<p>
I think that’s your problem. You need to get out of the ivory tower and meet some soldiers. Otherwise you’ll just be a pointy-headed theorist all your life.</p>
<p>driver,</p>
<p>Again, why shouldn’t the press go to town? It served more than a few interests of theirs: move papers (or commercial time), make money, and keep the incumbent party on its toes.</p>
<p>Remember how long the press was on Clinton? Despite the fact that many of us were like, “ugh…enough.”? That’s because he was the incumbent.</p>
<p>And that’s how it should be. Media should ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, NEVER AN EXCEPTION MADE, be harder on incumbents.</p>
<p>Ari, if you don’t think that the press is trying to influence this election (as they have been for years) you need to ask for a refund of your poli-sci tuition. If those soldiers’ banner had been in support of Kerry, instead of mocking him, that pic would have made every major daily in the country, not just the NY Post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Driver,</p>
<p>For one, I have many friends who are vets. So don’t even try to play that card.</p>
<p>Rational thinking doesn’t end where the military begins.</p>
<p>driver,</p>
<p>Cool it with the personal attacks. It’s unnecessary and pretty uncool.</p>
<p>I don’t think the press is trying to influence anything but their profits. I’m cynical about them, but not for the same reasons. More than enough evidence shows that the press is harder on incumbents. I don’t see why that’s a problem.</p>
<p>
OK…Tell me what all your vet buddies are telling you about this.</p>
<p>And thus we finally get to the nut of it. </p>
<p>Political speak and jargon are being thrown around here like crap-cakes in a monkey cage. Take “rational ignorance” for instance (an expression with Parisian origins to be sure). I take this expression to describe the purported demeanor of Americans not disposed to be amateur politicians, coffee-klatch bullies or policy experts. </p>
<p>The expert bemoans the fact that “the rationally ignorant” are more likely to simply call ‘em as they see ‘em, as they say, without putting the quips in the form of a dissertation. They are likely more inclined to read images and imagery; symbols, for instance, carry great moral currency in the political landscape of those whose view of the forest is not blocked by a BUSH. Their view is likely holistic if vague and dreamy. </p>
<p>But they know how to read the lay of the land, the lines in a face, particularly as they curl and bend into condescension and affectations of genius, as many of our “elite” are prone too, especially in the media and then particularly amongst politician-media-hounds. </p>
<p>Still, to give credit where credit is due, Hilary seems to have no problems in this area…which is why she will run the Democrats table in two years; same with McCain and Bush. Not so with Kerry, Allen or Gore…as must be clear to all.</p>
<p>In sum, as that great American, W F Buckley, once wagered:</p>
<p>I’d rather be governed by the first 2 thousand names in the Boston phone directory, than the faculty of Harvard…I’d say the average middle-American would bet on the same odds.</p>
<p>…more experts!?
Please.</p>
<p>One, a former Marine who’s now at UCLA Law School said, in so many words, “Whatever. Kerry’s an idiot. Can we get on with our lives now?”</p>
<p>Another, a former lieutenant in the Navy, said, “Who cares?”</p>
<p>Now, keep in mind that most of my friends are not very “hooah.”</p>
<p>Did the French have an expression for the rationally ignorant that translated into English as “lumps”?</p>
<p>FS,</p>
<p>Rational ignorance theory is derived from economics and public choice theory. It draws largely upon the AMERICAN researcher, Herbert Simon. All it states is that people cannot be all-knowing about every issue they make a decision about, so they rationally make a choice to be ignorant about it.</p>
<p>Or, in other words, being ignorant “about an issue is said to be “rational” when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so.”</p>
<p>Everyone does this. It’s not a “value statement.” It’s a positive (as opposed to normative) statement. I’m not saying that people are DUMB. I’m saying that they aren’t all-knowing.</p>
<p>That’s it.</p>
<p>The PIC made the national news tonite - bruuuhaaaaa!!!</p>
<p>Kerry has burned his bridges as far as any run for the presidency - thank goodness :)</p>
<p>UCLAri said:
“I’m not saying that people are DUMB”
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they largely subscribed to rational choice theory, they probably would.</p>
<p>However, I do now regret using the word lumps. I think it was a bit too extreme. </p>
<p>Regardless, I don’t believe that the wisdom of the masses is really that incredible. The masses are only as great as the system they’re bound (or relatively unbound) by. Thankfully, the US and most of the West allows people to really unleash their potential as a whole.</p>
<p>However, to say that we’re all omnipotent and great is a bit of a stretch. We’re very much limited by time and limited resources. To that end, we depend on people above and people below. But to say that the average person has more ability to govern than those that are delegated to seems to me to be a bit overblown. We delegate authority BECAUSE some people are blessed with a greater insight (or something) in regards to being a leader.</p>
<p>driver,</p>
<p>Like I said, I shouldn’t have used the word “lump.” It was a major gaffe on my part. But I’ll gladly admit my fault. I’m sure this will earn me nothing but further pokes, prods, and scorn, but hey, at least I’ll feel better.</p>
<p>Regardless, my experience with the average person is that he doesn’t have time to really go in-depth into most issues. He’s too busy working, raising a family, and being busy. He can’t help it. </p>
<p>It’s not bad. But the average person (everywhere, really) simply cannot devote the time and resources into being a wunderkind. Why should he, anyway? That’s why we vote people in to do it for us.</p>
<p>Just as long as you’re not saying that if you’re a lump you’ll end up stuck in Iraq.</p>
<p>In the Matrix the average human being was–though admittedly something of a lump–a rechargeable battery that keeps on going and going…</p>
<p>light-bulbs–though experts of illumination once given power–are otherwise just useless (and fragile) pieces of glass.</p>
<p>Driver,</p>
<p>That was never my point. I know plenty of well-educated, insightful, intelligent people who have done time in the military. I don’t play the low IQ = military service game. Not for a minute.</p>
<p>But I also don’t see the average person as this great demi-god, either. None of us are. In a world with 6.5 billion people and more information than a billion libraries of Alexandria, who can be? The days of the informed public are long, long gone. It probably died with the Athenians…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought that they actually just ground them up after a while into goo and fed the babies with the goo? 
</p>
<p>:p</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. We’re all light bulbs in some fashion. But none of us can light the way in everything. That’s the very reason we delegate authority to others.</p>
<p>I’m sure there is a relevant point here. . . but I’ll be damned if I can find it.</p>
<p>Nice to see the two of you together again.</p>