R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: what's the new paradigm?  (Read 18149 times)

Spindrift

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #30 on: December 15, 2010, 06:58:09 pm »

kats wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 07:44

The US congress has a 95% incumbency rate! What else need be said? But just for laughs I offer the following:

Throw the bums out. Then maybe read a book or two so you don't get suckered into the same BS soundbites the second time around. No point replacing bums with more bums.

The core issue is really the education system. Without a good one, democracy cannot work. Especially now that the electoral college ceases to function as originally intended.


Right on Tony. A great book to start with is Brave New World Revisited written by Huxley back in 1958. So relevant to today!

Keith
Logged

DarinK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2010, 07:43:31 pm »

littlehat wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 15:23

DarinK wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 13:35

But it doesn't work if anyone who voted for Nader is called a traitor & blamed for Bush's election.  It's got to be a long-term effort, with the acceptance that some "spoiling" could happen in the meantime.  In other words, no "lesser of two evils" compromising can occur.


I don't think third party voters are traitors. I do think they are fools though. I also blame them for W's mistakes along with the 2000 supreme court.

I remember all the Naderites saying the other two candidates were the same.

Do you really think that now?

Do you really think we'd be in two wars and a recession right now if Gore had been elected?

"...some "spoiling""?
How about "some catastrophic global governmental failures"?

I agree that more political parties, a more fair electoral system transparency of elected official business, etc would be great.

BUT...

"Some spoiling" has already proven more than our planet can handle.


I do believe we'd still be in the wars.  Look at what Obama has done or not done.  Look at 20th century history - the Democrats have always been just as hawklike as the Republicans, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary.  And a Democrat (Clinton) was responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagal, which was the setup for the global economic crisis.
The environment would possibly be better off if Gore had won, though.
I don't blame Nader voters in Florida for Bush winning - that was entirely due to f'ed up election procedures & the Supreme Court handing the win to Bush, with Gore meekly standing by and saying he didn't want to interfere because interference would have been heading in the direction of revolution.  If you want to blame Nader voters, I'd still blame the Democrats for not ever doing anything for the left wing but expecting their support in every election, unlike the Repubs who give their right wing a voice.
Logged

Spindrift

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2010, 08:00:54 pm »

kats wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 07:44

The US congress has a 95% incumbency rate! What else need be said? But just for laughs I offer the following:

Throw the bums out. Then maybe read a book or two so you don't get suckered into the same BS soundbites the second time around. No point replacing bums with more bums.

The core issue is really the education system. Without a good one, democracy cannot work. Especially now that the electoral college ceases to function as originally intended.


For democracy to function, you have to have an educated citizenry. We are educated today in a very specialized sense.....you go to University (vocational schools I call them) to become an accountant, engineer, doctor, lawyer. But few are educated in the "liberal arts" which enriches the person and helps them think through a broad set of problems and issues facing society.  Specialization has helped us progress leaps and bounds in the areas of scientific/medical/technological advances but it has not boded well for our democracy in general. The "specialist" mis-diagnoses problems for they often see only the trees instead of the forest. All the world's a nail when you only have a hammer.

The founding fathers setup our country as a representative democracy. They, in essence, were afraid to give the average voter too much power because they feared the tyranny of the majority....an ignorant majority....and that is what we have now. A LOT of ignorant people are making decisions based on how some candidate makes them FEEL vs. listening to reason and evaluating the candidate's worldview and approach to making important decisions.  We have endless polls to tell the politicians how to vote so that they best represent their constituents.  Not the intended purpose! The intent is to elect someone you trust to make proper decisions regarding the interests of its constituents while taking into account the complexities of the political/societal environs. Does that sound like anyone in the 2 party system that you'd trust? Not me!  If they can rise up to the level of running for Senator or Congressman, I'm already skeptical.

Take, for example, the ballot measures that we in our state vote on each election. I read through that legalese and am stupified 1/2 of the time. I need a law degree and 4 weeks to hang out in my state's congress chambers to get a read on what the intentions of the proponents/opponents are before I make up my mind. I often end up just voting NO because I can't possibly know enough about the issue to make an informed decision.  I suspect that's how a lot of the citizenry feels when reading those things. The byproduct is a ton of $$$ spent on dumbed-down ad nauseum political ads that appeal to one's passions vs. one's reason.

Bottom line, we are in a very precarious state and the future does not look good.

</rant>
Keith
Logged

littlehat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2010, 08:23:26 pm »

DarinK wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 19:43

I do believe we'd still be in the wars.  Look at what Obama has done or not done.  Look at 20th century history - the Democrats have always been just as hawklike as the Republicans, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary.  And a Democrat (Clinton) was responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagal, which was the setup for the global economic crisis.
The environment would possibly be better off if Gore had won, though.
I don't blame Nader voters in Florida for Bush winning - that was entirely due to f'ed up election procedures & the Supreme Court handing the win to Bush, with Gore meekly standing by and saying he didn't want to interfere because interference would have been heading in the direction of revolution.  If you want to blame Nader voters, I'd still blame the Democrats for not ever doing anything for the left wing but expecting their support in every election, unlike the Repubs who give their right wing a voice.



If you think we'd be in Iraq had Gore been elected, I'm correct to call this foolishness.

I don't disagree that a viable third party (at least) would help our country and world, but denying what the Nader 2000 debacle cost us all is where you drive over the cliff. It cost us.

Trillions of dollars, generations of Legal Freedoms and Hundreds of Thousands of lives.

It's not conventional wisdom, it's history.

The best way to advance your position is NOT over stating, vilification or hyperbole... it's level headed discourse about how a third party would be GOOD.

Agreed, Glass-Steagall was a huge error and should be reinstated and redoubled.
I'll also say that I think the drumbeat of further deregulation is just a way to really open the floodgates and either let corporate interests run and eventually ruin what's left of our world.

BUT, if you think the right wing has a voice, why in republican majority periods have none of the core items on their social agenda been accomplished? Because their elected officials don't represent them faithfully? It's because they find themselves similarly mired in compromises with their opposition.

IMHO the first and best thing we could do for ourselves as citizens is to support a constitutional amendment to define a corporation as something less protected and more culpable than a human person.
Logged
Push the RED button!

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2010, 08:45:27 pm »

Keith, that was an excellent post and I wholeheartedly agree. The switch from a humanities weighted education to vocational studies in Universities is a disaster. Clearly this is also by design.

When the insult d'jour earlier this year was to be called a "re-distributor", I knew we were in big trouble.  
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

rjd2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 593
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2010, 08:55:04 pm »

littlehat wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 01:23



Trillions of dollars, generations of Legal Freedoms and Hundreds of Thousands of lives.

It's not conventional wisdom, it's history.

The best way to advance your position is NOT over stating, vilification or hyperbole... it's level headed discourse about how a third party would be GOOD.



while i feel your regret about W, i'm not fully sold on the numbers here, at least budget-wise("trillions of dollars"). do you know who the last president was to spend less than one trillion dollars on defense during his tenure? the spending was going to happen either way.

iraq=clusterfuck, for sure. more casualties than afghani war. but while gore might not have invaded iraq, he would most likely have invaded somewhere. we look at the war in afghanistan as somehow different than iraq, but the bill is going to shake out to be at least as expensive, if not more so, than iraq. in the history of afghanistan, no country has apparently EVER successfully invaded-how are we going to magically be any different?

if voting for a 3rd party is voting for a change to the actual system, and voting democrat is just a hedge against the lesser of two disasters, i dont think its fair to discount the idea of a 3rd party vote.
Logged
rj krohn

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2010, 09:10:28 pm »

littlehat wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 17:23

I don't disagree that a viable third party (at least) would help our country and world, but denying what the Nader 2000 debacle cost us all is where you drive over the cliff. It cost us.

The actual Florida exit polls (as opposed to the National ones the Dem party officials always cited) show that Nader pulled exactly from Bush what he pulled from Gore: 1%. But they also show that 13% of Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. Not happy numbers to Dem officials. Better to blame the 3rd party candidate. In other words, Nader had NO effect in Florida. The election was Gore's to lose, and he did it by losing so many of his own party.
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Bill Mueller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4502
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2010, 09:57:17 pm »

Silvertone wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 08:13

mgod wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 18:42

Silvertone wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 04:49


In real terms... pay down your debt and stock up on your firearms.


Its pretty disturbing how many people I hear talking this way lately, people you'd never expect to be looking out for an upcoming revolution.

I think the downtrodden were so used to it before the last Depression that they took it in stride - more of the same - but we had the benefit of the post-FDR nation. Now we are suffering the benefits of the post-Reagan nation.

Its historically interesting to me that a lot of the American kids who created the world of contemporary music were largely educated under a 91% top tax rate.



I agree Larry.  I'm not a violent man by nature but I do come from an Italian heritage... so a "don't f*ck with mine and nobody gets hurt" mentality. I do believe "there's a war out there right now" of the people vs. the government, it just hasn't come to a head yet.  When it does we're really going to see how "commy" the US has become.  

People are just blinded by their everyday lives... when they are not able to make a living in the future, they'll have nothing to distract them and their eyes will open... then the shit will hit the fan.

Personally, I can't believe what I see everyday now. This was once a great proud country... between the media and our government we pretty much threw ourselves into the toilet... well or a certain regime that ran the country post 9/11 did.  Think how much better the US would have been if we spent all that "war money" in our own country.  Our leaders failed us prior to 9/11 and then used it as an excuse to ram-rod the American public into their own personal agenda...  who btw, bought it hook line and sinker. "We give up our freedom all in the name of a squeeky clean America".  

We are so screwed!

This is exactly what Osama said he was going to do nine years ago. And we all said, "Oh come on now, how can he damage our supreme economic power?" It appears he knew something most of us didn't. Our might was inflated right along with our property values.

Bill
Logged
"Don't take it personally. But this shit is a science." J.J.Blair

“The Internet is only a means of communication,” he wrote. “It is not an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights. There is nothing in the criminal or civil law which legalizes that which is otherwise illegal simply because the transaction takes place over the Internet.” Irish judge, Peter Charleton

Extreme Mixing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1050
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2010, 10:39:02 pm »

Well put, Bill.  Our military might is overstated, much like the 2" machines and consoles of yesterday.  You can make a record with a $2K computer and you can bring a skyscraper down with three guys and a few box cutters.  Impossible to fight that with an army.  How much do you think Osama is troubled by the searches and body scans at the airport?  I'd say not much when only one out of, oh say...150,000,000 passengers are trying to bring down a plane.  Even more, what makes anyone think they will focus on airplanes next time around?  And how much freedom are we willing to give up in order to be infinitesimally more safe?  I don't think I'm any safer.  But I do feel less free.

Not sure what this has to do with recording, but the world has changed.  No mistaking that.

Steve

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2010, 11:09:25 pm »

I wouldn't totally blame Bin Laden, I'd blame our reaction, too.  It's like a run-away immune response: anaphylactic shock that kills you when it was supposed to protect you.  I suspect the over-reaction was cultured by those who stood to profit, and it wasn't just Bin Laden.  And I don't think we can blame Bin Laden for the housing debacle - that's all us.




At the risk of returning to the original topic, I think the new paradigm is artists like Jack Conte.  Jack was a student in my class several years ago.  When he left school he started writing music and recording, making YouTube videos and promoting his music.

He's half (he's really more than half) of the band Pomplamoose that is featured in several Hyundai Christmas ads recently.  [Wikipedia says they sold over 100,000 songs (downloads) in 2009.]

Tidewater

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3816
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #40 on: December 16, 2010, 12:22:58 am »

The US lost. We fold like a card table.

Things did not have to be like this. We didn't suffer enough at the onset. We will. We are.
Logged
Time Magazine's 2007 Man of the Year

RMoore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4584
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #41 on: December 16, 2010, 02:43:35 am »

New paradigm for me:


After a 20yr stint doing music full time - its back to non-music related side jobs to earn $.

I listen to & find new music on youtube.

I order hard copy music (vinyl mainly) via niche-oriented web shops.

I didn't release any new music as an artiste in 2 yrs, yet more people than ever before have heard of the stuff around the World.

I played a 'dj' gig this weekend on a remote island 'off the grid', only DIY generated electricity etc, can only get there by a harrowing (in Winter) sea crossing in a small boat
& a young lady came up with a vinyl LP I'd had in my hands about 12 years before in Holland, whilst gluing the artwork on the sleeve.

I played in a notorious poor ghetto area of Mexico City last year & someone came up with a cd to sign.

Things are just getting stranger.

Music is not dying either.

I think its correct, what others mentioned above, that younger people will find their way in this 'new paradigm' as for them it is all normal & they are not traumatized by any sense of changes, frustration or loss.
Logged
People's Republic of Ryan

http://www.myspace.com/twilightcircus
 http://www.youtube.com/user/Ryonik
 
By the end of today, another day is gone forever. You will never get it back.
We must never let up for a second. Work harder at every single thing - Terry Manning

 You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take - Wayne Gretzky

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #42 on: December 16, 2010, 10:26:28 am »

RMoore wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 23:43

I think its correct, what others mentioned above, that younger people will find their way in this 'new paradigm' as for them it is all normal & they are not traumatized by any sense of changes, frustration or loss.

I think that's a wonderful way to see it and hope its true. My daughter seems fine with it all, other than seeing her father losing the career that's paid for her life so far.
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #43 on: December 16, 2010, 01:10:36 pm »

RMoore wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 01:43


I think its correct, what others mentioned above, that younger people will find their way in this 'new paradigm' as for them it is all normal & they are not traumatized by any sense of changes, frustration or loss.


And by the same token the listener will have lower expectations and will be less affected by the art of their generation.  Well that wraps that up, we can close the thread now!
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: what's the new paradigm?
« Reply #44 on: December 16, 2010, 03:05:17 pm »

kats wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 10:10

RMoore wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 01:43


I think its correct, what others mentioned above, that younger people will find their way in this 'new paradigm' as for them it is all normal & they are not traumatized by any sense of changes, frustration or loss.


And by the same token the listener will have lower expectations and will be less affected by the art of their generation.  Well that wraps that up, we can close the thread now!
Not so fast with the value judgements there!

What makes you think this generational divide is any different from the one the Beatles caused?  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Up