@georgeob1,
Quote:Quote:blatham wrote:
This is interesting in two ways. First, you seem to have the notion in your noggin that though I have set to a study of media issues over many years that this study provides me with no greater benefits in understanding the subject than you have acquired with no such level of study.
Some learn a great deal from a little experience: others don't. Some experts in narrow fields are fools in others; others acquire more wisdom from the same effort.
That's simply a cop-out george. Some humans are born albino and some with three nipples but the next person to knock on your front door isn't going to be a three-nippled albino.
Quote: I don't think that Fox news and Limbach's Radio show are in any way sufficient for the understanding of current affairs: neither are CNN and MSNBC.
Neither does anyone else. That's a truly careless phrasing of what is at issue. The point was specific - the coarsening of political/civic rhetoric. Joe McCarthy, for example, did not elevate political discussion. He degraded it.
Quote:Well, I think you're on to something here, but you quickly flew off into hyperbole and absurdity. I think the U.S. Constitution was an act of some very wise men who understood the tumult of human affairs and deliberately created a government with the checks and balances needed to limit most excesses.
I suggested the US Constitution as an example of how human society can be improved - that progress can be made in human affairs. Your quote of the French cliche has no utility other than as a generalized dismissal of such progress,
where you find it convenient. You aren't being wise. You're being lazy.
Quote:I think that no one has as yet designed a universal "social safety net" that will work well under all conditions.
Well, no kidding. Nor have we developed medical treatments and compounds that will keep every alive forever.
Quote:I believe that human nature is sufficiently complex and human behavior sufficiently adaptable to confound any system imposed to organize it in detail, and that very few of the designers of such systems , including "safety nets", foresee the side effects of what they create.
You've forwarded this argument before yet seem to have little grasp on how analytically valueless it is. Any human act or any developed policy will have unintended and unforseeable consequences. Likewise,
the absence of any act or policy will also have such consequences.