User:RyanFreisling/Archive 4

Talk!

Here's where the talk goes. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But where'd all the fun stuff go? :( Guettarda 18:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Aw, I'm sorry - but when the trolling gets that blatant ("I'm not gonna tell you who I am, but there is a cabal and it's really bad", etc etc.) then such fun does no one much good. I'd rather my page not serve as a platform for baiters and a trap for the baited. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But that was the only fun part about your talk page ;) I refuse to be a part of any project that doesn't bait trolls. --kizzle 02:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the other examples of 'fun' you've espoused, I think I'll keep my policy as-is and avoid those embarrassing trips to the veterinarian. Seriously, though... Tell Santorum I said helllooooooooooo... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. --kizzle 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I assume you heard about the white powder some kook mailed to his home last week? I've been following Olbermann (the modern Edward R. Murrow) since 2004, with enthusiasm. There was a big anti-Bush protest yesterday in New York's Union Square Park, and he was mentioned as the only journalist who appears to know how to 'speak truth to power'. I'd include Jon Stewart but he'd be the first one to mock me for calling him a journalist (followed quickly by my journalist friends) :)

Froomkin's column in the WaPo put it well:

Olbermann's Special Comments

By Dan Froomkin, Special to washingtonpost.com

Friday, October 6, 2006; 11:56 AM

"The traditional media has been slow to come to grips with the American public's distrust and dislike of President Bush -- sentiments clearly reflected in opinion polls dating back well over a year.

"Almost alone among the network newscasters, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is channeling that sensibility. Channeling it -- and amplifying it.

"In fact, the increasingly shrill Olbermann is fast becoming the Howard Beale of the anti-Bush era: He's mad as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore." [1]

Hoo-ah! Go Team USA! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh ya, you only started following him cause of the Ohio irregularities. Way to jump on the bandwagon ;) As for Jon Stewart being a journalist, you might have a case there. --kizzle 22:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

USA? I thought we were all un-American? Derex 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I listened to Olberman. I think I'm in love. And I'm not gay. Derex 22:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is the more profane offense, in this 15th century America - whether to be gay or leftist - so I'll refrain from caring whether you're either. It was refreshing, though, to see an actual American socialist in person in broad daylight - gave me hope. One of the nice things about Italy is the political chaos is very public, in it's way - so you see a lot more political discourse and interaction (and grafitti). I am one who believes strongly that the number of voices in the dialogue, over time, improves the dialogue the most.

And whichever you wind up, please tell kizzle to stop making all those weasels feel vaguely uncomfortable. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I see, you're an anti weasel-Republican sex bigot, unless the weasel's Italian? Very confused. At any rate, I'm back on break, having wasted a week on recent events. Be well. Derex 01:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Republican folks who respect the Consitution, but the actions of the leaders of the party that currently controls the White House and both houses of Congress bear little resemblance to the ideology of the Republicans I grew up debating. In my most frank opinion, what we've got now is an alliance of government and the military/industrial complex in a pervasive corporate fascism, which acts independently of political party. Oh - tomorrow I'm going apple picking in the country! Yay! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Just couldn't resist peeking back. Preach on. I'm completely with you on all of the above. Except I don't think Kizzle should have to go back to the closet. Kizzle's profane enough for two, since I'm also not a leftist. You punched some of buttons though, so I'm going to rant before I disappear for a month. Feel free to delete if you don't care for speeches on your Talk page, I won't take offense.

I think aggregate social behavior is ultimately determined by social institutions. There are few intrinsic differences between people across time or race; the difference is institutions: political, religious, economic. Unfortunately, our political institutions seem to be breaking down at the moment. I am shocked and ashamed that the only right fought for is the 2nd. I am angry at those who subvert our institutions, especially the Constitution. It speaks of how little respect people have for the core document of our democracy, that they seek to amend it to avoid the horror of a burning flag. A burning child in Iraq will do nicely however, thank you very much.

However, my cynical view of institutions also suggests that there are technical fixes.

The recent increase in concentration of media ownership is a fundamental institutional problem. For example, Clear Channel Communications, sponsor of Mr. Limbaugh, owns over 1200 radio stations. This is permitted in the name of economic efficiency, which it almost surely isn't even in pure monetary terms. The true cost is, in your phrase, "the number of voices in the dialogue". How cheaply we sell the basis of our national discourse.

I am hopeful that new internet-based media institutions, including wikipedia, will be part of the solution. That's part of why I participate.

The voting system also suppresses diversity of argument. Gerrymandered districts ensure virtual tenure for the vast majority of Congressmen. In 2004, 32 of 435 Congressional seats were competitive (won by less than 55%). That's a fundamental institutional problem. Gerrymandering has been refined to an extreme by recent advances in polling, data-collection, and computer analysis. Judiciary apportionment would perhaps help to some extent, but who appoints the judges? Some rule-based system seems in order.

In those safe seats, the primaries determine the ultimate winner. Primary victories are very heavily determined by turn-out, and turn-out is heavily determined by passion, and passion seems to be correlated with extreme views. So you tend to get a large number of representatives that are nowhere near centrist, that is to say not representative. Mandatory voting would be helpful in that regard; many people quite rationally do not vote simply because the chance of them being the decisive voter is extremely small. The problem seems to afflict the Republican party more, because their hardcore wing is driven by religious zealotry, which seems to be very motivating.

I do not argue that diversity of voices either on the hard right or hard left should be suppressed. However, neither should radicalism (as defined by the center) dominate the instruments of government. If what is now radical eventually becomes centrist through debate or education, that is a welcome source of change. Government should not be the instrument that pushes forward radicalism; if it does so, and it is now, there is a fundamental institutional problem. One way to embrace diversity, without allowing radicalism to dominate, is to change the voting method. People are lambasted for voting Green, and I joined in that in 2000, because a third-party vote is a "wasted" vote. In a practical sense the Bush presidency is a consequence of the Nader candidacy via Florida (among other factors). Nader had every right to run, and we should have a system that encourages that, rather than discourages it. Concordet voting would be a big step in that direction.

Done ranting. I am an angry man. Shrill, as it were. Agry at the system. And at the people who have subverted it for their short-term ends. GWB, I'm looking at you. I'm a very easy-going fellow, light-hearted, and very slow to anger, but I am now. Note to Kizzle, if you become a journalist, the word "lie" should be in your vocabulary. Use it when you see it.

Smiles on the apples; I'm doing Bateman's Bay myself. Your friend, Derex 04:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Just to be sure, "anti weasel-Republican sex bigot" was all one joking phrase at Kizzle's expense, not separate parts. Which I mention, 'cause you gave a serious response to the Republican part. Derex 10:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)