I wish I could delete errant posts. That would go a long way towards fighting ignorance on my own part.
You’ve brought up interesting questions re: the details of that type of system. It’s fun to think about the potential harms of the system because that’s easy to do. IMO, the most fundamental argument against my proposal is that not everyone needs it. However, some clearly do.
In the course of thinking of the problems of my proposal, you may have missed the point of it. Either that, or you think the point is so obvious that it shouldn’t need to be taught.
A few other posters in this thread have touched on issues that my proposal trys to fix. In specific:
Again, I hate to go on a tirade of the injustices of the white man, but if you’re going to impose a culture on a group of people (native americans) for material purposes (large blanket statement), then what is the real harm in imposing a cultural view on your own citizens? I can see that there are large points of contention here, but my proposal (not that it was serious; clearly idealistic) would rest of a foundation of consensus that the information being taught is the right thing to do.
I have a proposal to solve this problem. This is really on the outer edge, but drastic problems call for drastic solutions.
Now, I know none of us like to pay taxes. But we have to bite the bullet and solve this problem. I propose that we set up a taxpayer-funded series of institutions, in every neighborhood in the country, whose sole purpose will be to fight ignorance in children. Because they will be taxpayer-funded, admission will be absolutely free to every American, rich or poor, regardless of race, color, or creed.
Instruction in these institutions should be entrusted to a cadre of trained professionals who themselves will be required to have college degrees in both the subject they are teaching and in the latest pedagogical techniques.
As a last resort–I know I’m straining plausibility here, but bear with me–I propose that attendance at these instruction centers be absolutely mandatory, five days a week, seven hours a day, nine months out of the year, for every American child.
What’s that? We’re already doing all of that?
Oh. Never mind.
If you really want me to try to answer these questions, let me know. I would assume that most would think of their own ways to enforce this policy. I didn’t answer your questions because I’m assuming that your line of argument focuses on this policy being simply unworkable given our current social environment with respect to how we treat un-wed mothers (MY FOCUS; or any women that could become pregnant, as you noted in your exaggerated argument).
Clearly a simple solution would be that enrollment in these classes is initiated during pre-natal exams.
Funny post. Too bad the problem isn’t the children, but the parents IMO.
An assumption in some of the posts in this thread is that this 24% of people who believe that Iraq used chemical or biological weapons, are people who don’t follow international affairs closely. Other posters have suggested that a large fraction of them might be people who usually don’t vote.
However, this other poll, by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland seems to offer a different picture. Among their results,
So far, these numbers are similar to the above-mentioned poll in the Washington Post. However, in the press release, there are further details:
I am not sure what to exactly make of these numbers. Perhaps some people who supported the war are not being fully honest in answering this poll, or perhaps this being a very charged topic, some people unconsciously accept better the news they expect to hear (e.g. a false positive on WMDs), than the ones contrary to one’s expectations (e.g. the subsequent refutation). My point is simply that on very charged topics, positions that are factually wrong, are not necessarily the result of just lack of interest.
Eolbo, you didn’t get my point. It isn’t about whether the BBC is better than US media. It may or may not be. The point is that the evidence you gave for this is questionable at best.
Rather than making sure that US media is fair and balanced–by your standards–we should be training people to think critically about the news they do see. If you had thought critically about the story you gave, you probably wouldn’t have given it as evidence that people don’t think critically about the news.
I agree most with these views.
We live in a society that protects the freedom of the press. Yes or no? Most people would say yes, and move on. Does that “freedom of the press” guarantee that we will be informed? Iow, do we just trust the media to inform us of important details about our world? Well, do you just trust your school to teach your child everything he needs to learn?
Take it another step further. Who runs the media, the mainstream media, that we use to become “informed?” These companies are run by millionaires who like to keep the status quo. I think it’s safe to say that a rich person isn’t in favor of rocking the boat and changing our government. They’ve gotten rich in this system, and surely they want things to stay the same.
When it comes to foreign policy, our government favors the approach of stretching out our nation’s tentacles throughout the world (globalism) and making sure the world is free – free for commercial trade. Major corporations favor and push for this type of activity. Iraq is a pretty sweet piece of real estate, whether you think the war was fought for good reasons or not. The bottom line is that we have an oil-producing nation in the heart of the Mideast under our control.
When a war like Gulf War II is coming, who is reporting on this? The media, run by large corporations, who see an advantage in taking over Iraq. If something is “good for the country,” usually that statement is coming from someone who likes the status quo, and who is getting rich on the status quo. CNN, FOX and, to a little lesser extent, CNBC, acted more like cheerleaders than independent media. “Embedded” newspaper reporters basically got their news fed only from the U.S. military point-of-view.
The result often was that we’d be told that Americans are making WMD discoveries in big, huge stories. And, then, when that proved to be bogus, the followup report was quick and dirty, relegated to a few seconds on TV, if at all, and to the back pages on the newspapers.
You would have thought, by the way the media reported the war, that WMD were figuring prominently in the equation. They were not. Meanwhile, few if any protest opinions ever were allowed in the news, other than to report what some actors were saying in order to discount their views altogether.
Think about it. Why not have an anti-war person on TV at some point during this? Well, basically, the networks’ defense would go something like, “Their points were irrelevant since the war has begun.” But, that means you never get a different point-of-view, just because the “war has begun.” Pacifists might be able to come on and say, “Hey, you’re not reporting all that’s happening. You’re looking at it all from a narrow point-of-view supported by the establishment.”
Well, we can’t have that. Not if we want to maintain the status quo.
So, what do we end up with? A nation that sees a narrow range of opinions, and those opinions help shape the conservatism that the establishment needs in order to keep the status quo.
Heck, many posters here simply accept that the war is over. Why? Because the media reported that it was over. They had a big old party in Baghdad, with only a few hundred people in attendance, and declared that democracy and freedom won out. Then, Bush made it official with a speech.
In reality, it’s a mess in Iraq right now. U.S. soldiers are dying about as often as they did before the war was declared over. Looting is running rampant. Iraqis feel much less safe now than before we took over.
But, where’s the news coverage on this? Why aren’t we over there covering the aftermath of our agression?
Ask yourself why.
The masses will always be the masses. That is why our founding fathers came up with the delegate system of voting and selecting presidents. They had little confidence in the ordinary man acting intelligently and being informed adequately to actually be in a position to select their leader…intelligently.
Although I love Jay Leno’s Jaywalking segment, it is extremely disheartening to witness the incredible ignorance and stupidity of the general public.
I don’t know what the solution is. Posters previous to this one have some good ideas and I salute them. My own personal consolation is that man has been stumbling along for millenia the way he is and each successive generation has lamented the ignorance and laziness of the current societies younger members.
Go to other boards where members swallow every urban legend, exaggeration, and whatever they heard in a bar, and introduce them to cites, facts, snopes, etc. In one ranting abortion thread on another board, I actually got several ranters to recant claims they were being roundly applauded on, just by posting links to conflicting info and asking them where they got their info. It’s like they’d never questioned or been questioned before.
I’d say the problem is, we’re too happy in our shell. We’re secluded by an ocean from Europe, and everything seems far away, unimportant. We’ve been taught to glaze over everything that we don’t think matters. I’m the sort of American who’s incredibly involved in foreign relations, events, etc… so I’m not a good judge for those who aren’t. I can’t possibly imagine not caring about the people dying all around the world for no good reason. I’ve found I can educate some, on-line, and I have been able to do so. Truth is, most don’t want to pop their bubble. Self inflicted ignorance striking an entire country, really. How to solve it? I’m not sure. I don’t think it could be, without a drastic event. And Sept 11, while reasonably drastic, believe it or not, did NOT affect the entire country. I don’t want people to die. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not advocating violence in any way shape or form. I don’t think bombing the US would be a good idea. Changing the media wouldn’t work. People would stop watching. Perhaps better education in schools… I, also, was not taught about Vietnam. Or anything past WW2. Or even a lot about WW2. Or WW1. We really didn’t go over it. I imagine that’s because of the political correct jargon.
I don’t think it’s just the US, however.
<mini hijack/example>I was talking to someone the other day, who, while refusing to speak of where he was from, only saying it wasn’t the US, was incredibly ignorant. About, well, just about everything. Saying Canada won WW1 and 2 by itself. 0.o Haven’t figured out where he picked that idea up, it was the first time I heard such a thing. He was also saying various other crap statements, but I’ve forgotten most of them.</mini hijack/example>
I’ve found that the majority of people are stupid. And they like being stupid. I’m not sure how we could get people to stop inflicting ignorance upon themselves, and pull their hands off their ears and eyes, without changing that.
Perhaps if people stopped telling their kids that politics don’t matter. Or that things will end up the same regardless of what you do. I thought politics were pointless until I moved near a military base, and started hearing about what was really going on. Most of the country has no idea. Because they like it that way. How easy it is to believe the world is peachy. Few know about N. Korea’s death camps. Few knew about Iraq and the torture that was going on. (which I’m only mentioning because it was awful, not alluding to the war). People don’t like thinking about these things. They don’t want to hear about it on the evening news before they eat dinner. It’s not pleasant, so they block it away.
Sorry for the long post, this is a subject I feel strongly about.
I find that I can watch the news regularly and still not know much about current events. There tends to be little depth to stories presented on most newscasts and a focus on “fluff” pieces. On the other hand, news sometimes focuses on such minute details that it can be just as frustrating as no depth (i.e., the “Hey! A camel just went by!” reporting during the war).
The news that I feel that I do get the most out of is on NPR – it is a better mixture of straight reporting of some stories with in-depth coverage of others.
Another problem that I see is some people at some times in their lives just can devote as much time to being up on current affairs. This doesn’t necessarily make them “dumb” but rather reflects another set of priorities. I would love to know more about current events but I only have 24 hours a day, much of which I’m spending either at the hospital or studying. I love learning but when it comes to my few free hours I sometimes choose something more fun than learning about particular world events.
Anyway, GD scares me a bit so I’m going back to lurking now.
The Founding Fathers didn’t have a monopoly when it came to intelligence. They happened to be the “ruling class.” That doesn’t mean they didn’t believe they were better. I’m sure they did. They were definitely more educated than the average person in their time, because they had money. Because they were the ruling class, they had a vested interest in not allowing the average person too much power, as do today’s elite. Heck, today, how much money do large corporations give to finance the campaigns of the two ruling parties? Who do you think our nation’s leaders are listening to? Not you or me. So, why should the average American care who is in office? And, therefore, how much political influence do you think the American person feel he or she has?
Here’s an interesting perspective, from historian, author and WWII veteran Howard Zinn.
I believe the real problem with western media is that they have perfected their storytelling so well that they all present the news in such a way that the average listener walks away believing he is well informed. That he’s heard both sides, that in just a few seconds he has digested enough of the issues to really be able to decide who is in the right. Little realizing they are being lead around by the nose.
At least in countries where the press is strickly controlled the populace learns to read between the lines and recognise the party line when it’s being shoved down their throats. Not in the west, Americans seem to have no idea that what they’re being spoon fed might not be the whole story or might be skewed by someone’s agenda.
I think we should set up a department of truth, what the hell, we pay enough taxes. Someone above reproach, not elected appointed and well funded. No opinions expressed. When a politician says he’s balanced the budget, well, maybe not quite in the eyes of the Truth Minister, who’ll tell us what trick he’s used to make it appear he’s balanced the budget. Claims to have created thousands of new jobs? Here’s how he made it seem that way. Sure it’d be really depressing at first but we’d all get a lot smarter in no time.
Just think of all the statistical references that would suddenly be relevent if they were only footnoted so you could know the truth.
Now I know that pure truth is a pretty lofty goal, I’d be willing to settle for one person I could trust doing his best.
I think this speaks to our education system. People need to learn, early on in school, how to think critically. How to use reason and logic. And, they should question authority, when reason dictates, but instead we are taught not to question authority. Maybe that can partially explain why Americans were quick to support a war in Iraq, justified with WMD that apparently don’t exist, or if they do exist, are in short quantity and were never a threat to our safety. And, why people simply accepted Bush at his word on most everything.
This is a very good point. Since our press is “free,” people assume the truth always comes out, or at least versions of it, most of the time. When you’re already busy trying to make money and raise your family, who has time to research the facts on their own in order to ensure the media’s giving an accurate depiction of events? Few do take the time, and few would think they would need to take the time. We have freedom of the press, why should we bother?
As for a solution, I’m afraid there’s no easy one, other than people would have to all decide to take the time to search for the truth. Accomplishing that would take a huge P.R. campaign that only Big Money could finance, and they have no interest in providing the masses the means to check out what they’ve been doing while they’re running the country.
First of all, the idea that most Americans are sheep who simply uncritically accept what the leaders tell them is ludicrious on its face. It is simply flat out untrue.
Why would someone post something that foolish? Well, because most Americans don’t agree with them…and anyone who doesn’t agree with them MUST be an idiot! By definition!
Do you all REALLY believe that Americans are more sheep-like and docile than, say, Europeans? No, of course not.
This is just more pseudo-elitist posturing and mental masturbation. Take your so-called critical thinking and apply it to yourself for once. Analyze yourselves the way you analyze big business or the media or government. What vested interest do YOU have believing that the average human being is a natural slave? What benefit does it give YOU? I can think of several reasons that someone might chose to believe these things. Very few of them are flattering. Yes, everyone else is an ignorant sheep, but you are a beautiful enlightened flower of compassion.
Uh-huh.
Thanks for the cites Eolbo. That is shocking stuff:eek:
Maybe I should hang around great debates a bit more often.
I suppose we can all agree that the quality of US media is not that great, but we should not blame the media for the ignorance. Media content is ultimately determined by choice of the people. The underlying cause must be the education system.
I am the first to admit that I am not familiar with the US education system. From previous posts there is obviously a problem, and I bet that this is a reflection on a poor education system - I agree with Clucky. With a large population, sure there will be a large number of mouth breathers, bottom feeders and flat heads. Similarly there are many brilliant US people - eg Cecil :). Problem is the proportion of ignorant populous is so high.
This also suggests that the quality of education has been poor for a while, since ignorance has pervaded the whole society. So what is it with the US education system? Are teachers paid poorly? Is there too much of a focus in things US, without learning about the rest of the world? Is critical thinking neglected?
How about a cite on that? As you look down your nose at the US, how exactly are you defining ingnorance?
Wow! If I wasn’t thick skinned, I would most certainly take offense at that last comment. I also ask for a cite. A few surveys regarding current events does not exactly scream that ignorance has pervaded our society!