How can we unite?

[TulsaMoon]

We're all Americans, and Gaspar was right up thread.  We all want the best for the country, or we wouldn't be arguing our points so vehemently.  But I'll bite:  what do you think needs to happen for us to come together?  Practically speaking?  what are the issues you'd like to see us compromise on, and what does that mean? 

I grew up on a farm in the middle of nowhere miles from any other kids. I had only my younger sister who was very close in age to play with. I never wanted to do the things she wanted to do and like wise she didn't like my ideas. I wanted to throw the baseball, she wanted to play with dolls and jump rope. In the end after fighting like brothers and sisters do we did the things the other wanted to do.

Not all issues will be compromised but most can be if we learn to swing the rope and catch the ball.

[Gaspar]

I grew up on a farm in the middle of nowhere miles from any other kids. I had only my younger sister who was very close in age to play with. I never wanted to do the things she wanted to do and like wise she didn't like my ideas. I wanted to throw the baseball, she wanted to play with dolls and jump rope. In the end after fighting like brothers and sisters do we did the things the other wanted to do.

Not all issues will be compromised but most can be if we learn to swing the rope and catch the ball.

Compromise is beautiful and the outcome can be a victory for both sides of the argument.  Compromise represents growth in the understanding that not all of your ideas are wrong, and not all of my ideas are right.

How we define compromise is another matter.  The term itself is a masterful political tool in that it is thrown around under a myriad of guises.  To compromise you must accommodate, not conquer.

The entire art of politics is an act of compromise because it involves being able to manage more than a single individual can comprehend or manage alone.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Interesting how much talk about compromise I am hearing.  Just no where else on this site.

Here's some compromise for ya....more of a prediction, actually.

What is, has been, and will be required to "fix" the problems we have are fairly straightforward.  But likely to be impossible to compromise on.

1.  Cut federal spending in real terms by <pick a number>.  I put 8% into that fill in the blank.  Must be at least 5%, but probably cannot be more than 10%.  Enough to seriously help the effort and a little bit painful for every department involved, but not enough to hurt the function of the government.  Yes, including defense.  And as a side project, quit using warfare as a tool of economic policy - let's remember what Dwight Eisenhower said about the military-industrial complex.  No more imperialistic voyeurism.  And eliminate completely some of the really, truly ignorant stuff we do - $18 billion per year example; war on marijuana.  

2.  Allow the ignorance of both the Obama and the Bush tax cuts to expire.  No thinking person with even half a brain left can possibly believe that higher taxes are not part of the solution to the financial problems we are dumping on our kids!  And for at least the last several years, anyone who says it isn't necessary is just showing their ignorance.  In so many ways.

3.  Unwind some of those actions that corporate America has bought and paid for at the expense of the working people in this country.  NAFTA, CAFTA, "jobs-for-China".  If we are going to use tax policy as an economic tool, quit using it as a hammer to beat on the people of this country.  Use it to encourage job retention, growth, creation here.

4.  Lighten up!!  Break out the Zig-Zags, roll a fat one, light it up, kick back and relax!

[Breadburner]

Here's to "The King".....F___ing......!!!!!

[nathanm]

I'm not making a judgement about what we've decided -- you can read my posting history for that -- but we've decided that what actually happened is up for grabs.  Numbers, provable facts, the historical record -- all of these are maleable, and that's what I don't understand.  Why facts don't matter.

This. As long as most of one side and a significant contingent of the other is perfectly willing to outright lie and our news media refuses to call any of them out on those provably false statements, we're foobared.

I was talking with someone in the DR about this a couple of days ago. He was talking about how corrupt their politics are and how the politicians can get away with even the most bald faced lies. I mentioned that the same thing happens here. He responded that at least we have people sitting in their basements crunching the numbers and letting everyone know when the politicians are being..liberal..with the truth.

My response was essentially that it doesn't matter that the facts are out there because they rarely are presented in any news media that most people watch/read and that even when the facts are presented, there's some fool from the other side countering the factual information with outright lies and that the reporter refuses to step in and call out the lies thus leaving everyone confused, at best.

We have a contingent of powerful people who looked at how much smile the leaders of Latin American countries could get away with and decided that's what we should have here. Lo and behold, their decades-long struggle is finally coming to fruition.

I am fully convinced that the first step absolutely must be a renewed respect for fact over spin. I just don't know how we can possibly get there in a post-Citizens United world.

Speaking of Citizens United, I was watching CNN the other day and their crusade (justified or not) against Weiner. The guest they brought on to clarify the situation? David Bossie, of Citizens United. So much for not being partisan, eh?

[Gaspar]

Yes, Fox fired the first volley in a larger volume of political commentary, but MSNBC has caught up to it.  People who want their own political views bolstered have a home network where they can feed those thought patterns around the clock.  If anyone assumes they are getting "facts" by watching political commentary, they simply are not getting them without a filter.

Facts are no longer important to the masses.  We have moved from a logical society where survival was based on personal responsibility, to an emotional society where your actions are not as important as our feelings, and personal responsibility gives way to collective dependency.  

As we move closer to a more socialized form of government THE WILL is replaced by EMOTION, and an ever increasing desire for fairness over achievement.

The media is a reflection of this, as information is replaced by entertainment.  Conservatives are forced to get their news from crying voices on the radio and liberals rely on a comedian.  Every media outlet competes to tell the same story with more shock value then their competitor.  No one wants to be bothered with facts any more.

As the growing emphasis on feelings crowds out reason, facts will play a smaller role in public discourse. – Paul Craig Roberts

[nathanm]

The problem isn't so much people as the news media. Unless there's a television news station on which I can find facts and sober commentary? (the closest thing is Dan Rather Reports on HDNet!) It began a long time ago when news went from being a loss leader to being just another profit center, leading to the thought among news directors that their shows must primarily be entertaining, so as to sell more ads.

The end was when Dan Rather was fired for reporting the truth about GWB's military service (or lack thereof). The facts didn't matter to the troglodytes who were more concerned about whether or not the image shown on air was of the actual original document than whether the text was accurate. They still don't. And they don't seem to matter to the media, either.

It has much more to do with dollars than demand. If it were about demand, it would be possible to find some reasonable news outlet. Besides, the more BS the news becomes the easier it is for the powerful to push their agendas unnoticed.

[Conan71]

The problem isn't so much people as the news media. Unless there's a television news station on which I can find facts and sober commentary? (the closest thing is Dan Rather Reports on HDNet!) It began a long time ago when news went from being a loss leader to being just another profit center, leading to the thought among news directors that their shows must primarily be entertaining, so as to sell more ads.

The end was when Dan Rather was fired for reporting the truth about GWB's military service (or lack thereof). The facts didn't matter to the troglodytes who were more concerned about whether or not the image shown on air was of the actual original document than whether the text was accurate. They still don't. And they don't seem to matter to the media, either.

It has much more to do with dollars than demand. If it were about demand, it would be possible to find some reasonable news outlet. Besides, the more BS the news becomes the easier it is for the powerful to push their agendas unnoticed.

Nathan, the document was an outright forgery.  That was the whole basis of evidence for Rather's story in the first place. 

The real problem as I see it is people are getting lazy in wanting the media to summarize an ever-increasing amount of information available.  One favorite editing trick with a print story is come up with a shocking headline and get the most influential, sordid, or salient details in the first two paragraphs.

Hypothetical case in point: Story is that jobless claims were up last month.  Headline says: "More People Lose Jobs Last Month!"

In the first two paragraphs, it gives the facts and figures and that's the 10th straight month of jobless claims being up.  Finally in the third and fourth paragraph, we learn this was the lowest number of new jobless claims in ten months.

Same story separate publication: "New Jobless Claims Lowest In 10 Months"

In the first two paragraphs you'd get how many people hit the rolls, but also noted would be the good news that the job bleeding seems to be abating as it's been slowing the last two months and it's finally at the lowest it's been in the last 10 months.

If the editor wants to mine good news out of the facts, they will.  If the editor wants to mine negative news out of the facts, they will do that as well.

Same with broadcast media.  Bill O'Reilly might be summarizing the facts, but also adding his own opinion to come up with his summary.

[Townsend]

If the editor wants to mine good news out of the facts, they will.  If the editor wants to mine negative news out of the facts, they will do that as well.

As will the individual.

[Gaspar]

As will the individual.

That is the responsibility of the individual!  

We enjoy the freedom of living in our own reality.  When two or more share that reality, you have community.  When someone wishes to dictate reality, you have tyranny.

[Teatownclown]

That is the responsibility of the individual!  

We enjoy the freedom of living in our own reality.  When two or more share that reality, you have community.  When someone wishes to dictate reality, you have tyranny.

First, there are facts,then statistical inference/logic and finally value judgement. Many of our educators and politicians want to start with the last and forget or invent the first two. Value has become subjective. We need quality educators and politicians.

[Gaspar]

First, there are facts,then statistical inference/logic and finally value judgement. Many of our educators and politicians want to start with the last and forget or invent the first two. Value has become subjective. We need quality educators and politicians.

smile!  That's the second time I've agreed with you in less than a week.

[Townsend]

When two or more share that reality, you have community.  

Or you get Jim and Tammy Fae Baker et al.

[Gaspar]

First, there are facts,then statistical inference/logic and finally value judgement. Many of our educators and politicians want to start with the last and forget or invent the first two. Value has become subjective. We need quality educators and politicians.

Here's an excellent example from a few minutes ago. 

Chris Matthews: "Weiner's Press conference reminded me of the Saddam Hussein hanging today. Even they couldn't do that right."

[nathanm]

Nathan, the document was an outright forgery.  That was the whole basis of evidence for Rather's story in the first place. 
..
Actually, it wasn't. The officer's secretary confirmed that the content, at least, was authentic. Hence my dig at the troglodytes more concerned about whether what was shown on air was authentic.

The real problem as I see it is people are getting lazy in wanting the media to summarize an ever-increasing amount of information available.  One favorite editing trick with a print story is come up with a shocking headline and get the most influential, sordid, or salient details in the first two paragraphs.

Hypothetical case in point: Story is that jobless claims were up last month.  Headline says: "More People Lose Jobs Last Month!"

Yeah, that happens sometimes, too, but you'll note that video is still where it's at for most people. Specifically TV news. Other than the big 3, which have been suffering from declining viewership for years, most TV "news" consists of Crossfire-like argument between left and right. That's what people see day in and day out. Even when it's not, and hosts/journalists are interviewing political operatives or whomever, they almost never challenge any lies put forth by the interviewee.

It's very difficult to get an accurate view of events without online "media," and even that only works because you have twenty different versions of a story to compare and contrast, or statistics direct from the source at your fingertips.