Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Cynicism is the easiest, most disempowered worldview, man. It helps no one. Try a little optimism, try to find meaning and progress in the world and help it along and you might live a little longer.

---

Quote:

---

Chris. You and Signy with your "Stop thinking because people are dying!"

---

Quote:

---

Sometimes something that sounds good and easy has a lot of strings attached that makes it look less attractive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Anyway, in that response I see the American inability to imagine anything better.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

So I propose a society based on actions and measurable results rather than religious 'isms'. Do you want more people to have nutritious, wholesome diets? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? Do you want better educated children? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? And so on.

---

Quote:

---

Do more people have nutritious diets, or fewer? Do more people have better health, or fewer?

---

Quote:

---

Always have an exit plan.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... I don't actually like any of the systems of existing countries ..."

Well, when I say look at the results, I mean tangible, measurable results. Do more people have nutritious diets, or fewer? Do more people have better health, or fewer? Do more people have an effect on how the society is run, or fewer?

As I see it, there are all sorts of 'isms', both social and personal, which seek to abolish some things and enforce others - mostly based on some theoretical notion of how things 'should' be. And frequently compliance is based on an as yet undemonstrated result - If you do this and don't so that you will get to heaven. If you do this and don't do that it will create a bountiful society for the productive. If you do this and don't do that everyone will be perfectly free. And so on. Those 'isms' I think of as religion b/c they are based on unproven beliefs.

So I propose a society based on actions and measurable results rather than religious 'isms'. Do you want more people to have nutritious, wholesome diets? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? Do you want better educated children? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? And so on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
While I have issues with the systems elsewhere, my problem is they simply won't translate here. Any attempt we make to have a national health care system, which is something that I'd actually like, would inevitably be subverted as a massive gimmee to the insurance companies.

So until we wreck the insurance companies and the stranglehold big business has on this country, it's a futile effort. Adding in government isn't going to help, because government is currently in their pocket.

The way I see it, in order to fix the system, we have to strike at the massive amount of power and stake that various entities have in it. And it can't be one or the other, it has to be both, simultaneously. That is why both the anti-government conservatives and anti big-business liberals parallel my objectives.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

No system is perfect. No system is capable of being perfect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Can you imagine, if there were laws passed that said citizens had to watch certain political speeches/conventions/debates, under the umbrella of claiming that watching is necessary for citizen action in society, but then only a few points of view get shown? So it becomes a vector for one group or another to profit immensely from it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Hmm. In fairness, I suppose that my argument against national health care is rather like Sig's argument against the subversion of arts.

So in that case, I guess I object to both not having it as well as forcing mandatory participation.

Can you imagine, if there were laws passed that said citizens had to watch certain political speeches/conventions/debates, under the umbrella of claiming that watching is necessary for citizen action in society, but then only a few points of view get shown? So it becomes a vector for one group or another to profit immensely from it.

Now imagine there are laws passed that citizens have to get insurance, but there are only a few providers.

I concede that maybe you're right and we should try to have both art and national health care, but participation can not be mandatory in order to maintain any kind of claim about societal freedom.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
a national health care system by its very nature will have to cover everyone. So somehow, whether by tax or a levy or insurance, everyone will have to participate.

---

Quote:

---

IF you move away from absolutes, from the dogma, you can start looking at solutions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
As I've said, I like national health care, but I'm concerned how it might be implemented here. I don't think the horror stories about death panels are remotely true, but it is clear to me that the national health care idea we came up with is to force everyone over 26 to buy mandatory insurance through their employment. If they can't afford the regular insurance programs or they are unemployed, there's a reduced cost coverage they can buy from so-called called "health care exchanges"... That cover bugger-all. And if you can't afford those, IF you qualify for medicare and medicaid, you get federal health care coverage... that doesn't even cover contraceptives and birthcontrol.

---

Quote:

---

Did Americans actually look to leading systems of health care to see how they worked before coming up with some options? It doesn't appear so.

---

Quote:

---

You think that governments are the only hindrance to people's freedoms?

---

Quote:

---

Did Americans actually look to leading systems of health care to see how they worked before coming up with some options? It doesn't appear so.

---

Quote:

---

Sometimes something that sounds good and easy has a lot of strings attached that makes it look less attractive.- BYTE

Like cable TV and iPhones? As my hubby likes to say " Unexamined convenience is the road to extinction." -SIGNY

Sig: Kinda? Both have their problems, true, and are instrumental in dividing people, isolating people. I'd actually argue the pros for them outweigh the cons though.-BYTEMITE

---

Quote:

---

'Everyone in US under virtual surveillance' - NSA whistleblower

---

Quote:

---

The document – reproduced here in an easily searchable format – shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission... to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens [who were protesting banks].

The documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas and New Year, show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world: six American universities are sites where campus police funneled information about students involved with OWS to the FBI, with the administrations' knowledge (p51); banks sat down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security; plans to crush Occupy events, planned for a month down the road, were made by the FBI – and offered to the representatives of the same organizations that the protests would target; and even threats of the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire – by whom? Where? – now remain redacted and undisclosed to those American citizens in danger, contrary to standard FBI practice to inform the person concerned when there is a threat against a political leader (p61).

---

Quote:

---

but I don't know if I see your conspiracy to respress...

---

Quote:

---

TV networks, because they reach so many people, are always being sued and/or protested, often over things you could never imagine would create problems. Most of the time, the network position is defensible and the outrage falls into the "nuisance" category...but even nuisance suits and protests can be a nuisance. And expensive to defend against. In kids' television, the stakes seem higher. A protester yelling, "This show is poisoning our children" will usually get more traction than someone bitching about a show for general audiences. The sponsors of kidvid are especially frail and known to atomize over very little negative feedback.

Censorship of broadcast television has declined greatly in the era of HBO, Showtime and DVDs...but in the early eighties, if you were creating a show for CBS, NBC or ABC you usually found yourself in the following dilemma. You had to please the Programming People who bought the show and prayed for ratings. They wanted your program to be edgy and sexy and full of action and excitement. And then you had to please the Standards and Practices People. They wanted your show to be nice and quiet and non-controversial. The two divisions rarely spoke with one another. In fact, in some cases, they hated each other too much to converse. Either way, they fought their battles by playing tug-o'-war with you and your show.

We quarrelled often and usually unproductively with these folks over what we called "action" and they called "violence." Sometimes, their definitions were insane. You'd write a scene where the good guy grabbed the fleeing bad guy and held onto him until the police could arrive and the Broadcast Standards people would react like your hero had chopped off someone's head. Criminals could rob banks and cops could stop them but neither could brandish weapons. One time, a writer friend did a script (a pretty good script, I thought) where the climax depended on the hero cutting a rope at a precise moment. The hero, it had been established, was a former Boy Scout...so my friend had the hero whip out his Boy Scout pocket knife and use it to cut the rope.

Well, that couldn't be allowed. Encouraging children to carry knives, even though the Boy Scouts do? You might as well have them packing howitzers and blowing bodies away on the playgrounds of America. There was much arguing and the scene ended up being staged with the rope being cut by the edge of a sharp rock, which was just silly. The rope was being used to lower a car. Given how sturdy it would have to be to do that, it was already stretching reality for it to be cuttable with a pocket knife. A sharp rock was ridiculous.

At times though, the bickering went beyond Broadcast Standards trying to prevent the network from being sued or having its advertisers shrink from advertising. Every so often, someone there got it into their heads that childrens' television could mold the youth of today into the good citizens of tomorrow. That's a questionable premise but let's say it's so. The question then becomes what you teach, how you mold. I found that those who approached the arena with that in mind had some odd ideas of what we should be trying to impart to impressionable viewers. Acts of extreme violence — like carrying a pocket knife — weren't as big a problem as what they called "anti-social behavior" and what I called "having a mind of your own."

Broadcast Standards — at all three networks at various times — frowned on characters not operating in lockstep with everyone thinking and doing as their peers did. The group is always right. The one kid who doesn't want to do what everyone else does is always wrong. (I rant more on this topic, and show you a cartoon I wrote years later for another show just to vent, in this posting.)

---

Quote:

---

Dungeons & Dragons was a series about six kids who were transported to a dimension filled with wizards and fire-snorting reptiles and cryptic clues and an extremely-evil despot named Venger. The youngsters were trapped in this game-like environment but, fortunately, they were armed with magical skills and weaponry, the better to foil Venger's insidious plans each week.

The kids were all heroic — all but a semi-heroic member of their troupe named Eric. Eric was a whiner, a complainer, a guy who didn't like to go along with whatever the others wanted to do. Usually, he would grudgingly agree to participate, and it would always turn out well, and Eric would be glad he joined in. He was the one thing I really didn't like about the show.

So why, you may wonder, did I leave him in there? Answer: I had to.

As you may know, there are those out there who attempt to influence the content of childrens' television. We call them "parents groups," although many are not comprised of parents, or at least not of folks whose primary interest is as parents. Study them and you'll find a wide array of agendum at work...and I suspect that, in some cases, their stated goals are far from their real goals.

Nevertheless, they all seek to make kidvid more enriching and redeeming, at least by their definitions, and at the time, they had enough clout to cause the networks to yield. Consultants were brought in and we, the folks who were writing cartoons, were ordered to include certain "pro-social" morals in our shows. At the time, the dominant "pro-social" moral was as follows: The group is always right...the complainer is always wrong.

This was the message of way too many eighties' cartoon shows. If all your friends want to go get pizza and you want a burger, you should bow to the will of the majority and go get pizza with them. There was even a show for one season on CBS called The Get-Along Gang, which was dedicated unabashedly to this principle. Each week, whichever member of the gang didn't get along with the gang learned the error of his or her ways.

We were forced to insert this "lesson" in D & D, which is why Eric was always saying, "I don't want to do that" and paying for his social recalcitrance. I thought it was forced and repetitive, but I especially objected to the lesson. I don't believe you should always go along with the group. What about thinking for yourself? What about developing your own personality and viewpoint? What about doing things because you decide they're the right thing to do, not because the majority ruled and you got outvoted?

We weren't allowed to teach any of that. We had to teach kids to join gangs. And then to do whatever the rest of the gang wanted to do.

What a stupid thing to teach children.

---

Quote:

---

You seem to be responding to this as "cable tv and iphone or nothing ?" In other words, your imagination seems to be following the pattern of choosing among what's presented on TV, versus... nothing. Can't you imagine better? This is what I meant by Americans being saturated in propaganda. The first thing that you are made to believe is that the only choices that you have are the only choices presented to you.

---

Quote:

---

FREM: ALL societies have an "or else" in them. You sat around while others sowed, reaped and thrashed? You don't get to eat. You broke what it took many people weeks to build or make? You have to go away. The idea of there being a society which has no "or else" is ludicrous. The Constitutional Amendments? Those are rules. Even your beloved "self defense" is based on rules.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I'd ask you, like I asked Magons, not to tell me what I can think or feel. I never suggested my isolation as an option for society or for anyone but myself. I asked if you are beginning to think the same - you don't. Good for you.

---

Quote:

---

Excuse me, I never told you what to think or feel.

---

Quote:

---

Sounds like you are a bit of a transendentalist, Byte.

---

Quote:

---

The lawyer representing three of the men charged with the gang rape and murder of a medical student aboard a moving bus in New Delhi has blamed the victims for the assault, saying he has never heard of a "respected lady" being raped in India.

Manohar Lal Sharma said his clients will plead not guilty to all charges tomorrow when they make their next court appearance. His comments come as Indians have reacted with outrage to the opinions of politicians and a religious preacher who have accused westernized women of inviting sexual assaults. Sharma said the male companion of the murdered 23-year-old was "wholly responsible" for the incident as the unmarried couple should not have been on the streets at night.

"Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a respected lady," Sharma said in an interview at a cafe outside the Supreme Court in India's capital. "Even an underworld don would not like to touch a girl with respect."

Sharma's comments highlight frequently aired attitudes toward women in India. Activists say reporting of sex crimes and police investigations of rape are hindered by a tendency to blame the victim for not following the traditional, conservative social roles ascribed to women.
Advertisement

"This is the mentality which most Indian men are suffering from unfortunately," said Ranjana Kumari, director for the New Delhi-based Centre for Social Research. "That is the mindset that has been perpetrating this crime because they justify it indirectly, you asked for it so it is your responsibility."

'Chant God's Name'

A spiritual guru, Asharam, sparked an outcry earlier this week when he said the New Delhi victim was equally responsible and should have "chanted God's name and fallen at the feet of the attackers" to stop the assault.

Mohan Bhagwat, the head of the pro-Hindu Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh that underpins the country's main opposition political party, said rapes only occur in Indian cities, not in its villages, because women there adopt western lifestyles.

Sharma said the man and woman should not have been traveling back late in the evening and making their journey on public transport. He also it was the man's responsibility to protect the woman and that he had failed in his duty.

"The man has broken the faith of the woman," Sharma said. "If a man fails to protect the woman, or she has a single doubt about his failure to protect her, the woman will never go with that man."

Sharma, 56, a Supreme Court lawyer for the last two decades, says that his clients are innocent.

Courtroom Chaos

"This is a very complicated case and the matter has not been solved yet," he said. Police have said they have DNA evidence linking all six to the crime.

Ram Singh, the driver of the bus and the alleged ringleader, is struggling to communicate and fluctuating between crying and laughing, Sharma said. Sharma, who has also been appointed to represent Singh's brother Mukesh and Akshay Kumar Singh, who is unrelated, plans to challenge police over their handling of the evidence.

Sharma's appointment comes after chaotic scenes on Jan. 7 that forced the magistrate to order a private hearing over concerns for the safety of the accused. Sharma was one of two lawyers denounced by other advocates for volunteering to represent the defendants. Arguments and scuffles over his offer led the magistrate to order the court room be cleared and future sessions to be held behind closed doors.

The gang rape of the woman on Dec. 16 provoked a sustained and charged debate about the safety of women in the world's biggest democracy. The brutality of the crime and allegations by a male friend of the victim that it took police 45 minutes to respond to calls outraged the nation.

---

Quote:

---

saying he has never heard of a "respected lady" being raped in India.

---

Quote:

---

said rapes only occur in Indian cities, not in its villages, because women there adopt western lifestyles.

---

Quote:

---

You guys still haven't accepted the fact that even YOUR ideal societies have rules, and you still haven't figured out how to make them durable and less corruptable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:


Ultimately, though, I have misgivings about forcing any kind of system on any individual, much as this shoddy-ass piece of society was forced on me like a pledge of allegiance because I was born here. Hence my individualized rejection of this awful society and its death spiral. Groups of people and individuals should be able to do what they want and organize how they want so long as they don't impede anyone's health, choices, or livelyhood.

Not really free unless you can leave.

---

Quote:

---

And if you take a historical view, apart from very small communities, we're probably better off that any other point in time.

---

Quote:

---

Corruption is an abuse of power. The less consolidated power there is, the less impact any corruption can have, and the easier it is to depose.

---

Quote:

---

It's one thing to have the community as a whole generally agreeable on them, and enforce them with moral persuation, negotiation, and in extremis giving someone the cold shoulder and cutting them off from trade by virtue of the folks they'd deal with are the ones they've offended....

---