Thanks @xxovercastxx and @Crosswords.

I've heard it said that Americans treat their flag like we (British) treat our monarchy, in that they're both the symbol of our nations. However, I don't know of anyone who particularly cares about our monarchy; I know there are people love them and a few hate them but most just shrug our shoulders and get on with real life. It seems that the American flag isn't treated with this apathy, but perhaps I only hear about nut-bugs (to varying degrees) because the 99% of normal Americans aren't newsworthy.

Obama's flag-pin is case in point: I heard about that, probably here on the Sift, and it seemed like half of America was up in arms at this "disrespectful" gesture, as if it mattered a damn. I realised that this was probably a small handful of far-right morons who generate a disproportionate amount of noise (e.g. Fox News). I've no idea actually how large a portion of the American public cared about his lapel.

Not that Britain doesn't have our own seemingly pointless moral/patriotic mobs, for example, the arbitrary whinge about not having war memorial symbols on England's football kit, which because a huge issue last November despite not having been an issue once before. It was a big deal in the shittier newspapers but if you'd polled the general population, I doubt many would have had a strong opinion.

FWIW, there's no actual patriotism in having a flag outside your house or in your press conference. Patriotism is personal sacrifice for national benefit, and flying a flag is neither. But this is a whole other kettle of plankton.

I love how the comment thread is almost entirely about hybrid car battery failure, and not about gas prices or politically-motivated spin.

For me, these clips are cause for a bit of soul-searching. I honestly don't recall exactly what I was saying about gas prices in 2008, but I certainly was saying Bush was at least partly to blame.

I didn't really have much proof of that, it was mostly "Bush is an oil man, and under his Presidency gas went from $1.50 to $4, so he's got to have something to do with it."

Mostly though, I think the real answer is that we do live in a free market economy, and oil price is set largely by supply and demand. The global supply has been flat, and possibly declining, while demand has been growing (mostly due to economic development in places like China and India).

The truth is we should have been making serious attempts to get ourselves off oil since at least the 70's, and because we've let Big Oil and their political allies have their way, worldwide, we're now reaching the point where the consequences of our apathy and/or defeat are becoming impossible to ignore.

Now it gets to 80 degrees in March in Ohio, gasoline costs $4/gal, and still the only remediation our political system seems likely to implement is more investment in oil production.

That could change quickly, of course. All we really need is for the right to wake up. Or drop dead. I'd be satisfied with either one at this point.

>> ^renatojj:

This pervasive apathy is what we get when we make people less responsible for their choices by taking away their freedoms. They also tend to behave badly when they're not held responsible for their actions. The more people are free, the more they're driven to organize, mobilize and regulate each other on their own.


To get back on the subject, I think renatojj has hit on something here. Western societies have gone through a major restructuring in the last century or a bit more. We've created systems to regulate social interactions and to ensure a better quality of life for all citizens, with relatively good results. To limit abuses of power, we've created bureaucratic states that function relatively independently of the people running them. Protocol is king now, at least ideally, and politics must function within its confines.

This is a remarkable feat, but there are side-effects: We discuss less and less the right or wrong of things - instead we ask "is it legal?" Also, in creating a process-based system of government, we've essentially decided it's best if people don't need to care too much about politics. Protocol will keep politicians in line and prevent any massive abuses. Furthermore, since western representative democracies strive to be, essentially, meritocracies, where we choose the best minds to lead us, the citizen is left to wonder: "If I don't understand the issues well enough to decide what to do about them, how can I judge the actions of those who do understand?"

There is little incentive for people to understand politics, as it has become withdrawn and abstracted. This is a sign of good times as well, of course - people mind their own business when they experience little interference in their lives. Now, of course, many feel threatened by economic turmoil and we are indeed seeing more activism. It will be interesting to see how things go from here.

>> ^dag:

You strike me as a glass half empty type. >> ^petpeeved:
I think the decay and entropy we're seeing in the system is an inevitable byproduct of consciousness that cannot be legislated, philosophized, or medicated out of existence.
The reagent behind this self-annihilating enlistment in the demise of our species will always be our mortality. People will always be born with the inborn dictate to progress through the various stages of psychology that eventually ends up leading to a form of nihilism.
We can alter the system so that people spend less time during their most 'productive' years contributing to the decline but we won't have actually altered the experiment, just the timeline.



Hah! I agree with petpeeved. It's entropy, plain and simple, and it's completely natural.

I feel the apathy problem too sometimes. But it seems pretty selfish when you think about it. Most people's problem isn't that other people don't care, it's that other people don't care about what you think they should care about. Does that make sense?

apathy and ignorance.
a pretty potent mix.
not really surprising when you create a society of consumers.
where people equate success with their bank account and relate who they are with what they own.
a whole population of "happiness machines" who have been told since they were tiny how "special" and "unique" they are and how the pursuit of material goods is not only desirable but praise worthy.

that somehow the individual is more important than their neighbor or community.
so is it any wonder that apathy and ignorance are the outcome?
whether you believe this is by design or just a convergence of random events...
the end result is the same.

apathetic,self absorbed cunts.

This pervasive apathy is what we get when we make people less responsible for their choices by taking away their freedoms. They also tend to behave badly when they're not held responsible for their actions. The more people are free, the more they're driven to organize, mobilize and regulate each other on their own.

>> ^Jinx:

If only we could invent some sort of machine to give us more foresight.
I'd say the real disease isn't ignorance, its apathy. I mean, everybody knows we are fucked right but the way people go about their everyday life almost convinces you that they don't feel the same way. Willful ignorance perhaps?


It's everything.

It's a lack of involvement in the world people find themselves in. It's a lack of curiosity about it and themselves. It's a lack of critical thinking or the desire to come to your own conclusions. It's a lack of will to engage in autodidacticism and take control of your own mind and future. It's a refusal to take responsibility for yourself, for your community, for your species, for the part you're playing in it all. It's the lack of will to care.

It's an almost nihilistic, deeply cowardly need to be an intellectual fucking pygmy, because otherwise it's just too damn hard, and people would have trouble getting to sleep at night.

If only we could invent some sort of machine to give us more foresight.

I'd say the real disease isn't ignorance, its apathy. I mean, everybody knows we are fucked right but the way people go about their everyday life almost convinces you that they don't feel the same way. Willful ignorance perhaps?

atheos - without god

It's a metaphysical position, a denial that any deity exists. The redefinition of atheism is simply an attempt to shift the burden of proof by turning atheism from a positive to a negative claim. To say you lack belief is simply an obfuscation of your true position. If you are unwilling to say God does not exist, you are an agnostic and not an atheist. There is no inbetween; you have a belief about the existence of God, which is that either you don't believe it, or you don't know.


>> ^shuac:
It's less a re-definition and more of a course correction. Compare atheism to similar words:
amoral = without morals.
atypical = without type.
apathy = without pathos. More specifically, without empathy or sympathy.
agnostic = without gnosis (greek: knowledge).
So let's talk about what theism is, since atheism is without it. Theism, as I understand it, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
So there you go. I credit the internet for this course correction, since most popular dictionaries usually define an atheist incorrectly by claiming it is someone who believes there is/can be no god. You're free to do that too, shiny. Your comfort level at being wrong is well road-tested, clearly.

It's less a re-definition and more of a course correction. Compare atheism to similar words:

amoral = without morals.
atypical = without type.
apathy = without pathos. More specifically, without empathy or sympathy.
agnostic = without gnosis (greek: knowledge).

So let's talk about what theism is, since atheism is without it. Theism, as I understand it, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

So there you go. I credit the internet for this course correction, since most popular dictionaries usually define an atheist incorrectly by claiming it is someone who believes there is/can be no god. You're free to do that too, shiny. Your comfort level at being wrong is well road-tested, clearly.

I find it outrageous and appalling that individuals who have not had to go through this kind of heartbreaking trauma would try to interfere in the matter based on personal or religious bias.

As a parent of a 13 year old girl who has been diagnosed in a permanent vegetative teenage state, I know the pain these parents are going through. Although my wife and I still hold out hope that our daughter will some day overcome her persistent apathy and disgust of her parents and regain some level of conscious awareness, I can fully sympathize with the choice these parents have had to make.

I cannot accept that the instances of whining or antogonizing her little brother are just unconscious responses and not signs of awareness, as the medical professionals warn us. But still, there are doubts. I know there may yet come a day when we have to accept the reality that our daughter will never again be the vibrant and thoughtful person she once was and confront a painful decision. If we one day have to make the same medical choice these parents have, I hope that we can be allowed to do what must be done and deal with our grief without the interference of well meaning but misguided strangers.

So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?

Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?

And yes, there is an answer to both of those questions--but I won't give it because I don't know it truthfully.

If you think it is Liberalism, then why? (The short version plz ) If you never questioned whether this was important, which belief breeds better citizens, then that is bad indeed, but most never do.

>> ^NetRunner:

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.
But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.
Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.
As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.
Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.
Right, like investment banking.
Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.
From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?
Agreed, once I correct the label.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.
I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.
It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.
I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.

But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.

Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.

As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.

Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.

Right, like investment banking.

Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.

From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?

Agreed, once I correct the label.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.

I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.


I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.

It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.

I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^shuac:
Could we please have a generation of tweens that are not stupid, just one, is that to too much to ask for.
Well, I expect tweens to be kinda stupid but I've been kidding myself about the average Videosifter's ability to write correctly, which is, I believe, symptomatic of intelligence. Oh well.

I was curious to see if you ever made a mistake while writing English.
Took 30 seconds to find this gem.
>> ^shuac:
I'd just like to say that I have no opinion about this video. I am apathetic like you read about.



LOL! That's what I get for trying to use an idiom, a very new idiom, granted, but an idiom nonetheless. Some idioms only work when you say them aloud and this is one of them.

I'm going to come off as a bit nutty typing this all out but nutty is a label I'm ok with.

When people say "like you read about" they're being emphatic and pointed. For instance, I might say, "I'm fuckin' cold like you read about." People who've taken the time to write books and articles about tundra wasteland and life above the arctic circle typically don't spend that time on the page writing about how warm it is. When someone takes the time to read such a book or article, they walk away knowing something about chilly weather. It typically only works with extreme states: extreme cold, extreme heat, or in my case extreme apathy. So what I'm really saying with "like you read about" is an attempt to express solidarity with the writer of such books/articles.

Capice? I'm not surprised you may not have heard about it but all these sayings had to come from somewhere, no?

Without context, I admit, it reads kind of wrong. Oh well. I forgive you, Boise.

this was brilliant and totally worth the time.
complex issues take some time and dr wolff lays it out nicely the history to how we got here.

the ending is almost chilling when he speaks about board directors pushing the working man even further because there have been no reprisals of anger and rage.
seems this was done before the occupy movement started.
seems americans are not just angry...but pissed off.

ah..to watch occupy oakland and how those thousands of people shut down the highway.
or the new occupyyourhome movement.
or how they are going to occupy k street.
now that really warms my cockles (having no idea what a cockle is..but its warm i tell ya).

and i really hope our political and financial elite ignore frank luntz's suggestions to tone down the aggression.
please please please ignore that man.
that is the only thing i want for christmas.

ah fuck it.
here is my christmas list:
1.i want those who have corrupted our democracy to keep pushing back and with authoritarian vigor.to use the police force as their own gestopo to crush those people who dare question their dominance and right to fleece an entire country.i want them to totally overstep their power and in doing so enrage an entire people out of apathy.

2.i wish for the CEO of <fill in corporate thief> to wake up from his home and look outside his window to be greeted by an ocean of angry faces and to have somebody filming him as he pisses himself.

3.i wish for every politician be forced to choose between getting ass-fucked with a razor blade dildo OR confess to every back door deal that fucked over,not only our democracy,but every citizen in this country.
both to be televised of course.
im betting there will be a shortage of dildos and proctologists.

4.i wish to see more people on the streets.i want to see so many that even the GODS will notice.i want so many people on the street that traffic comes to a halt and businesses shut down.

and i want to see the people who KNEW they were fucking us in the ass to be hauled out by their testicles and put on public display,their family stripped of all ill-gotten wealth and influence and for them to know the true meaning of SHAME.

so../claps
when we doin this thing?
christmas is only a few weeks away.
ill bring the weed!