, or North Korea.

They could say that the US is involved in "gross violations of human rights" without saying that the US is the "leading" violator, I guess.

The quote didn't use "the" it used "a". Changes it around quite a bit...

 

[Boogie]

The quote didn't use "the" it used "a". Changes it around quite a bit...

Sorry, I've only been skimming the thread, haven't paid that close attention. Not a good excuse, I know, but it's all I got.

And I'm certainly not defending Cheney's statements, or the US's actions here. We all know Cheney's a douchebag.

 

[Incognito]

Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest of the puppets had absolutely no problem referencing Amnesty International to further and strengthen their case in the lead up to the Iraqi war. Now, though, they're singing a different tune.

Boogie, you read God's Politics? Great book.