I don’t like the state of the world right now.

Comments

10 responses to “I don’t like the state of the world right now.”

1. 

   Jean

   May 12, 2018

   “The fact that EVERYTHING has changed since 2005, and that NOTHING has changed since 2005, made this article both gratifying and deeply and disturbingly creepy.”

   This, believe it or not, is what gives me hope. That every generation as they reach our age seems to say “the world is going to hell in a handbasket” (even though most of us have no clue what a handbasket IS) tells me things probably aren’t as bad as we perceive.

   I do agree we could do with a lot more mutual respect. And yes, people on both extremes are a significant part of the problem. When we remember the vast majority of people are not usually radically separated from us in their beliefs and we work together, we can make miracles happen.

   So-called journalism has catered to the extremes for too long, and that is taking a toll. I’ve tuned out the large market journalists, and life is much happier for me.

   Reply
2. 

   Lyn Davis

   May 12, 2018

   Not all things are equal. Despite the call for taking sides. Besides the “well said” post of Tuff about respect is the flagrant disregard for truth and fact–or as the right call it ‘Alternate Facts.’ As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, ‘You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.’

   The start of this polarization began with President Reagan’s removal of the Fairness Doctrine.*

   *The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC’s view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]

   The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. (Wikipedia)

   That began the long descent into the extremes that are prevalent now. Because facts are not important to our current culture. It is easier to say your opponent is evil, evil, evil…instead of allowing justice to take its course and the facts presented in a court of law.

   Unfortunately, the is mounting evidence that enemies of the state used our polarization to their ends–mounting false ads and Facebook replicating false posts on both ends of the political spectrum. And because not all people verify their facts with documentation, the results are a greater polarization and a greater amount of lies spewed at all of us.

   Were the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated, we could more easily trust what we read in the newspaper and hear on the news. We would have an Ed Murrow or a Walter Cronkite type again.

   In addition, the anti-trust laws would need to be reinstated, so one or two owners of most of the media in certain locations would be prohibited from monopolies of our media. Sinclair and Murdock own almost all the media in certain States and they force their newsrooms to broadcast as fact–things which are their opinions. That’s not fair, honest and balanced.

   Until we can expect, even demand, a return to fair, honest, and balanced news, I doubt the polarization will stop, because alt-facts will dominate those, who receive their information from highly biased news and never have an opportunity to hear a balanced report. It’s not without significance that a major news broadcaster dropped their tagline ‘Fair and Balanced’ since that could not be a serious claim.

   Reply
3. 

   david

   May 11, 2018

   In terms of “marriage”, it is a religious custom. Leave it to the churches to decide according to their canons.

   Legal forms of civil union need to have binding terms, [marriage doesn’t, not anymore] much like pre-nuptial agreements.

   Every State Attorney General’s office could draft standard Civil Union contracts that deal with fidelity, children, property and all the other issues that are given lip service in marriage, then legally dealt with in divorce court.

   Knowing you have legal rights IN the civil union, rather than fighting for them at dissolution of a “marriage” in name only, makes more sense.

   Reply
4. 

   Judy French

   May 10, 2018

   Excellent commentary, and pretty well sums up my own thoughts. I’ll keep both my hands thank you. I’m kind of attached to both.

   Reply
5. 

   dragon

   May 10, 2018

   I do FaceBook … I wouldn’t be in touch with the few people I consider friends if I didn’t as they are spread across the planet these days (some of them I have never met personally) and I find myself the voice of sweet reason, smack dab in the middle of things, far too frequently. Yes, I think we should have better control of access to WMD, including automatic, ammo expending guns. Not a ban on all guns. Both sides find me unreasonable. LOL. And I wander back and forth on the topis you noted, sort of right on some, sort of left on others and mostly in the area of: Really? You think this is a good idea? Oh, wait, think … Never mind. Thank you for your eloquent support of not being on either end of the discussion. Mind you, the one thing I keep noticing is that politics does not breed people who can understand or desire compromise, which is the only thing that really keeps most of us functioning. Give and take. Absolutes only work … weather, maybe? and in fiction, where they usually get overturned. Again, superb analysis.

   Reply
6. 

   Tuff

   May 10, 2018

   A big issue I see these days is lack of respect. I, personally, fall somewhere to the right of middle, in varying degrees, for the topics discussed in your 2005 blog post. But I respect, and am friends with, many fine people that fall to the left or are firmly in the middle, and even some who are much farther right than I am. But that’s okay with me. We can cordially agree to disagree on certain topics, yet still respect each other, and not threaten to kill the other and everyone in agreement with them for being part of The Dark Side. My beliefs are MY beliefs, based upon my religious beliefs and my life experiences and whatever other factors contribute to my total belief system. But your beliefs are YOUR beliefs based upon the things that determine your belief system. I respect that. I can maturely discuss and debate beliefs with you, if you can do so in return. But once people start crossing the line of disrespect, that’s when I start losing interest in discussing matters with you. And, unfortunately, I see much more disrespect these days than I recall 20+ years ago. That saddens me. It is leading to a growing amount of unnecessary ignorance and hatred in this world. I wish people would learn to think for themselves more instead of simply accepting what they hear/read on media outlets, appreciate and respect what others have to say, and show love and kindness more towards their fellow human beings. This world would be much better off.

   Reply
7. 

   Johanna

   May 10, 2018

   Yes. Exactly. Thank you.

   Reply
8. 

   Kari

   May 10, 2018

   Tim Minchin’s The Fence
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGErC6QQdoc

   This is how I feel.

   Reply
9. 

   Vanessa

   May 10, 2018

   I love the qualifyer about slight of hand.

   Reply
10. 

    Kyralae

    May 9, 2018

    Very interesting commentary and one I have believed in for many many years. It’s a breath of fresh air to hear someone actually take a stand in the middle. Nothing wrong with the middle. And yes, I like both hands.

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.