So my semester is not too busy, but I have a job now, selling chocolate (yay me).
Update on what's been happening with me since nearly a year ago:
I have way too many comic books
Started playing Warmachines: Hordes
Play lots of board games (still)
Got back with boyf
Painting more
Doing better in school
New Years Resolutions:
Better Posture
Do better in school
Read at least one non school book a month
update blog weekly
write more
What I plan to do from here on out with my blog thing?
Tell the nonreaders about board games I play, comics I read, movies I see, food I make, and how much I loath the current media situation in the United States.
A real post coming this weekend!
22 January 2009
01 May 2008
A little personal
Well... Long distance turned out it didn't work. Too bad. But I must pick myself up and go on. I wish things could have been different but now my walls are back up for him and I won't let myself get smashed again. So onward we go marching. Now it's time for relaxing and preparing half heartedly for the end of the year!
My favorite Paper (The 6th)
The Future of Journalism: A World Full of Hate?
The answer to the pack mentality of journalists today is a reporter that hates everything to do with government, but has a respect for the public. If, journalists today have a sympathetic view of government because they spend their time with politicians rather than the public. Then, one way for journalists to give the people the news that they need to hear is for a journalist to spend more time with the people in their natural environment, the cities where they live, work and play. The newspaper business, like all other businesses, is profit driven. Rather than being bound to educate the public they are feeding them formulated soft news tidbits that have made most Americans fat with apathy.
In W. Lance Bennett's News: The Politics of Illusion he describes the current state of US journalism as a sort of pack of journalists that feed off of each other and share information and sources (p.171-172). They are encouraged to report in formulated way that contains little or no actual information about the events they are reporting on (Bennett, p. 164). Bennett puts forth the idea that journalists are strongly motivated to showcase the same news as other news sources (p.177). The newspapers and television stations are showing the same news because they don't want to be thought of as showcasing irrelevant news stories. If ABC, NBC and CNN are all reporting on an outbreak of a rare strand of the I.D.-10T virus; then CBS would likely be telling the same story. If they chose not to report on the new virus then they might lose viewers who would go to one of the other channels to hear about this breaking story. All of these pressures amount to the media giving a very vanilla set of news stories. These reports are without controversy or specific detail of events; rather than investigating and hunting for the truth the reporters are content with the hand-fed information from political handlers (Bennett p. 173).
To offset this current trend of soft news and info snacking. There needs to be a paper that is willing to let a reporter get angry about local issues, and governmental issues. This sort of angry reporter would be out to expose the truth about politicians and local government no matter the cost. Warren Ellis's comic series Transmetropolitan is about one such journalist: Spider Jerusalem. Spider writes a popular column called "I Hate it Here" in a paper called The Word. He takes a stance to expose corruption in a future where people care more about stimulants and body modification than the blatant delinquency in the political system (Ellis, 2000, 2001). Jerusalem uses unorthodox methods to gain his information and will often resort to blackmail, but he wants to inform the public and show them the error in their system. He is in a constant state of agitation at the public's apathy (Ellis, 2000 p. 37).
A journalist like Spider could change the public's view of the media. Spider forces people to take a hard look at their current political climate, and they love him for it (Ellis, 2001). The blogosphere seems to be an answer to the pack journalism for some people. While blogs are becoming increasingly more credible with the backing of newspapers and other media groups. There are still a large number of them that are just angry and misinformed people that have heard something on the local news and want to rant. People need someone that wants to tell them the truth, and isn't afraid to enrage the majority of the government and other people in positions of power. The need for some one to break free from the chains of the media formula is increasing with the growing dissatisfaction of much of the public with the sort of news they are getting from most major media sources.
References:
Bennett, W. L. (2007). News: The Politics of Illusion (7th Ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Ellis, W. (2000). Transmetropolitan: The New Scum. New York: DC Comics.
Ellis, W. (2001). Transmetropolitan: Lonely City. New York: DC Comics.
Note:
I had only read the first two volumes of Transmet at the time and I now realize that this paper is severely lacking in my analysis of the works of Mr. Ellis. Too bad. Alas this is the paper as I handed it in.
The answer to the pack mentality of journalists today is a reporter that hates everything to do with government, but has a respect for the public. If, journalists today have a sympathetic view of government because they spend their time with politicians rather than the public. Then, one way for journalists to give the people the news that they need to hear is for a journalist to spend more time with the people in their natural environment, the cities where they live, work and play. The newspaper business, like all other businesses, is profit driven. Rather than being bound to educate the public they are feeding them formulated soft news tidbits that have made most Americans fat with apathy.
In W. Lance Bennett's News: The Politics of Illusion he describes the current state of US journalism as a sort of pack of journalists that feed off of each other and share information and sources (p.171-172). They are encouraged to report in formulated way that contains little or no actual information about the events they are reporting on (Bennett, p. 164). Bennett puts forth the idea that journalists are strongly motivated to showcase the same news as other news sources (p.177). The newspapers and television stations are showing the same news because they don't want to be thought of as showcasing irrelevant news stories. If ABC, NBC and CNN are all reporting on an outbreak of a rare strand of the I.D.-10T virus; then CBS would likely be telling the same story. If they chose not to report on the new virus then they might lose viewers who would go to one of the other channels to hear about this breaking story. All of these pressures amount to the media giving a very vanilla set of news stories. These reports are without controversy or specific detail of events; rather than investigating and hunting for the truth the reporters are content with the hand-fed information from political handlers (Bennett p. 173).
To offset this current trend of soft news and info snacking. There needs to be a paper that is willing to let a reporter get angry about local issues, and governmental issues. This sort of angry reporter would be out to expose the truth about politicians and local government no matter the cost. Warren Ellis's comic series Transmetropolitan is about one such journalist: Spider Jerusalem. Spider writes a popular column called "I Hate it Here" in a paper called The Word. He takes a stance to expose corruption in a future where people care more about stimulants and body modification than the blatant delinquency in the political system (Ellis, 2000, 2001). Jerusalem uses unorthodox methods to gain his information and will often resort to blackmail, but he wants to inform the public and show them the error in their system. He is in a constant state of agitation at the public's apathy (Ellis, 2000 p. 37).
A journalist like Spider could change the public's view of the media. Spider forces people to take a hard look at their current political climate, and they love him for it (Ellis, 2001). The blogosphere seems to be an answer to the pack journalism for some people. While blogs are becoming increasingly more credible with the backing of newspapers and other media groups. There are still a large number of them that are just angry and misinformed people that have heard something on the local news and want to rant. People need someone that wants to tell them the truth, and isn't afraid to enrage the majority of the government and other people in positions of power. The need for some one to break free from the chains of the media formula is increasing with the growing dissatisfaction of much of the public with the sort of news they are getting from most major media sources.
References:
Bennett, W. L. (2007). News: The Politics of Illusion (7th Ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Ellis, W. (2000). Transmetropolitan: The New Scum. New York: DC Comics.
Ellis, W. (2001). Transmetropolitan: Lonely City. New York: DC Comics.
Note:
I had only read the first two volumes of Transmet at the time and I now realize that this paper is severely lacking in my analysis of the works of Mr. Ellis. Too bad. Alas this is the paper as I handed it in.
Rousseau and the Savages - Fifth (last the 6th was written before my computer crashed and I can't find it)
Rousseau and the Savages
In Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality Among Men Jean-Jacques Rousseau makes broad generalizations about the culture, or lack of one, of 'savages.' He refers to them as just coming into the frameworks of a society. He says that they have reached the point where they mutually value one another but every misstep is an outrage and invokes brutality. How might Rousseau have written differently if he had had a broader knowledge of the culture of these so called savages? Would he have made different conclusions about the nature of man? Or would he have come to the same conclusions? Rousseau refers to the savages lack of complex language, because their needs from language were so simple. He says that they have “crude and imperfect” languages like the historical man that he describes at length in the Discourse. If Rousseau had had a more accurate knowledge of the savage's society, then he would have had different things to say about the savages, but his fundamental essence of his work would have remained the same.
The many tribes of Native Americans in the United States are excellent examples of 'savages' not being exactly what Rousseau had imagined when he wrote about them in passing. These societies were far more advanced than he gave them credit for. The Cherokee Nation is an example of this sort of advanced society; while they might not have had a written syllabary until the early 1800s, they had a spoken language and history for many generations. They were not savages that merely survived. They were a synthesized society with advanced art and language. The Cherokee society has very developed art practices from basket weaving to specific dancing rituals . While Rousseau does make the distinction that others use the savages as an example for man's cruel basic nature, and he refutes this by saying that those societies have already come quite far from the natural state of man. However, the cruelty of Native Americans pales in comparison to the cruelty wrought upon them by the United States government when they forced them on to reservations.
There have been misconceptions, in societies derived from European conquests, about Native Americans, as well as other 'savage' people's, cultures ever since Europeans started exploring and finding peoples that had different kinds of societies from their 'normal' idea of society. The Native Americans in the United States are no exception; they have been framed as dangerous because they were different. They didn't live in the same way as Europeans so they must have been violent and unsophisticated savages. These 'savages' actually lived in a much more peaceful way than Europeans have for most of their history. They have had territorial wars, but it is unknown to me if they have had nearly as many bloody revolutions.
I believe that Rousseau would have stood by his conclusions because of evidence that Native Americans were more civilized than he gave them credit for being. If the 'savages' were in fact more civilized than a man in Rousseau's idea of society that would further prove his point. His point being: going into society is a movement towards inequality, and that man has a more natural state of being equal. The Native Americans would have helped Rousseau show that the society that he lived in was farther away from the natural state of man because of their comparatively less unequal way of doing things. Rousseau was trying to prove that man is naturally compassionate and solitary, while the Native Americans would not have helped his ideas that humans are by nature solitary. They do help him prove that humans in his society are more cruel than those in 'savage' and less civil cultures.
References:
Wooton, David. Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.: 1996.
“Cherokee Arts”. Cherokee Nation Website, http://www.cherokee.org/Culture/CulInfo/CherokeeArts/Default.aspx.
“History of Sequoyah, and the Sequoyan Syllabary for the Cherokee Language”. Cherokee Nation Website, http://www.cherokee.org/Culture/CulInfo/Facts/192/Default.aspx.
In Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality Among Men Jean-Jacques Rousseau makes broad generalizations about the culture, or lack of one, of 'savages.' He refers to them as just coming into the frameworks of a society. He says that they have reached the point where they mutually value one another but every misstep is an outrage and invokes brutality. How might Rousseau have written differently if he had had a broader knowledge of the culture of these so called savages? Would he have made different conclusions about the nature of man? Or would he have come to the same conclusions? Rousseau refers to the savages lack of complex language, because their needs from language were so simple. He says that they have “crude and imperfect” languages like the historical man that he describes at length in the Discourse. If Rousseau had had a more accurate knowledge of the savage's society, then he would have had different things to say about the savages, but his fundamental essence of his work would have remained the same.
The many tribes of Native Americans in the United States are excellent examples of 'savages' not being exactly what Rousseau had imagined when he wrote about them in passing. These societies were far more advanced than he gave them credit for. The Cherokee Nation is an example of this sort of advanced society; while they might not have had a written syllabary until the early 1800s, they had a spoken language and history for many generations. They were not savages that merely survived. They were a synthesized society with advanced art and language. The Cherokee society has very developed art practices from basket weaving to specific dancing rituals . While Rousseau does make the distinction that others use the savages as an example for man's cruel basic nature, and he refutes this by saying that those societies have already come quite far from the natural state of man. However, the cruelty of Native Americans pales in comparison to the cruelty wrought upon them by the United States government when they forced them on to reservations.
There have been misconceptions, in societies derived from European conquests, about Native Americans, as well as other 'savage' people's, cultures ever since Europeans started exploring and finding peoples that had different kinds of societies from their 'normal' idea of society. The Native Americans in the United States are no exception; they have been framed as dangerous because they were different. They didn't live in the same way as Europeans so they must have been violent and unsophisticated savages. These 'savages' actually lived in a much more peaceful way than Europeans have for most of their history. They have had territorial wars, but it is unknown to me if they have had nearly as many bloody revolutions.
I believe that Rousseau would have stood by his conclusions because of evidence that Native Americans were more civilized than he gave them credit for being. If the 'savages' were in fact more civilized than a man in Rousseau's idea of society that would further prove his point. His point being: going into society is a movement towards inequality, and that man has a more natural state of being equal. The Native Americans would have helped Rousseau show that the society that he lived in was farther away from the natural state of man because of their comparatively less unequal way of doing things. Rousseau was trying to prove that man is naturally compassionate and solitary, while the Native Americans would not have helped his ideas that humans are by nature solitary. They do help him prove that humans in his society are more cruel than those in 'savage' and less civil cultures.
References:
Wooton, David. Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.: 1996.
“Cherokee Arts”. Cherokee Nation Website, http://www.cherokee.org/Culture/CulInfo/CherokeeArts/Default.aspx.
“History of Sequoyah, and the Sequoyan Syllabary for the Cherokee Language”. Cherokee Nation Website, http://www.cherokee.org/Culture/CulInfo/Facts/192/Default.aspx.
Media Reform- Fourth (One of the ones I am proud of)
Media Reform
Media reform should be a non-partisan issue. The media has been called the “fourth estate” since the mid 1700s, and is another check on government activities. The media needs to be reformed because it has lost much of its ability to function as a check for the government. Media reform should not be controlled along party lines because there could be agenda setting, and that may be disastrous for media in the future. If there were partisan control that could lead to agenda setting and censorship of the media, and it would continue to be unable to perform its function. Media reform is too important of an issue to be lost in party politics.
Firstly, what is media reform and why is it important? Media reform is important because the news has a democratic function not just an entertainment value. The democratic function of media has been lost, and it is not performing its role as the fourth estate of government. The term fourth estate is attributed to the nineteenth century historian Carlyle, but he attributed it to Edmund Burke:
Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact, .... Printing, which comes necessarily out of Writing, I say often, is equivalent to Democracy: invent writing, Democracy is inevitable. ..... Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures: the requisite thing is that he have a tongue which others will listen to; this and nothing more is requisite.
This function of media is arguably its most important purpose. Since modern media has started reporting less, and entertaining and trying to make higher profit margins it has lost its democratic function. Media reform movements are making an attempt to bring modern media back to its roots of being another check on government activity. Media should be the check that represents the citizenry and aids them in getting the information they need to be active participants in governmental activities. Media reform groups are trying to inform the public on how they can be involved in the movement for reform, and they are trying to inform people how the media is wrong. When citizens are well informed they are more able to start making changes.
Media reform efforts have been around since the 1960’s in the United States. Past media reform efforts have included the citizen journalism movement in the 1990’s, the 2003 media ownership ‘battle’ and activism in the 1960’s against big corporations. Citizen journalism was a movement for the involvement in the citizenry in what was broadcasted on the news. It wanted to start with local media and then continue to grow into the larger scheme of things. It failed, in part, because it cut out the major players in media: the owners and the journalists. Journalists felt that “keeping the focus on a set of issues that may not be the ones government is currently addressing risks crossing the line from objective reporting to issue advocacy.” Going about media reform by cutting out the key actors cannot be affective. The reporters and media owners have too much at stake to just let themselves be cut out of the equation. The 2003 media ownership struggle was a successful step to media reform when “nearly 3 million Americans when nearly 3 million Americans protested the plans to allow increased media concentration.” When large groups of people become active the government is obliged to listen, and they did. The strategy of mass activism can work for media reform if one can get people behind the movement. The 1960’s activism was less about reforming what is wrong with the media and more about struggling against big corporations.
Past media reform efforts have failed because they have become liberal agendas. That cuts roughly half of the government from wanting to be involved in reform. Media reform isn’t a liberal concept it is a non-partisan idea. It must step up to become an issue for citizens of all political ideologies and to have reform happen. If half of the people are alienated because they do not want to be part of the liberal agenda then make media reform not part of the liberal agenda, but the human agenda. Wanting media reform does not require a certain set of party values, it requires wanting to be informed about what is happening in government to be more involved in one’s country.
Media reform requires citizens interested in getting reliable information about government activities, from media, to work together, if they refuse because of partisanship then the media reform fight is already two steps behind. This movement has to include people from both political parties, independents, women, minorities, etcetera. If people cannot stand together for media reform despite differences in other places then the movement will not be able to hold its own against the big media corporations and their lobbyists.
Media reform needs to be a non-partisan issue. If partisanship takes hold of media reform then agenda setting, voting along party lines and censorship could become problems. If the Democrats headed the media reform effort there could be less representation of large corporate interest, which may or may not be a good thing, but they still deserve a voice. If the Republicans were heading the movement then they might over represent corporate interests. Media reform would be better off without aligning itself with parties because partisan association can polarize people, and media reform needs broad support. Partisanship could promote censorship of certain types of media reform messages. Above all else it would not help the reform effort to cut itself off from part of the citizenry.
The media reform movement has broadened its horizons and ability to reach out to more people with the rise of the internet. There are hundreds of websites dedicated to informing people about the media reform movement. Freepress.net, The Alliance for Media Literate America (AMLA), and the Austin Media Revolution (AMR) are just a few of the media reform groups that can be found on the internet without much effort. The internet makes it nearly effortless for people to become informed on the issues of media reform. For most people media reform is not something that they think about actively. They know that there is a problem with the media, but they are unaware of the large movement of people that want to change things. When media, especially television news, is brought up in casual conversation most people know that they are unhappy with how they get their information, but are unsure why the information is not appropriate for them to gather information to form opinions about local, and world events. They want the news to change but they need a direction.
The internet provides these people that want change with direction, and reasons their media outlets are unsatisfactory. If media reform is going to happen in the near future then it will be because of the internet’s ability to connect people with similar agendas. At this point and time I believe that the American system of government, including the fourth estate, is on the cusp of immense change. The wide spread acknowledgment of the Bush Administration’s media blunder with the Iraq War and the weapons of mass destruction frenzy; more people are open to the idea that media needs to change and drastically. They just need to be directed to the right groups to find the information they need to take a stand and start changing, how news is fed to them. The American people have to decide if they want bland, easy to swallow baby food, or a piece of beef jerky that they have to chew on to really enjoy and digest. With shows like Crossfire and Tucker are being removed from the air, it is clear that America’s media appetite is changing and certain ways of behaving on air are no longer acceptable. Reform leaders need to continue to speak out and hope that they will be heard. The public is becoming more and more active in government, as this election cycle has show, and for them to be more affective as citizens they need better news sources.
Even if the mainstream media fails to adapt to the public’s growing need for superior quality media, there is always an underground waiting to take in the stragglers and help them find the information they crave; right now that underground is the blogosphere. The blogosphere is a diverse outlet for citizens to find news stories and new information about subjects lightly touched upon in mainstream media. Resources like Themonkeycage.org, or factcheck.org, are just waiting for people to come and read the information that they publish for anyone who cares to search. These resources are available for free and are usually more accessible in the age of the internet than newspapers or television programs. One can simply search for a topic and find articles at every level of analysis from the “I hates this so bad…” style to information that is clearly back by the latest research in that field of study. If the public is ready for change then the internet and media reform groups are waiting for them, prepared to inform and enlighten.
Media reform is a non-partisan issue because if it were anything else it would not be effective reform. Partisan reform would poison the media’s function as the fourth estate of government. Government and the citizenry need the media to check political activity with accurate and informative news coverage for a democracy to function properly, and with enough public involvement. As the media stands now it needs to evolve to meet the demands that being a check on government requires. If the current large corporate media is not up to the task then internet bloggers and media reform groups are prepared to help the public learn how to take action and change the media so that it works for them rather than using them for profits. Media reform is the most important issue for the success of democracy in the United States, and more of the US population needs to realize it and step up to the challenge presented by reform groups.
Works Cited:
“A blow to cable news-Tucker Cancelled.” New School Politics. March 2008. 28 April 2008..
Bennett, Lance W. News: The Politics of Illusion. Pearson Longman: New York, 2007.
Fischer, Ken. “Jon Stewart wins, CNN cancels Crossfire.” Ars Technica. Jan. 2005. 28 April 2008. < http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050106-4509.html>.
Johnson, Nicholas. “The History of Media Reform: Scanning the Horizon.” History of Media Reform Panel, Nov. 2003. 28 April 2008..
Mass Media: Pluralist View. “The Mass Media as the Fourth Estate.” 28 April 2008. < http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/4estate.html >.
McChesney, Robert. “A Cornerstone of the Media Reform Movement: FAIR at 20.” FAIR. Feb. 2006. 28 April 2008. < http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2812 >.
Media reform should be a non-partisan issue. The media has been called the “fourth estate” since the mid 1700s, and is another check on government activities. The media needs to be reformed because it has lost much of its ability to function as a check for the government. Media reform should not be controlled along party lines because there could be agenda setting, and that may be disastrous for media in the future. If there were partisan control that could lead to agenda setting and censorship of the media, and it would continue to be unable to perform its function. Media reform is too important of an issue to be lost in party politics.
Firstly, what is media reform and why is it important? Media reform is important because the news has a democratic function not just an entertainment value. The democratic function of media has been lost, and it is not performing its role as the fourth estate of government. The term fourth estate is attributed to the nineteenth century historian Carlyle, but he attributed it to Edmund Burke:
Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact, .... Printing, which comes necessarily out of Writing, I say often, is equivalent to Democracy: invent writing, Democracy is inevitable. ..... Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures: the requisite thing is that he have a tongue which others will listen to; this and nothing more is requisite.
This function of media is arguably its most important purpose. Since modern media has started reporting less, and entertaining and trying to make higher profit margins it has lost its democratic function. Media reform movements are making an attempt to bring modern media back to its roots of being another check on government activity. Media should be the check that represents the citizenry and aids them in getting the information they need to be active participants in governmental activities. Media reform groups are trying to inform the public on how they can be involved in the movement for reform, and they are trying to inform people how the media is wrong. When citizens are well informed they are more able to start making changes.
Media reform efforts have been around since the 1960’s in the United States. Past media reform efforts have included the citizen journalism movement in the 1990’s, the 2003 media ownership ‘battle’ and activism in the 1960’s against big corporations. Citizen journalism was a movement for the involvement in the citizenry in what was broadcasted on the news. It wanted to start with local media and then continue to grow into the larger scheme of things. It failed, in part, because it cut out the major players in media: the owners and the journalists. Journalists felt that “keeping the focus on a set of issues that may not be the ones government is currently addressing risks crossing the line from objective reporting to issue advocacy.” Going about media reform by cutting out the key actors cannot be affective. The reporters and media owners have too much at stake to just let themselves be cut out of the equation. The 2003 media ownership struggle was a successful step to media reform when “nearly 3 million Americans when nearly 3 million Americans protested the plans to allow increased media concentration.” When large groups of people become active the government is obliged to listen, and they did. The strategy of mass activism can work for media reform if one can get people behind the movement. The 1960’s activism was less about reforming what is wrong with the media and more about struggling against big corporations.
Past media reform efforts have failed because they have become liberal agendas. That cuts roughly half of the government from wanting to be involved in reform. Media reform isn’t a liberal concept it is a non-partisan idea. It must step up to become an issue for citizens of all political ideologies and to have reform happen. If half of the people are alienated because they do not want to be part of the liberal agenda then make media reform not part of the liberal agenda, but the human agenda. Wanting media reform does not require a certain set of party values, it requires wanting to be informed about what is happening in government to be more involved in one’s country.
Media reform requires citizens interested in getting reliable information about government activities, from media, to work together, if they refuse because of partisanship then the media reform fight is already two steps behind. This movement has to include people from both political parties, independents, women, minorities, etcetera. If people cannot stand together for media reform despite differences in other places then the movement will not be able to hold its own against the big media corporations and their lobbyists.
Media reform needs to be a non-partisan issue. If partisanship takes hold of media reform then agenda setting, voting along party lines and censorship could become problems. If the Democrats headed the media reform effort there could be less representation of large corporate interest, which may or may not be a good thing, but they still deserve a voice. If the Republicans were heading the movement then they might over represent corporate interests. Media reform would be better off without aligning itself with parties because partisan association can polarize people, and media reform needs broad support. Partisanship could promote censorship of certain types of media reform messages. Above all else it would not help the reform effort to cut itself off from part of the citizenry.
The media reform movement has broadened its horizons and ability to reach out to more people with the rise of the internet. There are hundreds of websites dedicated to informing people about the media reform movement. Freepress.net, The Alliance for Media Literate America (AMLA), and the Austin Media Revolution (AMR) are just a few of the media reform groups that can be found on the internet without much effort. The internet makes it nearly effortless for people to become informed on the issues of media reform. For most people media reform is not something that they think about actively. They know that there is a problem with the media, but they are unaware of the large movement of people that want to change things. When media, especially television news, is brought up in casual conversation most people know that they are unhappy with how they get their information, but are unsure why the information is not appropriate for them to gather information to form opinions about local, and world events. They want the news to change but they need a direction.
The internet provides these people that want change with direction, and reasons their media outlets are unsatisfactory. If media reform is going to happen in the near future then it will be because of the internet’s ability to connect people with similar agendas. At this point and time I believe that the American system of government, including the fourth estate, is on the cusp of immense change. The wide spread acknowledgment of the Bush Administration’s media blunder with the Iraq War and the weapons of mass destruction frenzy; more people are open to the idea that media needs to change and drastically. They just need to be directed to the right groups to find the information they need to take a stand and start changing, how news is fed to them. The American people have to decide if they want bland, easy to swallow baby food, or a piece of beef jerky that they have to chew on to really enjoy and digest. With shows like Crossfire and Tucker are being removed from the air, it is clear that America’s media appetite is changing and certain ways of behaving on air are no longer acceptable. Reform leaders need to continue to speak out and hope that they will be heard. The public is becoming more and more active in government, as this election cycle has show, and for them to be more affective as citizens they need better news sources.
Even if the mainstream media fails to adapt to the public’s growing need for superior quality media, there is always an underground waiting to take in the stragglers and help them find the information they crave; right now that underground is the blogosphere. The blogosphere is a diverse outlet for citizens to find news stories and new information about subjects lightly touched upon in mainstream media. Resources like Themonkeycage.org, or factcheck.org, are just waiting for people to come and read the information that they publish for anyone who cares to search. These resources are available for free and are usually more accessible in the age of the internet than newspapers or television programs. One can simply search for a topic and find articles at every level of analysis from the “I hates this so bad…” style to information that is clearly back by the latest research in that field of study. If the public is ready for change then the internet and media reform groups are waiting for them, prepared to inform and enlighten.
Media reform is a non-partisan issue because if it were anything else it would not be effective reform. Partisan reform would poison the media’s function as the fourth estate of government. Government and the citizenry need the media to check political activity with accurate and informative news coverage for a democracy to function properly, and with enough public involvement. As the media stands now it needs to evolve to meet the demands that being a check on government requires. If the current large corporate media is not up to the task then internet bloggers and media reform groups are prepared to help the public learn how to take action and change the media so that it works for them rather than using them for profits. Media reform is the most important issue for the success of democracy in the United States, and more of the US population needs to realize it and step up to the challenge presented by reform groups.
Works Cited:
“A blow to cable news-Tucker Cancelled.” New School Politics. March 2008. 28 April 2008.
Bennett, Lance W. News: The Politics of Illusion. Pearson Longman: New York, 2007.
Fischer, Ken. “Jon Stewart wins, CNN cancels Crossfire.” Ars Technica. Jan. 2005. 28 April 2008. < http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050106-4509.html>.
Johnson, Nicholas. “The History of Media Reform: Scanning the Horizon.” History of Media Reform Panel, Nov. 2003. 28 April 2008.
Mass Media: Pluralist View. “The Mass Media as the Fourth Estate.” 28 April 2008. < http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/4estate.html >.
McChesney, Robert. “A Cornerstone of the Media Reform Movement: FAIR at 20.” FAIR. Feb. 2006. 28 April 2008. < http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2812 >.
Happiness- third
Happiness
or How I Stopped Fearing and Learned that Happiness Doesn’t Exist for Capitalists
For political theorists Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill their theories are defined in terms of how they view the world and view happiness. However, one must ask is there really such a thing as happiness? Or is it just something that one calls the achievements one has in life? When looking at the idea of happiness and relating it to modern political theory one must decide what happiness is for one's self. The ideas held by an individual about happiness will color how one views ideas and thoughts about happiness of other people. Across the modern period of political theory there have been many conceptions of what is important for a government and society to be successful. These notions are directly related to the theorist's ideas about happiness. How could a government be legitimate without addressing the idea of happiness, either for the individual citizen or for the majority of the citizenship?
Karl Marx thinks of happiness as not being alienated. The alienation of the self from the self is a constant struggle for in his view for the proletariat. Jobs, in Marx’s view, had become an identity rather than a means to an end. The people becoming members of an estranged political state, and being alienated from each other become very important aspects of his view of happiness. If the people can free themselves from the alienation of the current society, then they can have peaceful lives where they have more than just their job, and be happy. The people could work to sustain themselves, and then thrive in the other areas they want to explore to fulfill themselves. Marx suggests places where alienation is prevalent such as: society, government and religion. The religious alienation that Marx describes is between religious society and political society. To stop alienation one must become free first by the government breaking from religion, and then secondly from government in a broader more total break, which most likely come through a revolution from the proletariat.
Marx sees the communist revolution as inevitable, and he banks that the happiness he envisions for society is also inescapable. Therefore, he has a hopeful viewpoint for the future of society because he sees happiness inevitable; the workers will rise and the alienation will stop. This hope makes him very different from other political theorists, such as John Stuart Mill, who are looking at happiness as something that is gained through individual freedoms.
John Stuart Mill wrote:
What are called duties to ourselves are not socially obligatory… The term duty to oneself, when it means anything more than prudence, means self-respect or self development; and for none of these is anyone accountable to his fellow creatures, because for none of them is it for the good of mankind that he be held accountable to them.
This quotation expemlifies how Mill percieves happiness. He views as something that happens on an indivdual level. People are happy because of their ability to do what is right for their singular interests. Mill was more of an individualist than Marx. He wrote about bettering one’s self, and working against the opression of the majority to live as someone outside of the mainstream. He was an elitist that thought there were people that were better equipt to thrive intellectually, but he also thought that people could be educated to higher levels than they would normally be able to reach. Mill thought that social tyranny was the worst form of tyranny because it was harder stop and guard against. Mill believes that no government even one that has the people’s backing should have the right to coerce the expression of people’s opinions, because he denies “the right of the people to exercise such coercion… The power itself is illegitimate.”
Mill’s idea of a legitimate governement was one that gave people the freedom from regulation unless they were harming someone else with their actions. The actions of man that impede other men’s ability to live and think are illegitimate in Mill’s estimation. For Mill there is no excuse for being opressed. Mill’s idea of happiness would then most likely be the abilty to be unrestricted and to be one’s self without judgement and persicution from society.
Mill and Marx were contemporaries. They have two different views on what kind of government is legitmate and how people should be regulated. Mill believes that people should have less regulation, and Marx believes the that people should regulate themselves for themselves. They have some similar themes in their writings. They both thought things needed to change, but they varied on how drastically. Mill is more of a reformist, and Marx is more of a revolutionary. Their ideas do, however, compliment each other. Mill wants freedom from control and freedom from the judgement of society, and Marx wants freedom from alienation of the people. They are both reacting to the times that they lived in. Mill is reacting from an elite view, and Marx is reacting from a worker’s viewpoint. Mill is reacting to the oppressive nature of Victorian Era England, and Marx is reacting to the henious conditions of the working class from the beginnings of Industrial Revolution. Mill was comfortable in his situation and had no need to move up in the world. While Marx was more contemplative of the greater ills of all society. They both agreed that social education was absolutely necessary for society to thrive. People needed to be educated so that they could see their situations and how to better themselves. Marx would say that wasn’t enough because there would still be alienation of the worker.
Mill and Marx’s views on happiness were also intertwined with the time they lived in. They were very specific in how they thought their world needed to change because of the circumstances that they were privy to. Both theorists have ideals of happiness that can be gleened from their writings.They contrast inspite of being contemporaties because they were focused on different things. Marx had a more social view of happiness. Mill had a more individual view of happiness. While Marx focused on the workers, Mill only mentions them in passing as they can move up through education.
I believe that happiness is not possible, because how can one judge happiness? If you try to use vague ideas to define the term you end up finding individuals' preferences rather than an overarching definition. The easiest way for me to understand happiness is that it is the achievement of goals. It is difficult for me to understand how happiness could be possible. In Marx’s works he talks about the inevitability of the Communist revolution and it has not happened; his happiness has not been achieved. It is also very likely that it never will be in today’s society that is even more capitalistic than Marx’s time of the beginnings of capitalist society. That being said I want Marx’s ideas to prevail. If I could choose a world to live in, I would choose the one that Marx writes about. Helping neighbors and being all for all are very appealing to me, especially because of the society that we live in today. Today we have a disjointed community where it is more difficult to relate to others because we are all programmed to go after our consumer needs, rather than look out for each other. A woman on the street that sees a scruffy looking teenager is more likely to pull her purse close to her than ask him if he needs help. The revolution that could happen is something that I want to be able to comprehend and that I want other people to be able to see and appreciate with me. Unfortunately Marx’s ideas have been associated with the Cold War and Americans are not particularly susceptible to ideas that they affiliate with a great enemy from the past. One is also hard pressed to find people who don’t merge happiness and financial success together in the US. It would be astonishing if people could take a step back from the opinions of old and look at the opinions of Marx in a new light.
The implications of his ideas of community are nearly beyond comprehension there would have to be a drastic change in mindset for people to really get behind his ideas. The idea of working not just to get ahead of the rest of the community, but instead to help better everyone is so alien from how we survive today; that I believe it would be just the sort of change needed to reunite our fragmented society. If his revolution (and it would have to be such that it was focused on Marx’s particular ideals) happened now I believe that the world would be a much better place to thrive. In my opinion happiness does not exist in today’s society because achievements are so precious to us; a drastic change, a revolution, could fix this. Society could focus on getting ahead together rather than racing so quickly to top of the mountain that some people get lost along the way. The Communist revolutions of the past have been, in my limited knowledge, more like reforms to make societies into the capitalist conception of communism. As I have thought more on Marx’s writings I tend to think that if the Communist upheaval of society came to fruition it would be something that would so change how we view the world and the people around us; that describing how that society would work is something that is a near impossibility.
Individual freedoms are not nearly as important to me as the greater good for society. Unfortunately the American West was founded on the beliefs of rugged individualism and self-reliance. For a person who is concerned about fellow human beings America is a difficult place to thrive. Survival is easy if one puts their head down and works for themselves, but if one wants to bring up society and the community around them how could that be accomplished with your head in the sand? Ignoring the poor will not stop them from being there, but if we could all work together for the good of each other not just the good of each, then wouldn’t we all be able to thrive? One might bring up the idea of free riders, but that is just a naïve concept if you think about happiness as being a part of a community. Free riders could occur because people believe that they will never get past a certain level in society so what is the point, if everyone was equal then why would not everyone what to work for the greater good? Happiness in a capitalist society is next to impossible. Equality and association with your fellow man are made even more difficult if class, or economic brackets divide you.
Political theorists’ views on society are directly related with their views of happiness, and one might lean towards a particular theorists’ view point, but happiness is in the eye of the beholder. Mill and Marx may have been contemporaries but they could not have thought more differently about happiness: Mill wanted individual freedom, and Marx wanted freedom from alienation. The question “What is happiness?” does not have a definitive answer. There are logics and reasoning that can be applied to try to find an answer, but there cannot be one all encompassing answer. Happiness is the goal of most human existence, and what happiness is varies from each to each, but there is much to be learned from reading and discussing other people’s perspectives on happiness.
Wooton, David, Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1996), 826.
Wooton: 835
Wooton: 772
Wooton: 838
Wooton: 650
Wooton: 614
Wooton: 636
Wooton: vi
Wooton: 666 & 837
or How I Stopped Fearing and Learned that Happiness Doesn’t Exist for Capitalists
For political theorists Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill their theories are defined in terms of how they view the world and view happiness. However, one must ask is there really such a thing as happiness? Or is it just something that one calls the achievements one has in life? When looking at the idea of happiness and relating it to modern political theory one must decide what happiness is for one's self. The ideas held by an individual about happiness will color how one views ideas and thoughts about happiness of other people. Across the modern period of political theory there have been many conceptions of what is important for a government and society to be successful. These notions are directly related to the theorist's ideas about happiness. How could a government be legitimate without addressing the idea of happiness, either for the individual citizen or for the majority of the citizenship?
Karl Marx thinks of happiness as not being alienated. The alienation of the self from the self is a constant struggle for in his view for the proletariat. Jobs, in Marx’s view, had become an identity rather than a means to an end. The people becoming members of an estranged political state, and being alienated from each other become very important aspects of his view of happiness. If the people can free themselves from the alienation of the current society, then they can have peaceful lives where they have more than just their job, and be happy. The people could work to sustain themselves, and then thrive in the other areas they want to explore to fulfill themselves. Marx suggests places where alienation is prevalent such as: society, government and religion. The religious alienation that Marx describes is between religious society and political society. To stop alienation one must become free first by the government breaking from religion, and then secondly from government in a broader more total break, which most likely come through a revolution from the proletariat.
Marx sees the communist revolution as inevitable, and he banks that the happiness he envisions for society is also inescapable. Therefore, he has a hopeful viewpoint for the future of society because he sees happiness inevitable; the workers will rise and the alienation will stop. This hope makes him very different from other political theorists, such as John Stuart Mill, who are looking at happiness as something that is gained through individual freedoms.
John Stuart Mill wrote:
What are called duties to ourselves are not socially obligatory… The term duty to oneself, when it means anything more than prudence, means self-respect or self development; and for none of these is anyone accountable to his fellow creatures, because for none of them is it for the good of mankind that he be held accountable to them.
This quotation expemlifies how Mill percieves happiness. He views as something that happens on an indivdual level. People are happy because of their ability to do what is right for their singular interests. Mill was more of an individualist than Marx. He wrote about bettering one’s self, and working against the opression of the majority to live as someone outside of the mainstream. He was an elitist that thought there were people that were better equipt to thrive intellectually, but he also thought that people could be educated to higher levels than they would normally be able to reach. Mill thought that social tyranny was the worst form of tyranny because it was harder stop and guard against. Mill believes that no government even one that has the people’s backing should have the right to coerce the expression of people’s opinions, because he denies “the right of the people to exercise such coercion… The power itself is illegitimate.”
Mill’s idea of a legitimate governement was one that gave people the freedom from regulation unless they were harming someone else with their actions. The actions of man that impede other men’s ability to live and think are illegitimate in Mill’s estimation. For Mill there is no excuse for being opressed. Mill’s idea of happiness would then most likely be the abilty to be unrestricted and to be one’s self without judgement and persicution from society.
Mill and Marx were contemporaries. They have two different views on what kind of government is legitmate and how people should be regulated. Mill believes that people should have less regulation, and Marx believes the that people should regulate themselves for themselves. They have some similar themes in their writings. They both thought things needed to change, but they varied on how drastically. Mill is more of a reformist, and Marx is more of a revolutionary. Their ideas do, however, compliment each other. Mill wants freedom from control and freedom from the judgement of society, and Marx wants freedom from alienation of the people. They are both reacting to the times that they lived in. Mill is reacting from an elite view, and Marx is reacting from a worker’s viewpoint. Mill is reacting to the oppressive nature of Victorian Era England, and Marx is reacting to the henious conditions of the working class from the beginnings of Industrial Revolution. Mill was comfortable in his situation and had no need to move up in the world. While Marx was more contemplative of the greater ills of all society. They both agreed that social education was absolutely necessary for society to thrive. People needed to be educated so that they could see their situations and how to better themselves. Marx would say that wasn’t enough because there would still be alienation of the worker.
Mill and Marx’s views on happiness were also intertwined with the time they lived in. They were very specific in how they thought their world needed to change because of the circumstances that they were privy to. Both theorists have ideals of happiness that can be gleened from their writings.They contrast inspite of being contemporaties because they were focused on different things. Marx had a more social view of happiness. Mill had a more individual view of happiness. While Marx focused on the workers, Mill only mentions them in passing as they can move up through education.
I believe that happiness is not possible, because how can one judge happiness? If you try to use vague ideas to define the term you end up finding individuals' preferences rather than an overarching definition. The easiest way for me to understand happiness is that it is the achievement of goals. It is difficult for me to understand how happiness could be possible. In Marx’s works he talks about the inevitability of the Communist revolution and it has not happened; his happiness has not been achieved. It is also very likely that it never will be in today’s society that is even more capitalistic than Marx’s time of the beginnings of capitalist society. That being said I want Marx’s ideas to prevail. If I could choose a world to live in, I would choose the one that Marx writes about. Helping neighbors and being all for all are very appealing to me, especially because of the society that we live in today. Today we have a disjointed community where it is more difficult to relate to others because we are all programmed to go after our consumer needs, rather than look out for each other. A woman on the street that sees a scruffy looking teenager is more likely to pull her purse close to her than ask him if he needs help. The revolution that could happen is something that I want to be able to comprehend and that I want other people to be able to see and appreciate with me. Unfortunately Marx’s ideas have been associated with the Cold War and Americans are not particularly susceptible to ideas that they affiliate with a great enemy from the past. One is also hard pressed to find people who don’t merge happiness and financial success together in the US. It would be astonishing if people could take a step back from the opinions of old and look at the opinions of Marx in a new light.
The implications of his ideas of community are nearly beyond comprehension there would have to be a drastic change in mindset for people to really get behind his ideas. The idea of working not just to get ahead of the rest of the community, but instead to help better everyone is so alien from how we survive today; that I believe it would be just the sort of change needed to reunite our fragmented society. If his revolution (and it would have to be such that it was focused on Marx’s particular ideals) happened now I believe that the world would be a much better place to thrive. In my opinion happiness does not exist in today’s society because achievements are so precious to us; a drastic change, a revolution, could fix this. Society could focus on getting ahead together rather than racing so quickly to top of the mountain that some people get lost along the way. The Communist revolutions of the past have been, in my limited knowledge, more like reforms to make societies into the capitalist conception of communism. As I have thought more on Marx’s writings I tend to think that if the Communist upheaval of society came to fruition it would be something that would so change how we view the world and the people around us; that describing how that society would work is something that is a near impossibility.
Individual freedoms are not nearly as important to me as the greater good for society. Unfortunately the American West was founded on the beliefs of rugged individualism and self-reliance. For a person who is concerned about fellow human beings America is a difficult place to thrive. Survival is easy if one puts their head down and works for themselves, but if one wants to bring up society and the community around them how could that be accomplished with your head in the sand? Ignoring the poor will not stop them from being there, but if we could all work together for the good of each other not just the good of each, then wouldn’t we all be able to thrive? One might bring up the idea of free riders, but that is just a naïve concept if you think about happiness as being a part of a community. Free riders could occur because people believe that they will never get past a certain level in society so what is the point, if everyone was equal then why would not everyone what to work for the greater good? Happiness in a capitalist society is next to impossible. Equality and association with your fellow man are made even more difficult if class, or economic brackets divide you.
Political theorists’ views on society are directly related with their views of happiness, and one might lean towards a particular theorists’ view point, but happiness is in the eye of the beholder. Mill and Marx may have been contemporaries but they could not have thought more differently about happiness: Mill wanted individual freedom, and Marx wanted freedom from alienation. The question “What is happiness?” does not have a definitive answer. There are logics and reasoning that can be applied to try to find an answer, but there cannot be one all encompassing answer. Happiness is the goal of most human existence, and what happiness is varies from each to each, but there is much to be learned from reading and discussing other people’s perspectives on happiness.
Wooton, David, Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1996), 826.
Wooton: 835
Wooton: 772
Wooton: 838
Wooton: 650
Wooton: 614
Wooton: 636
Wooton: vi
Wooton: 666 & 837
John Stuart Mill- Second
John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill would have approved of how the roles of women have changed since he wrote The Subjection of Women. Mill was more a reformist, rather than a revolutionary, and the roles of women in developed countries have changed dramatically since his time, but the changes have been slow to come. Mill’s approval would also be hinged on society’s continual progression. Society has changed since Mill’s lifetime in a number of ways. A few examples: women have the right to vote; marriage is not longer obligatory; and women can work in nearly any field that they wish.
Mill tried to use The Subjection of Women to open the people’s eyes to the plight of one half of the population. He was not hopeless that the situation of women could change, as he is writing for reform rather than a revolution for women’s situation. He believed that progress was of the utmost importance to society, and the women’s movement. He states that his opinion on the standing of women has “been constantly growing stronger by the progress of reflection and the experience of life…” Mill reasons here that there is hope for the progress of women’s rights. Mill took the radical point of view when he stated that women do not enter marriage voluntarily. He shed light on the fact that many women had started writing about their predicament, and that they had started asking for changes, particularly suffrage. He mentions women’s movements not just in England, but also the United States, the US movement that he writes about is for education equality for males and females. Mill sees that there is progress being made and he applauds it. He desires more progress but he realizes that more changes will require a change in attitude and education for the public; people did not have basic understandings of physiological or psychological differences between men and women.
Mill would have approved of how far society has come in its knowledge of women and their unique physiological and psychological differences from men. The changes from Victorian England are stark, but in the 139 years since Mill wrote The Subjection of Women there have been opportunities for more advancement. It was nearly 50 years after Mill started his involvement in the struggle for women’s rights in England before women got conditional rights to vote. Ten years later voting rights were expanded to the same as males’. In the United States women got voting rights in 1920. After women got the vote attitudes towards women slowly adapted and changed to where they are now. Mill would applaud the slow progress and gradual changes because it is easier that way for people to adapt. He would see that progress is still occurring and be content with just continuing forward.
Works Cited:
Klingman, Marcie. “The Effect of Militancy In the British Suffragette Movement.” Welsh Communists.1996. 27 April 2008. < http://welshcommunists.co.uk/suff.htm >.
Wooton, David. Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1996).
John Stuart Mill would have approved of how the roles of women have changed since he wrote The Subjection of Women. Mill was more a reformist, rather than a revolutionary, and the roles of women in developed countries have changed dramatically since his time, but the changes have been slow to come. Mill’s approval would also be hinged on society’s continual progression. Society has changed since Mill’s lifetime in a number of ways. A few examples: women have the right to vote; marriage is not longer obligatory; and women can work in nearly any field that they wish.
Mill tried to use The Subjection of Women to open the people’s eyes to the plight of one half of the population. He was not hopeless that the situation of women could change, as he is writing for reform rather than a revolution for women’s situation. He believed that progress was of the utmost importance to society, and the women’s movement. He states that his opinion on the standing of women has “been constantly growing stronger by the progress of reflection and the experience of life…” Mill reasons here that there is hope for the progress of women’s rights. Mill took the radical point of view when he stated that women do not enter marriage voluntarily. He shed light on the fact that many women had started writing about their predicament, and that they had started asking for changes, particularly suffrage. He mentions women’s movements not just in England, but also the United States, the US movement that he writes about is for education equality for males and females. Mill sees that there is progress being made and he applauds it. He desires more progress but he realizes that more changes will require a change in attitude and education for the public; people did not have basic understandings of physiological or psychological differences between men and women.
Mill would have approved of how far society has come in its knowledge of women and their unique physiological and psychological differences from men. The changes from Victorian England are stark, but in the 139 years since Mill wrote The Subjection of Women there have been opportunities for more advancement. It was nearly 50 years after Mill started his involvement in the struggle for women’s rights in England before women got conditional rights to vote. Ten years later voting rights were expanded to the same as males’. In the United States women got voting rights in 1920. After women got the vote attitudes towards women slowly adapted and changed to where they are now. Mill would applaud the slow progress and gradual changes because it is easier that way for people to adapt. He would see that progress is still occurring and be content with just continuing forward.
Works Cited:
Klingman, Marcie. “The Effect of Militancy In the British Suffragette Movement.” Welsh Communists.1996. 27 April 2008. < http://welshcommunists.co.uk/suff.htm >.
Wooton, David. Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1996).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
