Hamilton Saint

Isn't your point contradictory? "... What it used to be about ..." refers to respecting the tradition and knowing the history. Making the dramatic changes you mention would further undermine the tradition.

You sound like a policeman who has been told to nudge the public away from a crime scene!

The US is a very litigious society and there are hordes of personal injury lawyers looking for ways to gain compensation for their clients.

Parenthetically, I read Nick Davies book Hack Attack a couple of years ago, and was appalled at the level of criminality and corruption in the UK press. But I suppose much of that has been forgotten now?

Many people have little grasp of the facts, or are lacking in self-knowledge about their own particular bias. The extreme right in the US and Canada, for example, believe pretty much all of the media has a liberal-left bias—regardless of what they know about corporate ownership and concentrated media ownership. The dominance of this right-wing view, over time, has made public broadcasters fearful of corporate and political criticism. They begin to self-censor and cave in to pressure, because right-wing governments are in control of their funding. The people who say, "Unions might have been necessary once upon a time, but we don't need them any more," are the same types who think public broadcasting no longer serves any useful function—that what they do is somehow no different than what the corporate media are up to.

How could any minimally-informed person deny that the media shapes public opinion? As Noam Chomsky points out, the shaping of public opinion began in earnest in the early 20th century with the rise of the PR industry. The PR industry works primarily on behalf of corporate interests (feeding the media) and political parties (teaching them how to distort information and misinform the public—what we now call "spin").

1) They have combined the total amount for each of the five categories. Finland is the largest amount (if you combine all 5 categories). 2) They surveyed just those 5 countries, as it states clearly in the second paragraph. Their conclusion is based on those representative countries, not the whole of Europe. My conclusion: read carefully and think.

I would have thought that the press generally reflects the fundamental views of its owners—although certain papers may have developed historically a certain steady political orientation, which a new owner might decide to continue (because it is the paper's recognized "brand"). Readers usually gravitate towards the type of paper (broadsheet or tabloid; "easy to read" or "hard to read") whose political stance they generally agree with.

ennui

Yeah, I saw that. Reported by the BBC? Or The Independent? Or The Guardian? I go to those sites often. Read it recently.

Ten men behind the goal? We'd probably lose, I think.

Another gem by T.S. Eliot. This is 'Little Gidding', taken from "Four Quartets"

Anyone have Saints Player working yet?

But none characterized by the same sort of cold-blooded, inhuman depravity. And none at the same level of extremity, magnitude, and significance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kmLZQ97JQY

The Viktor Frankl book I mentioned is a psychological analysis. Elie Wiesel's concise memoir "Night" is a literary approach to the same dark topic.

No, he died of heart failure in 1997.

I have recently read Viktor Frankl's wonderful book "Man's Search For Meaning". He was an Austrian psychiatrist. The first half of the book is about his personal experiences as an inmate in Auschwitz. The second half gives an outline of his psychological method, called logotherapy. The heart of his theory is that the prime drive for human beings is not pleasure, or happiness, but a search for meaning. It's a compelling read.

Yes. Here is a detailed break-down of opinion in Iowa. Interesting (if you're into this much specific data!). https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/primaries/iowa-entrance-poll/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_iowagraphic-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

On the one hand, you say that the "next president will be republican"; on the other, you acknowledge that the Republicans "lack a strong moderate candidate." If Trump or Cruz is the Republican candidate, the Democrats will win easily. The Republican Party leadership know that they need a centrist candidate. A right-wing extremist, or a boorish demagogue, is not going to do it for them. By the way, Sanders doesn't call himself a socialist, he calls himself a democratic socialist. Big difference. Here's what he said in 2015: “When I use the world socialist—and I know some people aren’t comfortable about it—I’m saying that it is imperative,” Sanders said, that we “create a government that works for all and not just the few." Democratic socialism, Sanders said, is not tied to any Marxist belief or the abolition of capitalism. “I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal,” he said.

"... do you go to see." TV doesn't count.

Right.

Correct. I misunderstood that.

I don't follow your logic. If he supports or helps institute a fairer system of voting (than the current first-past-the post system), then he is improving democracy. Yes? Change the rules if they are unfair or ineffective.

This Joni Mitchell song is set in Matala. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bulwl46vz9s