Sparrow
Veteran
If it's in the Daily Mail it must be true and balanced? .... if thirty years out of date
hepcat
Former PH, USN
This post ended up a little longer than I had planned. I appologize.
This thread has been a marvelous read. We can glean some truisms from it.
So it seems, at least in the U.S. that the label "liberal" or "progressive" is assigned to a group who thinks things are broken and wants to fix them. We assign "conservative" to those who think things are fine and we don't need to spend money to advance progressive causes. Interesting.
I've noticed a recurring theme. First is that there is an issue (typically in a vacuum) that someone (usually with some financial or other stake in the decision) identifies as needing to be "fixed." Second, all of the "fixes" seem to offend someone. There is an opposing group (typically with a financial interest in continuing the status quo) who identifies each of the fixes as worse than the problem. One of the groups needs to amass enough political clout to steamroller the other's position.
Prohibition doesn't work. In the U.S. do-gooders tried that with the 19th Amendment (booze prohibition) and that lead to shooting wars between the government "revenuers" and the clandestine makers of booze. And the pubic continued to consume alcohol because it wasn't ready not to. Further, entire criminal enterprises sprang up to distribute booze tax-free and made HUGE windfall profits. That sounds amazingly familiar to the international drug trade today. We humans don't learn from history very well apparently.
Hunting for most today is no longer providing food for survival; it is tied to environmental concerns (or monied interests.) Firearms ownership and "gun violence" is currently the topic of discussion world-wide, when the real discussion should be about the root cause of those issues: interpersonal violence and how it has become so pervasive internationally; and the general deteriorating public mental health and how to treat those mental health problems.
There are no quick fixes and there are no stand-alone issues. Society is a complex system and every legisative intrusion into that system wreaks havoc somewhere else. Priorities change and political parties change positions on issues (he TVA nuclear power plant as an example.)
And yet, the debates rage with both sides so entrenched in their own dogma that they can't see that the other side may have valid points as well.
There are many things that need to be done in society, but the first is re-teaching the art of debate and compromise. In the U.S. at least, if there's no agreement in government then government is supposed to be impotent. One side isn't supposed to be able to stack the deck and steamroller the other. Laws are only valid when a majority of the populace agree with them. Good legislation comes from debate and compromise on issues. We haven't seen that in twenty years now, which is why we're in the state we're in.
We complain about Wal-Mart becoming the retail big dog, but who shops there? Everyone. The redistribution of wealth has driven society since the dawn of time. Barbaric societies conquer "civilized" societies for their wealth. In "civilized" societies, individuals want to gather as much as they can, which leads to institutions gathering the majority of the wealth leaving the majority of the populace in poverty. At some tipping point the masses violently reclaim the wealth and the wealthy are powerless to stop them. A current example is in North Korea where we see the ruling family (to stay in power) manipulating the press and feeding the populace propoganda telling the people that the ruling family (who live like royalty) that they are being protected from the outside bullies. That phenomenon has contributed much to the "Arab Spring." We saw similar behavior quashed in China in Tienanmen square some years ago. It's happening in Western nations too, we're just ignoring it.
We also need to examine very closely what factors are contributing to the demise of our environment, both physical and social and debate what actions need to be taken to stem both the unrelenting degredation of our physical environment, and our deteriorating social atmosphere. Those are neither progressive nor conservative issues; they're human issues. Unfortunately I fear that as a species we don't even possess the vocabulary with which to debate the issues, much less have solid solutions. In a society that has Psy attending the White House Correspondent's dinner... and makes heros out of outrageous bail bondsmen, professional wrestlers, and housewives with no integrity... well, draw your own conclusions.
This thread has been a marvelous read. We can glean some truisms from it.
So it seems, at least in the U.S. that the label "liberal" or "progressive" is assigned to a group who thinks things are broken and wants to fix them. We assign "conservative" to those who think things are fine and we don't need to spend money to advance progressive causes. Interesting.
I've noticed a recurring theme. First is that there is an issue (typically in a vacuum) that someone (usually with some financial or other stake in the decision) identifies as needing to be "fixed." Second, all of the "fixes" seem to offend someone. There is an opposing group (typically with a financial interest in continuing the status quo) who identifies each of the fixes as worse than the problem. One of the groups needs to amass enough political clout to steamroller the other's position.
Prohibition doesn't work. In the U.S. do-gooders tried that with the 19th Amendment (booze prohibition) and that lead to shooting wars between the government "revenuers" and the clandestine makers of booze. And the pubic continued to consume alcohol because it wasn't ready not to. Further, entire criminal enterprises sprang up to distribute booze tax-free and made HUGE windfall profits. That sounds amazingly familiar to the international drug trade today. We humans don't learn from history very well apparently.
Hunting for most today is no longer providing food for survival; it is tied to environmental concerns (or monied interests.) Firearms ownership and "gun violence" is currently the topic of discussion world-wide, when the real discussion should be about the root cause of those issues: interpersonal violence and how it has become so pervasive internationally; and the general deteriorating public mental health and how to treat those mental health problems.
There are no quick fixes and there are no stand-alone issues. Society is a complex system and every legisative intrusion into that system wreaks havoc somewhere else. Priorities change and political parties change positions on issues (he TVA nuclear power plant as an example.)
And yet, the debates rage with both sides so entrenched in their own dogma that they can't see that the other side may have valid points as well.
There are many things that need to be done in society, but the first is re-teaching the art of debate and compromise. In the U.S. at least, if there's no agreement in government then government is supposed to be impotent. One side isn't supposed to be able to stack the deck and steamroller the other. Laws are only valid when a majority of the populace agree with them. Good legislation comes from debate and compromise on issues. We haven't seen that in twenty years now, which is why we're in the state we're in.
We complain about Wal-Mart becoming the retail big dog, but who shops there? Everyone. The redistribution of wealth has driven society since the dawn of time. Barbaric societies conquer "civilized" societies for their wealth. In "civilized" societies, individuals want to gather as much as they can, which leads to institutions gathering the majority of the wealth leaving the majority of the populace in poverty. At some tipping point the masses violently reclaim the wealth and the wealthy are powerless to stop them. A current example is in North Korea where we see the ruling family (to stay in power) manipulating the press and feeding the populace propoganda telling the people that the ruling family (who live like royalty) that they are being protected from the outside bullies. That phenomenon has contributed much to the "Arab Spring." We saw similar behavior quashed in China in Tienanmen square some years ago. It's happening in Western nations too, we're just ignoring it.
We also need to examine very closely what factors are contributing to the demise of our environment, both physical and social and debate what actions need to be taken to stem both the unrelenting degredation of our physical environment, and our deteriorating social atmosphere. Those are neither progressive nor conservative issues; they're human issues. Unfortunately I fear that as a species we don't even possess the vocabulary with which to debate the issues, much less have solid solutions. In a society that has Psy attending the White House Correspondent's dinner... and makes heros out of outrageous bail bondsmen, professional wrestlers, and housewives with no integrity... well, draw your own conclusions.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight 1 (firearms): No, not really. The 'debate', such as it is, very rarely attracts highly polarized attention outside the USA.
Highlight 2 (havoc): There are degrees of havoc. Some of the 'havoc' turned out to be pretty trivial when it was tried, e.g. socialized medicine in every country except (once again) the USA.
Highlight 3 (debate and compromise): Indisputable.
Highlight 4 (Wal-Mart): No. Not everyone. There are many who will never voluntarily enter a Wal-Mart if there is any alternative. I am among them. And, intriguingly, this relates to photography. From all I've heard and read, and from my limited experience (I've not set foot inside one for years), they are terrified of photography. Why? What are they so frightened about? Never mind the legal point that they can ban anything they damn' well please. Focus instead on the simple question: what are they so frightened of?
Cheers,
R.
paulfish4570
Veteran
i do not think people are any more violent than they ever have been. we just hear about every violent incident immediately, so it SEEMS worse. in my opinion, domestic abuse, for example, is no more prevalent today than it was 50, 100, 500, 1,000 years ago. but it is better reported, so it appears to be rising. as you point out, hep, the wealth curve is ever repeating itself, and will continue to do so until the earth is no more.
your debate/discourse point is well taken. the public elementary school i attended as a boy in a small tennessee town, took debate and public speaking very, very seriously. the spring debates and dramatic readings filled the gym to bursting. i did not participate, but boy did i anticipate and enjoy the event. "rhetoric" should be required for a year in every public school system, in my opinion. it still is offered in some alabama schools, but as a labor of love for some dedicated teachers, not as a requirement.
your debate/discourse point is well taken. the public elementary school i attended as a boy in a small tennessee town, took debate and public speaking very, very seriously. the spring debates and dramatic readings filled the gym to bursting. i did not participate, but boy did i anticipate and enjoy the event. "rhetoric" should be required for a year in every public school system, in my opinion. it still is offered in some alabama schools, but as a labor of love for some dedicated teachers, not as a requirement.
paulfish4570
Veteran
walmart is terrified of photography, roger?
film photography just is not a money maker any more for walmart. walmart still does big business printing digital photos, making dvds, etc., over here at least.
film photography just is not a money maker any more for walmart. walmart still does big business printing digital photos, making dvds, etc., over here at least.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Sorry... I wasn't very clear there, and I was addressing predominantly those issues in the U.S. However, in the expanded context of "arms trade" and which country is arming which other country with the intent to do violence toward someone, it's international.
I had more in mind the attempted legislation of morality and actions that someone perceives, because of their religious or political beliefs, as wrong. The 19th Amendment prohibiting alcohol manufacture and consumption in the U.S. for example.
I was describing the figurative "everyone" rather than the literal and I agree with your point; but as to your question of whom they are afraid, I haven't a clue. Why do most major art museums not allow photography of any kind? I just don't know.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
In affluent countries, violent crime has been decreasing more or less steadily, and substantially inexplicably, for 20 years (but see the lead hypothesis, http://www.motherjones.com/environm...73295366201&action=collapse_widget&id=6314187 ). FAR more people die in traffic accidents or (in the United States) from shootings than from terrorism, and yet, anti-terrorism spending is orders of magnitude greater than spending on road safety or gun safety. In other words, yes, it is to a very great extent a matter of perception, not of reality.
And how can we affect perception? By photography... Not by Pollyannaish Normal Rockwell fantasies, but by showing, honestly, how often good things happen.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Try and take a picture while you're inside the store. Better still, try to take two or three.
Cheers,
R.
paulfish4570
Veteran
Ooooooooooooooooh. i've done it without getting caught, roger. i'm guessing the corporate attitude is the result of the cottage industry of people videoing and shooting outrageously dressed/strangely behaving walmart customers, then posting them online. because of the demise of small, rural stores, country folk abound in walmarts in the hinterlands. it can be quite a show ...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Para 1: Fair enough.
Para 2: A classic example.
Para 3: Control. Everyone likes to be in control. But some people like to assert power through control of the trivial and irrelevant; or, perhaps, sometimes, because they don't want it exposed that their All-American, super-patriotic store sells mostly Chinese rubbish. Control freaks need to be challenged as often as possible. The unwillingness of some teachers to be challenged is, I very strongly suspect, the reason for the decline in debate and compromise. DO AS I SAY is the mantra of all too many teachers (I'm a qualified teacher, so I've seen this from both sides of the teacher's desk), and the infantilization of the population by treating them as children up to the age of 18 or more is very paradise for control freaks.
In my experience, many major art museums are perfectly happy with photography, and although they ban flash on the specious ground that it will damage paintings, that's fine by me because few things are more disruptive of peace and quiet, whether in a museum or in a restaurant, than some arsehole shooting flash.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Good on you! I've been approached, and told I can't take pictures, just for having a camera around my neck.The "outrageously dressed/strangely behaving walmart customers" logic is something that had not occurred to me, but it sounds feasible.
Cheers,
R.
paulfish4570
Veteran
i very often take a camera into walmart. i never have been approached. but then, my countenance typically does not brook interference. (i have mean little pig eyes ...) 
hepcat
Former PH, USN
So, in the context of illustrating conservatism or liberalism where do the images on PeopleofWalMart.com fall?
Ok... it is a rhetorical question. And of course they're all cell phone snapshots which makes the camera prohibition even more ridiculous.
paulfish4570
Veteran
you've got that right, hep ...
Cold
Established
While I tend toward a position left-of-center (at least socially, at least within the context of American politics), I'm not among those that seeks to undermine those who disagree, and in this case, I'm inclined to defend them, to an extent.
I think you'll find precious few Americans who label themselves as "Conservatives" would say that "things are fine". It may be more accurate to say that whereas the "Liberals" see government as a solution to the problems the country faces, the "Conservatives" see that same government as the root of those same problems. This is especially true (to my thinking) at the current time, where the oval office is occupied by a progressive. This makes it much easier for those on the other side of the aisle to lay the blame squarely on the government. Just a few years ago, when Mr. Bush sat behind the desk, the same contingent was forced to spread the blame a bit. When the House & Senate were predominantly democrat, they got the blame, when that wasn't the case, the blame shifted outward to various special interest groups.
This being said, the reverse is also true, and while Bush was in office, those on the left had the convenience of a single target for blame, and even things that Bush had nothing to do with were attributed directly to his administration, so it's not a problem that only works one way (though people on both sides would love to convince us otherwise).
As others have said, to produce photography that supports a conservative view, it might be easiest (and most intuitive) to expose the side-effects of the "liberal government overreach" that your progressive counterparts so often like to villify.
paulfish4570
Veteran
nice take, cold ... ^
hepcat
Former PH, USN
On reflection, Roger, you've hit exactly the crux of the discussion here: control, and that everyone wants to have it. Throughout history that has been the case. Dynasties of royalty have held power... for a while. Egypt, Rome, Spain, France, Great Britain, and the U.S. have all held power internationally and subjugated others in defense of that power. The Axis powers tried to forcibly wrest that power away. The Former Soviet Union held power for five decades, but the dynasties have all fallen to the need of the citizens to re-distribute wealth once it was collected in too small of a circle.
And it becomes even worse when strongly held religious beliefs are injected into politics... and the holder of those beliefs believes that it is his/her duty to project those beliefs onto everyone regardless of their beliefs. This, of course, is not a new strategy. It's been around as long as there have been religious beliefs. The political statehood of the Vatican fascinates me. Religion transcends political boundaries, yet the Vatican holds court, not representative of a political entity, but as a representative of a belief system, and in the most opulent surroundings imaginable.
Religious ferver in an attempt to hold an army (and subsequently an empire) together brought about the rapid territorial expansion of Islam under Mohammed; and the Crusades were intially engineered by the Pope and the King of France, and later continued by the Vatican to regain lands held by Muslims. The atrocities committed in the name of God and/or Allah are legion, and have all been done in the pursuit of control. The lists of atrocities and wars begun and sold in the name of religion are ashamedly long.
As democracies and republics around the world have welcomed more and more diverse populations, they no longer share a tribal commonality of belief. Unfortunately rather than seeking compromise in a fashion that is secular and benefits all, each argues that their beliefs (whatever they may be) should reign supreme. That leads to the ridiculous debates we have today in government.
How do we, as a democratic people living in a republic government, send a message to our elected representatives that those discussions must be free of ethnic and religious bias if we're all to co-exist under the same set of secular laws? If we don't make that a goal accomplish that goal, our future as "free" citizens is bleak.
Fascinating stuff.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
There is no doubt that the description in my post was an oversimplification and perhaps even an over-reach of the subject; however your post and mine taken together show clearly how labeling is ineffective and seriously inaccurate.
The problem here is that neither side has the market cornered on "government overreach" and both have strayed way into the territory that used to be coveted by the other. The ideological boundaries between liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans have become so gray and so transitory that there is now often little that separates them. And to make it worse, most of our office-holders don't subscribe to the platforms of the party from which they were elected. It's a mess.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Fascinating indeed, and I hope that I may build on your useful expasion of my thought with this:
How often is 'multiculturalism' everything but what it says? "Yes: we'll accept you, as long as you subscribe to OUR values." Skin colour? No problem. Sexual orientation? BURN THE HERETIC.
In other words, much alleged 'multiculturalism' is a pick-and-mix selection from the values of different cultures, but not necessarily the best values.
I have seen it asserted that the more essentially meaningless restrictions a religion imposes -- not eating beef or pork or beans (all are or were forbidden at one time or another); or eating fish on Fridays; or dressing a particular way; this reinforces the feeling of 'us against them'.
This is not in my book a good value, but it's quite good for controlling bodies of people: cf the War on Terror, or the War on Drugs, or the demonization of the working class so ably described in the book Chavs by Owen Jones. Some politicians clearly use meaningless distinctions, or worse still, (barely) plausible invented threats, to unite their constituencies.
Cheers,
R.
Cold
Established
Couldn't agree more. That being said, it works both ways on another spectrum as well: rather than looking at it as labelling by the other side, it's also worth considering the label applied to (or subscribed to by) the individual. It's human nature to want to feel like you're part of a group. I'd even go as far as to say that it's a survival instinct. But in these days (in areas where politics are a bigger concern than survival), this grouping translates from a direct approach to survival (effecting change in one's environment for physical well-being) to an ideological one (effecting change in the management of one's environment for philosophical harmony).
In this case, a group really lacks a purpose without something to oppose, so naturally, the energies of political groups are targetted against other political groups. In the case of American politics (I can't speak either way for the political environments of other countries), it has become a situation where the two established parties have learned to interact with one another in such a way that they make it exceptionally difficult for a third party to legitimately enter the political theater, thus ensuring their individual survival.
While I'm sure this rationale exists in some places, from what I've seen in America, it's more of an all-or-nothing mentality. Places that struggle with race equality also are places that make life difficult for the LGBT demographic, while places where multiculturalism is, in fact, the norm (obviously not 100% of people will support it, but it is the opinion of the majority), you tend to see more acceptance of LGBT individuals and populations.
I completely agree, though I wouldn't limit it to religion. Any group, gathered for any reason, can use ritual and conformity within the group (which contrasts the rituals and norms of that group's environment) to set that group apart from its environment and create a sense of identity among it's members. The greater the contrast, the greater the sense of identity & belonging. Similar forces are at work in most military forces, where the strict disciplinary structure, uniforms, adherence to tradition, etc. all reinforce that sense of identity. Also, it can be used to promote a feeling of negativity through the identity, as can be seen in, say, prisons, caste systems, or among slave populations.