What are your thoughts on technocracy?

razpotim · 2 months

You're using the term "technocracy" as if it has concrete meaning. My point is that it doesn't have specific meaning until you assign a specific set of rules to it. Otherwise you're just talking about a vague idea. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion about the idea of technocracy. You can only really discuss this topic if you put forward the equivalent of a constitution that would govern the technocracy in question.

razpotim · 2 months

It all depends on the specific rules and mechanics of the system. For example, "democracy" can mean a lot of different things, depending on how the system is chartered. There's a world of difference between American-style presidential democracy, in which the president might not have a real mandate to govern if the opposing party controls one or both houses of Congress, and European-style parliamentary democracy, in which the party which the prime minister can't take office without first mustering a majority in the legislature (whether through his own party or a coalition).

I like the idea of a data-driven, empirically based, scientific ethos guiding government, but without the proper checks and balances in the system, and without mechanisms for participation by all citizens, technocracy would be susceptible to the same kinds of abuses of power, and the same gradual tendency toward insularity, self-preservation, and corruption as any other form of government.

desmondo · 8 months

Obama shouldn't call it the "Buffett rule." He should call it the "Reagan rule."

For 6 out of the 8 years of Reagan's presidency, people in the highest income tax bracket paid 50% or more in taxes. Today the highest tax rate is 35%.

Wrap this needed tax increase up in the mantle of Reagan -- and dare the Republicans to criticize it.

Chlodwig23 · 9 months

Arrr.

Chlodwig23 · 9 months

Can you explain (for a non-scientist) what you mean about the Reynolds Number?

Chlodwig23 · 9 months

They're predicting winds in excess of 75 mph for where I live, so I was somewhat alarmed by this. But reassured when I read a more detailed version of the Beaufort scale here.

alllie · 11 months

Very heartening to see that r/politics is tearing this idiotic shit apart.

JonJingle · 12 months

source?

CalebTheWinner · 1 year

You've never been to the hot dog eating contest in Coney Island.

cheefjustice · 1 year

Of course they're not going to vote for Obama. But turnout decides elections. My point is that Bachmann will stir up hard-right voters by feeding them radical right-wing ideas that someone like Romney wouldn't necessarily touch. Then, when she bows out or gets knocked out and endorses the Republican nominee, the nominee inherits a bunch of highly vocal, motivated voters -- but in order to ensure their continued support he has to embrace some of the extreme ideas they've been hearing from Bachmann. This moves the Republican nominee to the right. And if the Republican nominee is endorsing, for example, McCarthy-esque ideas, then that gives credence to those ideas in the mainstream of American political discourse.

CalebTheWinner · 1 year

Yup. They completely distorted what he said.

Media literacy should be part of the curriculum in the US starting in elementary school. We need to start teaching kids from a young age to think critically about what they see, hear, and interact with on all the media platforms where they spend so much of their time.... so that by the time they become adults they're not susceptible to this kind of manipulation.

cheefjustice · 1 year

Note to self: Posts with unappealing headlines tend not to get upvoted.

cheefjustice · 1 year

Yes and no. For example -- someone like Newt Gingrich looks positively mainstream alongside Bachmann. So she can run, move the dialogue and the Republican platform even further to the right, and then tender the support of her fired-up base to someone like Gingrich. Or Romney. Don't dismiss her -- it's too glib and easy. The reality is much more complicated.

cheefjustice · 1 year

On a related note: When Sarah Palin read notes scribbled on her hand -- I think that was bait for pundits to make fun of her for being unsophisticated -- which only bolstered her support among voters who think Palin is "one of them" and that pundits are elitist, condescending, and out of touch with the lives of "real Americans." I think a lot of what Bachmann and Palin do is much more calculating than people realize -- sophisticated media strategies designed to get a rise of out news media and get themselves and their (heinous) ideas into the national conversation.

Crayonflashes · 1 year

I think your post was sincere, so I'll respond sincerely:

When FOX News is criticized for bias, its standard defense is that some of its programming is "news" and some is "opinion." Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are examples of the opinion side. Shepard Smith is an example of the news side.

Olbermann was never a newsman on MSNBC. He was always a provider of opinion. It wasn't a rumor that he was biased; it was something he and MSNBC freely admitted. For some it was a reason to watch his show; for others it was a reason not to watch.

You're right that Olbermann broke MSNBC's rules. But Beck did (and does) something much worse: He tells his viewers that they should buy gold, without revealing that he's on the payroll of a company called Goldline that sells gold. So whereas Olbermann violated a policy in the MSNBC handbook, Beck violated -- and continues to violate -- the trust of people who think he cares about them, just to make a buck.

But the problems with FOX News run much deeper than Beck's conflict of interest on gold.

The bigger problem is that FOX News is lying to its audience. Much of the content on both the news side and the opinion side of FOX News all feeds a larger narrative, telling us that the problems in America are the result of poor people freeloading off the system, greedy unions, foreigners taking our jobs away, Muslim terrorists, liberal elites, and so on. There's a lot of finger-pointing going on, but the one place the fingers aren't being pointed is at the real issue.

And the real issue is that our democratic, capitalist system, which for centuries has been one of the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, is no longer delivering "the greatest good for the greatest number." Rather, it's now delivering opportunity for a smaller and smaller number of people, and too many Americans are losing their grip on a stable, middle-class existence.

FOX News is a very organized, disciplined message machine telling its audience something they want to hear: that the people responsible for everything bad in the world are people they can feel superior to, people they can have some hope of vanquishing. It's a bigger version of what Beck is doing: taking advantage of people's trust, selling them something that benefits only the seller, not the people buying it.

If you have any doubt about FOX News's tight linkage with the Republican party, consider that four likely candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 are on the FOX News payroll: Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum.

FinSamar · 1 year

He's awesome.

NonAmerican · 1 year

The atrocities committed by Hitler's regime during World War II were and are unforgivable. But the guilt resides with the individuals who actively participated and with those who became complicit by failing to oppose what was happening, not with their children and grandchildren.

trappermark · 1 year

Luke, I am your filter.

cheefjustice · 1 year

Translation, please?

cheefjustice · 1 year

Remember that diplomats have to pick and choose their words carefully.
For the US to publicly call on a longtime ally to engage in a "transition" to Democracy and "dialogue" with the protesters is an acknowledgment that the protest movement is legitimate.

cheefjustice · 1 year

At the risk of stating the obvious (my specialty), this is a big deal.

cheefjustice · 1 year

I totally disagree. Bachmann and Palin are not dumb. This is all very calculated. It's a naked play to get people to trust them and mistrust other sources of information. People are angry and scared and don't know what to do about it. Palin and Bachmann et al want to show that they get what people are going through better than the "elites" do, so people will turn to them and trust them to lead. If they can muster enough political support to gain positions of greater power, that's a win. But even if they fall short, they win, because they can derive monetary benefit from their increased prominence.

Note that I'm not implying any kind of conspiracy or coordination between Palin, Bachmann, or anyone else... this is just the political calculation they're making.

NickDouglas · 1 year

Great piece.

cheefjustice

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login