A Rambling To Family Regarding The Embrace of Misinformation

I was sent a pdf scanned clipping of Dana Milbank's somewhat recent opinion piece regarding, among other things, Louisiana Republicans blaming the current president, Barack Obama, for the response to Hurricane Katrina's destruction more than George W. Bush, the president at the time the devastation took place.  I responded with essentially what is included below, with a minor edit to the first sentence to make it a little more readable.


The presumption of bad faith is a powerful thing, and seems very closely linked with the sort of team based, vendetta carrying dynamic.  In a specific person like the current president, this extends to Republicans and conservatives knowingly ascribing things to him that aren't so simply because it makes him look worse, or is something negative that can be tagged on him.  Some of this may be unconscious and due to misinformation on the part of outlets or leaders, but I think it's doing a disservice to people's knowledge of how politics works to say people don't understand that if they, themselves can spread the idea that something is Obama's fault that it will have the secondary effect of undermining not just him but those who voted for him and even those principles he is a stand-in for.

It's not quite apples to apples, but when accusations of NSA and DOJ abuses done under this administration are met with responses of well it was started under Bush, or waving it off as no big deal, that's defending the vanguard of our ideological position simply because we know it's important that leaders be protected so that they can advance things we do agree with, if at the cost of allowing things we disagree with in principle.

The mention of talk radio, I think, is notable because while there's no true liberal analogue to that group, the MSNBC of today is much more a reflexively liberal outlet than it was say, even ten years ago when it fired Phil Donahue for being critical of the Iraq War. The personalities on their shows are more likely to smirk and vaguely question the morality and intelligence of conservatives in a way similar to how talk radio hosts demonize libgressivecrats.  It's only natural that this has happened since these media outlets are in a constant battle for viewers and through that their lifeblood of advertising dollars.  Instead of seeking to challenge and inform a broad and diverse electorate they're seeking to affirm and enable a specific ideological cross section because that is a more reliable method of attracting and maintaining an audience.

All of this plays into the overall public discourse that happens not just on highly produced programs on Fox and CNN or the sophist's paradise of talk radio, but between family members and coworkers where we'll be unable to conceive of people legitimately having a different lens through which they view life.  Because of that we argue and try to convince others of our positions, essentially engaging in polemics we aren't articulate enough to pull off anyway, and often coming away feeling like we've damaged a personal or professional relationship, which just further burns our ability to have a functioning government and society.

I think a lost portion of this discourse at all levels is something that's not often discussed regarding classical philosophy, which is that we can have a conversation which is just as engaging and emotional as a polemic, but without the pitfalls of deepening our schisms since our form of government requires a certain fundamental level of cooperation and presumption of good faith on the part of others participating.

Scholasticism helped end the brooding hatred between Catholics and early Lutherans.  Dialectic was the manner in which some of the early 'greats' of philosophy communicated their ideas, such as the Socratic Dialogues.  While it's conceit to think any of our own minds are of a caliber matching that of these historical figures(or that there's some achievable shangri la kumbaya we must arrive at), I think it's a worthy goal to engage with those we disagree with in a way that challenges the preconceptions they may come to the table with from listening to their selected ideological media.


As always, if there are any who read this and have additional or contrary thoughts to add, please do so in whatever way you're most comfortable (email, comment, blog post elsewhere, whatever).

Intellectuals, Elitists, and Public Discourse

Elitists
In Intellectuals, I tried to discuss what aspects contribute to an individual being considered an intellectual both in their own specific area of expertise, but also more generally in society.  Those who believe another an intellectual think that person contributes invaluably to matters relating to that expertise and generally has a strengthening effect on whatever group they're a part of.  If enough people in broader society agree, the intellectual has either in some way affected society's opinion or is particularly good at articulating an already held idea.  Elitists, as a conceptualization, would be the nemesis of this ideal.  It's not that they cannot make points or even can think for themselves, but that they are somehow disingenuous, illegitimate or condescending.

As part of demonstrating where those on the other side are coming from with their rhetoric, Dominick played a soundbite of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell laying into President Obama for being anti-capitalist, anti-success and a litany of other accusations.  Pete was almost at a loss for words, saying he didn't know how to even respond to it and didn't know where it was coming from.

Before I get too much into the meat of the post, a couple observations which can also be found, and perhaps better articulated, on the Wikipedia page on Elitism.  A person considered to be elite is someone to be considered at the forefront or top of their field, for our purposes perhaps even an intellectual.  From the perspective of government or business policy, it stands to reason these people would be desirable, even critical to have input on the discourse surrounding these policies' development and implementation.  While a representative system of government is built to provide equal weighting of individual citizens' on voting and, through that, the laws and regulations of society, there's always been the well-founded idea that those who have the most working and/or intellectual knowledge of certain areas have a highlighted, amplified voice.  In a similar vein would be those people most directly affected by the discussion at-hand.  This isn't necessarily in conflict with the ideas of democracy, especially in accompaniment with a capitalist economic system which values and rewards the achievements and merits of the individual, but recognizing this balance is critical in making sure one principle doesn't outweigh the other.

This takes me to the other popular use of the term elite, along with it the derivative terms such as elitist and elitism.  I'm no scholar, though these terms are thrown about nearly exclusively in a derisive, scornful manner as a means of identifying someone who is not to be trusted, regardless the content of their opinion though it's very common for the insult to be directed at someone with an opposing viewpoint.  This is often because the speaker considers the accused elitist to be of some isolated and entitled, unworthy group which has self-identified itself and like-minds as the supposed masters of valid, serious perspectives in a given area of debate.  Religious leaders are moral elitists, judging from on high based on archaic documents with outdated notions of right and wrong written by flawed human beings with their own prejudice; academic elitists are wonks with no real-world experience in the matters they presume to speak; Hollywood and media elites feel they ought to have a weighted voice on any topic simply because they're already on the public stage for some superficial reason like they're attractive or can sing well or did an article this one time at that one paper about an actual expert.  These elitists also may have such characteristics as being duplicitous, racist, sexist, classist, statist, or some other type of disqualifying inner motivation which isn't stated by the elitists, themselves.  It sometimes seems as though if we were to take all of the accusations of elitism to be truth, there'd be no one left to give an opinion.

Less frequently there are accusations of elitism within shared opinions because of a pedantically expressed opinion.  The economist Paul Krugman, near-universally thought of as an elitist by those of a conservative stripe, is generally held in high regard by liberals/progressives for his perspective and insight.  However, he upset some readers of his in a comment section concerning the Occupy movement.  He made a post stating(paraphrased) that it was really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to come up with the things that are implemented in law, and that the things the movement want are clear enough.  This lead to some degree of outcry among people who might otherwise agree with him because of an understandably wounded pride that, essentially, the concrete actions taken by government should be handled by the adults and intelligent people who've spent perhaps years immersing themselves in the minutia of their respective expertise.  Defenders might say how can we be sure those people upset with him were even supporters of his upset at his style and were not, in fact, conservatives.  Regardless what label or ideology those offended attach to themselves, however, it speaks again to the frustration that a great many people feel on any given issue.  We are not all economists, but we all have an interest in the outcome economic policies produce.  We're not all military tacticians or experts in diplomacy, but the vast majority of people who end up spilling their blood in war or espionage aren't either.  There'll always be those who disagree or feel slighted by the outcome of public discourse, but in pursuit of encouraging an engaged and active electorate, those having spent their lives achieving merit in their field owe it to their own knowledge to do as much as possible to 'sell' their idea to the great audience of the world.  To ignore this, or worse, scorn needing to explain things in simpler or more identifiable language is to frustrate and enrage people who live in societies where the virtue of one person, one vote and the power of the common person is heralded as the paramount form of government.  Metaphors, talking points and personal anecdotes are powerful specifically because of this.  They allow complex issues to be articulated in a way much more readily identifiable to the people who ultimately, through nominations and elections, are those who legitimately operate the levers of public policy.

In summary, the pejorative 'elitist' could be applied to nearly any person asserting their opinion because another considers their input flawed in some way.  It behooves the accused to reconsider, reword, or otherwise try a different manner of communicating their idea.  Otherwise, they risk becoming a caricature who will do more harm than good to their own perspective.

Intellectuals, Elitists, and Public Discourse

This is the first of three entries on related concepts.


Intellectuals
After a discussion he had with Noam Chomsky, Pete Dominick(on his Sirius/XM program Stand Up!) wondered aloud and discussed with his producer why intellectuals aren't given the platform they once were, and much of the discussion revolved around the anti-intellectualism, cynical political framing of issues, and people being distracted and uncaring toward matters of politics.  I sent a couple tweets on the matter, among them "Chomsky and other intellectuals are not palatable because, in part, that inability to 'talk to the level' of the audience." and "It's not talking down inherently, but can easily come across as exactly that.".

To elaborate, I'm saying that for someone to be considered an intellectual by at-large society, they must not only be considered a luminary of the tighter community of their own background or chosen pursuit, but by the actual at-large community.  For this to occur, the person must be more than intelligent.  Their points and perspective must be coherently perceived by more than those people already in agreement.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a person who I would feel safe saying most people who recognize his name would say he is an intellectual, and if they know his field would also consider him a relatively trustworthy source of information and opinion on matters relating to, at least, his field and in some cases more than that.  To be fair, Tyson's field of expertise is generally one that doesn't lend itself easily to liberal vs conservative stereotypes, but much more important is his ability to communicate and connect with people.  He is enthusiastic and friendly, unoffended but assertive, he motions with his hands and is animated in his body language.  He also tends to not get caught up in necessarily using complicated words.  This is not to say he dumbs things down, or doesn't use large words or get into minutia for a point he is making, but in general I think his language, which is easy to understand and relate to, and his favorable disposition both contribute to people liking him and respecting him.  Is he the most knowledgeable person in his field?  Tyson would probably not say say so, anyway.  But that matters little in the broader perception and public acknowledgment of the points he makes and issues he weighs in on, because he is the person more people identify credibility with.  He might make arguments from more cerebral people and those arguments are bolstered from his style of communication.

Compare this with Chomsky:  Granted, much of what he addresses is political and also his target audience are people who've read his books or are otherwise already familiar with his perspectives.  He is cerebral, perhaps overly thoughtful for his energy, and does tend to also use a wide vocabulary and even jargon which the average listener or viewer or audience member, unless already familiar with the concepts he speaks of, isn't going to easily follow.  This isn't an altogether bad trait, as it can engender a better informed specific community in which he is held in high regard.  However, I don't think Chomsky is as effective as he could be or  held in as high a regard in broader society as he could be, and what has become the popularized way for public policy to be discussed in the media where aggressiveness and argument-oriented wittiness are the prized manner of discourse.

In summary, all of this isn't to say style and medium should overwhelm the content of the idea a person is attempting to convey.  Rather, they must both exist for the other to matter.  Good ideas only rise to the top when people are able to understand and effectively spread it to others. Further, perhaps as much as ever, our attention spans and programming demand an engaging and entertaining experience.  So if the leaders and spokespeople are not the best at not only energizing their own adherents, it only serves the best interest of the organization, the ideology, and ideally the public interest for there to be followers or like-minds to attempt to make an argument for the same thing but in a different way, to avoid misunderstandings and fundamentally just contribute another voice to the public discourse.

*Edited on 8/4/12 for better clarity

An Exchange on Civility

This post is found, in part, on this Republican subreddit entry.




The submission linked to an image which attempts to convey the indignation felt by the Republicans in this forum about arguing or disagreeing with liberals.

Since I'm not one to generally let stuff go without tossing out my thoughts on it, I posted a response which, unfortunately, didn't garner a response from the original poster of the picture.  It did, however, get me a little bit of anger from someone who read previous posts of mine and thought I was being hypocritical.  I'll attempt to do an effective job pasting in the exchange below.


My response to the post:

"For what it's worth, I've been told I'm a liberal though I'm enough of a hipster to dislike being put into any particular ideological brand and prefer to try to think pragmatically.

On that note, I do not hate all Republicans. I do not hate all conservatives, (L)libertarians, minarchists, Democrats, Greens, Constitutionalists or progressives or any other ideological or political affiliation. I would venture to say that I don't hate any of them, nor any individual person.

I hate discord. I hate apathy, antipathy, presumptions of malevolence and distinctions so bold and bifurcated that there is only right and wrong. Our method of government is one of those which puts on high the idea that we can discuss and, via rhetoric and not might, come to solutions for the real world problems we must face. Because there are supporters and people who believe in a particular policy, that therefore makes it a viable policy prescription, whether it be a federation of near-independent states or a massive federal arm with satellite states holding little power. Our government is what we make of it and the brass tacks is how we discuss the matters with one another and how we motivate the supporters for various positions to demonstrate their will in the political system.

I suppose that makes me, in some ways, a filthy free love hippie because I think civil discourse is preferable over polemic, and that no problem is one that we shouldn't approach in this way. I don't think it's a utopia for that to be the standard, as it's demonstrably obvious that it can be frustrating, grating and painful to have to endure the slowness and unpredictability that having free and open discussions in our society necessitates. Moreover, those who disagree with me are still my brothers and sisters in this nation, and that at most means we are adversaries. At worst we are opponents on a field that we both not only must, but should because we all were and are created as equals. You and I both have a vested interest in seeing our neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, regions and country do well.

For that I thank you and I will always make the best attempts to assume good intentions on the part of those who disagree with me, though I am significantly less than perfect in that regard."

User GeneralPudding responded with the following:

" I suppose that makes me, in some ways, a filthy free love hippie because I think civil discourse is preferable over polemic, and that no problem is one that we shouldn't approach in this way.

That's funny coming from a guy who, not just 5 days ago, wrote this:


We don't need to play their market games with boycotts to defeat the opinion and outlook of a person like Limbaugh. We don't need to actively splinter and divide his audience and constituency the way he does ours with fear, uncertainty and doubt. We don't need to compete. That's their values and tactics and methods. We can go on his turf, play by his rules, with half our brain tied behind our back and still win in rhetorical sport. Because we really are the ones that are right, and it's a matter of putting it in words and values and principles more people can understand and relate to.

so yeah, you like "civil discourse" and "free and open discussions", except when it's from talk radio conservatives like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity...."

The linked comment Pudding is quoting is from one I made regarding my opinion that while boycotts can be effective in some instances for affecting change, the outcry and subsequent advertiser pullouts from Rush Limbaugh's show in the aftermath of his fiendish remarks on Sandra Fluke would not ultimately be positive because they would only last as long as public attention was on the matter(which time seems to have borne out as true since advertisers have begun returning to his program) and more importantly, Limbaugh's listeners would perceive the boycott as an attack on conservatism, his rights and an insult to all of their opinions on women, regardless of whether these things are true or intended.  That comment is quoted entirely in the Boycotting Ideological Leaders post just put up a few moments ago.

In any event, I responded as follows:

"Ya know you're absolutely correct, I probably do engage in hyperbolic language and it's something I must try to keep in check. I try to account for my tendency to be 'overly passionate' or my screeds with such portions of my post as this, which you neglected to quote.

For that I thank you and I will always make the best attempts to assume good intentions on the part of those who disagree with me, though I am significantly less than perfect in that regard.(emphasis mine)

If it pleases you, GeneralPudding, I will explain my verbiage and I honestly don't think there's anything wrong or even offensive with what I said. However, if I was unfair or stereotyping with what I said, do point out my hypocrisies or contradictions so that I may learn from my generalizations.

First, for those who didn't click the link for whatever reason(or read my rather lengthy rambling, since I do tend to do that), the quoted portion of my post comes from a dissenting post in /r/politics regarding the boycott of Rush Limbaugh's advertisers. To summarize, I don't think a boycott of Proflowers/Carbonite/Legalzoom/Any-other-advertiser is the appropriate way to address Limbaugh's influence on the conservative dialogue, or via that, the Republican party and its priorities in our country.

From my perspective, it is admitting defeat in the rhetorical play-field which is our ongoing and perpetual national political discussion to resort to a boycott. I've met many a liberal/progressive who feel it's not even worth it to call into Limbaugh(/Hannity/Levin/Beck/Ingraham/Miller/I'm sure in this sub many of you have favorites and less-favored political commentators which you like or dislike for your own individual reasons) because 'the game is rigged' due to it being a conservative-run program which often does advertise for organizations such as Hillsdale College or the Heritage Foundation or other similarly minded outfits.

I say bullshit, and if 'we' are right, and by we I mean liberals/progressives/environmentalists/feminists/Democrats (again, I realize some of these broad groups do overlap with libertarians/conservationalists/conseratives/Republicans depending on a particular issue, but I am grossly generalizing for the sake of my ongoing rantble), then 'we' ought be able to find someone amongst our ilk which can operate on a level to 'hang with' those talented and high-paid personalities on the radio.

Sure, we've our own programs such as The Daily Show or Colbert Report, but those programs aren't watched by conservatives or Republicans the way they are liberals or Democrats(just like most libs or Dems don't actually listen to Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly but will observe the soundbites of the programs and will be utterly, totally, shocked by what they hear) and therefore the only way our ideological leaders(which aren't even our political leaders on either side, mind-blowingly) don't have much to do with one another aside from their respective listeners arguing around the water cooler, dinner table or construction site.

Instead(and here's where I finally start breaking down my comment quoted by GeneralPudding), we ought to demonstrate those values we are sometimes lampooned for in our approach to 'playing the very serious game and sport' of politics:


We don't need to play their market games with boycotts to defeat the opinion and outlook of a person like Limbaugh

Liberals don't need to, and really shouldn't, utilize the free market to express their contempt for the opinion and outlook of Rush Limbaugh. I realize I sort of addressed this point in an earlier paragraph. No, I'm not going to go back and edit my post because....just because I'm on a riff here, dammit.

We don't need to actively splinter and divide his audience and constituency the way he does ours with fear, uncertainty and doubt.

My personal opinion is that Limbaugh and other public figures of conservative media apply an all-too-combative tone to their rhetoric which is perfectly fine when it comes to discussing matters relating to people or organizations which are outside our own political environment. But when talking about things with our fellow citizenry? I think it's at the least poor form to practice such caricatures of liberals as malevolent forces seeking to do harm to others. But it's profitable via drawing many listeners, and more importantly, he and others on the air do absolutely make very strong arguments which listeners can then use in their daily discussions with liberal friends/coworkers/etc. *See the linked post for more on that point.

That's their values and tactics and methods. We can go on his turf, play by his rules, with half our brain tied behind our back and still win in rhetorical sport. Because we really are the ones that are right, and it's a matter of putting it in words and values and principles more people can understand and relate to.

This refers to, again, the polemic and pretty obvious(in my view) demonization of liberals on these programs which serves little for constructive public discourse of very important issues. I think it's just as unproductive as it is for Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann to smirk and say conservatives are stupid or heartless or malevolent for holding the views or positions on policy that they do.

Now to be sure, I'm sure there can be other quotes by me which can be found which belie my intent and positions. Read my various comments and I'm confident that you'll come away with an impression which is not that which is given by a selective quote, as many people like to say, 'taken out of context'.

Thanks for reading all of this if you did!"


Doubly so for anyone getting through all of that, and while I have yet to post the reason I feel the need to have a blog specifically for my own views on matters and views on the ways others in public express their views about not just issue but one another, it's probably becoming apparent that when it comes to having an opinion, I'm rather open to differing perspectives so long as a tenant of that perspective isn't to assume all those disagreeing are stupid or evil and must be conquered and scattered.

Cutting Our Hair, Flip Flopping and Evolving

Portions of this entry appear on this submission to the Republican subreddit.


Much has been made this past week over a couple things.  One is the current president's change to publicly supporting/endorsing what supporters call marriage equality and critics call gay marriage.  Another is an alleged incident in which former governor Romney, either assisted or encouraged by a group of fellow classmates, held down a long-haired man and forcibly cut off some portion of his hair.

Firstly, almost all of the outrage directed toward Romney for this incident has been focused through the lens of this man, John Lauber, being potentially gay and that was the motivating factor in this action.  For his part, the presumptive Republican nominee states that while he doesn't remember this particular he did do many things which were stupid when younger.  He also says that the sexual orientation of Lauber was not a motivating factor and in fact was not something even that was considered at that point in time. To play devil's advocate even if such language was used in reference to Lauber it doesn't mean those calling him that were anti-homosexual. At least in my own personal experience epithets such as 'fag' or even the use of the word gay has taken on a derisive, negative connotation in common parlance. Uses of the word, if they were in this case, may have been simply to harass Lauber simply because he was outside their comfort zone, outside their mainstream. Why it doesn't matter to me personally whether the supposed attack was motivated by Lauber's assumed or actual sexual orientation is because bullying is wrong and should be pointed out and stopped no matter what the rationalization is, and I hope if any message may be taken from this entry it be that. As far as the political side goes, if this story is true I think it extremely important for Romney to articulate how he has grown from that point in time and how he has come to be a more mature and accepting man either as a result of it, of his faith, or whatever catalyst in his own personal life which made that happen. To change one's opinion on this matter is an excellent example of a change in heart or opinion on a matter which is due to a maturation of an individual, and not one born or craven or cynical political posturing.

This leads me to the next point, which is President Obama's recent change in support for marriage equality, and some who characterize it alternatively as flip flopping akin to a position on regulations or an evolution or change in honest opinion by him.

To some, and unfortunately it pretty much goes 'both' ways on the ideological spectrum, any change in positions or opinions is deserved of the term. Conservatives and/or Republicans will say Obama's flip-flopping on things such as marriage equality or on matters of national security(and there are those especially among the OWS group that will actually say the same thing), and liberals and/or Democrats will say Romney's flip-flopped on things(and many of the more values-based and libertarian portions of his own constituency will say the same thing).

I don't think either of them are necessarily flip flopping. They may be changing their opinions cravenly for political expediency, or perhaps they had the newer position all along and the previous one was the cop out. Maybe he did it only because Biden and other administration officials had already let the horse out of the barn and it's a political face-saving gesture. Because it's so damn difficult to know what is actually in the mind and soul of someone, though, unless there's some sort of evidence which cements that a change was other than what is publicly stated to be the case, it's unproductive to muse about the 'true' motivations behind that change.

Evolving is sort of a sterile term for what many, if not all of us, do throughout our lives as we are raised, come into our own, and mature(at least in our own minds) in our perspective on issues that confront our heads and hearts. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a change of heart on a subject; even people sharing identical values and principles can have different interpretations on what those things mean in their application to the real world. What I'm disappointed with is that because there's the hostility to this and therefore our elected officials are very averse to changing their minds when confronted with different facts or something which challenges their position, or when they do they don't like to elaborate on the whys or hows or considerations they went through. This includes the recent change in publicly stated position by the current president on gay marriage/marriage equality. He went into it a little bit, but for as long as it's been discussed on the radio television and print, in campaign ads, and gatherings of friends family and coworkers, having too much put out there by a man who identifies as someone who has changed their mind on the issue is simply not possible.

As always, thank you for your time and your consideration of my thoughts and if you think we may benefit from a discourse, please leave a comment and we can engage to better understand the situation together.

Perspective On An Occupier Arguing With Sean Hannity

Posted originally to this Republican subreddit submission.


     I'm certainly not an organizer or even involved in OWS beyond occasionally posting in their subreddit, but Schultz seems to do a rather poor job being a spokesperson for the movement at least in this debate/argument. I could certainly try to say he was sought out specifically for this interview with Hannity because of his combative and condescending tendencies, but those're big positives for visible people in movements; get the most assertive and aggressive person who talks the most crap about those on the 'other' side because they'll energize like minded individuals. Unfortunately, that drives away people who are less inclined to agree and may very well come off as pedantic to those who disagree. Nobody likes being smirked at and talked down to.

     In any event, I'll do what I can to address some of the things brought up by these two men at least from my own perspective.

     With regard to the reliability of the NYT and FoxNews, I personally would put the former over the latter but only slightly. They're both top-down organizations disseminating ideas in a mostly one-way medium. Both have examples which can be pointed to as selective coverage, both have staffs which could be derided as biased. Ironically, while I think I might agree with some ideas of Schultz(that's a bit of an assumption on my part), his point of not needing someone such as Hannity I think is misplaced. While he might not fit this stereotype, I would wager he doesn't have a problem with Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher and, fundamentally, I don't see them as all that different from the man he's arguing with here. Talk Radio, Hannity's own background, I think actually holds potential for a lot more of what I consider a modern media interface, in that there is an ongoing dialogue between the audience and outlet. A good idea or point doesn't simply propagate on its own, and a good 'salesman' is needed to convey an idea in a way that is relate-able to others. That's the place these talking heads currently enjoy for very good reasons.

     On a similar note, ratings and circulation do not equate credibility or public need as each of these men seem to imply. It's just a rough estimation of how well these outlets draw, sustain, and engage their audiences. Our popular media demonstrates, for me at least, this does not always mean quality content but rather titillation and outrage.

     Capitalism isn't 'broken' nor is it not working 'anymore'. It was never perfect to begin with just as with any human institution. As such, we as the people living within this system must be willing to soberly look at the way it operates. Appreciate and protect the positives associated with it while recognizing and acting to mitigate the negatives because ultimately those will be the real threats to the long term sustainability of the quo, not the existence of alternatives. The point I would make to Hannity or Levin or Wilkow or any of the other conservative opinion-makers would be that it is not perfect, and that setting a society free in an economic sense does not necessarily mean it will result in a just and fair society. I listen somewhat frequently to the aforementioned programs and a very regular sentiment I hear is that free markets are a near panacea for problems, only generating problems, itself, when there's a government which favors particular companies or industries. I don't dispute government can and does screw that up, but it is not the root of all problems.

     Accusing the NYPD of being the reason there were assaults or rapes at their camp in Zuccotti or any other location is distraction just as much as attempting to point out the existence of such things demonstrates the more depravity of those who agree with some things OWS purports to stand for. Take the criticism that it exists, the tents were set up as corrective action for a relatively small number of people taking advantage of an environment not conducive to good keeping of the peace. I would argue that OWS as a whole does not want an all-you-can-rape lawless society and the existence of such problems is a terrible example of how a loosely organized(both ideologically and physically) group encamped for long periods of time whose prime interaction with law enforcement is one of aggression will involve more illegal behavior than one more tightly controlled and with a friendly interaction with legal authorities. Oh, and screaming 'shame! shame!' could certainly use a reworking 'cause that's not gonna engender any goodwill from police-men and women who really do share roots and and ideals with many of us all, regardless our affiliation or ideology.

     On that note, the last thing I'll say is something which many in this subreddit can probably identify with if you've attempted to posit your ideas or positions on /r/politics, and that is demonizing and sneering at those we disagree with is not the path to informed discourse, coherent policy, or good government. Thanks for reading all of that for those who did and if I said anything jacked up or ill-informed, please let me know and be specific so I can learn. The last thing I want to do is be spouting off inaccuracies.