Voter Disenfranchisement through the Media

Media here includes all forms of publications: Internet, advertising, TV, radio (and talk-radio), newspapers, email, snail-mail, posters & of course blogs - everything that communicates to a voter.

Civil libertarians, judges, lawyers & media scream loud when they think that some demographic can't vote or that some people's vote doesn't get counted. I say there is no bigger outrage than to not know for whom & for what you are voting. Who nowadays can pick the wheat from the chaff, the truth from the sea of lies that are spread by all forms of media & advertisements about candidates for offices & propositions on the ballot? I say that this situation must surely violate some law or the Constitution itself. Free speech is a right. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not! Shouting lies, half-truths, and distortions election time must not be either!

It's time for the people to take back the truth!

When you indulge in the RWG [see: tag rwg], writing blogs in the political arena or otherwise, you are just a megaphone for the cacophony & shouting ! You are part of the problem!

Comments

Mark de LA says

The picture is credited to Chris Achilleos & slightly altered to make a point. You can find the original as a poster at url http://www.allposters.com/ search for the word dragons.

Mark de LA says
I feel quite compelled to elaborate that it is not my faculties of analysis, but the sheer volume of advertizement & crap that assaults my senses & other parts of my brain that makes the task of finding out the truth during an election intolerable. I should have to spend all my waking life devoted to the task & then could still end up fruitless. This means, that as a practical matter, that I must rely on somebody else to do the job - somebody I can trust. But, such a situation returns back to the original problem. There is nobody to trust more than myself - nobody that has values closer to mine than myself.

Anyway, here are some lights flashing at the end of the tunnel for me:

Prosecute & remove anyone whose campaign is determined to have lies in it. Remove them from the ballot if discovered early enough.
Restructure the electorial system so that it works better - the electors don't really do anything in a general election.
More debates - well structured with enough time to answer all the questions in depth. More real interaction with an audience during a debate.
Higher qualifications for candidates & incumbents (not just a million signatures on a petition).
More internet information about the candidates - like NPAT + character (values) exposure.
Interaction between the forums for debate & say talk-radio or the internet. Get the conversation going in a nice feedback loop.
(controversial) - create & inforce a set of qualifications for voters. If you don't know what you are voting for then the impressions left by the unelected advertizement & the media pundits are doing your voting for you!

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-10-25 10:38:03 4760

M 2006-10-24 07:31:32 4760

... it is not my faculties of analysis, ....that makes the task of finding out the truth ... intolerable.

   In this comment I was merely point out the fact that there is too much shit out there. I created the group UnhackTheBrain to help solve the problem. It's task is not finished - I don't have all the answers, yet. When I am not playing the RWG I can move in the direction of a neutral position (or a Zen position.) Studying the Yi has helped a lot because each hexagram has many different points of view under the same condition. There is also the change from the old (Yi Jing) to the new Book Chameleon from the point of view of the Age of Michael.
   I like the idea of parsing out the content from the comments & saving that in a dabase by various different indices - then putting it into a pull instead of a push retrieval system.
   Thanks for asking

Seth says

M 2006-10-25 10:55:42 4760

seth 2006-10-25 10:38:03 4760

M 2006-10-24 07:31:32 4760

... it is not my faculties of analysis, ....that makes the task of finding out the truth ... intolerable.

In this comment I was merely point out the fact that there is too much shit out there.

Yeah i got that there is too much shit out there. But it was the other aspect of your statement to which i directed my concerns. Our comments crossed as i was reediting mine to focus more completely on my questions to you.

Seth says

M 2006-10-24 07:31:32 4760

... it is not my faculties of analysis, ... that makes the task of finding out the truth ... intolerable.

But when you have conflicting information and (more importantly) conflicting paradigms, how do you determine "the truth" ? Do you have some method that allows you not just to seek your own biases? Or are you saying that you have no biases, or do you just assume that your biases are "the truth" ... or is it something else? I know that I cannot read for a better truth and ignore my own biases. Are you saying that you can do it? What am i missing here?

Just to cut to the chase here: I am saying that I (nor you, nor anyone else) can find a truth better than the one that emerges in their single mind. That truth must needs be colored by the biases of that single mind. Coded that way the solution of finding a better truth is obvious: look for that better truth through multiple (perhaps divergent) minds. Two eyes are better than one ... three eyes are better than two... etc.

It seems to me that you are implying that you have something that makes the physics of the situation that i have described here quite different. Again, what am i missing?

Mark de LA says
Well, Seth I don't subscribe to the notion of better or worse truths nor the notion that truth is relative. I don't subscribe to the notion that there is my truth & your truth. Truth is consistent & has the property of continuity when seen from all viewpoints.

Seth says

M 2006-10-25 11:02:47 4760

Well, Seth I don't subscribe to the notion of better or worse truths nor the notion that truth is relative. I don't subscribe to the notion that there is my truth & your truth. Truth is consistent & has the property of continuity when seen from all viewpoints.

Ok, and do you have access to that "the truth" ?

Mark de LA says
Another thing that helps the process is to withhold judgement & stay in the inquiry about what is true in a situation until you have it all. Others' points of view & questions raised helps. Rejecting bullshit is also helpful!

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-10-25 11:05:02 4760

M 2006-10-25 11:02:47 4760

Ok, and do you have access to that "the truth" ?

Everyone has access to some of the truth. Everyone pretends sometimes that they have it all. Everyone sometimes pretends not to notice the truth & prefers a lie instead. I am still evolving & I hope you are too!

Mark de LA says
P.S. The study of mathematics is one realm where you can have all of the truth about some of the problems, but not all of the truth, yet, about all of the problems.

Seth says

M 2006-10-25 11:09:40 4760

Everyone has access to some of the truth.

Yes on that we can agree.

Now can we agree that: (some of the truth) + (some of the truth) = (more of the truth) and is not more of the truth a better truth than some of the truth ?

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-10-25 11:15:56 4760

M 2006-10-25 11:09:40 4760

Everyone has access to some of the truth.

Yes on that we can agree.

Now can we agree that: (some of the truth) + (some of the truth) = (more of the truth) and is not more of the truth is a better truth than some of the truth ?

We need to get back to the topic (remember Voter Disenfranchisement through the Media) or clip this out & put it on a node about the truth.

Increasing the amount of truth doesn't change the quality to better anymore than increasing the amount of shit in a pile of shit makes the shit any better.

I don't think there is a good truth or bad truth or better truth or worse truth or superior truth.

Mark de LA says

I think that the jist of the problem is the ratio of crap to real substance (truth & knowledge) tends to infinity during an election cycle.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-10-25 11:32:33 4760

M 2006-10-25 11:21:19 4760

Increasing the amount of truth doesn't change the quality to better anymore than increasing the amount of shit in a pile of shit makes the shit any better.

I don't think there is a good truth or bad truth or better truth or worse truth or superior truth.

Well yes i agree, truth does not quantify like shit. But i can give you examples of some truths that are better than other truths:

Where Sn are statements which agree with the facts.

Truth A: S1
Truth B: S2

A truth better than truth A andor truth B is: S1 and S2.

That is just traditional logic.

more is NOT better!

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-10-25 10:56:24 4760

M 2006-10-24 07:31:32 4760

... it is not my faculties of analysis, ... that makes the task of finding out the truth ... intolerable.

This is actually off-topic & should be deleted by Seth's rules!

T. Ruth says
Perhaps you are confusing truth with knowledge. The more knowledge the better is a reasonable idea.

Mark de LA says

Mark 2006-10-26 08:09:55 4760

And now there is also Google Bombing according to the NYTimes. It's the practice of sticking a lot of articles to pop up first in a google search.

Notice that the left can't win on their ideas at all. Their whole agenda is a big ZERO - which leaves them ad hominem attacks & negative campaigns. This guy asserts that

Mark de LA says

That's ~ $12 for each person in the population of the US. I can't find the actual turnout yet, nor how many of the dead voted!

Mark de LA says

M 2006-11-13 11:59:33 4760

More now than ever it is absolutely necessary to take back the truth from the media of all kinds. You voted for something (maybe). You probably got something else, & a third thing is probably going to happen based on what the media drums up in the way of momentum from exit polls & their own agenda.

Onward flushgov.net !

P.S. Exit polls & other polls are the media's way of telling whether they have gotten their message out.

Mark de LA says

According to statistics I found in Peggy Noonan's column approx 56 million voted so that means that ~ $64 was spent for each vote. Next time give me the money directly!

I wonder how much those glossy campaign material brochures cost that I threw out automatically.

Seth says

M 2006-11-13 14:09:23 4760

Next time give me the money directly!

Does that mean your vote is for sale?

JJ says

seth 2006-11-13 15:23:40 4760

M 2006-11-13 14:09:23 4760

Next time give me the money directly!

Does that mean your vote is for sale?

No. just give me the money instead of glossy bullshit.

Voter Disenfranchisement through the Media

Tags

Comments

more is NOT better!

See Also