It seems as if this concept of not discussing politics in 'an election year' is the same as suspending public debate in the US for 1 year out of 4. So that's like the government wasting 25% of its time doing little and saying nothing.
Additionally from my distant from the US point of view I would say that suspending public debate is essentially coming down on one side of the party line.
As a European, I'm again and again surprised how many American media and other entitities try to be non-political. In my view, everybody is political, and speaking ones mind advances society. Why is everybody trying to stay neutral?
They aren't trying to be neutral : they are hiding behind neutrality. Their paying audience has no interest in hearing that they aren't the ones that make the world go round.
TED's argument that the talk is overly political would appear to be supported by the fact that this article appears on a site dedicated almost exclusively to politics. Out of 56 non-external article links the site's home page, only three lead to non-political articles. Those are, respectively, a story about congressmen having their houses burglarized, a take on the BrainGate robotic arm story, and a stub of an article mentioning that 13% of US citizens are born abroad.
Having read the text of the talk, it is in my opinion completely political, and while I may agree with his basic point; he fails to cite examples of where implementation of his propositions had any positive effect. The tone of self-righteous loathing used when describing his ideological opponents does little to encourage sober consideration of his arguments.
As a final point, the speech makes no attempt to address the bear in the room, i.e., the question of whether it is right to take by force from one person and give to another, regardless of how beneficial the effects.
It's an extremely political talk being publicized by an entirely political web site with a title more suited to a Girls Gone Wild commercial than talk on socioeconomics. "Too Hot for TED" indeed.
Can you I just question your line: "As a final point, the speech makes no attempt to address the bear in the room, i.e., the question of whether it is right to take by force from one person and give to another, regardless of how beneficial the effects."
I think you're talking about tax. I would have thought that most people would agree that tax is necessary for a functioning civilisation. Those people who don't want to be taxed can use a different currency/road network/law system.
More the way the speech assumes that the purpose of taxes and the use of monies thereby gained is to make people more equal, rather than giving them equal opportunity to make more of themselves, or to cushion only those physically or mentally incapable of keeping themselves alive.
7 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 23.6 ms ] threadhttp://nationaljournal.com/features/restoration-calls/too-ho...
Additionally from my distant from the US point of view I would say that suspending public debate is essentially coming down on one side of the party line.
Having read the text of the talk, it is in my opinion completely political, and while I may agree with his basic point; he fails to cite examples of where implementation of his propositions had any positive effect. The tone of self-righteous loathing used when describing his ideological opponents does little to encourage sober consideration of his arguments.
As a final point, the speech makes no attempt to address the bear in the room, i.e., the question of whether it is right to take by force from one person and give to another, regardless of how beneficial the effects.
It's an extremely political talk being publicized by an entirely political web site with a title more suited to a Girls Gone Wild commercial than talk on socioeconomics. "Too Hot for TED" indeed.
I think you're talking about tax. I would have thought that most people would agree that tax is necessary for a functioning civilisation. Those people who don't want to be taxed can use a different currency/road network/law system.