As evidenced in last evening's presidential "debate," there's very little true debate on pertinent issues. Instead, what we are witnessing is an orchestrated psychologial operation designed to divide the public into camps, as opposed to unifying the American people behind valid political positions that will serve to further the wellness of the nation.
In no way can any important political position be articulated within the span of a minute's time. Furthermore, debate requires that opponents be allowed to properly question each other's positions in a way that is meaningful. The scripted, timed manner of such a disdoes not allow for prop rebuttal to matters of disagreement, reducing the entire event to a glorified job interview.
As a society, we've been programmed into accepting soundbite politics as opposed to well-structured, intelligent political arguments. In this way, very little critical thought is applied to any specific issue of importance.
While watching facilitator Tom Brokaw "moderate" the Presidential debate of last evening, it remains richly apparent the media has no desire to allow candidates vessels for articulating solid political positions. The sloganism of Orwell's texts has never been more apparent. Allowing such debates to be moderated by media figures is a laughable premise in itself. What credible qualifications does one who merely reports news events have in determining the framework of the debate? Manufactured talking points and false issues have no place in a debate. Even more troubling is the manner of dialectical context in which the debate is presented.
Those viewing the performance put on by Brokaw and the two candidates have little understanding of the nature of this superficial fabrication that's placed before them as valid political discourse.
Both of the selected candidates offered very little fact, a great deal of opinion and further obscufation of the true issues at hand.
We've wrongly learned to accept that which is put before us by so-called "credible" sources as holy fact.
If the American public wished to truly put Presidential candidates on the spot, to learn their true inclinations, we would be better served as a Nation to televise the candidates being asked hard questions by their actual constituents, in the absence of false media facilitation, and without hand-selection of attendees.
American Presidential debates are not debates on positions at all. They are merely opportunities for parroting divisive party platforms. Such illusions have too long been held by the American public to be credible methods of selecting a President.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Economics: Why the Debt Ceiling has to be raised
While the proposed Legislation that’s now passed the Senate and is moving toward a House of Representatives vote this Friday is laden with unnecessary regulation and several points which usurp liberties, the fact is the debt ceiling needed to be raised if Americans are to continue to enjoy a decent standard of living.
On one hand, accosting new federal powers should be lauded. There was little formal debate on many of the new powers contained in the bill, many of which should have been raised separately, if a truly prudent Congress was in session. The focus of the ire of patriotic Americans ought to be on this aspect of the proposal squarely.
However, it is quite unsettling that many are accosting the Fed and the US Government for raising the debt ceiling. This was a prudent decision on behalf of the entities that will ensure many Americans do not experience a rapid decline in their individual standards of living.
Under our current, debt-based monetary system, everything depends on the borrowing of currency and the public trust in the value of it. All Federal Reserve Notes are borrowed, so much for anyone’s argument about passing debt on to future generations. Such has been occurring for almost a century. Suffice to say the Republican argument implying this current generation of Americans has some sort of unique calling or responsibility to not pass debt on to the next generation is one that rings hallow. Via the hidden debt of inflation and taxation on a level that would have been considered as grounds for contemptuous admonishment by the Founders, our currency has lost most of its purchasing power and plenty of value, especially in the last decade.
If the debt ceiling is raised, that will enable the Treasury to issue more bonds so that the Fed may place more money into circulation. More money in circulation allows for payment of debts owed to other countries, earmarking for infrastructure projects, and money for business investors to borrow. As overhead costs are taking up a large share of employer’s budgets, there is less money to provide workers with wages. In a market where rising costs are resulting in rising prices, the workers’ money is worth less as a result. If this were allowed to continue, the continued rising prices would leave Americans with less substantial incomes to be able to afford less utilities, goods and services…right down to the point where workers must choose between paying one essential bill or another.
Americans have passed debt on to future generations since the inception of the Federal Reserve System; this is no secret to anyone with a passing interest in Economics. Most “money” is not in the form of cash, not existing as actual bills, but as ledger entries and commercial paper. More debt exists than there is currency to pay off, even if the entire economy turned in its cash to settle the debt. If the debt that has been passed on to us from generations passed, the point is moot in having an opinion the debt ceiling should not be increased. The increase in the debt ceiling is required in order for the average American to economically survive.
For one to question that fact, they must have a rather dim perspective of the realities of our current economic system.
On one hand, accosting new federal powers should be lauded. There was little formal debate on many of the new powers contained in the bill, many of which should have been raised separately, if a truly prudent Congress was in session. The focus of the ire of patriotic Americans ought to be on this aspect of the proposal squarely.
However, it is quite unsettling that many are accosting the Fed and the US Government for raising the debt ceiling. This was a prudent decision on behalf of the entities that will ensure many Americans do not experience a rapid decline in their individual standards of living.
Under our current, debt-based monetary system, everything depends on the borrowing of currency and the public trust in the value of it. All Federal Reserve Notes are borrowed, so much for anyone’s argument about passing debt on to future generations. Such has been occurring for almost a century. Suffice to say the Republican argument implying this current generation of Americans has some sort of unique calling or responsibility to not pass debt on to the next generation is one that rings hallow. Via the hidden debt of inflation and taxation on a level that would have been considered as grounds for contemptuous admonishment by the Founders, our currency has lost most of its purchasing power and plenty of value, especially in the last decade.
If the debt ceiling is raised, that will enable the Treasury to issue more bonds so that the Fed may place more money into circulation. More money in circulation allows for payment of debts owed to other countries, earmarking for infrastructure projects, and money for business investors to borrow. As overhead costs are taking up a large share of employer’s budgets, there is less money to provide workers with wages. In a market where rising costs are resulting in rising prices, the workers’ money is worth less as a result. If this were allowed to continue, the continued rising prices would leave Americans with less substantial incomes to be able to afford less utilities, goods and services…right down to the point where workers must choose between paying one essential bill or another.
Americans have passed debt on to future generations since the inception of the Federal Reserve System; this is no secret to anyone with a passing interest in Economics. Most “money” is not in the form of cash, not existing as actual bills, but as ledger entries and commercial paper. More debt exists than there is currency to pay off, even if the entire economy turned in its cash to settle the debt. If the debt that has been passed on to us from generations passed, the point is moot in having an opinion the debt ceiling should not be increased. The increase in the debt ceiling is required in order for the average American to economically survive.
For one to question that fact, they must have a rather dim perspective of the realities of our current economic system.
A Case Against Physical Conflict
Amongst libertarian thinkers, there is a profound division over the advantage of physical conflict as a method of resolving disputes. Many will point to the American Revolution as a justification for armed conflict, however the very nature of warfare has evolved, changed, become different.
Were the libertarians of today to believe such methods could be used successfully, they would certainly be in error. What we must give our attentions to is the idea that people should become well-educated. Our modern socitey has abandoned facts and the realities of our nature for an illusion of living. Instead of education, we receive programming. Our mental intake is largely entertainment-based. We've been afforded a valuable life, yet seemed predisposed in simply killing time.
As for armed conflict, the balance has tipped. While most Americans believe soundly in the Second Ammendment, our Founding Fathers could not have forseen the advances in technology and science which have now become reality. These are advances that can never be bested by rifles and small arms. In seeing that an idea of physical conflict is impractical from a practical standpoint, it should be noted that other contradictions exist within a libertarian argument for such conflict. We need to understand that such actions aren't a valid point of expressing our political opinion on the basis of principle. Such ideas are counterproductive to the goal of the libertarian, who must ensure that principles are accepted on the basis of moral validily, in keeping with the good and just nature of individuals.
Libertarian ideas must become widely accepted simply on basis of common sense based in fact. Those formenting opinions of aggression are none different than the very tyrants they claim to oppose. Such counter-productive oratory should be seen for what is, a perversion upon our ideals and a display of disingenuity which renders many of our principled arguments impotent.
Were the libertarians of today to believe such methods could be used successfully, they would certainly be in error. What we must give our attentions to is the idea that people should become well-educated. Our modern socitey has abandoned facts and the realities of our nature for an illusion of living. Instead of education, we receive programming. Our mental intake is largely entertainment-based. We've been afforded a valuable life, yet seemed predisposed in simply killing time.
As for armed conflict, the balance has tipped. While most Americans believe soundly in the Second Ammendment, our Founding Fathers could not have forseen the advances in technology and science which have now become reality. These are advances that can never be bested by rifles and small arms. In seeing that an idea of physical conflict is impractical from a practical standpoint, it should be noted that other contradictions exist within a libertarian argument for such conflict. We need to understand that such actions aren't a valid point of expressing our political opinion on the basis of principle. Such ideas are counterproductive to the goal of the libertarian, who must ensure that principles are accepted on the basis of moral validily, in keeping with the good and just nature of individuals.
Libertarian ideas must become widely accepted simply on basis of common sense based in fact. Those formenting opinions of aggression are none different than the very tyrants they claim to oppose. Such counter-productive oratory should be seen for what is, a perversion upon our ideals and a display of disingenuity which renders many of our principled arguments impotent.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Philosophy: The Force Of Natural Reason
Attorney General Randolph remarked to an unsightly-in-appearance Patrick Henry, who who had swayed the lawyer with truth.
"Behold the force of natural reason," said Randolph. "You have never seen these books; nor this principle of law; yet you are right and I am wrong. ...I will learn to never trust appearances again." (1)
This is the powerful statement quoted from which this effort has been named.
(1) "Thomas Jefferson - A Strange Case of Mistaken Identity" - Alf J. Mapp, Jr. Madison 1987
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)