View Full Forums : Fox Blocker


Truid
03-27-2005, 12:57 AM
Maybe some of you might want to add this to your shopping list?

Fox Blocker (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002220590_foxblocker26.html?syndication=rss)

Tudamorf
03-27-2005, 01:51 AM
<i>Kimery now contends Fox News' top-level management dictates a conservative journalistic bias, that inaccuracies never are retracted, and what airs is more opinion than news.</i>Because the typical (<i>liberal</i>) media outlet has no bias, always retracts inaccuracies, and never airs more opinion than news. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

Perhaps if liberals confronted the issues head on more often instead of resorting to personal attacks and/or calls for censorship, they would be taken more seriously.

Cantatus
03-27-2005, 05:22 AM
Every TV I've ever owned has had the option to block out channels. Why do I need to buy this thing again?

Aidon
03-27-2005, 06:51 AM
Because the typical (<i>liberal</i>) media outlet has no bias, always retracts inaccuracies, and never airs more opinion than news. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

Perhaps if liberals confronted the issues head on more often instead of resorting to personal attacks and/or calls for censorship, they would be taken more seriously.

...you're defending a channel where one of their most popular shows has Bill O'Reilly, but suggesting that "liberals" resort to personal attacks?

You see the irony there, I trust...

And liberals don't call for censorship near as much as conservatives do...when's the last time you've seen the ACLU call for a book to be removed from public schools or libraries?

Aidon
03-27-2005, 06:53 AM
Every TV I've ever owned has had the option to block out channels. Why do I need to buy this thing again?

He made it to make a point, he acknowledges that its completely unecessary.

On the otherhand, if Republican's manage to gain more seats in the legislature, and stack the Supreme Court, in the next few years, it might come in handy when Fox become the offical State news channel...

Panamah
03-27-2005, 09:32 AM
It is rather tempting... but really, the device should be bigger and have a nice logo on it. :D

You know, one of the ironies about Fox is their news which is conservative and stuff... but the same channel has things like The Simpsons and Family Guy, both shows I really love. Go figure.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-27-2005, 02:07 PM
Fox is Conservative? (http://www.dataflo.net/~mpurintun/videos/Commentator_blooper_on_jennifer_lopez.wmv)

Not Safe For Work.

Tudamorf
03-27-2005, 02:15 PM
...you're defending a channel where one of their most popular shows has Bill O'Reilly, but suggesting that "liberals" resort to personal attacks?I'm critiquing, not "defending" anyone in particular.

Too often, I see liberals more interested in mental masturbation than in critical debate. Repeating "Bush/Fox/a_conservative00 sucks" a million times won't convince a non-liberal. Rational arguments, supported by verifiable data, often will.

Panamah
03-27-2005, 03:30 PM
Too often, I see liberals more interested in mental masturbation than in critical debate.

I don't quite see how that is any different from listening to O'Reilly or Limbaugh or that ilk. There are some very good progressive talk show hosts that actually watch CSPAN compulsively, talk to politicians on a regular basis, read court decisions and follow things through with an intensity I couldn't begin to show. Then there are ones that just spout party lines and froth at the mouth and don't really substantiate their positions much.

jtoast
03-27-2005, 03:41 PM
Nice link Fyrr. I hadn't seen that one before lol.

Truid
03-28-2005, 06:56 AM
Every TV I've ever owned has had the option to block out channels. Why do I need to buy this thing again?
Obviously, you don't "need to buy this thing". I just posted the link because so many of you have expressed dissatisfaction or worse with Fox news that I thought you'd get a good laugh out of it. I'm sure there are other more practical ways to block a channel (like simply NOT tuning your TV into that channel, duh!) :smile5:
Anyways, I've been working on a website called News-Talk-Radio (http://www.news-talk-radio.com) that, I hope, will give people who listen to talk-radio an opportunity to express their opinions about some of these celebrity talk show hosts. It's still a work in progress but I was hoping to get some input from some of you here.

Stormhaven
03-28-2005, 09:45 AM
I never thought of Fox as conservatives or liberals, I saw them more as sensationalists. The Simpsons did quite a few not-so-subtle jabs at their news style, remember the Kent Brockman reports where there are things exploding everywhere and they're talking about how many people the winter storm <i>could</i> (but hasn't yet) kill?

I do blame Fox for being the harbingers of the downfall of the current state of news media. In my eyes, they're really the ones who started the "who cares about facts, it's about ratings" trend. Well, Fox and most of the newspapers in New York (god, have you read the NY Post?)

Sunglo
03-28-2005, 10:28 AM
Relative to the rest of the media, Fox is obviously conservative and they make no bones about it.

When they say are "fair and balanced" - what they are referring to is the fact that they will put on just about anyone and let them have thier say - even if they do not particularly agree with it.

Why do you think all during the 2004 Presidential campaign you could not go more than a couple of hours without seeing Terry McAuliffe being interviewed for his spin on whatever the issue de juer was. It is because (1) Fox would put him on and (2) because Terry knew a lot of ppl watch the network from all segments of the political spectrum.

I have never really cared for O'Reilly and therefor do not watch him. Mostly just the morning show and Brit Hume's show - where you will note they always have 2 conservatives and 2 liberals for the roundtable discussions.

And liberals don't call for censorship near as much as conservatives do...when's the last time you've seen the ACLU call for a book to be removed from public schools or libraries?
When was the last time you saw a conservative group shout down a liberal speaker - including the use of bullhorns - which is a favored tactic of the left? <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

noirblood
03-28-2005, 05:15 PM
The NY Post has always been horribly conservative and sensationalist.

The New York Times, while not perfect, has always been more objective (comparatively) and is really not a bad newspaper, as newspapers go.

As for the Fox News shows that have a conservative and a liberal, take a stop watch and keep track of how much time each of them speaks, and a notebook to record how many times each of them are actually allowed to finish their sentence. I guarantee the conservative gets at least 50% more talk time and double the finished sentences.

Panamah
03-28-2005, 06:25 PM
When was the last time you saw a conservative group shout down a liberal speaker - including the use of bullhorns - which is a favored tactic of the left?

Well, I saw some pretty crazy shennanigans in the Fundy Corral at a gay rights parade. They tend to get pretty in-your-face about abortion... I haven't seen any liberals bombing conservative clinics (as if there were such a thing) or shooting conservative doctors or blocking people's entrance to places.

Your fringe element is definitely weirder than our fringe element. ;) Or at least, more dangerous.

okthisnameplz
03-28-2005, 06:36 PM
Read Al Franken's book "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." A liberal book? Definately. Should you take everything he has to say seriously? Of course not, he's a comedian. But what it does do is bring up good points on how Fox News works (I especially love when he bashes Ann Coulter, she's a mega bitch).

Speaking of Ann, check out http://wimp.com/canada/ (video, they bleep any cussing). Interesting.

Aidon
03-28-2005, 07:47 PM
When was the last time you saw a conservative group shout down a liberal speaker - including the use of bullhorns - which is a favored tactic of the left?

The last time I watched Bill O'Reilly.

Do you really want to get into this arguement? Abortion Clinics protestors, I don't think I need to say any more.

Heck, just the other night, on Fox, I was watching a program. I forget which one, but the host was on the topic of Schiavo (it was the early morning after Bush signed the law to send it to the federal courts). He kept trying to make a point of the fact that those "socialist" countries (spoken in the same tone you hear communist spoken of in old 50's footage) had various levels of assisted suicide laws. I finally just changed the channel after they had a US assistant attorney general from the Reagan administration, come on to speak about the legal aspects.

The guest was trying to talk about the legal aspects and trying to explain how the federal argument that Terri Shiavo had not had due process was not very good, since it'd been before 20 some judges over 10 years, and the host wouldn't let him finish what he was saying. He just kept interrupting saying "what if the person, even with a living will, decided to change their mind at that last minute when they were incapacitated and couldn't speak, and decided they didn't want to die?"

This was an argument he had also repeatedly brought up with the previous guest who was on there to advise about the various laws in place in various states, and was trying to tell people they should have a living will stating what they wanted.

Neither guest was able to discuss what they thought they were on there to discuss (the legal aspects of a living will, generally speaking, and the legal aspects of the Terri Shiavo case), without just point blank ignoring the host of the show when he'd spout out with "what if a person changes their mind about dying when they are incapictated?" As if that had any bearing on the dicussions at hand. It was ridiculous.

Aidon
03-28-2005, 07:53 PM
That is one segment I enjoy watching on Fox. Hannity and Combs (sp?). Those two have some good debates from the liberal and conservative view points with each other, and neither one seems too far off the deep end.

Sunglo
03-30-2005, 10:16 AM
Your fringe element is definitely weirder than our fringe element. Or at least, more dangerous.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder . . .

Again, I am indifferent to Bill O'Reilly and do not really watch him. But keep in mind not letting someone ramble on in an interview to stop then from going off topic, which all talking heads tend to do, is not the same as shouting them down - even if done in a rude manner.

And you are more than welcome to call Ann Coulter a "mega-bitch" as long as I can refer to Al Franken as a "mega-dumbass".

Btw - am curious on your opinion of Greta Van Sustren on the Fox News channel. Her brother was in my High School class and she was a couple of years ahead of us, so I have an above average famaliarity with her background.

Panamah
03-30-2005, 10:21 AM
Btw - am curious on your opinion of Greta Van Sustren on the Fox News channel. Her brother was in my High School class and she was a couple of years ahead of us, so I have an above average famaliarity with her background.

I haven't called Ann Coulter anything, but thanks for the permission to call her a mega-bitch... I might just take you up on it.

I don't watch Fox News. I hardly watch much news at all and when I do, I try to catch it on PBS. They tend to give a lot more detail about the news than the typical 30 second news bullet you see on any networks or cable stations. I think most of the news available now falls under the category of entertainment.

I do pick up most of my info from news.google.com or www.washingtonpost.com or PBS or NPR.

Sunglo
03-30-2005, 10:31 AM
(I especially love when he bashes Ann Coulter, she's a mega bitch).

Someone else stated it.

And interesting that you refer to O'Reilly when you never watch him.

okthisnameplz
03-30-2005, 06:20 PM
I stated it. I think the real difference between Al and Ann that we seem to lack in this conversation is that Al is a comedian. You shouldn't take all his dumb comments for face value. Ann, or at least to my knowledge, is dead serious.

Might be better to call someone else a dumbass. Let's jump on Michael Moore, he deserves it at times (most times, anyway). He takes himself seriously, writing "documentaries" that are laced with opinion.

But you're entitled to think Al Franken is a dumbass. Cheers for speaking your mind.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-30-2005, 08:36 PM
That Ann Coulter would be great in European ****.


Greta can join for the 3 way.
Has she fixed her mouth yet?

Remi
03-31-2005, 12:55 AM
Conservatives have the right to life terrorists
Liberals have the Eco and animal rights terrorists.

Both sides have their extreme wings. Fortunately, most of the Country, conservative or liberal, tend to be less extreme and more to the middle in their opinions.

It's all a matter of perspective. Liberals see NY Times as neutral, while conservatives see it having a liberal bias. Conservatives see the Washington Post as neutral, while Liberals see it having a conservative bias. Same can be said of the various news stations, and radio talk shows. The wonderful thing is that we all can pick and choose what to listen to/watch and have so many choices to keep us happy and to criticize. :p

weoden
04-03-2005, 01:02 AM
That is one segment I enjoy watching on Fox. Hannity and Combs (sp?).

Actually, this is the one show on Fox I don't care for. I think These guys go a little too far in their hyperbole. I do like O'Reily in his willingness to confront others with his opinion which I agree with most of the time.

Btw - am curious on your opinion of Greta Van Sustren on the Fox News channel. Her brother was in my High School class and she was a couple of years ahead of us, so I have an above average famaliarity with her background.

She does many of the high profile court trial reporting. This topic is not really of interest. As a matter of fact, I enjoy watching the MJ trial renactment on court TV but that is it for high profile trials.

I think she is bland and not very edgy.


It's all a matter of perspective. Liberals see NY Times as neutral, while conservatives see it having a liberal bias. Conservatives see the Washington Post as neutral, while Liberals see it having a conservative bias.

I like the wall street journal as a conservate biased newpaper.

Fenmarel the Banisher
04-03-2005, 01:52 AM
That is one segment I enjoy watching on Fox. Hannity and Combs (sp?). Those two have some good debates from the liberal and conservative view points with each other, and neither one seems too far off the deep end.

Not so far off the deep end? They are so far off they are in orbit. I watch Dennis Miller on CNBC instead. Atleast you can count on a good laugh or 2 from him.

I used to watch the Brit Hume report everyday after work. Now I don't watch Fox News hardly at all if I have a choice (sometimes I don't). However my preference is for Fox News when I do watch news.

Kalest MoonGlade
04-04-2005, 12:54 AM
I consider myself somewhat conseravtive but Sean Hannity is so out of it that it makes me want to change my views, and then I listen to Alan Colmes. As for Fox News in general I like Brit hume but since I dont leave work till 6 and get home at 7, the only way I could watch him now is by staying at work the hour id normally drive home.

Bill O'Rielly. Now if that is one show I ever got the invite to go in a debate with Bill himself id take it. I agree with him on some positions but in his end comments, it comes off as an attack to liberals and he has singled out democrats as liberals. This was the reason I stopped listening and watching his show.

Right now im on the edge of wanting to join the online boycott of fox news. They've had massive coverage of the pope which I like to keep track of. But what I cant stomach is that each aand every single news report ive seen has tried to put a political spin on this with the guest of the show. They labeled the pope a conservative and to me this just was demeaning to his legacy. The fact that Fox News will use the death of a RELIGIOUS figure to spin political ideology is demeaning and just plain wrong.

Kalest MoonGlade
66th Stormwarden of Stromm
~Dragejegerene~

jtoast
04-04-2005, 01:49 AM
The fact that Fox News will use the death of a RELIGIOUS figure to spin political ideology is demeaning and just plain wrong.


Are you saying that religious figures don't have a political agenda?

Anka
04-04-2005, 06:16 AM
They labeled the pope a conservative and to me this just was demeaning to his legacy.

He is conservative in terms of vatican politics, not american politics.

Panamah
04-04-2005, 02:39 PM
Someone else stated it.

And interesting that you refer to O'Reilly when you never watch him.

Well I don't watch him intentionally, but I did get an earfull and a half this week... my floor installer has conservative talk playing on his radio. Heh! I heard him really going after the ACLU and then later the next day, I heard a former ACLU president address what he said. All I have to say is that O'Reilly is either ignorant, stupid or just plain lies. Maybe all three.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-04-2005, 05:39 PM
He is conservative in terms of vatican politics, not american politics.

He was the patriarch of the most patriarchial of all organizition. He was of the Papal State, the Vatican City, The Holy See.

It is a soveriegn state consisting of 921 people. Men only. Well, 920 now, duh.

He proceeded over a vast empire of churches, with no women allowed as monks, priests, bishops, cardinals, or popes. No leadership positions for any woman within the church.

He was against all forms of birth control, besides abstinence(I think they are against that too, iirc). Against stem cell research. He is against the most innate of female abilities, the ability to choose who breeds and who does not.

He was not conservative?

I think that he was the very definition of conservative. Reactionary.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-04-2005, 05:44 PM
Cue the music.


There are Jews in the world...

..there are Buud'ists.

There are Hindus and Mormons, and then

There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've nev-ver been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Beee.....cause

Ev..ery sperm is sac..red.
Ev..ery sperm is great.
If a sperm is wast..ed,
God gets quite irate.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Repeat chorus

/smile

Diedre, can you get that...

okthisnameplz
04-04-2005, 06:09 PM
Ah, you can always count on a good monty python song to let it all make sense.

Kalest MoonGlade
04-04-2005, 06:19 PM
Are you saying that religious figures don't have a political agenda?


The reason I said this is because I cant recall the last time I had heard fox news call the Pope conservative. They also always compare him favorably to republican conservatives more so then democrats.

One last thing. THe rev. Al Sharpton has been accused many times of being liberal by O'Reily and other Fox News host. Now last week when I was at work I saw the advertisement for Mr.Sharpton going on O'Rielly so I skipped Lost and watched this instead. I listened and watched Rev. Sharpton engage O'Rielly on his pro-choice and how he said he believed that in politics that God should be kept out of it, screwed up as it is coming from a preacher this is what I agree with. The belief in any deity should not be allowed to influence the political system, especially when it interferes with Human Rights (ie Christianity in the first 1900 yrs, Islam, etc.)

Kalest.

okthisnameplz
04-04-2005, 06:25 PM
My favorite thing (because its funny) about Fox News is that they throw the "L" word around like its a bad thing. Sure, its fine and dandy to be as conservative as you want, but, oh no, you've just acted like a liberal.


It just irks me when a news source (whether left or right slanted) vocally name calls the other side. Well, it wouldn't irk me so much if they could come up with something better than "liberal". Come on...

Panamah
04-04-2005, 06:57 PM
We liberals call ourselves "progressives" these days. Heh... the other side must be the opposite of progressive.

Anka
04-04-2005, 08:51 PM
I don't think it's fair to label the Pope conservative in political terms by just looking at half his values. If you look at his views on war, the environment, third world aid, the death penalty, capitalism, etc he might be considered very liberal and progressive on those issues, certainly by american standards.

It's probably best not to place him into the spectrum of national politics really. He wouldn't want to be there and should, in an ideal world, be above such mundane matters.

Truid
04-04-2005, 09:20 PM
We liberals call ourselves "progressives" these days. Heh... the other side must be the opposite of progressive.
Yeah, it'd be pretty funny to hear them say . . "those darn progressives! Always trying to progress, . . . err and stuff!" :twak:

Aidon
04-05-2005, 12:28 AM
There has never been a Pope who did not attempt (and usually succeed) in interefering in various national politics.

The nature of the Catholic Church, with the possible exception of the very modern American Catholic Church, is to impose itself on the politics of the world, whether the world wishes it or not.

Anka
04-05-2005, 09:08 AM
The nature of the Catholic Church, with the possible exception of the very modern American Catholic Church, is to impose itself on the politics of the world, whether the world wishes it or not.

As much as a I disagree with the Pope's views on abortion, birth control and homosexual rights, I can see that these are moral issues entirely within his compass. His message is a world message. If that message conflicts with national politics than that reflects as much upon the national politics as the Pope. In my country the Pope's political impact is very small, as is the impact of any other religious figurehead.

If the Pope told you to raise taxes for a medicare program for the over 50's then you should start getting worried about his political influence.

Panamah
04-05-2005, 10:11 AM
Man, I'd say there's some protestant sects that are far worse about trying to influence politics than catholics. Far more organized, evangelical etc.

Anka, you bring up a good point though. Why do religions spend so much time and effort trying to influence things like end-of-life matters and abortion when we have rampant poverty and lack of health care? Why don't religions view those as moral issues? I think those issues are far, far more important than the things they're getting their knickers knotted over. Is it because churches don't care about you unless you're a fetus or close to becoming a corpse?

Ndainye
04-05-2005, 10:54 AM
As much as a I disagree with the Pope's views on abortion, birth control and homosexual rights, I can see that these are moral issues entirely within his compass. His message is a world message. If that message conflicts with national politics than that reflects as much upon the national politics as the Pope. In my country the Pope's political impact is very small, as is the impact of any other religious figurehead.

If the Pope told you to raise taxes for a medicare program for the over 50's then you should start getting worried about his political influence.


Umm aren't you from the UK? Isn't your Queen the head of the Church of England? I'd assume that she would have a fairly large impact on the UK's politics.

Teaenea
04-05-2005, 11:14 AM
Anka, you bring up a good point though. Why do religions spend so much time and effort trying to influence things like end-of-life matters and abortion when we have rampant poverty and lack of health care? Why don't religions view those as moral issues? I think those issues are far, far more important than the things they're getting their knickers knotted over. Is it because churches don't care about you unless you're a fetus or close to becoming a corpse?

Wow, at least not All liberals are so blind to what the church officially has stated.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/04/other-pope-john-paul-ii-was-complex.html

That's a Blog from a lefty. He points out some liberal things about JP2. The quotes are related to things other than "right to die/life" fetuses etc. Too many people seem to focus on these aspects and totally ignore the rest.


Pope John Paul II took a dim view indeed of unbridled capitalism of the sort that has come to dominate every aspect of life in the United States.

Then there was his opposition to war as a tool of international diplomacy, his respect for the United Nations Charter, his concern for the impact of an Iraq war on ordinary people (in which he was prophetic). I somehow don't think he was actually on the same page as John Bolton.

and then it becomes clear that Pope John Paul II was actually pro-Union and pro-cooperative and pro-workers' rights. All those corporate fat cats holding seminars on "how to bust a union before it gets going in your company" and who fund the Republican Far Right, which turns around and trades on the Pope's moral authority in the culture wars, must be pretty upset by statements such as this:

Panamah
04-05-2005, 12:27 PM
Teanea, I don't see the sort of fervor being put into those issues in the united states by any religious group. Do religious groups march on the capital demanding the elimination of poverty or decent health care for everyone? No, but you'll find them doing that when it comes to fighting abortion or mobilizing to fight (their version of) obscenity on TV.

I know churches do organize and fight poverty on their own but why don't they politicize on these issues? Why is it just abortion and and obscenity that seems to draw the political activism out of religious people?

Teaenea
04-05-2005, 12:50 PM
Teanea, I don't see the sort of fervor being put into those issues in the united states by any religious group. Do religious groups march on the capital demanding the elimination of poverty or decent health care for everyone? No, but you'll find them doing that when it comes to fighting abortion or mobilizing to fight (their version of) obscenity on TV.

I know churches do organize and fight poverty on their own but why don't they politicize on these issues? Why is it just abortion and and obscenity that seems to draw the political activism out of religious people?

What you see is mostly the sensationalize, highly charged debates that the media deems suitable for viewing. The media mostly overlooks anything that's not "big news" or contravercial.

But, yes, Religious groups do "politicize" their agendas just like everyone else. The Vatican even has an Embasedor to the US Government.

Personally, I think that efforts that churches put forth is far more effective than what most protestors have done. I think a single volunteer to a soup kitchen has done more to eliminate hunger than any single protestor on the steps of the capital building. Most Churches ACTIVELY do something about these things.

Anka
04-05-2005, 01:09 PM
Isn't your Queen the head of the Church of England? I'd assume that she would have a fairly large impact on the UK's politics.

No. Her roles are ceremonial rather than influential. Her role as head of state is to essentially stay outside of national politics. Her role as head of the church is to essentially stay outside of religious politics. Every time something simple comes up, such as her son getting married, someone gets offended somehow over something so imagine what it would be like if she actually said something of any import?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-05-2005, 01:34 PM
Congress-ive?


I think I got it, Pan.

Sunglo
04-05-2005, 01:34 PM
No. Her roles are ceremonial rather than influential. Her role as head of state is to essentially stay outside of national politics. Her role as head of the church is to essentially stay outside of religious politics.

Kind of makes you wonder what the point of your monarchy is then . . .

Panamah
04-05-2005, 03:46 PM
Kind of makes you wonder what the point of your monarchy is then . . .

I don't think they really have much of a purpose other than to be wealthy, untaxed (I think), and sort of figure-heads. Really, I reckon its like having a really huge, expensive to maintain monument to the past.

I think the Dutch Monarchy is kind of fun. They tend to be really casual.

Congress-ive?


Hmmm... I think you've got it!

Anka
04-05-2005, 06:29 PM
There are quite a lot of advantages to having a non-elected head of state. They don't jump with public opinion. They don't need initiatives, ideas, policies, or anything disruptive like that. They're not held responsible. They add a lot of stability. They can represent the country without any political undercurrent and do a lot of good work behind the scenes. Their patronage is always desirable, never divisive. There are plenty of obvious disadvantages too, of course.

The Australians have been wanting to get a new head of state for a while, but they just can't agree on anything better. Most people can't think of anything worse than an extra political election to elect a national representative that half the population won't like anyway, with rivals criticising everything they do for the next 4 years afterwards.

okthisnameplz
04-05-2005, 06:46 PM
Not ever having traveled to England, though knowing how humans are, I'd say that the main reason they keep a King/Queen is tradition. It'd be like renaming the President to the Prime Minister, it'd loose something. Not the best example, I know, but the US doesn't really have anything that compares with the Queen. Wait, I know, it'd be like getting rid of all the movie stars that get paid millions. People wouldn't like it.

Ndainye
04-06-2005, 02:19 AM
From the official website of the British Monarchy http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp

Until the end of the 17th century, British monarchs were executive monarchs - that is, they had the right to make and pass legislation. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarch has become a constitutional monarch, which means that he or she is bound by rules and conventions and remains politically impartial.

On almost all matters he or she acts on the advice of ministers. While acting constitutionally, the Sovereign retains an important political role as Head of State, formally appointing prime ministers, approving certain legislation and bestowing honours.

The Queen also has important roles to play in other organisations, including the Armed Forces and the Church of England.

Sounds pretty political to me. The Royal Family are also the biggest celebrities in England. Any cause they take as their own becomes a political issue for the people that follow them.

Anka
04-06-2005, 08:38 AM
The Royal Family are also the biggest celebrities in England. Any cause they take as their own becomes a political issue for the people that follow them.

Which is exactly why they don't sponsor any issues except non-controversial charities and sporting events. Even Princess Diana, when campaigning against land mines, chose a humanitarian topic that hasn't any public opposition. (As an aside, did you know that the US military is of the few armies that refused to destroy their land mines, and decided to keep these weapons that hurt more civilians than soldiers and maim more than they kill?)

Sunglo
04-06-2005, 12:42 PM
There are quite a lot of advantages to having a non-elected head of state. They don't jump with public opinion. They don't need initiatives, ideas, policies, or anything disruptive like that. They're not held responsible. They add a lot of stability.

Have never lived under such a system, but I prefer not to have a few people answerable to no one but themselves having that level of power and telling me how to think. You say that the only involve themsleves in non-controversial issues - I guess that is true if you agree with all those issues.

Of course I would not want to live in a country that does not have the right of free speech either.

Panamah
04-06-2005, 12:54 PM
The crown appoints the prime minister? I thought the majority party did.

Anka
04-06-2005, 01:21 PM
Have never lived under such a system, but I prefer not to have a few people answerable to no one but themselves having that level of power and telling me how to think. You say that the only involve themsleves in non-controversial issues - I guess that is true if you agree with all those issues.

That's exactly the point. The Queen doesn't tell anyone what to do except the people under her wages and employment. She picks uncontroversial issues to support. Who would disagree with the Queen being patron of a cancer research charity, say? I'm surprised that Americans are still having trouble realising that modern aristocracy doesn't actually do anything. Read some turn of the (previous) century literature, like Henry James, and you'll see how Americans have been struggling with this concept for a century.

We are currently holding a general election in the UK. The Prime Minister decided the date and informed the Queen so she will ceremonially close parliament soon. We'll have the election campaign over the next month, during which the royals will say nothing of any political note whatsoever if they can help it. They'll all be talking about Camilla's wedding dress and how the Pope was a good man. Once the election results have been counted the Prime Minister elect will be ceremonially confirmed by the Queen and she will ceremonially re-open parliament. At the opening she will wear a nice crown and read a speech listing her government's ambitions, written for her by the government, and shake a lot of nice people by the hand.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-06-2005, 02:52 PM
Everyone forgets that all royalty got their power by stealing it from others.

Hundreds of years ago, a bunch of bullies who stole all the other kids lunch money started to fight each other. Over who got ALL of the other kids lunch money.

Until one day, as you have it, there is left the final lineage of the final bully.

And he is getting married soon, I hear.

Too bad he already bred. Hope he does not again, looks is a female trait(it follows the female side). And combining his and her looks,,,frellin' mongrels.

Panamah
04-06-2005, 03:09 PM
I'm surprised that Americans are still having trouble realising that modern aristocracy doesn't actually do anything. Read some turn of the (previous) century literature, like Henry James, and you'll see how Americans have been struggling with this concept for a century.

I don't think most of us are confused on that topic at all. We know your monarchy does nothing. I think the confusing part for us is... why? Why continue to support this expensive human decoration that does virtually nothing but weild giant sissors to cut the tape at ceremonies and bash bottles against the bows of ships?

As near as I can tell, its really just to give your tabloids something to natter on about.

Jinjre
04-06-2005, 03:31 PM
looks is a female trait(it follows the female side)

Boy, someone better tell my husband's genes that, he looks almost identical to his father, and absolutely nothing like his mother. And here all this time I thought it was a matter of which genes were more dominant than the other genes.

I don't think most of us are confused on that topic at all. We know your monarchy does nothing. I think the confusing part for us is... why? Why continue to support this expensive human decoration that does virtually nothing but weild giant sissors to cut the tape at ceremonies and bash bottles against the bows of ships?

I can actually understand this. Since we don't have anything remotely close to a royal family, I think it's difficult for most Americans to grasp having a single focal figure who represents all things American. The closest we come is the flag. It is the one symbol of our country which we can all, right/center/left, stand behind. In times of crisis, we rally behind our flag because we have nothing else to rally behind. I'm guessing for the Brits, QE II is the rallying point. Although she says and does nothing political (neither does our flag), she represents all things British. And unlike our flag, she can actually be a power for good. She can promote causes which benefit the lives of Britains, and can act as a good will ambassador the world over. We have to have political people (secretary of state) who usually have to follow party lines represent us. This means that we really don't have a general good will ambassador type person who is truly neutral in politics. I kind of envy the British system.

Not to mention, how long has England had a King/Queen? Since the 1100's or so? (sorry, don't know my British history all that well) Imagine if the US was to abolish all celebrations on the 4th of July (as close as we get to a national image). It would be protested by pretty much everyone. I see the Queen as something akin to that, she is the focal point of national celebrations, and with 900 years of precedent, it would be difficult to abolish the monarchy as an institution. We've only been around a couple hundred years, yet the outcry over celebrating 4th of July would be intense.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-06-2005, 04:20 PM
Jin,

You know as well as I do that with a large population size(generally speaking that is), that women can, and do, mate with men who are less physically attractive than they are and still produce relatively, and with certain examples very, attractive children. While the opposite is generally and likely untrue.

It is also shown that a child will 'look' most like the father in the first 6 months of life. And then they acquire the mother's charms. That, I think is one of the cooler things about our physiologies...that is deviously wicked cool.

Anka
04-06-2005, 04:34 PM
Why continue to support this expensive human decoration that does virtually nothing but weild giant sissors to cut the tape at ceremonies and bash bottles against the bows of ships?

Quite true. There are plenty of valid arguments against a ceremonial monarchy. American tourism just about pays for these expensive human decorations though, supposedly.

After the Romans, Britain had various kings such as the legendary Arthur, many saxon kings, and various viking kings. They all had control over sizeable parts of the British isles while smaller kingdoms existed elsewhere. William the Conqueror established in 1066 the English monarchy that has lasted until the present day, seizing power upon the death of saxon King Edward, the Confessor.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-06-2005, 05:21 PM
What interests me about England right now, are not the kings.

But the English(I mean the island, not the country) queens from pre(or near)-history.

Kings are kings, and even the monarchy of today is essential extended custodial patriarchy.

True(out in the open) female dominated societies interest me much more.

Jinjre
04-06-2005, 05:40 PM
True(out in the open) female dominated societies interest me much more.

Like this one? (http://www.matriarchy.info/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=5)

Synjinn
04-06-2005, 05:53 PM
Very interesting article, Jinjre. Thank you. We studied a few of the matrilineal societies in my cultural anthropology class, but I hadn't heard of this one before.

I find it fascinating that our own culture once followed a matriarchal path (way back in the days), but shifted to patriarchal with the advent of agricultural/pastoral societies.

Hmm...do you think that is where we went wrong? :biggrin:

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-06-2005, 07:12 PM
Agreed as well.

Thanks Jin.

Any group that has the gonads to have this, in this day and age...

About matriarchy, where old, young, female and male are not equal, but complement each other. An unusual concept of community to consider.

...Is definately worth bookmarking.

And I have.

Panamah
04-06-2005, 08:25 PM
That is a fascinating article, Jinj. It reminds me of a thing I saw on TV where they were looking for a decesdent of warrior woman that was described in ancient literature. They had to go through some incredible forgotten uncharted areas of china to find what they believed might be her descendents. They were looking for women that had blondish hair, asian features and freckles. And they found them.

I love the ancient greek era and it is thought that the Minoans were a matriachical society. In fact, a lot of the greek tales are thought to indicate there was a matriachical society before the Indo-European invasions where the patriarchy may have taken root.

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/snakegoddess/aegeanmatriliny.html

Anka
04-06-2005, 09:07 PM
I think you'll find Panamah that there were status and property rights afforded to noble women in ancient Greece, but power and authority lay with their husbands. The article quoted Ulysses and Penelope and it's probably a good example.

Ulysses was ruler of Ithca. In his absence his wife Penelope governed the household instead of his son. With Ulysses presumed dead, Penelope was obligated to remarry and find another defender of the kingdom. Any suitor who married her would have taken her property and potentially disinherited her son. This is why she is seen as being so resourceful in delaying the suitors from claiming her as a bride (as well as the obvious reason).

The tales of Oedipus and Orestes show the same laws of inheritance too.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-06-2005, 09:19 PM
"I think you'll find Panamah that there were status and property rights afforded to noble women in ancient Greece, but power and authority lay with their husbands."

Before that. At the edge of history.

You can see it from the mythology.

Before Apollo, there was Zeus
Before Zeus there were the Titans, and Zeus imprisoned them.
And before that there were Gaia(earth goddess) and Uranus(sky god), and Chronos the titan imprisoned them.

And before Gaia and Uranus, you had Gaia only. She beget the sky god, and the titans.

That was the time that the goddess was worshipped in Greece.

And if you venture back in the mythos and creed of every continent and island, you will find her.

Anka
04-06-2005, 10:26 PM
And if you venture back in the mythos and creed of every continent and island, you will find her.

Rubbish! :)

Synjinn
04-06-2005, 11:11 PM
Rubbish! :)

Never could turn down an easy challenge. :wink:

Ancient Goddess Worship (http://www.humanevolution.net/a/goddess.html)

The major aspects of the Goddess of the Neolithic --- the birth-giver, portrayed in a naturalistic birth-giving pose; the fertility-giver influencing growth and multiplication, portrayed as a pregnant nude; the life of nourishment-giver and protectress, portrayed as a bird-women with breasts and protruding buttocks; and the death-wielder as a stiff nude ("bone") --- can all be traced back to the period when the first sculptures of bone, ivory, or stone appeared, around 25,000 B. C. and their symbols --- vulvas, triangles, breasts, chevrons, zig-zags, meanders, cupmarks --- to an even earlier time.
The earliest civilizations of the world--in China, Tibet, Egypt, the Near East, and Europe--were, in all probability, matristic "Goddess civilizations." Since agriculture was developed by women, the Neolithic period created optimum conditions for the survival of matrilineal, endogamous systems inherited from Paleolithic times. During the early agricultural period women reached the apex of their influence in farming, arts and crafts, and social functions. The matriclan with collectivist principles continued.
And, just 'cause I so agreed with this...
The difficulty is that when a man thinks of matriarchy, he thinks of a patriarchy with women in the place of men; he does not stop to consider that matriarchy may be a complete mirror-image. Where patriarchy establishes law, matriarchy establishes custom; where patriarchy establishes military power, matriarchy establishes religious authority; where patriarchy encourages the aresteia of he individual warrior, matriarchy encourages the tradition bound cohesion of the collective .

Anka
04-07-2005, 05:52 AM
The evidence of neolithic remains in some areas with images presumed to be fertility symbols does not prove the universal worship by all neolithic tribes of an overarching mother goddess that created earth and the gods. That myth is certainly not found in the earliest writings or oral tradition of every myth and creed, as suggested by Fyyr.

Late edit : Lets agree that there was widespread worship of female fertility across many early pantheist religions (when you include all childbirth, havests, and earth figures). It wasn't necessarily in all religions and some religions had male fertility worship as well.

Fenlayen
04-07-2005, 06:33 AM
Bit bored at work so I looked up what powers the reigning monarch has in the UK.

http://www.answers.com/topic/royal-prerogative

So technicaly the King/Queen can do a hell of a lot, but any abuse of those powers would cause a major political incident.

Speaking as a Brit :P I would rather have a monarch than a president. Mainly because I'm of the opion that anyone who wants the head of state job is a power hungry despot in waiting, so why would I vote for them

Aidon
04-07-2005, 07:15 AM
All I have to say about matriarchies is this: There's a reason why the vast majority of the world turned out to be patriarchal, and why advancement in civilization came under said patriachies.

Feminists be damned. If there was something innately noble about a matriarchal society, we'd still be worshipping some silly goddess somewhere. She didn't work for us before...I somehow doubt she'd work for us now ;)

Anka
04-07-2005, 07:35 AM
There's a reason why the vast majority of the world turned out to be patriarchal, and why advancement in civilization came under said patriachies.

To be fair, I think that's because of male power in physical battle.

The argument that the greatest advancements in civilization came under global patriachies might be strictly true, but it's also strictly true that the greatest advancements came under increased global temperatures. Rather than wanting more patriachal societies and more global warming, I'll consider whether human advancement is maybe accelerating anyway irrespective of any other factors.

Aidon
04-07-2005, 07:53 AM
Actually, if you look over history, the global temperatures have not been rising steadily the past six thousand years ;).

Indeed, the finest violins in the world were created during what has been called a mini-ice age, for one example =D

Oh, yeah, it was a man who made the violins too...

Anka
04-07-2005, 08:40 AM
Well I'd agree that the whole rising temperature supporting human advancement thing is hogwash, but it doesn't mean I have't heard a supposedly credible scientist advance it as a reason for ignoring global warming!