The Borders of Absurdity

http://sixthragnarok.blogspot.com/2011/12/borders-of-absurdity.html

The inanity of U.S. politics has never ceased to me amaze me but two incidents as of late leave me somewhat stunned. First we have the crashing of a U.S. spy-drone in Iran. While in itself not hugely exciting, what is interesting is the U.S. response, to ask for the drone back. Only in a completely topsy-turvy world could someone ask for a crashed spy-drone back and yet in mainstream media in the U.S. the outrage is over Iran's refusal to return the drone. Even comedians have lashed out at Iran's intransigence. For me this is a symptom of how nonsensical U.S. discourse has become. Consider the contrary situation, an Iranian spy-drone crashes in the U.S. and the Iranian government asks for it back. What would be the likely response? It would receive howls of laughter from the press, it would serve as yet another example of Iran's disconnect with reality.
The second example I'll give concerns Newt Gingrich's comments about making poor children work as janitors in order to pay for their education. In any reasonable world this should have resulted in his immediate disqualification for office, the newspapers would read "Child Labour Scandal: Gingrich resigns amid howls of fury" (throw a pun in and you might get closer to today's newspapers). In the mad world that is U.S. politics however this comment had little or no impact on Gingrich's election chances. There has been no real media outcry, there has been no backlash.
These incidents are by no means isolated but rather are indicative of a trend in U.S. (and to a much lesser extent, World) politics. What facilitates this madness however? The psychology is simple. When one encounters an unfamiliar scenario one tends to take their cue from those around them. This effect is well studied and applies across society whether it involves etiquette in a fancy restaurant or whether or not to give to the homeless man ahead. In the case of novel political events or policies the public tends to be primed by the media and tends to judge the outrageousness of any statement based on the outrage expressed in the media. If the media presents such positions as acceptable then the public at large presumes they must be.
This feeds in to the increasingly absurd and extreme positions held by many candidates, particularly those in the Republican primaries as of late. Interestingly, none of the candidates that have fallen in popularity have done so due to policy positions. Indeed Perry fell not because he wanted to annihilate the Department of Education (surely an extreme position) but instead he fell in the polls due to not being able to remember which departments he would get rid of. Likewise, Cain and Bachmann lost top spot due to gaffes and scandal rather than (in my view) the insanity of the policy positions which they were actually able to communicate.
We live in a world where increasingly bizarre positions are glossed over by a press which instead concentrates on gaffes. There is no outrage over the idea of getting rid of the Department of Education, instead the outrage is expressed over a bad memory. With this sleight of hand the position becomes legitimised and there is no real examination of the policy itself. In this fashion any position can be made to seem reasonable and can be presented to the public by focusing on trivial points related to it. In this fashion ideas such as child labour, abolishing the Department of Education and the returning of crashed spy-drones all stow their way into public discourse as reasonable ideas, indeed as non-controversial ideas. /endrant

 

The answer is biblical: "The truth shall make you free."

Unfortunately the media is now concentrated in the hands of a a very few corporations, all of whom have bought the business model, pioneered by Rupert Murdoch, of media as entertainment - "infotainment".

The net result is that the media pander to the worst of human vices on a daily basis and go out of their way to avoid reporting anything that is confronting, destabilising or that might possibly stimulate the sheeple to actually think about their condition.

Take the entire bunch of Republican Presidential Candidates with the exception of John Huntsman; Forty years ago, these clowns would have been laughed off the stage - as they should be.

The media would have called them all in turn:

- A bigot (Paul).

- A Serial liar (Gingrich).

- A narcissist (Romney).

- An airhead (Bachmann).

But now the media treats these idiots as serious people.

 

I agree. The increasing number of buffoons is irritating but what scares me more is how their inanity deflects criticism from the positions they espouse. Perry's desire to abolish the Department of Education was not criticised, instead the media focused on his forgetting of the third department. In this fashion the idea sneaks in, it hitchhikes into public discourse. It is a direct and often quite deliberate result of the media's dumbing down.

 

“Dumbing down” is absolutely right. With today’s 24 hour news cycle, the media has to have something to talk about. Since most Americans can’t name 3 things the Dept. of Education does, the media doesn’t spend any appreciable time discussing such “meaningful” topics. However, Americans love to laugh at people who do dumb things in front of a camera. Just like any business, the media is providing a product that will sell to the greatest number of customers.

 

Can you give us some good reasons why wanting to cut the FEDERAL dept. of education is such a terrible thing?

America is a large nation, and it dwarfs many of the European nations that top the list. We have these things called "states." We also have the best universities in the world which are (gasp) mostly private.

Also, frodo, you forgot to mention:

Obama - racist authoritarian corporatist

 

Add to Huntsman ( Dumb ) as not able to get on ballots in time.

 

The idea of state Departments of Education isn't necassarily a bad one but Perry and his ilk are promoting slashing entire departments for the sake of slashing entire departments and seem not to actually offer and alternative other than saying "the states will sort it out". If a plan was written up detailing the process then the whole thing would be different.

My frustration isn't so much about that policy it is about the fact that the media concentrates entirely on Perry's slip and not on the actual policy he promoted. His loss in popularity was entirely due to his gaffe and not his actual policy. The media didn't discuss the pros and cons of abolishing the ED but instead spoke of how embarassed he was.

(On a side note: One thing that perturbs me about further decentralisation in education is the unfortunate fact that places like Texas will further their campaign to remove legitimate science from the classroom i.e. evolution and instead replace it with mythology. This is already underway in Texas but thankfully the last court hearing was in favour of reality. Texas has a lot of buying power and so can to a large extent dictate the contents of books published by the educational textbook companies. That is a complex issue however and deserves its own thread.)

 

I think it has something to do with teensy, tiny attention spans. Everybody wants their information in easily-digestible pieces no longer than a free porn clip. That sort of news lends itself more to memorable social blunders than to any kind of deep discussion about political positions or their context or their consequences. It's very annoying.

 

Good points, and I absolutely agree about the media. We can't worry so much about what Texas teaches in their schools. Texas is in Mexico.

 

This is not representative of what I personally read, or viewed on different media outlets. Rather, the "outrage" or as I would call it (laughter), is at the fact that Obama was silly/weak enough to ask for the drone back.

What a fool he must appear in the eyes of many around the world.

Another misrepresentation. When taken in complete context, it's not a bad idea (IMO). Considering that what he was suggesting was university students working part time, to help fund their education, rather than graduating with enormous student loan debt.

 

The question is why do people want info in easily-digestible pieces? The media has pushed this culture. For example I refuse to read a newspaper which has a pun in its headline (cough* The Sun *cough). There is a fact that people will want what is advertised, what is available. If one pours billions into advertising a no-time culture, if one spends billions advertising mindless distractions and one consumes an ever-increasing amount of TV time with reality TV this is the inevitable result. There is a concept called salience which links exposure to an idea with the perceived importance of the idea. If the media continues to concentrate on minor issues and political gaffes at the expense of important issues then people tend to think such issues are more important. This is incredibly true in terms of the deficit debate. There are arguably more important issues (e.g. unemployment, structural problems etc.) but if the media solely focuses on the deficit people think it is important, therefore the media concentrates on the deficit, therefore people think it is important.....you get the idea.

I am aware that this all sound incredibly sanctimonious but it pisses me off.

 

Can't argue with this.

Will absolutely disagree with this.

Gringrich was right and your umbrage is truly odd. There was a time in this country when even "children" (usually teens) were expected to work. My grandfathers all worked growing up and they were great men, in my estimation. They were tough and self-reliant. Nowadays, children are infantalized by people like you who think it's insane to have them working and establishing a work ethic.

I think the truly bizarre aspect of our society is the increasing reliance and fealty to central government. When I see someone like you having your mind blown with the suggestion that teens be allowed to work, I feel I understand why western civilization has fallen so far from grace.

Alexander Hamilton made his own way in life when he was only thirteen or fourteen years old, but letting poor kids hold a paying job at their school is crazy to you? Priorities man!

 

To clarify:

I am a teen and have worked since I was 16 in order to fund my studies. However the idea that a child must work in order to receive a secondary level education is perverse. It can only have disastrous effects on academic performance and by extension social mobility etc. As far as I can see one of the greatest advances in society has been the abolishment of child labour.

The question as to whether or not it instills work ethic. I do not believe that without teenage work people become lazy. I would argue that any decrease in work ethic among primarily lower income groups stems from declining social mobility and increasing income inequality (which grow hand in hand). Given the difficulty of measuring work ethic I can only ask that someone suggest an equivalent measure. (Labour turnover perhaps)

 

It's Orwellian how the name of a government department can cause people to emotionally (yet irrationally) defend its existence.

The Department of Education is an ineffectual and redundant waste of money as well as an usurpation of state sovereignty.

 

Please do America a favor and refuse to register to vote, for your type of vote will ensure that the welfare roles will continue to grow.

 

But that's not what Gingrich said.

 

Your confusion stems from a fundamental inability to understand the nature of decentralizing power. You cannot draw up a "plan" when social organization via liberty is, by definition, "planning by the many". In other words, a Federalist system where the states sort out their educational systems of their own accord cannot be encapsulated by a one-sized fits-all "plan". Each state will develop its own unique system so as to better accommodate their own unique needs.

Yes, some people will teach their children that evolution isn't legitimate, but the Department of Education won't stop them doing that, nor is it the end of the world. Unless they're going into a career in science, I don't even think they need to know about it. It has absolutely no applicability in their lives. Our entire education system is predicated upon a one-sized fits-all "liberal arts" education system. I'm of the opinion that we should transition to a more pragmatic system like the Germans have, where children are taught trades and skills commensurate with their aptitude. Shakespeare, chemistry, art, etc. are all a waste of money for someone who doesn't plan to work in those fields.

 

Well seeing as I don't live in America, sure. However I think you'll find that Republican economic policies which drastically reduce social mobility are far more likely to result in a welfare dependent underclass.

He didn't. That is true.

However the economic policies that Gingrich would pursue have lead to the situation whereby there is less work ethic, whereby social mobility has collapsed and a repeal of child labour laws or their diminuation seems to be an attack on janitor unions (of which I know little). The difference between working for experience and working for money is a great one. Education is also a major factor in social mobility and given that social mobility is a key component (if not the key component) in the American Dream a diminuation of the capacity for education (by de facto ensuring increased work-loads on students) can only but diminish social mobility particularly as wages fall due to increased numbers of teenage workers.

 

A plan of decentralisation consists of detailing what powers will be decentralised and importantly how and and when such powers are decentralised. After such a stage then the unique systems come into play.

 

I would like to agree with that, however I have no idea the length of a free porn clip.

It is true, though, society has become "headline" oriented. I suspect voting decisions are made on the basis of the screen crawl at the bottom of the screen while watching "Dancing with Morons".

The result? Despite Owebama's failings the Republicans can't put together a field to rival him....

The adage "the electorate gets the government they deserve is more true today than when it was coined..."

 

Read the Tenth Amendment and you'll have your answer.

 

I don't think you sound sanctimonious. Just accurate. Hang in there.

 

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
-Thomas Jefferson

Rask, one big reason why eliminating the DOE in the US does not elicit widespread confusion and anger (excluding MSNBC) is because of our political history. We're a nation born of violent revolution and civil war and distrust of central government, which I believe is a good thing. Concentrated power is dangerous, even if it's predicated upon good intentions.

 

I guess it is no surprise that a country that is already one of the dumbest on the planet would want to eliminate any hope of redemption.

Which no doubt suits its elites rather well.

They do not want the ruly masses to get funny ideas and venture into unruliness.

 

With regards to Gingrich's comment, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Whether I think it's a valid position or not, it's a political position nonetheless, and it deserves to be debated and discussed like any other.