[spindler]

Freedom is a great thing. It's pretty obvious that George Washington was a better person than Saddam Hussein. But really how much credit do Americans or anyone else deserve just for crawling out of the uterus into a free country? Let's face it, most Americans don't really have to contribute anything to maintaining freedom. They pay their taxes for the military and the police department, but other than that, no sacrifice is required. So why should anyone get to use freedom as a constant excuse for not contributing anything to the U.S. here in 2006? If you sit back and watch your country turn to ****, do you have a right to go on and on about how proud you are to be American and how great you think freedom is?

Here are some topics I want to talk about. In their respective areas, I think they make the U.S. a really crappy place to live, not the country it once was. I think Americans should do better. In fact I think Americans should be ashamed of not fixing these problems. And I'm really, really tired of people who will pull the old "You hate America" stunt when you try to talk about how things should be better. And I want to know if Americans should be proud of themselves just to be American if they aren't willing to contribute anything to solving these problems. I want to know if Americans can be proud of themselves when they simply have no requirements as citizens.

I'll give you two examples so you get the idea, but there are many more. Here are two: the dehumanizing crap on television, and how Americans have allowed the importance of journalism and world events to be drowned out by entertainment.

First of all, the television that Americans watch is a subhuman sewer system. There are things that are shown 1,000 times a day on television that were considered low class/ignorant/perverted/completely unacceptable in 1980. The environment you get if you watch ABC/CBS/NBC belongs in a country like Iran or Uganda, not the United States. And by the way, I DON"T WATCH IT, so don't use the old "If you don't like it don't watch it" excuse. I am talking about the celebrity gossip/murder gossip/daytime talk/reality shows, that presents complete tragedy/dysfuntionality as light entertainment and turn people into objects.

For example, Anna Nicole Smith's son died. On gossip shows and magazines, this is being perverted from a tragedy that she will feel for the rest of her life to gossipy headlines like "The REAL STORY behind Anna's son death. We've got the exclusive!". This is just as low, subhuman, and unAmerican as a sign that reads "No blacks need apply." Or let's say say someone watches the Jerry Springer show. This show basically laughs at people who are unable to have the family bonds that we all want to have. People who watch this don't think about how each person should have love and a family they can depend on. It just enjoys tragedy, misery, and destruction. The U.S. ONCE WAS AND IS SUPPOSED TO BE the country that made it past all the cruelty and misery of human history. And this show belongs in Iran, not the U.S.

So I want the people who are always going "Ra Ra America" and "freedom this and freedom that" to answer this question and not avoid it. Do you think I should have any bond as an American whatsoever with the kind of people that watch Jerry Springer or turn on the news to read about the five most gruesome deaths today? After all, if they don't care about the people on Jerry Springer, they probably would be happy if my family was in shambles also. If they get off on Laci Peterson's death, maybe they would get off on someone in my family's death? SHOULD I HAVE ANY MORE OF A BOND WITH THESE PEOPLE THAN I DO WITH PEOPLE IN ZIMBABWE?

I'd estimate that at least 40% of Americans are sane and normal. Why don't these lazy, apathetic Americans do anything so that their kids can have the same humane environment that I had when I was growing up in the 70's/early 80's? Where is the boycott? Why do adults themselves put up with this? Why is it acceptable for late night comedians to make jokes about people that were murdered two days ago? Why do the details of Michael Jackson's alleged child molestation have to be part of my life and the culture I am a part of? Why can't the sane 40% just have an island of normality away from the lunacy the other people want? I want to live my life without hearing the gruesome details of murdered women, suspected child molestors, boken families, people who just happen to be celebrities that are addicted to drugs, etc.

Americans have self determination and could have solved this problem when it started in 1990 with a boycott that involved nothing more than hitting the off button on their remote control. Why do they get to go on and on about freedom when they won't preserve what the United States is supposed to be about? Turning on your TV is basically like going to some shithole like Iran. All the rules and expectations of normal people are suspended and what is abnormal is presented as normal.

Now the second thing that Americans should be ashamed of is how the importance of the news, politics, and world events has been turned into a circus of entertainment/hype/spectacle.

Let me start off by stating what normality is in this area, since most Americans can't recall it. Once upon a time journalism was a noble profession. We turned to the most sensible, knowledgable people for our information. Hype was not part of the news because hype is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE AND ENEMY OF truth. If you wanted to pick some stocks to buy, you would go with the most dry, intellectual advisor you could find. You wouldn't take advice from someone who was ranting and raving about how they were sure such and such stock was sure to double.

Americans took a guy sitting behind a desk giving you facts and traded it for helicopters flying around, visual images everywhere, loud and intrusive background images behind the newscaster, etc. They took the seriousness of the news and allowed it to be dumbed down with gossip about Bill and Monica, O.J. Simpson, and Chandra Levy. And Americans once expected their newscasters to be sensible and hype free. But now Bill O'Reilly, not George Will, is the most popular commentator. And I'm not saying Al Franken on the other side is any better. But sensible discussion by people with a tremendous amount of knowledge has been replaced by idiots on both sides yelling at each other.

So why do Americans get to be proud of freedom this and freedom that when they took journalism and traded it in for amusement? Why do they get to be proud when they can't even take the real world seriously? There are 10,000 ways to entertain yourself and 10,000 shows to watch? Shouldn't Americans be ashamed of diluting journalism just to entertain themselves? And shouldn't the 40% of Americans who are sane and normal be ashamed of not doing something about this?

I'm just tired of watching Americans take their garbage and throw it out the car window car and then brag about freedom. I have my doubts if most Americans are really willing to contribute anything to America or if they care whether anything is preserved for future generations.

[Millennium]

Although I agree that the two things you mention are indeed problems, I'm forced to wonder: what exactly would you suggest be done about them? Is this really something that ought to be the province of law?

[itai195]

I agree with you that these are problems, but I'd suggest caution in overstating your case. Yes some things have gotten worse in America since the 70s/80s, but many things have improved. The topics you point out are definitely areas that need some work.

[spindler]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Although I agree that the two things you mention are indeed problems, I'm forced to wonder: what exactly would you suggest be done about them? Is this really something that ought to be the province of law?

No, there is no law necessary to solve these problems and I want to cut that off before people (not meaning you) come in and avoid the subject by saying "Government solutions don't work.". The easy solution is a boycott.

How do we solve the problem of sleaze being mixed in with good shows like The Simpsons? Well, let's review the basics of freedom. Freedom means that you have your choices, and I have mine, but when my choices bother you and affect your life, we attempt to SEPARATE your choices from mine if possible. For example, if 10% of Americans want to walk around in the nude, and 90% don't want to see that, then the 10% can still walk around in the nude, just in a private place where others can't see it.

So let's pretend that Americans have some kind of "right" to use tragedy and misery for their entertainment. How can we force the media to SEPARATE that garbage from what normal people want to view? Well, what would you do if your local pizza place started using rat meat instead of sausage on the pizza? What would you do if the local candy store put porn out in front where children could see it and you were opposed to that? Obviously, you would not do business with them. You would punish them by not giving them your money.

Now, it's a little more difficult to punish the media. What you need is a boycott. This is because the bad stuff is MIXED IN with the good stuff. If you don't like one pizza place, you can just go to another. With the media, since everything is packaged together in one package, you need a boycott.

So when the media started filling our lives with murder via O.J. Simpson, what we needed was an immediate boycott. Life and death still meant something then and had some feeling to it, so this was even more obvious back then. If 20% of Americans were to boycott a station or a cable company, that would be enough to IMMEDIATELY force them to change. If they lose 20% of customers they lose much more than 20% of their profits.

But really, all Americans needed to do was to BOYCOTT JUST ONE SINGLE MEASLY STATION TO SOLVE THE ENTIRE PROBLEM. Let's say right now 20% of Americans get together and say that they will decide on October 15th what is the sleaziest station among ABC/CBS/NBS and boycott that one. That will immediately force ALL OF THEM to behave properly, so at to not be the big loser.

Now, don't get me wrong, if there is a market for sleaze, the laws of economics say it will be sold. But it is not hard to force the sleaze onto an entirely separate channel.

[subego]

Originally Posted by spindler

how Americans have allowed the importance of journalism and world events to be drowned out by entertainment.

In the past, the television news media didn't chase money and ratings because they decided not to. No one forced them. This wasn't because they were "better people" back then, "less competition" is more like it.

Pick up a paper from the early 20th century if you want to see some of the most ridiculously sensationalized tabloid garbage.

[Chuckit]

Are you ashamed?

[spindler]

Originally Posted by subego

In the past, the television news media didn't chase money and ratings because they decided not to. No one forced them. This wasn't because they were "better people" back then, "less competition" is more like it.

Pick up a paper from the early 20th century if you want to see some of the most ridiculously sensationalized tabloid garbage.

OK. Pick up an Atlanta Journal from 1975 or a Philadelphia Enquirer from 1975. You won't see the kind of trashy stories and lurid headlines, written in slang. So which was better 1975 or 1900? If 1975 was better then let's keep it at 1975. Why should we justify something getting worse today, just because it was crappy in the past?

Also, when you say that there was tabloid garbage in 1900, was that MIXED IN with the normal newspaper, or was it a separate trash newspaper, like the New York Post? I am asking because it makes a big difference.

[spindler]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Are you ashamed?

I don't have anything to be ashamed about since I am one of the few who has never ACCEPTED this as a normal or acceptable part of American life.

But I most certainly am disgusted with Americans that they would allow this to happen. I am disgusted that children can't have a normal amount of innocence, and that they aren't allowed to feel the normal feelings of the value of life. I am disgusted that there aren't boundaries between right and wrong.

The only time recently I have felt the value of human life as it used to feel was when Steve Irwin died, because he was a real person. But let's say Whitney Houston dies because she has drug problems. Can anyone really FEEL that after you have seen it as something else over and over? Can anyone really FEEL the tragedy of a drug overdose when you have seen her on this cover or that over and over? It becomes unreal.

When Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, in a normal society, the main focus should be that he hurt his wife and ESPECIALLY HIS DAUGHTER WHO MAY NEVER TRUST HIM AGAIN. But I bet most people didn't even think of that, since it was immediately sensationalized, and jokes were made for months and months.

I don't think you can feel the nice, normal, spiiritual feelings you are supposed to feel when you are DESENSITIZED by the constant trivialization of life around you. I can't put into words why I feel an entirely different relationship with the world because of the sleaze that is mixed in, but I certainly didn't feel the innocence or the feeling of loss of life when Kurt Cobain died as opposed to when John Lennon in 1980. I can't hear the details of murder all day long presented without any gravity and then fully feel it when someone dies.

[subego]

Originally Posted by spindler

OK. Pick up an Atlanta Journal from 1975 or a Philadelphia Enquirer from 1975. You won't see the kind of trashy stories and lurid headlines, written in slang. So which was better 1975 or 1900. If 1975 was better then let's keep it at 1975. Why should we justify something getting worse today, just because it was crappy in the past.

I wasn't justifying it, only saying it could be a cyclical phenomenon instead of the linear one you describe.

Originally Posted by spindler

Also, when you say that there was tabloid garbage in 1900, was that MIXED IN with the normal newspaper, or was it a separate newspaper, like the New York Post. I am asking because it makes a big difference.

Can't answer you with absolute certainty here, I had to mock up an old newspaper for a project. Judging by prevalence, I have assumed the former.

[spindler]

But let me point out that this thread is not really mainly about these two subjects. It is about how lame and pathetic it is when people (usually conservatives) just whip out the talk about freedom. Anyone can talk about freedom in a vague way. It doesn't require any sacrifice to sit around and talk about how great freedom is. But this is often a SMOKESCREEN for people (usually but not allways conservatives) who have no intention of contributing anything or preserving anything.

[Chuckit]

It sounds like you need to stop watching the news. If there's anything you really need to know, you'll hear the sirens.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by spindler

Also, when you say that there was tabloid garbage in 1900, was that MIXED IN with the normal newspaper, or was it a separate trash newspaper, like the New York Post? I am asking because it makes a big difference.

It was often worse than tabloid garbage. For example, much of the hype leading up to the Spanish-American War was sensationalized (e.g. made up) by newspaper barons of the time, such as William Hearst. I have never studied the history of US journalism in depth, but I suspect that the period you're hearkening back to was an anomaly, unfortunately.

[Zeeb]

This is yet another thread started by something claiming to be the authority on taste and then looking down on everyone else. The problem with your arguement is that what is "trashy" and what is worthwhile news and entertainment can never be determined. You held up the death of Steve Irwin as something worthwhile but many consider that trashy as well. Likewise, why would Whitney Houston dying of a drug overdose naturally fall into the trashy category? Is it because that death would be her fault?

Freedom protects us from judgemental people like you who want to control what everyone sees and hears and I think rather than being sad that freedom is being abused--I would venture to say you actually hate freedom.

Long Live Whitney!

[spindler]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

This is yet another thread started by something claiming to be the authority on taste and then looking down on everyone else. The problem with your arguement is that what is "trashy" and what is worthwhile news and entertainment can never be determined.
Freedom protects us from judgemental people like you who want to control what everyone sees and hears and I think rather than being sad that freedom is being abused--I would venture to say you actually hate freedom.

Um, Zeeb, don't you think that news would be defined somewhat as "the events and facts you need to understand your world as a citizen and a voter"? So, for example, it would be very important to know that one media giant bought another and this might affect the quality of news. However, knowing where Pamela Anderson went on vacation, on the other hand, has no direct connection to the things that shape your world.

The details of the Michael Jackson trial don't really have any relevance to the world we live in, just like what happened last night on Survivor doesn't, either. Knowing what Bill Clinton's plan for eduation is and what ideas he is working on would have relevance to our world. Spending 5 minutes out of 30 minutes per night for months on the details of whether Bill Clinton cheated is a waste of the precious few minutes we spend on news. Don't get me wrong, the final outcome of whether he cheated or not matters, so we know whether he is honest and trustworthy, but we didn't need the play by play.

Do you agree that we can largely distinguish between things that affect our lives and things that are mere curiousity, fun, and entertainment?

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by spindler

Um, Zeeb, don't you think that news would be defined somewhat as "the events and facts you need to understand your world as a citizen and a voter"? So, for example, it would be very important to know that one media giant bought another and this might affect the quality of news. However, knowing where Pamela Anderson went on vacation, on the other hand, has no direct connection to the things that shape your world.

The details of the Michael Jackson trial don't really have any relevance to the world we live in, just like what happened last night on Survivor doesn't, either. Knowing what Bill Clinton's plan for eduation is and what ideas he is working on would have relevance to our world. Spending 5 minutes out of 30 minutes per night for months on the details of whether Bill Clinton cheated is a waste of the precious few minutes we spend on news. Don't get me wrong, the final outcome of whether he cheated or not matters, so we know whether he is honest and trustworthy, but we didn't need the play by play.

Do you agree that we can largely distinguish between things that affect our lives and things that are mere curiousity, fun, and entertainment?

I can agree on a general and abstract idea of what type of information people need to be good citizens and what is trashy--but that's very dicey. However, even if we could settle on a definition how are you going to get people to want what is determined to be useful information?

You wrote about a boycott of certain stations that broadcast offensive material but that doesn't seem viable to me. Don't the nielson ratings ultimately determine what goes on and off the air and isn't that kinda like a boycott?

[spindler]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I can agree on a general and abstract idea of what type of information people need to be good citizens and what is trashy--but that's very dicey. However, even if we could settle on a definition how are you going to get people to want what is determined to be useful information?

First of all, I agree that we can't EXACTLY agree on what is useful information. An ultraconservative might think that Hillary Clinton's clothes are inappropriate or too sexual and view this as news.

What I am saying is that a person who cares about their country HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO SEPARATE THE NEWS FROM ENTERTAINMENT. You are playing Russian Roulette with your democracy if you don't. You are simply REQUIRED to do it. I don't care what they want. After all, I am not asking for much. If you want to talk about O.J. Simpson, just keep that on an entertainment show. If you want to talk about the nasty details of someone cheating on his wife, do it for anyone else in the world besides world decision makers.

It's like in the Garden of Eden. They had a million other things to entertain them. They didn't have any real NEED or even reasonable desire to go near the apple. And Americans have 50,000,000 ways to entertain themselves. THEY SHOULD BE EXPECTED AS CITIZENS to make the incredibly tiny sacrifice of keeping the news as news.

Originally Posted by Zeeb

You wrote about a boycott of certain stations that broadcast offensive material but that doesn't seem viable to me. Don't the nielson ratings ultimately determine what goes on and off the air and isn't that kinda like a boycott?

No, a boycott is totally different. I want one product SEPARATED from another. Let's say 60% of Americans want reasonably clean TV. I am not religious or conservative. I like Rambo and Friday The 13th and other adult stuff. But that is different from objectifying real people.

If 60% of Americans want The Simpsons and only 15% want trash like Maury Povich, there will be more Simpsons and less Maury Povich. That is the voting you are talking about. But notice we are voting ON A SHOW BY SHOW BASIS. That's not good enough. I want an ENVIRONMENT where I am GUARANTEED not to see dehumanizing stuff like Maury Povich. The only way to do that is vote against THE WHOLE ENTIRE CHANNEL by boycotting the whole channel to force that stuff to a different, separate channel. There must be rules for the whole entire channel, and that will never happen while we are voting on a show by show basis.

Notice that I am in no way trying to eliminate the Maury Povich show or pass laws against it. I simply want it away from me. We vote on a show by show basis, but that gives us no way to control the overall environment. I can be voting for the Simpsons, but during the commercial, I get some disgusting update from the local news. If 60% of Americans want a clean environment, the only way to have an effect is to vote against the ENVIRONMENT, THE ENTIRE CHANNEL, not vote on a show by show basis. This requires a boycott.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Winston Churchil

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

Originally Posted by C. Wright Mills

Freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them -- and then, the opportunity to choose.

Originally Posted by Clarence Darrow

You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.

Originally Posted by Dorothy Thompson

When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.

Originally Posted by Edward R. Murrow

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

Originally Posted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.

Originally Posted by Robert A. Heinlein

Secrecy is the beginning of tyrany

Originally Posted by Alanis Morissette

What it all boils down to
Is that no one's really got it figured out just yet

Freedom is not free, and that doesn't just count the men and women who have laid down their lives (and are now currently doing so) for our freedoms. It means that EVERY CITIZEN should work hard at making GOOD decisions at the polls, and do everything possible to yank bad politicians out of office as fast and hard as possible. Obviously that's not happening because people are naturally lazy. But SOMEONE needs to be cleaning out that hen house, and it really shouldnt' be the foxes!

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by spindler

But let me point out that this thread is not really mainly about these two subjects. It is about how lame and pathetic it is when people (usually conservatives) just whip out the talk about freedom. Anyone can talk about freedom in a vague way. It doesn't require any sacrifice to sit around and talk about how great freedom is. But this is often a SMOKESCREEN for people (usually but not allways conservatives) who have no intention of contributing anything or preserving anything.

I pretty much agree with your initial post but you lost me on saying that it's mostly conservatives that talk about freedom and not willing to do anything to preserve it. I've been affiliated with the military in one way or another for 22 years. My Grandfathers and all my uncles served in WWll. My FIL did 3 tours in Vietnam and my cousin was paralyzed from the waist down from Vietnam. Almost all of them conservative. My husband is conservative and is an active duty pilot. Almost everyone I know in the military are conservatives. Not too many of them sit around talking about how the best way to win battles is to not fight them.

As far as what Americans have become, IMO it's because we've had it so good for so long that most people have no idea what real sacrifice is. We've also become a very divided nation where the party out of power cares more about regaining power than in national security. Back when my ancestors immigrated here, there were no safety nets. They had to sink or swim. For the last 40+ years, our nation has become a magnet for the world's poor that are a different breed than poor immigrants of the past. Many of today's immigrants seem very grateful for the opportunities provided them in this nation and work hard to improve their lot in life. However, far too many have been coming here for far too long with their hands out rather than their sleaves rolled up. A lot of people sitting around watching jerry springer instead of working and trying to keep abreast of current events and world politics in order to be a good American, is the result of spoiled people that have never had to stand up and fight for anything. That includes American born and new immigrants.

I have a lot of complaints about things in this country. Our Criminal defense system being one of my major beefs. Where inmates get more help and better treatment than their victims. Where lawyers that can get the most evil, wretched creatures imaginable off completely are the ones crowned king lawyer by their peers. But I don't express my anger about certain aspects of our nation and culture by painting the entire country with one brush. It's fairly obvious to me that while most people in the U.S. are good and are patriots, there are segments of our population that are so greedy and egocentric that all they care about is their professional reputation and wealth and put nothing before those things. That there are also segments of our population that are just plain sick bastards that just love to defend evil and strive to tear down everything good and decent. There are those that are basically good people but just too misguided and dedicated to holding onto their utopian worldview. Then there are those that are just spoiled, selfish, pampered people who feel guilty about having so much for so little effort ( ie, hollyweirdos) and ease their consciences by feeling as though they are some kind of champion for the downtrodden. Except that their idea of the downtrodden are typically vicious criminals, Islamic extremists, and welfare sponges. I could go on, but the point is that while America is still a great country worth fighting for, we are degenerating into a nation that I fear one day might not be worth fighting for. If good does not start triumphing over evil at a much faster rate, we are rightly screwed.

[Timo]

ghporter's got it right