Does the "average American" agree with Michael Moore?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I support abortion simply because there are already too many unwanted kids in the world. Why bring in more?

There are too many unwanted adults in the world, we should get rid of some.

[Verto]

I support abortion simply because there are already too many unwanted kids in the world. Why bring in more?

That kind of argument didn't work with the Third Reich, it's not gonna work with you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
There are too many unwanted adults in the world, we should get rid of some.

Good idea.

Lets start at Rockville, Maryland.

[Ned]

Re: Does the "average American" agree with Michael Moore?

Originally posted by Thriller
As I have the fortunate privilege of being able to view the antics of George W. Bush and his cronies from afar, I'm interested in understanding what real Americans think of the situation both within their own country and it's relationship with the rest of the world, rather than rely on the often outrageous reporting of the US media.....particularly FoxNews and, to a lesser extent, CNN.

To the extent you believe Moore is "good" and that FoxNews is bad, I have you pegged fairly well.

What land to you hail from, Thriller?

[Aqualung71]

Ned....my original question was meant to be provocative, and seems to have achieved its objective judging by the volume of responses to date.

But please don't pigeon-hole me too quickly. I am "for" Michael Moore to the extent that he tries to bring issues to light that the vast majority of apathetic citizens don't know about or don't care about (and America is certainly not alone in having a largely indifferent majority). I for one believe that powerful people (largely politicians and big business) are allowed to get away with blue murder, and should at least be made to look over their shoulder occasionally and reminded of why they were elected and who they are supposed to represent and yes, be publicly embarrassed when necessary, even if there's not much we can do about it. From what I've seen Michael Moore has the ability, through leveraging his public profile (as do politicians) to raise awareness about various issues, many of which on the face of it seem to be relevant to a good number of citizens. In my view, this in itself can only be a good thing. That is not to say that he is always right, or always fair, or even always relelvant. That is up to the individual to decide. Michael Moore certainly doesn't have all the answers - and many of the answers he does try to provide are either tongue-in-cheek or not realistically achievable within the context of today's political and economic reality. Like many people who can be "heard", his views tend to be rather polarised....although unlike some others, he does seem to be willing to compromise on occasions. But for me, having the "right" answer, or at least the "most correct" answer, is not the point. Raising a meritorious issue for many people to debate is the point. And to the extent that Michael Moore and others like him are able to do that, I applaud him. Besides which, if half of what he says is true (bearing in mind that there's usually another side to every story), I would be horrified.

I am "against" FoxNews to the extent that they, like many other large media organisations, are irredeemably past the stage of being able to function the way I believe media should function - that is, to provide unbiased factual reporting and not opinions (except on the editorial page, and even then only about who is the best sports team!). Unfortunately, the vested interests of large organisations severely compromise their ability to act in society's best interests (and to be fair, in a modern society that is simply not one of their objectives).....it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've singled out Fox simply because in my humble opinion, they are the worst example of this. Unfortunately however, the world has evolved in this way, perhaps inevitably, and will not change anytime soon.

Oh yes, I'm from Australia! I must admit that, having been brought up under a Westminster parliamentary system, I have only recently started to understand some of the pro's and con's of the US style of democracy and how it developed. Then again, to a large extent the differences are pure semantics. Big Brother still makes the rules!

Cheers!

[Imran Siddiqui]

God, I can only hope the 'average American' doesn't agree with Moore .

[Mr. Harley]

Thriller, I'm interested in your spin on the pros and cons of the two systems, after having lived in a parliamentary democracy and now living in a democratic republic. What's your take?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


There are too many unwanted adults in the world, we should get rid of some.

Well to keep this on topic, I nominate Michael Moore!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc

I strongly suspect most Americans simply want to be left along, and a pox on both extremes with their agendas. The problem is that the extremes vote in disproportionately high numbers, and until the great central mass of Americans do that, especially in primaries, than we will continue to have lousy representations. Who here (in the USA) voted in the last primary?

More Americans are independant (ie not members of a party) than are members of either major party. In some states there is an open primary, which means that anyone can vote for the candidate of their choice in the primary, regardless of their actual party affiliation. This is the only system that seems fair. Otherwise why the hell is the government paying for these extra-constitutional organizations to hold these elections? Open the primaries (all of them) up and people will participate, including independants and a few troublemakers from the other major party. The benefit will be that we won't be seeing this run to the left/right during the primaries and toward the center during the general election stuff, as for once the middle will have a presence during the primaries as well as the general election.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Sava
how is what I said "antiBush hating"...

I merely described Bush on the political spectrum... and BTW, if it was "anti-Bush hating", I would be someone like Rush Limbaugh bashing liberals.

Rush is an entertainer first and a political activist second. And he constantly expresses amazement at the degree to which his utterances are taken seriously.

[Hueij]

Why does Kenobi turn every thread into an anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage thread? Can't he make his own so I can skip them?

[Q Classic]

Sorry. I would rather not be free, if it means we must continue to sacrifice our children in order to have this transient freedom. If it is a morality law to protect unborn children, then I fully support such a restriction.

!! ?

sorry, i must disagree. i would rather err on the side of liberty and freedom than see them taken away. god has given us free will to do as we choose, and it's sad if some choose improperly, but.

liberty over security, liberty over morality. the terrorists are out there, as bush says, but damned if i'm going to cower because of them. why should i fear them? why should i have terror? death will come to us all sooner or later, and although dying by terrorist attack isn't my favored means of going to purgatory (if lucky!), i would rather spend all of my days free than have to submit to progressively more and more intrusive security measures.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Thriller, I'm interested in your spin on the pros and cons of the two systems, after having lived in a parliamentary democracy and now living in a democratic republic. What's your take?

Shawnmmcc, I presume you're now in the US. Where are you from originally?

As I said, I don't have an extensive understanding of the US system, so I hesitate to make comparisons. But I will make some observations and am happy to stand corrected, in the right spirit of course!

I gather that the US system was originally set up by the "founding fathers" to protect the rights of the individual, as a response to the puritanical movement in England that originally motivated the disaffected to escape establish their own settlements in the New World. This principle of the importance of the rights of the individual seems to me to be the overriding theoretical difference between the 2 systems, although in practice things are not necessarily as they seem.

My personal viewpoint, biased as it obviously is, is that Americans probably place too much emphasis on this supposed right of individual freedom. This seems to me to lead to the undesirable attitude that "I can do what I bloody-well feel like and screw the rest of you" - such as carry a semi-automatic weapon around in my car and claim that I just want to shoot deer with it, or keep a loaded pistol next to my bed so I can shoot the first bugger who breaks into my home.

I think this attitude goes hand in hand with the decision made by the US government (or is it the people?) to not provide a realistic social security "safety net" that seems to be common in the parliamentary democracy, and even more common in the European socialist-leaning democracies. I believe that the combination of these factors have led to the higher crime rates experienced by the US.

Of course, being a capitalist by nature I am not necessarily in favour of handing people money for nothing, and at a macro level this leads to higher taxes which in turn provides a disincentive for business and leads to tax avoidance and a reduction in investment. However, I do believe at the very least in good quality free education and healthcare and additional government support for those who genuinely need it. I don't know which country, if any, has been able to do this to the satisfaction of all its people - mine certainly hasn't. But the ideal is still a valid aspiration.

Again, with my limited experience, it seems to me that one of the pitfalls of the US system is that it has developed a distinct 2-party system. In Australia we also have 2 major political parties, one of who is always in power. However, we have a number of smaller parties, 3 of which are usually represented at least in the senate and sometimes in the lower house. This at the very least helps to "keep the buggers honest", and I truly believe the US needs this. In Australia, this has led to a grumbling spirit of compromise that means no-one gets everything that they want, but at least more people get some of what they want. Of course, this opens up the possibilites for political opportunism and even a lighter form of blackmail, but evil-doers can be weeded out next election.

Which brings me to another point - election campaigning. I should be very careful here because I don't know enough.....but it's in this area that I personally see the greatest problems and potential for corruption in the US system. While in Australia we also have political donations, the amounts involved are dwarved by the amounts of money the US candidates raise and spend. This clearly creates an atmosphere of patronism (is that a word?), which almost certainly leads to nepotism, which is dangerously close to corruption.

One big difference between Australia and the US is that voting in Australia is compulsory. What does this lead to? Well, I guess one side will say that there will be a high percentage of donkey votes by people who just vote to avoid being fined, and so the election result is not truly representative of the people's will. On the other hand, how can any US president claim to be elected by the people when less than half of the population votes in the first place? A candidate in the US needs only to appeal to those he knows will vote. A candidate in Australia ignores any particular group of citizens at his own peril! I think at the very least, this illustrates that there needs to be more viable alternatives.

Well, that's enough thoughts for now - I hope my rather vague and hesitant comments may provoke some informative responses.

[Aqualung71]

Oops, double posted again...sorry folks

[Mr. Harley]

Sikander makes a very good point, and I used to be an independent. I finally broke down and registered as a Republican due to redistricting from the 1990 census. We had an old, rural independent Republican federal representatve who the party put on the chopping block, for a new younger business-is-never-wrong money type. We almost blocked the second sod, our old representative lost the primary by under 500 votes, and that was for a safe Republican district.

My wife and I are registered for the Republican and Democratic primaries, respectively. We talk politics, and influence each other's votes, though we still disagree at times. Sikander, I agree completely with your observation, but I no longer am quite so stubbornly idealistic as I used to be, and register under a party so I can try to get a John McCain, or in my wife's case Tsongus, into the regular election. I watch my local Republicans in the primaries, and the moment one starts spounting "family values," he's more than likely lost my vote. That way I can try to amerliorate the influence of the religious right on the party. (please note - family values don't necessary mean the candidate is pandering to the religious right, so I do check. I've yet to be surprised.)

Q-cubed, excellent post right on the mark. It's an excellent exposition on the point made by one of my favorite dead white people, Benjamin Franklin.

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

To stay consistant with some of my other threads, I am constantly amazed by many fellow Americans and their willful ignorance of statistics. They support all these tightened security restrictions, yet do not support increased penalties and enforcement for DUI. http://www.southofboston.net/specialreports/drunkendriving/graphic-4-death-toll.html
More people die due to drunk drivers in one month than died on 9/11. Many of the same people who are support massively increased (and very expensive) security restrictions see nothing wrong in driving on a Friday or Saturday night, and I've come closer to dying on the road at that time than anywhere else except a hospital.