what's with personality fetish in lieu of substance

I've been recently taken to task by yet another poster on a site. At the root of his criticism was the fact that I objected to a comment that was clearly racist. i.e. it was in the context of Obama's acquiescence to the powers that be in USPolitics ...he called Him an Uncle Tom.

This is based on Harriet Beecher Stowes book of the same name. It referred to a subservient 'nigger' (slave) who is willing to sacrifice his life etc for the white 'massa'.

In this , the only, real context... it introduce colour as a pejorative.

I would argue that one wouldn't refer to Bush or any other Prez as white uncle toms. Thus the term is demeaningly used,and as such my criticism was/is valid.

This obviously stung the poster in such a way he continued the attack later. But this time as a tit for tat attack on me personally.

Now here is the conundrum, One of his criticisms was that I'm verbose in my responses and using the site as an ego therapy. The first is valid (from his perspective), the second isn't.

Clearly the reader has made the non existent link between making a racist comment and him being racist.

Hence his response.

My problem is that see the difference between the two i. e. I don't believe that one swallow = spring . Put another way if I hit my thumb with a hammer and let out with an expletive, that doesn't mean that I am a simple minded foul mouthed individual prone to bad language in public or in print.

By that reasoning I don't believe the commenter is a burning cross or closet racist bigot. Merely that the terminology is offensive to me and that I consider it unacceptable, not to mention that coloured people reading would find it so too.

It is one thing to attack an action or words but not the personality of the person doing /making them. Especially given that I'm reasonably sure Obama is personally unknown to both of us.

I would further argue that such terms or personal attacks are unproductive in getting a discussed compromise or working conclusion. It is psychological fact that repetition forms opinions. One only needs to watch the news on politics or ads to hear/see the 'staying on message' and the incessant repartition.

The problem is that not enough people draw the line between personality and function.

i.e. Obama's fate will largely depend on the public's impression of him personally, their personal disappointments ( they over expectations about what he can functionally do), rather than the impressive list of positive things he has done... This is further emphasised by Romney's campaign being largely ' that he is not Obama'. The truth is if Romney is successful he will be beholden to simply a 'different'

group of Plutocrats.

The media in fact the whole Capitalist edifice is based and bolstered by the vagaries of Personalities/emotions not substance.

i.e. Gem stones ...diamonds in particular aren't all that rare rather the high prices/value is artificially kept high by restricting their availability by the DeBeer's cartel the consequences of which are diabolical.( blood diamonds)

Perhaps my most trenchant disgust is how the media focuses on the sensational or personalities rather than the un adorned facts . i.e. An US Senator visiting Israel went 'skinny dipping' and that is a scandal? Why? Because the media has said so again and again and Again. People have had natural tendencies deftly hyper sensitised to whereby such trivial actions has bearing on public opinion on his ability to do his job.

When in truth it has absolutely none.

Essentially I'm rebelling over the over simplification , the personality V competence to lead a country which leads me to How do I communicate with others if all they want is over simplified, glorified, sanctimonious gossip and personalised attacks in lieu of reasoned in context analysis of topics perhaps to arrive at a solution?

Refugees and illegals are they our fault

The biggest problem I have with arguments on what to do with refugees isn't based on idealism or ideology but rather pragmatics.

The fundamental flaw with the ' humane argument ' is that it assumes that people are just waiting to learn the truth about the appalling state of refugees to change their minds. That simply isn't true.

If the people really wanted to change the system they would.

There is no logical/ objective doubt that political systems are corrupted by irrationality , greed, self interest , power externalities and the totally artificial (naive ) belief that Political parties can "represent" a democratic/ or mass choice. The choices presented are 'closed'. A bit like mandating a choice between everyone getting flogging by whip or a cane for Minor breaches of laws/ by laws etc.

Arguments can be made for either option but what isn't up for choice are other alternatives. All choices are marketed between and by extremes.

e.g. in Australia's case Open slather or pacific solution ( unlimited refugees and we are talking about millions or so few it makes no appreciable difference to the refugee problem). There are comparable simplistic choices in almost every other country too.

I would dispute emphatically that the anti refugee is solely from the non suburban voters rather while the non suburban voters may have a disproportionate number of xenophobes/ right wingers, one shouldn't assume that the suburban or left leaning voters are really any different. One only needs to look at the fact that non suburban voters are a minority of districts/ electorates and therefore representatives.

Simply put, we the everyday voter support (by our inaction, practical indifference) the limited or simplicity of choice, 2 sides infer.

In reality open slather is not possible with the current human propensity for tribal identity and self interest. i.e. it is unlikely to be accepted before a fundamental change in Homo sapiens generally.

The real question then come down to achieving a LESS INhumane solution. Most social change happens slowly and the evolutionary change to our hard-wired (genetic) “human nature” is far, far slower.

I would suggest that such change would need to have a far stronger personal pay-off to engender it.

The first issue is to prevent ( in Australia)the boats and the associated loss of life and the merchants of death (the people smugglers).

In that perspective the question should be as the report suggests a suite of solutions.

Ask yourselves if you were a refugee in Indonesia your choices were paying out the very last of your money for a trip to a remote island with the probability of eventually getting status in Australia. OR spending the money only to be returned to a refugee camp in Asia with virtually NO chance at migrating to Aust . Wouldn't you see the futility in the latter?

Let's be clear the Malaysian 'solution' (sic)was fatally flawed because the Malaysian don't want them either and naturally want a net reduction. This of course acknowledges the appalling conditions that meet the refugees in the camps.

And there is the second half of the suite of actions.

Of course the best option is reduce the push factors in the refugees' country of origin.

And there we in the West run into our own misdeeds in our want (as opposed needs ) for these countries' resources... but that is another topic.

Therefore, this highlights my stance that the "debate" (sic) as it is being run are so ideological and superficial as to be nearly preaching to the converted a minority of voters regardless of how well presented.

The Games and other spin, hypocrisies, myths and  injustices ....

I'm vehemently against  nationalism generally but definitely  that which is deliberated commercial generated for the sole point of power and profit. ... I tend towards the comment by Samuel Johnson  "patriotism (nationalism) is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
 

I would argue that the whole thing is so commercially corrupted and based on so many false assumptions   as to be meaningless on nationalistic , good will,and or honest fair competition... nor are the medals objectively any more indicative than of prolonged effort
rather than the absolute best... Drugs/ corruption inevitably factor in commercially exploited sport.

I find it impossible to define my identity as the place where I live. Much less by someone else's sporting prowess and even less again by in a Government enforced  2 week marketing fest for those with the deepest pockets, MULTI NATIONAL corporations.( which national interest do they support? )

This sponsorship (sic) although "necessary" (?) has removed the Games from the
Provence of  competitor V competitor and made  a mockery of the stated national aims of encouraging participation in healthy activities.
However, it  makes the  case of “who spends the most to hone the skills of the genetically gifted  wins. That means we as tax payers  and the less well off make the sacrifices.
Further to this it entrenches  the commercial impetus to support specific sports  and the odd photogenic person for extraordinary wealth. In turn reducing the achievement of the others to that of minor supporting acts.....tissues, used one and discarded. Proof?  Ask the average punter who won gold in lessor sports last 'games' and you'll get a blank, they're not in ads.  Did the achievement from the lessor sport athletes take less dedication? Training?
The most distressing is the bias in all of this against the poorer nations, gender and the disabled.... What message is government money supporting here?

Remember too the fact that an oft mentioned lie becomes urban 'fact' (mythology) which influences people's emotional response  and judgement....priorities (prejudices and stereotyping). e.g we don't hear of competitors from Togo, Surinam or Burkina Faso, How many punters can  find them on a map ? How many can name ten countries of the 100 or so that don't compete in the games? Logic dictates that in these 100 or so countries there simply must be a bunch of even more genetically talented athletes. who's game enough to then state categorically there's not? or that there isn't a world beater among them?

Let's also mention the sport based migrations ? If you're a photogenic blond athlete or just a great athlete  then come on in but if you're Asian and say a teacher well or a bus driver, fisher person or 'just' a mum good luck and don't die while you wait.

What also ignored is that the lessor countries that do compete are becoming more and more excluded because of the costs involved. Then there is the  exclusion of  these third world struggling business benefiting from their much needed government's expenditure.
It is utter nonsense to assert that the games actually show the best, that excludes those who simply can't afford to such high training or to compete.

Frankly is has become an entertainment spectacular  and as such only serves to make  the emotionally nationalistic proud, however it fails any sensible objective test as a social objective of society, and should be user pays like all other discretionary entertainment.

MSM (corporations) whose primary client base is other corporations it doesn't surprise me that they want more money to be put into the training etc. That is apart from conflict/sensation sells if they can't have 'gold' to celebrate then ' someone' is at fault.

It should surprise no one that their answer is more money or force more children to play (exploitable)sport.

The need for all of the above is moot. There are far more people who exercise without  exploitable competitions than those who do .  We as a population are simply being conditioned   into over  consuming of food, indulgent comfort, ease of use  etc to the point of self destruction and obesity. I fail to see how this should be a government defined  ( tax paid) objective....
Another factor often over looked in the 'blame game' and fairness is that the inefficiency of all the paid bureaucrats and even higher paid executives in favoured sports .
 

By all commercial terms these Executives are paid to improve the outcome of their sport and if they don't they should share the fate of say unsuccessful football executives and coaches. Certainly not behind the scene conniving for extended terms of employment and reducing costs by commercial means of   'performance only bonuses' knowing full well all
they achieve is to punish/discourage the triers. As it is the actual athletes fund the greater part of their costs ( save the very very few).
Are you prepared to put your family into debt  so that “MULTI National corporations can make  fortunes and your family  get none of it? Not even reimbursement for expenses out laid much less for the effort/sacrifices?”. And if you're in a lessor sport........?

I have long pointed out that which was shown last night on ABC's "Gruen Sweat" http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/24934 there is a far better uses of national funds than These GAMES.
e.g. They showed that the money on one Athlete who came 7th  could have paid for life saving equipment to save many .  Are we to assume that the public is willing to sacrifice lives, literacy et al for the chance to make gold?  I for one object !

Hand the whole thing to commercial enterprise and let them run it in within the laws of freedom of speech    and (heaven forbid) a fairer playing field not demand idiotically preferential laws to protect 'their' assets ( this is clearly  selected Corporate welfare.).
Capitalism is based on exploitation and inequality of rewards  …..one only needs to look at Australia's Nobel prize winners … name three?  Let alone the the CSIRO scientists who invented Wi Fi  that is in use in all mobiles today  …..name one? Yet the same complaining sports fan is inclined to defund or ignore the CSIRO  learned observations. Where was their ticker tape parade? (surely their effort 'beats' that of an entertainer/athlete certainly in actual tangible worth).  To be fair Corporation sell the emotion not the facts or proportion See BP's ad (for the Games) on "Gruen Sweat". They emphasise alternative energy ( an extremely minor part of their business I suggest  for exploitable PR tokenism) and not a mention of anything the bulk of their  less (un)  spinable Business. Where's the greater public good in this hypercritical spin that justified government money and laws to protect it?

In short I contend the games  as they are, are  discriminatory run to  benefit  selected corporate interests and as such are the rightful Provence of  discretionary  spending therefore totally that of the commercial world.  Not  a diversionary Circuses and Bread 

(even they were privately run and funded) by Governments whose only interest alignment  is to gain popular (emotional) support rather than anything  more difficult i.e. constructive.