h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've had government class. I know that Bush does not have supreme power. I don't want or try to convince others that he does. The US political system is not half bad. BUT, in the current mindset of the nation, Bush has much more power than usual, particularly when it comes to the so-called "war on terror." Patriotism is being used to manipulate public opinion, just as Caesar used it when he was Emperor of Rome. (I am not saying that Bush is anything like Caesar, only that his use of patriotism is similar.) If you don't support the war, you're obviously not patriotic. Those who speak out against it can be taken down with that arguement, because there is no solid anti-war movement yet, and thus those who speak out don't have the strength in numbers that the "patriots" do.

As for public opinion, that is part of the problem. The pubilc is uninformed about the truth. They take what the media feeds them, and don't seek for themselves. I'm not saying that the media feeds the public lies (although they do at times), only that the media feeds the public that which sells. Hype sells, horror sells. If the media dubs Afganistan a nation of terrorists who could strike again at any moment and must be eliminated, people will believe them because they are afraid it might be true. People are stupid that way. If the media tells them that the war against Iraq is because Saddam is a madman who has weapons of mass destruction at his command, people will believe them because they want it to be true. We don't know the truth of whether or not he has WMD's. Some say that the war is only about oil. Others say that we put Saddam into power, and now that he no longer suits our needs, we are going to remove him. Public opinion is not to be trusted, and public opinion controls those other layers of government that you say compromise Bush.

Go do some more research, and learn all the perspective that are out there, not just your favorite.

I still haven't been pointed to anything convincing about a lack of presidential power.

Speaking of media. American "news" I've seen is scary. Not for what it shows but for what it dosen't. Everything looks official line and just like every other American "news" report. It doesn't look that free.

Believe it or not the three US tv networks (CBS,ABC,NBC) still aintain a fairly distinctive interpretation of events in line with the political views of the corporations that own them.

Tonite for example, in regard to the ongoing hunt for the Washington Area Sniper:

One said, the cops are back to square one because the PUBLIC gave false witness in their eagerness to stop this "terrorist". Nothing the 'people' have said is of any use and they probably only wanted to get on TV.

The second used their camera to demonstrate the focal length of the distances involved to show how hard it would be to recognise a shooter one hundred or two hundred yards away, and then, said police were agonisingly searching files of 'digruntled US servicemen and retired police-officers with sniper training'.

The third focused on the miraculous survival of the teenage boy who was gunned down on day one but is now said to be recovering, and then, sympathised with all 8000 area tradespeople and others who own 'white vans' who are constantly being stopped by cops pointing shotguns, arrested and searched. Apparently, angry citizens are also eye-balling anyone in a white truck.

FOX? I never watch FOX!
But the BBC World News was optimistic the sniper would be found as soon as he made a mistake.
And Canada's CBC keep going on about a new Canadian technology that 'fingerprints' bullet markings to identify the gun . Police in Washington are using this technology BUT ONLY to match the bullets to each other, because the lack of gun registration in the US means the weapon would not be on file anyway.


BTW: the election results in Iraq confirm Sadman Who'sane for another 7 years by a 100% vote. This is up from 99.96% in the last election probably due to the unfortunate deaths of the .04 who voted "NO" last time.

~jwf~

okie I should point out that most of the american news reports here are international rather than american-domestic news.

The US TV media is appalling. It is an excercise in self-cencorship. All that it seems to do is toe the line. For example, when Al Gore made a speech that questioned Bush's obsession with Iraq over the economy (see this weeks Onion by the way) it just wasn't reported. When Ari Fliescher (White House Press Secretary) was asked to respond to it he declined because he didn't think anyone paid any attention to it!

At the moment on CNN they have a studio set up all ready and waiting for war. They have 5 huge video screen of maps of Iraq, annotated with rivers, cities, no-fly zones, etc., and one screen emblazoned with "CONFLICT: IRAQ". Two commentators are sitting, dwarfed, amongst these screens talking about the potential for war with straight faces. All it needs for a full-on media/war feeding frenzy is for the words on the screen to be changed to "IRAQ II: UNFINISHED BUSINESS".

Fox is just a joke, and needs nor deserves any further comment.

Saying these things though, it is worth pointing out that the press in the USA isn't half bad. There are several major newspapers that do a good job of reporting the news and raising questions when they are needed (The New York Times especially). Newsweek and Time are also excellent sources.

(Me, agreeing with Apparition? )

Ste

Just a sidenote:

">He (the US Prez) is heavily compromised by public opinion and the other layers of government. The Roman rulers never had this problem, and so their excesses or stupidities were unchecked. "

Well, you may be right about the other layers of government, as the Roman emperor was head of the most important layers through his position as both princeps, imperator, and pontifex maximus, but like the modern presidents, Roman emperors were depending on public support in order to maintain their offices.


Cheers,
~Bistro

America is going to be the next "Roman Empire," but we are not there yer.
In the beginning years of Rome, they were a Republic, not an Empire. They started from a small city, and gradually, slowly, they pushed outward. They eventually came to become a mighty people, and the Republic was overthrown by a power-hungry fool. (You'll find this whole story in Heroes, Gods and Monsters of the Roman Empire. Sorry, don't know who it is by.)
I think we are closer to that section of Roman Empire... Huge, yes. But not yet expanded, not yet grown, not yet overpowering... instead, we are on the brink, the line between Empire and Republic.
You will, however, find that the change between the two will be swift... and it will affect Domestic policy as much as Foreign. A man will overthrow the Republic, not work inside it. As long as America is still working inside the Republic, we cannot truly become Imperial... to many would object internally.
Which brings me to the point of news campaigns... those are more to convince those inside America than those outside. The goverment has to gain approval of the people. More another day.

"As for public opinion, that is part of the problem. The pubilc is uninformed about the truth."

How do you know?

"They take what the media feeds them, and don't seek for themselves."

My elitist-dar is blowing a fuse

"If the media dubs Afganistan a nation of terrorists who could strike again at any moment and must be eliminated, people will believe them because they are afraid it might be true."

Was Afghanistan ever dubbed a nation of terrorists that had to be eliminated? I only remember it being dubbed a nation with a bunch of religious Nazis in government. Which was perfectly true. And they did get eliminated - good riddance



"People are stupid that way. If the media tells them that the war against Iraq is because Saddam is a madman who has weapons of mass destruction at his command, people will believe them because they want it to be true."

My elitest-dar has exploded

"Others say that we put Saddam into power, and now that he no longer suits our needs, we are going to remove him."

"We" (the west) did *not* put Saddam in power. He did that himself. We gave him some support when he was fighting Iran (even after his chemical attack on the Kurds) but we didn't assist his rise to power.

"Public opinion is not to be trusted"

Why not?

"and public opinion controls those other layers of government that you say compromise Bush."

It does. But I can think of far worse things to control the leadership of a country. Such as the Roman example of absolutely nothing.

"Go do some more research, and learn all the perspective that are out there, not just your favorite."

Mr Pot? Have you met Mr Kettle?

"And they did get eliminated - good riddance"

I was, of course, referring to the Taliban and not Afghanistan, before someone misunderstands me and this conversation develops another unnecessary tangent.

Glad you added that last posting, Z. I was all fired up and ready to blow


Cheers,
~Bistro

Zagreb, you're not American. Don't presume to critique my knowledge of public opinion in America. I have the beneifts of hearing what the man on the street says, not just what international news covers.

I never said that my earlier post was the truth, nor that it was the only perspective. I know some of (not all) the other perspectives. It is just useless for me to post the ones that have already been posted. Radicalism does get responses, and can be used to get other perspectives that otherwise would not be heard.

Not everyone believes the things that I said, but some do. The ones that do often shout louder than others, but not all the time. My personal views are different from what I've said here. And I appologize if I've offended you, but as I said, putting forth extreme perspectives does get a reaction.

Forgive my not reading the vast majority of the thread...

The thread title is that old cliche, about the US being the new the Rome...
And well cliche and stereotypes come about for a reason don't they...?
I'll keep it concise...

The US is like it or not the most powerful nation, it spends more on it's military than any other nation...
recently Dubya increased US military annual expendature by more than the UKs full annual expendature and the UK has the 3rd largest military expendature in the world...
So that the 1st reason why it's fair to say the US is the new Rome it's well funded and "well trained" military force...

The US has "friends" and "allies" throughout the world...
what all thses countrties have in common is US bases on their soverieng terratory...
and in most cases a trade deficit with the US...

Which brings us to 'culture'...
Rome exported it's values and pass times...
this was done for obvious reasons
1. CONTROL... the erosion of the subjegated indigenous identity
2. CONVENIENCE... so that a Roman would feel at home anywhere in the Empire
3. IDEOLOGY... to "civilise" the savage...

Where you find US business, products and media you find a society that to some degree is undergoing a erosion of indigenous culture...
Where in the world can the average US citizen go where there will not find a a fast food franchise or shopping centre with mosto of/all their favourite brands or cinema showing their a recent hollywood blockbuster...
The US has entire institutions or the promotion of US culture and values and the speaking of USEnglish opperating in foriegn lands...

In essence it shows that you don't have to conqour a nation to make it your slave...
You don't need a war, but the fear of war to get your way...
And so on...
If any nation deserves to be associated with Rome then it US look to Capit*l Hill it sought to be the new Rome and has been quite sucessful...

>"Public opinion is not to be trusted"

Why not?<

Because it's almost always badly informed. During that little spot of bother called the Miner's strike, you may remember that a cab driver was killed ferrying miners to a piyt in defiance of the strike when some cretin threw a block of concrete his windscreen from a bridge.

My flatmate stated that Scargill should be arrested and tried for murder, as he'd heard from someone who'd read the Sun that day that Scargill at laughed at the news.

Ask me again what's wrong with public opinion?

I really did not want to get into this thread as I was enjoying my lurking too much, but I feel that I have to express my agreement with Vidmaster and Blues Shark on the Public Opinion issue in the US. I've lived in Turkey for quite a while and live in the US right now. Turkey, I have to say, has a very ignorant public and elitism is a very big force. However, when it comes to an ignorant public and media that conveniently omits anything that does not suit their opinions I do now know of a country that can top US.
The public, even the big chunk of people who make an attempt at at least appearing intelligent of knowledgeable are absoluetly ignorant of information that is not served right to them. Unlike most European countries that I have witnessed, Politics is almost never discussed in an attempt not to cause any conflicts. Everyone is very politically correct and polite to each other and because there are almost no arguments or research on what's going on in the world, the public opinion is completely unreliable.
I have another point to make about Public Opinion. In the United States, public opinion was always tried to be protected from itself. When the system of government was put together, it was decided that the public was uneducated and unreliable, hence the Electoral System. Now.. I do not really like the electoral system either, but it says something about the leaders of a couple of hundred years ago seeing something that most of us ignore today.

Feel free to shoot me down.. These are just opinions and I do not claim to be extremely informed or educated either. Just some observations I have made and put together off the top of my head.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,816060,00.html

just to confirm that the public, certainly in britain, shouldn't be trusted to run a bath. I despair, I really do.

>>At the moment on CNN they have a studio set up all ready and waiting for war. They have 5 huge video screen of maps of Iraq, annotated with rivers, cities, no-fly zones, etc., and one screen emblazoned with "CONFLICT: IRAQ". Two commentators are sitting, dwarfed, amongst these screens talking about the potential for war with straight faces. All it needs for a full-on media/war feeding frenzy is for the words on the screen to be changed to "IRAQ II: UNFINISHED BUSINESS".<<

Ste, this is *well* scary! It even reminds me of TV programmes we've seen such as 'Seven Days' and '24'! I wonder what advantage the Caesars would have gained from modern media?

You need a big show to appease the masses. What was that line from gladiator? something about winning over the mob to control rome.

>>Where in the world can the average US citizen go where there will not find a a fast food franchise or shopping centre with mosto of/all their favourite brands or cinema showing their a recent hollywood blockbuster...<<

I was reading 'Ms' yesterday (Jan/Feb 2002 issue) and a woman wrote about just that - she said she would *love* to be able to go somewhere where she *didn't* get made to feel she hadn't left home, with US fastfood chains,and movie etc.

Actually I am wondering if the US may be the new roman empire in a different way.

Let me quote from a website I found by searching 'fall of rome'. http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/history/isthmia/teg/Hist111H/issues/rome3.html

When one thinks of the Roman empire, the first thing which may come to mind is the strength and stability provided by its army. It is widely held that the fortunes of Rome were directly tied to the prowess of her military. Many scholars have maintained that in the later period of the Empire, Rome's military might steadily declined for a variety of reasons. In the end it was this lack of security which allowed the barbarian hordes to topple what had once been the mightiest empire in the world.

Ben
*smelling the smoke of the fire in Bali in the cold winds of change that are blowing*

Ben