Liberal Bias in Media makes me sick!!:mad:

[Kuasimodem]

I'm really getting sick of the liberal lackies that are infesting the major media outlets! They decide at this time to criticize every little detail of what President Bush has done and do everything they can to undermine him.

If you don't believe me, read some of these...

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/9/14/93431

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/9/13/195003

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/9/13/100226

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/9/13/174837

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/9/12/123055

This is a time when we should all come together and support the victims of this cowardly attack, and help in any way that we can to find the mindless animals who are responsible and remove them from our world.

I urge everyone who has a subscription to any of these media "services" to immediately cancel your subscription and tell them why.:mad:

If you want to see real unbiased reporting, go to FOXnews (http://www.foxnews.com), where "Fair and Balanced" has real meaning.

[bobcat]

I'm sure it is really fare to compare how Clinton behaved to one building (FIXED OBJECT) being leveled vs 4 missing planes plowing into buildings.


MORONS!

[Fisheagle]

Fair and balanced my ....
http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83200

[RobRich]

I rarely speak about politics here, and most know exactly why. I am not a fan or supporter of President Bush, nor of the majarity of republican beliefs for that matter. However, I will back any of his decisions regarding the terrorists attacks and look towards him to build a solid leadership structure that represents the United States' position regarding terrorism within the broader global community. He is the President, and I will support him during this time to demonstrate our national solidarity and determination to those that hope to threaten our nation.

As for liberal media, all citizens are given rights to voice their opinions about any topic within our country. This is a fundemental basis of our constitution. Do you have to listen to or even believe what these people say? No, but you can not supress their rights to speak out either. Political debate will always exist, regardless of the severity of the situation involved.

As to the example provided, FOX News does clearly offer a more conservative (often republican) slant to its reporting, so again certain political beliefs are still interjected. Do this mean it is an ineffective news service? No. Some just choose to receive their news for other organizations. Freedom of choice and belief are the foundations of the American way of life; period.

Robert Richmond

[zenjive]

It's funny how conservatives like to ***** about the 'liberal' media but tend to ignore all the times the media puts a coservative slant on things.

The media in America is split between two groups:

One is the ultra-conservative faction. These include the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura, etc.

The other side is the so-called 'liberal' media that usually reports more truthfully and un-biased. They also tend to report on things the conservatives don't want to hear.

Personally, I think that person in the whitehouse who calls himself the President is a loser. The conservative half of the supreme court and his brother in Florida put him there. He is an IMPOSTER, he STOLE the presidency.

So far, in dealing with this tragedy Bush appears to be a lot of big talk and saber-rattling. Any progress that has been made so far in finding out who did this and bringing them to justice has been the result of a group effort of the FBI, local law-enforcement and several foreign countries.

Another thing... I am greatly offended by GW using this tragedy to promote his religious views on the people of America. Religious intolerance is what caused this and GW is going to play right into their hands.

[gyoung]

First off, I don't think it is fair to single out Limbaugh and Dr. Laura. They are in the "media", but neither claims to be a journalist.

I think people are talking more about when the 3 head newsman from the 3 major networks interject their opinion or commentary into their covering of a story.

As for the newspapers most are taking offense to the editorials, but at least they are saying what they are editorials. My local newspaper is of a more conservative slant and their editorials show it.

You have to be able to separate journalism from editorials. I just don't think the big 3 networks do a good job of refraining from interjecting their opinions into their reports.

We shouldn't be able to discern the reporters political leanings or disdain for certain people through their reporting, unfortunately we can with Rather and Jennings.

[YMK]

Neal said Bush didn't measure up to Clinton's handling of 1995's Oklahoma City bombing.

I don't mean to sound insensitive but the Oklahoma City bombing really doesn't measure up to the WTC bombing. This incident was at least 300 times worse than the Oklahoma City bombing (casualty-wise).

And I'm sure Bush mentioning the G-word (God) infuriates you. That just shows how much this politically correct society has been poisoned by liberal ideology.

[Scorpio69]

Unfortunately any account of a story will be necessarily biased. We are not computers, and therefore can never be truly dispassionate and impartial. I have not heard anyone (who matters) make any disparaging remarks towards our country's leader, with regards to this crisis.

[RADAR1797]

Zenfive,

You may leave Texas now. You are not welcome. There is a short bus waiting to take you away.

-RADAR

[Scorpio69]

Radar - Easy, buddy. We have to listen to both sides of the issue. To do otherwise is to be blinded.

Zenjive (and others) - Please don't USE bias to complain about bias. Think about your opinion and articulate it thoughtfully.

What's needed by all of us, whatever our political stance is to take a step outside ourselves for some objectivity. Question EVERYTHING you've been told. Apply reason to EVERYTHING you believe. We have two major political parties for a reason. We absolutely need both, checks and balances.

[ILC]

I have to say that I am asstonished on how well our Country is getting along as a whole. 90% of democrats and republicans are getting along for the first time in who knows who knows how long. This is what we need. However those who stand to cause problems during this time of greeving, is as dispicable as those who caused these murders.

I wanted Bush to win the election, however he wasnt my favorite candidate. After this, I wouldnt want ANYONE else to have teh title of President of the United States other then this man. Him breaking down on tv, just goes to show that he is man and he will be true to his word.

Zenjive - If you are so against all this then LEAVE this country now. You are not an American and we do not want you here. Perhaps Afghanastan would like another.

ILC

[jeffpapier]

This attack on America is working out so well for Bush, you could almost belive it was planned and carried out just for his benifit.

[Bsdboy]

RADAR1797,ILC: What did Zenfive say that is unAmerican?
He expressed an opinion different from yours or mine but you tell him to leave the country.Attitudes like yours are a danger to the freedoms I hold dear in this Country
that I love.You truly make me sick.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid26/pe4649f78776272faef5f3a483836152f/fe3cc27f.gif

Bsdboy

[BBA]

This attack on America is working out so well for Bush, you could almost belive it was planned and carried out just for his benifit.



Man...you make me sick with that kind of **** talk. This was contrived BY terrorist. There is no political plot here.

[Bsdboy]

BBA: Is that a reply to me? If it is I don't get it.

Bsdboy

[RADAR1797]

BSDboy,

My problem with Zenjive is he has been brainwashed by liberal, illogical zealots. His vomitous statements are pointless and that of a person without critical thought. He can express whatever opinion he wants, but those without an original thought, can move to China where they have plenty of thoughts for him to feed on. Americans and especially Texans have a long and proud history of being independant, self-sufficient and helpful to those who need a hand, but don't demand it. We also tend to let self destructive people, whiners, and bleeders do themselves in. I am happy he is offended by a President with integrity and faith. The last thing we need is another amoral, feel-good, slacker who sugar coats the truth and avoids action.

-RADAR

[Bsdboy]

RADAR1797: I could say you have been brainwashed by conservative, illogical zealots but I don't know that to be true anymore than you know he has been brainwashed.Why do I even waste my time with you ?
I'm done here

A Very Disguted
Bsdboy

[RADAR1797]

Well,

I know from Zenjive's post obviously has no respect for facts, proven over and over again. If someone points at a blue sky and declares proudly it is bright red, I would give them the same scorn for being an idiot. As for my views, they are not entirely conservative nor entirely liberal, they are mine and discerned and debated from experience and learning. I would hope you would appreciate truths and facts as much as you appreciate people being able to speak falsehoods. Oh BTW, you don't have to bother with me, but do try pick battles you wish to finish. I hope the American people have more resolve than you.

-RADAR

[Scorpio69]

As I have said we have to have the views of both conservatives and liberals, it's what keeps us somewhere in the middle.

Why does this have to be a "battle"? It is a discussion. We are here (presumably) to share ideas and learn. If any one of us had all of life's answers, why would we be here?

[RADAR1797]

Be sick if you must, you want me to hold your hair back as you vomit? As I said he can express any opinion he wants, but I also have the natural right to tell him to leave or shut his hole. I serve this country to protect our rights, and have an intimate knowledge of our Constitution I have sworn to defend. I did not swear an oath to keep my mouth shut when someone is spewing falsehoods. The Supreme Court has protected the right to burn the flag you prominently post. I will fight and die to support that right, but that also doesn't mean that if someone tries to burn one in front me, I can't use a fire estinguisher on it.

-RADAR

[stylin19]

oops..double post.sorry !

[stylin19]

As for liberal media, all citizens are given rights to voice their opinions about any topic within our country. This is a fundemental basis of our constitution. Do you have to listen to or even believe what these people say? No, but you can not supress their rights to speak out either. Political debate will always exist, regardless of the severity of the situation involved.

The above is one liberals interpretation of the 1st amendment.

but , as a member of the vast right wing conspiracy. i beg to disagree. rights are GOD-given. The 1st amendent RESTRICTS only the government from abridging these rights.

"Amendemnt I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excersie thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

That said, we ALL have biases. That includes news reporters. And we bring those biases to the table with us, and we interact with others, using those biases.
I haven't seen neutral news reporting in a long long time. AP & UPI used to be neutral..not no more.

What seems upside down to me, is, the ownership of major news news stations is generally conservative, yet the staff is liberal. the only thing that makes sense, is..it's about ratings and money....so personal leanings go out the window for a buck.

As for CBSABCNBC ? yep....liberal ! They give me the "buckwheats".

[RobRich]

Your given interpretation is a fallacy within itself in regards to trying to dispute my interpretation of citizen's constitutional rights. You have re-affirmed my position, though you have choosen to use a semi-spirtual instead of direct legal analysis of the context. I am of Christian belief, thus I have no issue with your thoughts towards the first admendmant.

The constitution inherently protects my beliefs, as well as yours. I respect your idealogy, and I do susbribe to certain beliefs of your so-called "right-wing conspiracy". Just because I have voiced opinions about certain republican officials, please do not assume that I am completely "brainwashed" against all conservative beliefs as you would seem to imply.

"Democrats" and "repubicans" and "moderates" and "liberals" and "conservatives' and many other "political types" can easily be found throughout the United States. If for some reason my more moderate beliefs somehow make me less of an American, then people are sadly mistaken.

Robert Richmond

[zenjive]

Bsdboy and Rob, thank you for recognizing the fact that we all have the freedom to say what we want even if you disagree. You are a true American!

Oh, and Radar, Texas is my home, born and bred! I am staying right here just to **** you off!

[zenjive]

Originally posted by RADAR1797
BSDboy,

My problem with Zenjive is he has been brainwashed by liberal, illogical zealots. His vomitous statements are pointless and that of a person without critical thought. He can express whatever opinion he wants, but those without an original thought, can move to China where they have plenty of thoughts for him to feed on. Americans and especially Texans have a long and proud history of being independant, self-sufficient and helpful to those who need a hand, but don't demand it. We also tend to let self destructive people, whiners, and bleeders do themselves in. I am happy he is offended by a President with integrity and faith. The last thing we need is another amoral, feel-good, slacker who sugar coats the truth and avoids action.

-RADAR

You're one to talk about being brainwashed. The majority of people in Texas are ultra-conservatives, the kind of people that think that if you have liberal beliefs you are a communist. The paradox is that by telling me to leave Texas, and America, to move to China you are the one being communist, or more closely, FACIST. In Texas, people like me are the individuals with original thought. I believe in freedom for EVERYONE, but the second you use that freedom to tred on the freedoms of others, you my friend are the one who is not welcome here! You contradict yourself, go to bed!

[Scorpio69]

Does nobody read my posts? If you are too far to EITHER side, you come off sounding like an idiot. Step outside yourself for a moment and listen to what you are saying.

[RobRich]

If you are too far to EITHER side, you come off sounding like an idiot

Agreed........

[Fingers]

I'm watching it right now on NBC's Today show :(

Two people, and man and a woman, are talking to 31 middle school-aged children, telling them that retaliation against the terrorists is not the right response. :(

[BBA]

Bsdboy...no, it was not a reply to your post...it was the one before yours, and I edited mine to include his text.

[BBA]

Scorpio...Scorpio...Scorpio...

If any one of us had all of life's answers, why would we be here?


Because it's fun :D

[RobRich]

I am changing direction here a little bit, but this is still a complaint about the media in general.

I'm not genuinely against any specific media organization, though is anyone getting infuriated that CNN and other major media groups seem to talk down to theirs viewers as if the majority population of this country is illiterate or uneducated children. I can understand government briefings without all the word-by-word analysis of every sentence being said.

Even the majority of their questions to officials have no point or basis in thought. One reporter asked an active military representative "Where would the US base is operations from assuming strikes against Afghanistain were to happen, and where would be the first place that the US would strike?"

Another typical example that just happened on CNN a few minutes ago:

Official Press Release: "The rescue efforts are asking primarly for steel workers at the NYC WTC site right now."

Reporter on TV: "It appears NYC officials are seeking out aid from those with still work expereince. However, it is still unclear why steel workers are needed at this time.

Unclear why steel workers would be needed? These people are supposed to have university degrees, yet they can't figure out why steel workers might be needed in the rescue efforts of a collapsed building!

Another one just happened:

Reporter to former fire department director: "Fireman are initially attracted to flames, why would they rush to clear people from the stairwells in the buildings."

May I assume saving human lifes is not predominate to exstiungihing fires? Since the news has essentially slowed down, it's like each of the media groups are striving to scoop the other with even the most trivial shred of potential news.


Again:

Reporter: "How stinging of a wake-up call is this (weeks events)?"

If these attacks didn't get your attention, you're living on another planet. I digress, I could continue this for paragraphs!

My $.02,
Robert Richmond

[RADAR1797]

Zenjive,

Hmmm, contradict myself? I, as a citizen, can tell you whatever I want, just as the excrement you provided earlier . The government cannot expell you to China, but I sure as hell can tell you to go there. No contradiction. In fact one of the things this great country has waned away from is people scorning stupidity, the community policing itself. Now we have recognized that you have a mental illness or deficiency. I could never call you an idiot (as is well demonstrated here), but no I must you the more politically correct term, mentally challenged. I would never be able to say you are immature, like a 5 year old spilling his kool aid on the carpet just to irk his mom. No I must say, you are emotionally and responsibility under provided.
You obviously have a very limited understanding of the differences and responsibilities of citizens and governments. You want the government to do everything for you, and yet protect your freedom? This is akin to having the wolves protect the sheep. The more you rely on the government the more freedom you sacrifice. Just b/c you are able to grow your hair long and sing folk songs in the bars of 6th street does not mean you are free. It means you oblivious of your surroundings. One day you will grow up and understand these nuances.

-RADAR

[stylin19]

Rob

Sometimes I(we) can't get a clear understanding of a concept or idea in these message boards.

I took your statement as literal as possible, and it appears i STILL don't understand re: your statement "citizens are given rights.."

Being a "conservative" and being "republican" are 2 different things, and i equated them, so i stand corrected categorizing you as a liberal.

however, i still don't see how i affirmed your position.

Taken to it's 'n' th degree, anybody has a right to say anything to anybody else.

There are consequences to that.

Can you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, when there is none ?

Also, on a personal level...about 20 years ago, I was told in no uncertain terms, if I talk with the media again, I am fired.
Can my boss legally do that, without fear of reprisal? absolutely.

i'm sure moderators have deleted posts. Has the freedom of speech been abridged ? of course not.

The 1st amendement doesn't give a right, it restricts the feds from abridging it.

As far as my membership in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"....I am a member of the its "liberal" wing. I believe in giving 'em a fair trial before we hang 'em.
I don't mind sounding like an idiot, since I voted for Bush, but agree mostly with Pat Buchanan. ( I KNOW, I KNOW....SACRY)

[Fisheagle]

Hey Radar,

I will keep this very short so you don’t get too confused, and start spewing venom before you get to the end of the sentence.

Do you ever actually listen to what other people have to say or do you always just drone on with your banal, obtuse babel?
:D :D :D

[RADAR1797]

Fisheagle interject something worthwhile next time. If my posts are scornful they are so to people who have demonstrated the need for it.

-RADAR

[Fisheagle]

I would if I thought you would listen, but your comments and attitude indicate a thought process mired in self-indulgent musings and unresponsive to a rational debate.

[RADAR1797]

Try me, I am more than willing to debate, but please do have a line of logic and facts. Instead of throwing accusations, come out from under your rock of "oh he won't listen" and present your argument, if you have one. If you are just perturbed with my posts and have no specific argument, then you can stop wasting bandwidth now. Your statements look suspiciously cowardly.

-RADAR

[Fingers]

Enough personal attacks!!! Add something relevant to the topic or don't click "REPLY"

[Fisheagle]

Goodnight!

[Kuasimodem]

:o I'm saddened that this thread has degraded to personal insults, please stop with them:( .

I visit many news site every day, along with SysOpt, and it really bothers me when news reporters and newswriters decide to inject their personal political views into what is supposed to be an unbiased news report. If a reporter wants to pontificate their personal views, then they should write an editorial or produce an editorial segment.

Yes, I am a conservative, but I wasn't always. Through personal experiences and intelligent conversations with many different people, I changed my views from staunch liberal to conservative. Some would say that this would be impossible, but it's very easy when you realize the difference between the two.

To be a liberal is very easy, all you have to do is feel everything, and tell everyone how you feel, but never seem to make any progress correcting the problem that causes the feelings, because it's bad situations that cause these feelings.
To be a coservative is a little more difficult, because it takes thought. A conservative looks at a bad situation, and comes up with a workable solution to the problem. Also difficult is the fact that this solution may temporarily upset some people (most likely liberals).

You see, conservatism is based on results when trying to solve problems, while liberalism relies on the appearance of caring, instead of results, it's the effort that counts.

Feelings are nice, but I want results!

So now you all know where I'm coming from...:D
Curtis

[Scorpio69]

I must (respectfully) disagree. I am glad that you are open-minded Kuasimodem, but many people are not. People at both extremes of liberalism and conservatism are typically closed-minded and would like for everyone else to think the same way that they do. They both work towards that end. Therefore they both are result oriented, and as we have seen, either can be domintated by emotion rather than logic.

I think that if this debate is going to continue fruitfully, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have to be defined.

[Fisheagle]

Hey Radar,

Go in peace babe.

Talk to you again some other time.

This **** WTC thing has got us all a bit edgy.

Love Ya!

[Fisheagle]

Kuasimodem

OK I’ll bite. I guess I’m not going to bed after all.

“The difference between the two”… Amazing!

To be a conservative is very easy! Everything is black and white. There are absolutes controlling everything and there is very little need to consider nuanced concepts. There is no need for feeling or compassion only a dogmatic devotion to economic Darwinism… but of course biological Darwinism is scoffed at.

To be a liberal… well suffice to say my comments here would tend to be self-serving, so I won’t bore you with my ebullient commentary in this regard.

It never ceases to amaze me how different people can have such different perceptions of the same reality.

I do have difficulty understanding how anyone could switch from staunch liberal to staunch conservative, or visa versa for that matter. I get a hint here of the religious concept of conversion and I feel quite confident that you are probably a proud conservative Christian, all the more power to you.

I myself am a staunch liberal and a yellow dog Democrat. I could probably understand someone switching from a moderate something to a moderate something but staunch to staunch is beyond me. Did you go through a moderate conservative phase before you became a staunch conservative? Or was it like a road to Damascus thing? Not passing Go and not collecting the $200.
:rolleyes:

[Scorpio69]

Fisheagle, Kuasi' and I are in the process of defining the terms. I think the connotations have changed considerably lately.

[Kuasimodem]

OK I’ll bite. I guess I’m not going to bed after all.

“The difference between the two”… Amazing!

To be a conservative is very easy! Everything is black and white. There are absolutes controlling everything and there is very little need to consider nuanced concepts. There is no need for feeling or compassion only a dogmatic devotion to economic Darwinism… but of course biological Darwinism is scoffed at.What is "economic Darwinism?" I know what biological Darwinism is, and after much learning, truly do believe it. The facts support evolution.To be a liberal… well suffice to say my comments here would tend to be self-serving, so I won’t bore you with my ebullient commentary in this regard.

It never ceases to amaze me how different people can have such different perceptions of the same reality.Variety, ain't it wonderful:D I do have difficulty understanding how anyone could switch from staunch liberal to staunch conservative, or visa versa for that matter. I get a hint here of the religious concept of conversion and I feel quite confident that you are probably a proud conservative Christian, all the more power to you. I didn't switch from staunch liberal to staunch conservative, just conservative. There are some things about the conservative platform that I still don't agree with, and that's what makes people so wonderful, variety. Switching from a "moderate" something to another "moderate" something is not switching at all, and I still believe what my grandpa told me, "You keep sitting on the fence long enough, and pretty soon you'll get a fencepost up your a--." (my grandpa didn't pull any punches:)) Moderates live by the herd mentallity, they just follow the biggest group at the moment.BTW-I'll keep religious beliefs out of this conversation, we have enough differences to discuss with politics.I myself am a staunch liberal and a yellow dog Democrat. I could probably understand someone switching from a moderate something to a moderate something but staunch to staunch is beyond me. Did you go through a moderate conservative phase before you became a staunch conservative? Or was it like a road to Damascus thing? Not passing Go and not collecting the $200. I did state that it took personal experiences and conversations, so this would lead one to believe that it took some time.:rolleyes: But I will say this, a big part of the change was looking at what the government takes out of my paycheck every two weeks!

BTW-It was $300, I got my check in the mail yesterday;)

[Scorpio69]

I do not agree with your view on moderates. It does not mean that you are tossed about from one side to the other. Quite frankly I'm disgusted with both sides. I am thinking of undeclaring my registered party.

The unfortunate thing is that politicians are forced to abandon their personal opinions and moral values, so that they can "fit in" enough that their party supports them.

We, as ordinary citizens are free to pick and choose the best of what either party offers without having to take a hard stance either way.

[Fisheagle]

Moderates are closer to the fence, not on the fence. They are able to see the other side’s point of view without the baggage of absolute certainty. I’m a moderate liberal or a progressive, but mostly I like to think of myself as a rationalist. (Rationalism is like common sense… everyone thinks they have enough.). You must have a rational streak in you also, if you accept evolution as a viable explanation for our existence.

Economic Darwinism is the survival of the fittest. The smart, intelligent, privileged (GW), talented get the babes (metaphor for money, success, recognition, security etc.) and to hell with the slovenly lower classes.

The genetic component of “success” is manifest in my two boxer pups. They are both male, from the same litter, raised identically. Yet one is smarter than the other. It's not the dumb ones fault, he was born that way. That doesn’t mean we allow him to go around biting people or defecating on the floor, it means that he potentially gets less food, less attention etc. We have to step in and try to adjust the situation with informed decisions (Yeah! I know… redistribution of wealth).

The smart one still has to work **** hard, during our training sessions, in order for him to learn his lessons. But it makes no difference how hard the dumb one works, he just can’t get it.

I guess one of the things about being a liberal or a progressive is trying not to attribute personal success, solely to our own efforts and realize that there is a genetic component.

Tag your it.

[Scorpio69]

Question for you, Fisheagle. Before you stated that you were a "staunch liberal and a yellow dog Democrat". In this post you stated "I’m a moderate liberal or a progressive".

Explain, please.

While you're at it, please explain the "baggage of absolute certainty". Would it be safe to substitute "dogma" for "absolute certainty"?

[Fisheagle]

May be I should have said that I'm a "staunchly moderate liberal".

Webster Definition of staunch is Firm and Steadfast.

A yellow dog Dem. I am and always will be. That doesn't mean I can't see the other sides point of view in some areas. And being a yellow dog Dem is not mutually exclusive to being a progressive or a moderate.

So how about, a staunchly progressive moderate yellow dog Dem.

None of those terms are mutually exclusive.

Long-winded and inane, may be, but not mutually exclusive.

How’s that for a recovery.



Absolute Certainty = Dogma… That’s cool; I can handle that, but may be with a slight nuance in interpretation; i.e.;

Dogma = Targeted Absolute Certainty

Kuasimodems’ conversion from staunch liberal to staunch conservative seemed to imply that he didn’t go through a conversion process. He would have had to be neutral for some period of time; otherwise he would have been less than faithful, to his professed cause, until the conversion was complete.

That was the basis for my incredulity, i.e.; staunch to staunch.
He clarified that though in a latter post by saying that he did go through a process of conversion based on personal experiences and conversations.

QED
:D :D :D :D

[Scorpio69]

He actually stated "I changed my views from staunch liberal to conservative." He did not say staunch conservative.

My point about "absolute certainty" meant that it is possible to be absolutely certain of something, and still be incorrect.

[Fisheagle]

Originally posted by Scorpio69
He actually stated "I changed my views from staunch liberal to conservative." He did not say staunch conservative.

I stand corrected. My assumption was in error.



My point about "absolute certainty" meant that it is possible to be absolutely certain of something, and still be incorrect.

Absolutely!

The nature of conservatism though, is not being able to acknowledge that fact.

I'm going to hit the rack now. This has been great fun and very enlightening. I learned alot.

Thanks
Fish

[Kuasimodem]

The nature of conservatism though, is not being able to acknowledge that fact.

Nothing is absolutely certain. People at one time thought the world were absolutely certain that the world was flat, they were proven wrong. Here are a few more absolute certainties that were proven wrong: can't travel faster than sound, earth is the center of the universe, ships that travel underwater won't work (or steel ships, for that matter), and coming soon, faster than light travel.

The world is ever changing, and what is absolutely certain today, most likely will be blown out of the water tomorrow (or the next day).

[Fisheagle]

Hi Kuasimodem,

We probably have more in common than we realize.

You sound eminently reasonable, even for a conservative.

:D :D :D

[RADAR1797]

Kausi,

I believe there are some things that are absolutely certain, but maybe not to everyone, but at least to a majority. Science and Technology is not a safe place to lay absolutes, because as we learn we tend to break down barriers. Morals do have some room for absolutes, and this area has seen an unfortunate decline. Granted, there is room for differences of opinion, schools of thought, but generally everyone considers murder, rape, and pedophilia absolutely wrong. As we know there are many other behaviors people engage in that are considered wrong by the majority. What is interesting is how conservatives and liberals tend to deal with individual responsibility.
Liberals underlying theme is we are apart of a society and the society is ultimately responsible for the behavior of the individuals. This means, a larger governmental organization to maintain control over the society. It also means less individual accountability, because the society is ultimately responsible not the person. You can hear liberal arguments in the Adrea Yates case, where they blame her doctors for not treating her correctly for post-partum depression and that is what provoked her to murder her children. It is also evident in schools, where liberals want (and in some cases forced to due to poor parents) the schools to replace family roles and moral lessons. The basic theme is clear though, the more the society relies on governments and institutions, the less people have to worry about issues in their lives. Their kids will be taught in schools, murders will be evaluated for mental illness, and the streets will be relatively safe. It is the bastion for the unimaginative and uninspired.
Conservatives tend to focus on the individual. My personal take is that is someone has not even attempted to help themselves, I certainly won't help them either. One thing I have noticed when on teams for sports, projects, etc, there are two types of team members. The ones that try to improve themselves and arduously work to edify their contribution to the team. Once they are done with their portion of work or reached a higher level of skill, they help their teammates. These people take care of themselves first, so they are not a burden to anyone and can help out. The others are the ones that we constantly have to challenge, prod and encourage to improve. They have to be given motivation and rarely ahead of the game. They expect to be trained or taught, instead of going out and practicing or learning on their own. Most conservatives are the first type, and one reason that as people become older and more successful on their own efforts; they tend to become more conservative. Don't expect mercy from a conservative if you commit a crime, sorry you have to pay the price. It is more callous and in some cases more reactionary. Conservatives tend to balk a preventive measures, that liberals would have in place. The summation is the individual is responsible and they can succeed or fail based on their efforts. I could go over forever, but that is enough for now.

-RADAR

[BBA]

I am thinking of undeclaring my registered party.

I never had a declared party, because there are good and bad on both sides. It's just that lately, the dem's have had nothing but BAD.

As for conservative and liberal...what do you think about the guys on the airplane who challenged the hi-jacking cowards? Well, they are national heroes, the reason is they did not depend on someone else to save them...they took action for themselves. They knew the possible outcome, and took the risk of dying to save others.

A liberal would respond by having faith that someone would save them or do nothing because they were in a helpless situation and everyone would understand. As for the people who fought the hi-jackers, if you think you would have reacted the same way, then deep down, you are not a liberal.

[Fisheagle]

Hi Radar,

Interesting concepts.:rolleyes:

[Fisheagle]

BBA:

Cheap shot man, cheap shot.

I won't dignify your comments with a response.

Wow! That was low.

Get it out of the gutter man!

[BBA]

No gutter...reality.

COLD AND TRUE

[Fisheagle]

BBA

PLEASE!

You should be ashamed of yourself!

[Scorpio69]

I also think many of us need to rethink our views. Please stop referring to the black and white extremes of "liberal" and "conservative". As I have stated we need both to maintain balance. Try to be somewhere in the middle of the extremes.

Please alway remember that no matter how intelligent and/or educated you may be, you still have a lot to learn.

[BBA]

Scorpio69???

WTH are you talking about? I said the people who FOUGHT the terrorist are the national heroes.

Please correct yourself.

[Kuasimodem]

RADAR1797, you hit on the one difference that I missed, and it's probably the most important, personal responsibility! I totally agree with your take on conservative and liberal ideas about personal responsibility. It is the collective good done by individuals that makes our society great, not the government controlling the individuals.

BBA, yes, those who opposed the hijackers on the jet that crashed outside Pittsburgh were heroes and should be honored, who knows how many more would have been murdered without their efforts.

Fisheagle, I consider my ability to be reasonable one of any person's greatest strength. For if we are unable to compare both sides of any situation, we are lost.

[jad1097]

BBA, I see you are back to idiotic comments again. :(

A liberal would respond by having faith that someone would save them or do nothing because they were in a helpless situation and everyone would understand. As for the people who fought the hi-jackers, if you think you would have reacted the same way, then deep down, you are not a liberal.

[Scorpio69]

Forgive me BBA.

[BBA]

Forgiven.

Jad...why do you say that? Don't liberals expect the gov't to come in and save them if anything happens, as long as they sit complacently?

[jad1097]

Because it was an ignorant comment.

No. What makes you think that all liberals are craven?

[Fisheagle]

BBA,

I know I shouldn't dignify your remarks with a response but for the sake of the many who have died for this country, I simply must.

Many more liberals have died defending this county than conservatives. Viet Nam, the war I was in, was fought mostly by poor dumb grunts straight out of high school. Not your affluent/effete Republican elite who could afford to buy there way out of serving or use their family resources (GW) to get into the Guard or Reserves. And guess what, those poor dump grunts were mostly working class folks and yes they came mostly from Democratic families. Man, I would love to see how you would respond to pieces of hot steel zinging past your *** or your buddies guts spread all over your shoes. Does urine or stool in the shorts ring a bell? When was the last time you did something brave?

Cool it Fish, Cool it. He knows not from whence he speaks.

Love ya.

[Fisheagle]

Hi jad1097,

I'm sure BBA understands all about government aid.

As far as I can tell all the conservative business types get aid all the time.

They love to capitalize their gains and then socialize their losses, with a government bail out, if they go belly up.

[BBA]

What country have you been living in? You know not of what you speak fish

[RADAR1797]

I think Fisheagle hit it on the head. You have to be dumb and/or poor to be a liberal.

-RADAR

[stylin19]

Wow. You all are still at it ?

Some thoughts..a little of this..a little of that

Nothing is absolutely certain.
I'm having a heck of a time reconciling this statement.
Anybody else see it ?
How can this statment be true ? and if it IS true, is it then false ?
__________________________________________________
Fisheagle,
I fought the same war you did. When i was drafted ( U.S. M.C.)
I was a dyed-in-the-wool, straight ticket voting, 1st Mayor Daley Chicago democrat. We coulndn't say the "R" word ( republican) in our house. It was always "those people". Why was I a democrat ? because my family was. At 18, I had no issues, no platform, no real politics. At 18, what the heck did I know ?
I am now a conservative, who votes mostly republican. Why ? Some of because of what I learned in the Marine Corps. Some of because it was Democrats that got me to Viet-Nam, but mostly it is thru my life experience.

I suppose the best definition of a conservative is: it's a liberal that hasn't been mugged yet.
__________________________________________________
I am having a hard time with some of the labels used here.
What part of your values are considered conservative ? What part of your values are considered liberal ?
What is considered moderate ? Progressive ?
Give specifics....I don't wish the thread to take ANOTHER turn, by discussing the merits of your position on any topic.

A general example is the current Mayor Daley of Chicago.
He is a fiscal conservative.( he wont spend it if he hasn't got it) A social progressive( 1st Big city to allow benefits for same-sex partners of city workers). Political moderate (He even told his brother Bill to pack in after Gore lost the recount).

On a personal level, as a male, am I allowed a postion on abortion? If so, I think it's wrong except in the case of rape/incest or if the life of the mother is in danger. How is this position categorized ? There are some who are against abortion for ANY reason, so I must be left of them.

Don't worry, I have my flame retardant long underwear on...so have at it.

[Fisheagle]

Well!

I think at this point I will act like a good liberal and accept all your opinions and comments as heart felt and not ad hominem. I must do my best not to judge your comments with a critical eye but with a compassionate heart.

We are all fellow travelers on this great journey, but we have very… very strong differences of opinion. And I’m sure that no amount of rational discourse, from either side, will change the other.

I would prefer at this time not to delve any deeper into the black hole of parochial and stereotypical attitudes of our respective sides. Suffice it to say that I respect your beliefs, and your Gods and wish you all well.

Go in peace.

Until the next time.

Fish

[jad1097]

What is it with people and idiotic prejudice comments?
You have to be dumb and/or poor to be a liberal.

[BBA]

Go in peace brother...

[cedar2]

I think it`s fairly safe to say that anyone who has thought about their beliefs usually has a mix of liberal and conservative values with a predominance of one or the other.
On the other hand, many people find it easier to just join a side and uncritically accept the doctrine of the team they choose. Because they don`t see all the shades of gray between black and white, discussion becomes prejudicial and personal because it`s about their team winning instead of about their understanding increasing.

[RADAR1797]

Jad, that's what Fisheagle implied.

-RADAR

[Scorpio69]

My thoughts, exactly cedar. I think sometimes a sharply contrasting viewpoint, expressed without thoughtfulness kind of illicits a defensive stance. Often I think this is done intentionally, for "shock value" and tends to be the end of productive debating.

I think one must examine his/her motives when holding a discussion. Is the end goal to actually accomplish anything, or just to argue for it's own sake.

[Scorpio69]

Charmler, why don't you accept PM's?

[Scorpio69]

Charmler, This quote of yours is in a different thread, but I think it fits better here. I presume, that this was directed towards me, though I was not addressed by name. Since you ignored my PM, I will post it here under that presumtion.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like a liberal to attack the messenger of truth instead of providing meaningful statements contradicting the facts. I did not attempt to denigrate anyone except the people of interest in the prededing debate. Now I find myself being called childish names. You show your true colors. God Bless you and God bless America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this was directed towards me, it would have been in response to this quote:

Hey Fisheagle, quit confusin' the rednecks with such big words!

But seriously, no offense charmler, you sound like you listen to Rush Limbaugh a little too much. I say this from one conservative to another (although I am much more moderate).

Fisheagle's support of our President speaks much for his character, whether you agree with his views in other areas or not.

Your comments in this thread may be meaningful, however they are irrelevant to the topic of the thread. I did not mean to denigrate you either, I was in fact trying to lighten the topic up with a little humor.

Part of my point was exactly what you said. Even IF you have a point, it becomes distorted when you use "childish names" such as " democRATS", "the Draft Dodger in Chief", etc.

I agree with your political views. I just disagree with the confrontational way they are presented. Rush Limbaugh's only goal, IMHO is to perpetuate scandal and debate. He will never improve the world, because he does not strive for meaningful consensus.

Having said all of this, let's try to all stand together here, we need unity even if we don't all see eye to eye.

[jallen9]

Since liberals believe that they are smarter, more compassionate, and more "relevant" than the average person, they believe that they are justified in virtually anything they do. Bill Clinton, like their liberal heroes before him (Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, etc.) , are just doing the right thing for the benefit of all of us "common" people".

Bill Clinton was only following his heart when he destroyed the CIA, FBI, and the military in general. Why wouldn't the liberal press support him in these endeavors?

Early communists..er..socialists had a plan to save people from themselves - destroy the family unit, eliminate religion, demonize anyone with opposing viewpoints, confiscate all private weapons, and finally, control the press.

We have handed them most of these on a silver platter. I for one will feel much better, when liberals have accomplished all of those goals - especially taking over the press. Who needs a personal opinion when you can have a better one given to you?

[cedar2]

Seems to me that the same could be said for the the extremist conservatives - they think they are smarter and more relevant and have the solution to save the world and therefore are justified in everything they do.
Aren`t you demonizing people with opposing viewpoints with this post? Go Team Go!

[jallen9]

Spoken like a true liberal. Do you ever get dizzy from doing all that spinning? Your comments are like saying, "Doing something is the very reason why should not do something." Is that what passes for intellegent conversation these days?

Viva la Clinton!

[jad1097]

Yet still more ignorant comments.



Conservative or Liberal who gives a flying f**k what you prejudice arrogant people think. Without either side we would not live in such a great country! Both sides have some great and pathetic ideas. To stick with one side all the time would be an ignorant choice.

[cedar2]

Sorry Jallen, I don`t understand your reply. What spinning?
My comments are saying that the things you accuse the liberals of are also things that conservatives do. Neither group has a monopoly on unreasoned response or beliefs.

[Fisheagle]

:D

[Llew]

Well,speaking as a Canadian participant in this forum,I'm certainly not an expert on anything going on inside the US...

I certainly do find great horror and revulsion in what happened in NYC and Washington...and my condolences are as universal as anyone's.

I understand that in this column,everyone writing is in a state of agitation and more than a few are probably running on raw nerves...broadening to the greater subject,it disappoints me to think anyone on the media may make a partisan swing in the middle of an unprecedented crisis...at the same time,I think people blow off stress and grief in different ways...I know for my own part,several days have passed during which I couldn't fully acknowledge what had taken place...I watched the jets hit the towers over and over,and found myself instinctively begging for it not to be real. I'm not a weak person,I was appalled by what happened to NY,but I was terrified by what had just happened to the whole world.

I'd like to put it forward that not only will some people react foolishly to high stress moments,filled with unknowns...but hey,politicians will be politicians...what did you expect?

As far as I can tell,the last "statesman" the US had in high public office was probably Eisenhauer <sorry if I mis-spelled>...when he offered a warning to the nation of the advent of the "military-industrial complex"...and all the evils that could follow from it...ahem-rasp <Vietnam> cough-cough...and I might point out that my 2nd choice for eligable statesman would go to JFK,the man most likely to have prevented the escalation of the Vietnam Conflict...but we'll never know,since he was gunned down in his Presidential limo,on an American street,in a Republican state.

I don't mean to seem insensitive to the passion and menace that the current situation poses,not only to Americans,but to anyone on the world currently drawing breath...but when I hear GWB calling for the terrorist equvilant of a world war,I have to wonder if the lessons of history are being respected.

As an amateur military stratagy enthusieist,I have to say that America is pursueing this matter on very predictable thinking,using the same approache it always has..."a little blunt force trauma will make everything alright." I hope the rhetoric is the equal of the casualty lists,because I suspect you're writing your enemy's battle plan for them. Now might be a good time to analyze just what the purpose of a terrorist attack is.

For my own part,I had wondered in recent years..."so,where are all these terrorists gone,they haven't seemed to do anything in 4-5 years" I think we have our answer now...they've been digging in the whole time,preparing for...right now.

Taking the first example of "liberal media" used in this column...it is highly inappropriate for anyone to lash out publically at the guy who has to make the tough choices,when his own life may have been in danger...

At the same time,a politician with frayed nerves is still just that...and if it had been Gore in the White House,in the same circumstances,someone else would have mouthed off,and this would be the same discussion with different names.

In today's terms,beating around the bush,seems to now include counting all the leaves.

As a possible remedy to that impass,all I can suggest is that people remember that it's not politicians who hold the power,it's themsevles. There isn't a politician alive who would open their mouth unless they knew there was somebody listening,and something would come of it for their own part. Whether the two gentlemen in Mass. are right or wrong,they've just succeeded in amassing for themselves huge amounts of attention and exposure...and you helped give it to them. These days,it seems the only remaining qualifier for public office,is fame.

It's difficult for me to sit here and try to offer even the most constructive criticism under such trying conditions,and I'm sorry if I've hurt anyone's feelings.

It is even more difficult to sit here and say nothing as events proceed towards a possible conflagration...which at the very least,will involve everyone.

[Llew]

I know this isn't exactly on topic...but the previous post got my engine running...

On the subject of whether or not Air Force 1 was a target on 9/11...a couple of points come to mind...I'm speaking as an amateur stratagy enthusiast...

1) Whether or not AF1 was a real target that day,it doesn't matter...the President of the nation was sent on a goose chase all over the American Southeast and West for 12-18 crucial hours...anyone on a schedual will tell you that that qualifies as a hit...perhaps a partial hit,considering the advantage of being on the move,and the C-3 capabilities aboard.

2) If the "most secure aircraft in the world" <essentially also the most secure office in the world,for all you irony buffs> was actually targeted,or even possibly targeted...and Bush still got into it and took to the air...well,in my humble opinion,I don't have an adequate description for how silly that is...let's take a moment and contemplate the weaknesses of following proceedure. Geez

Personally,I'm hoping Bush was NOT in AF1 when it took off that day...for it would have been at it's most vulnerable,just as it was leaving the tarmack.

That day,Bush should have gone deep underground,near wherever he was,sending AF1 away,and counted on his generals to do their jobs from their secure locations...and kept him apprised by whatever secure means presented itself....foot messenger,if nessessary...theoretically.

I guess that would be a tactical style similar to the events of WW1...perhaps it's not too late to take a page from that book.

[Scorpio69]

Jallen9,

As a (fairly moderate) conservative and a Republican of 13 years, I am somewhat foggy on your points here.

Since liberals believe that they are smarter, more compassionate, and more "relevant" than the average person, they believe that they are justified in virtually anything they do. Bill Clinton, like their liberal heroes before him (Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, etc.) , are just doing the right thing for the benefit of all of us "common" people".

I think this is true of almost anyone who takes a firm stand on an issue, be he liberal, conservative or otherwise. It's easier to follow than to think.

Karl Marx, unless I am mistaken was responsible only for the theory of communism, and never actually saw it put into practice (I still don't think we've seen it put into practice.) I think he would have been disappointed, to say the least at the perversion of his theory, and that his name has any association to the likes of Castro.

Bill Clinton was only following his heart when he destroyed the CIA, FBI, and the military in general. Why wouldn't the liberal press support him in these endeavors?

This seems like more opinion than fact. "Destroyed" is obviously not an applicable word. All of these departments/agencies remain. Do you mean weakened? crippled? Please explain.

Early communists..er..socialists had a plan to save people from themselves - destroy the family unit, eliminate religion, demonize anyone with opposing viewpoints, confiscate all private weapons, and finally, control the press.

Please clarify this as well. Do you actually mean socialists or communists? I believe early communists in the Soviet Union took a theory that sounded like a great idea, and "revised" it for their own benefit. Not so different from our politicians, except we get to decide who's exploiting us, and they have a limited time in which to do so.

A final question for you: What's spinning?

[RADAR1797]

Llew,

Texas was a staunch Democratic state in the 60's. Interesting points, but we have learned a lot since Vietnam. 1. We know to have a clear objective and exit strategy. I am sure President Bush. VP Cheney, Sec State Powell and Sec Def Rumsfield are defining those objectives and trying to formulate an exit strategy to this very conflict problem. 2. We build coalitions and know we cannot enter conflicts alone. 3. Politicians guide a war and do not pick targets or define strategy and tactics.
This is the most difficult conflict we have ever entered into, but it demands a response and we need to lead the world into a new realm of peace and respect. Peace is only attained after all understand war is too horrible to contemplate. The terrorists still see war and attacks as viable methods. Now they must learn, by the only the way they know, that it is not.

-RADAR

[Llew]

Thanks RADAR,I was actually suspecting that Texas might have been other than Republican back them...

...don't get me wrong,these attacks are heinous and are in need of a capital responce...I just don't know if useing the same text-book methods is going to have any effect...for example,in an interview I saw tonight on CBC,with someone who knew Bin Laden years ago...he said that Bin Laden already believes that he should have died in the Afgahn war,and that any living he's done since then is just a bonus...how do you stop a kamikazee,let alone a battle hardened one?

History shows that you fire off everything you have,and then wait for them to run out of pilots...on the appoaches to the beaches of Okinawa in WW2,the American Navy suffered it's worst battle losses ever,roughly 30 small and mid-sized vessels sunk...and many others damaged...althou the largest vessels were fairly unscathed...the Japanese used over a thousand kamikazees to accomplish that.

What would the American people think today,if 30 of their vessels were lost in one action? What would happen if a 1000 kamikazees appeared tomorrow?

Who's planning for that...the same guy who sent AF1 aloft after it had been targeted? It should have been rolled into a hanger and forgotten about for a few days,it was never designed for this type of confrontation.

Hmmm...it's all food for thought,we now live in interesting times.

One thing that popped into mind today,that gave me a real smile...was the idea of finding Bin Laden,where ever he is,and then using all those fine American marvels of technology - to drop leaflets all over him...where ever he goes,what ever he does,he instantly gets found out and papered with propaganda drops...lol. Deny him conflict at every turn,while ruining all his plans,whatever he does...drop him today's Intel report,telling him what he had for breakfast...that would do soooo much for American global PR,and at the same time,**** off Osama to no end.

There isn't a political movement yet that has survived having the wind taken out of its sails...that I would like to see :)

[Scorpio69]

Llew, my understanding was that Bush was flown to a couple of military bases en route to the the White House just to avoid being a target. I was surprised to see him go home, until I thought about the fact it was a show of courage. To hide would have been devastating to his P.R.

BTW, Interesting little trivia, the aircraft dubbed Air Force One is called this only while the President is on board. There are actually at least two of them at any given time. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the same aircraft is labeled Air Force Two if the Vice Pres. is on it.

[kimmage]

After many hours watching CNN and NBC broadcasts of the disaster, it dawned on me that even after all the stupid and irrelevant questions none had asked why this attack had taken place. were they told not to... were they too afraid at what the answer might be. I happened to switch to a BBC broadcast where the british interviewer did ask a US official the why question but was rebuked and told that he should really be asking how many had died and who was going to pay for the atrocity committed on american soil.

This got me so worked up, when i started to consider all the atrocities that the US has committed in other countries. I also suspect that bin laden has featured prominantly but if the US was to retaliate against what was left of Irag and saddam (maybe) then it would virually be genocide comsidering the appalling and unnecessary beating these poor people have taken.

Please don't get me wrong here, loss of life in any way i find appalling and i would be the first in line to bow down and kiss GW on the feet if he said "peace, no retaliation". War begetts war, anger begetts anger, it has to stop some where. There are people out there that have a grippe with america....why, and what can be done to bring peace and tolerance to an angry world?

[Kuasimodem]

...when i started to consider all the atrocities that the US has committed in other countries.
What are you talking about, the United States spends Billions of dollars on relief and charity efforts every year, all over the world. In my opinion, if we are that unappreciated, this should stop, now.

...if the US was to retaliate against what was left of Irag and saddam (maybe) then it would virually be genocide comsidering the appalling and unnecessary beating these poor people have taken.

The only "beating" these "poor people" have taken is at the hands of the leaders of their country. We stopped Desert Storm too early and should have taken Saddam out of the picture. It seems to me that even with the economic sanctions that are in place, the ruling class in Iraq is living pretty high on the hog right now, at the expense of the citizens.


There are people out there that have a grippe with america....why, and what can be done to bring peace and tolerance to an angry world?
Jealousy is the first thing that comes to mind. In the past we had a government that didn't overregulate and control industry very much, this allowed our economy and way of life to flourish (here come the tree huggers, LOL). There are many countries whose governments controlled businesses too much, and their economy stagnated, and the people are living under restrictive laws. Why do you think so many people want to come to America, the Land of Opportunity.

As to bringing peace and tolerance to an angry world, you are asking for the impossible. Regardless of how wonderful the world is, and even if everybody had everything that they wanted, they would think that someone else had it better, and would either want to take that person's stuff, or drag that person down to "their level," so that everything was equal, in their eyes. We can't all be equal, some people work harder than others, some come up with new ways to make a better life for themselves, some have lucky opportunities, and some are just unlucky or lazy.

It's not the government's job to make everyone equal, it's the governments job to make it so that every person has an equal chance at making a good life for themselves. Making a good life for yourself is totally dependent on how hard you want to work at it. "Promote the general welfare" does not mean provide welfare.

[MTAtech]

If you're a conservative you think the conservative news is unbiased. Likewise for liberals.

The reality is that the major networks are owned by large corporations such as GE, Disney, Microsoft, AOL, etc. and therefore have a stake in reporting news more conservative and pro-business.

Here in NY there is essentially no liberal radio talk shows (H. Stern doesn't count because he is shock radio not political radio).

[otho]

Did anyone catch Bill Maher's comments about the US armed forces as "cowards"?

[Llew]

Well,since the subject has already been raised....

I wasn't going to bother mentioning it myself,during these trying times...but it is true that much of what America is dealing with today,is directly and indirectly a result of some of America's own actions in the past...I obviously cannot go into great detail here,but I would refer everyone who has an interest to the excellent Bill Moyers documentary made for PBS about 10 years ago,call "The Secret Government".

It begins with the events leading shortly up to the rise of Saddam Hussein <once a highly favored and much funded American ally> and the Gulf War;and goes all the way back to the beginnings of American interventionist foreign policy in the days of Teddy Roosevelt and the Spanish-American War. With a sharp focus on the Iran-Contra affair,which is basically the centerpiece of the film.

In short,over the last 50-60 years,and especially during the cooperative days of the Dulles brothers in the 1950s and 60s...America bought,paid for and personally carried out the downfall and disposal of several democratically elected governments in other countries around the world. Two of the most glaring examples of which are Guatamala and Iran...two countries who had the nerve to want to control their own natural resources and chart their own futures,both having nationalized their major exports in the '50s.

Iran's democratically elected gov't nationalized the oil fields,so that native Iranians would own their own capital and resources. America and Britian,seeing a cash cow getting away from them,acted immediatly to militarily seize the installations of the oilfields <Britian> and set the CIA to work undermining and destroying the Iranian Parlementary Gov't <US> The CIA paid people in the countryside,who had little idea what was going on, to load into trucks,head to the capital and begin marching in the streets. Once they were there,CIA operatives posing as locals started setting parked cars on fire,smashing windows,dropping smoke canisters,shouting anti-gov't rhetoric from the street corners,and generally creating as much mayhem as they could...soon after a massive riot broke out,which eventually focused itself on gov't buildings,the Parlement and the Prime Minister's home...the PM was forced to flee the country in a small plane,with whatever he could carry. The gov't subsequently fell...the CIA dug up and installed the last remnant of the Iranian royal family,The Shah of Iran...called him the legitement leader of all Iranians...and supplied him full of 20 years worth of the best American military firepower money could buy...the Shah installed himself comfortably behind the massive army the USA had given him,and proceeded to rob the country blind <very similar to what King Fahd in Saudi Arabia is doing right now>...but America didn't mind,as long as the oil flowed. These events led directly to the rise of Muslim Fundamentalism in Iran,which had previously been a moderate and peaceful country with no major radical element...and we all met the happy Ayatolla Khomeni who succeeded the Shah,claimed absolute power,and embraced every American he met...at gunpoint,with a blindfold.

At this point I'd like to add that I've recently heard in interviews with exiled Saudi nationals who oppose the regime in Saudi Arabia,on the CBC here in Canada...that Saudi Arabia,one of the richest nations in the world,is possibly very deeply in debt...due to the ineptitude of the Saudi Royal Family...as much as 160 billion $ in debt...the Royal Family holds power largely due to it's constant supply of modern weaponry from America...I'm on the look-out for coroberative sources.

Reletively the same thing happened in Guatamala,except it was over bananas...and no one nastier-than-thou really came along after the planned colapse of the democratically elected Guatamalan gov't,and the installation of the conveinient American backed dictator. The United Fruit Company was very happy that they had John Foster Dulles as a good friend,and shareholder.

Basically both of those actions can be directly credited to the Dulles brothers...one of whom directed the State Dept,and the other ran the CIA...they wrote and executed their own foreign policies,largely as they saw fit....hence: "Secret Government".

Flushed with their apparent success in Iran and Guatemala,they proceed to try the formula of "discredit-topple-replace" in several other countries,but it never saw major success again,and only ticked alot of people off.

It is interesting to note that history largely remembers the Dulles brothers,as bureaucrats. They were best known for their amazing administrative skills,essentially hot-shot office managers...but,oh what offices.

BTW,the Palestinian/Isreali conflict,which we still know and love today,was also started by a couple of bureaucrats...one French and one British...they got together for lunch one afternoon shortly after the close of WW2,under orders to "do something for those poor Jews from the Holocaust"...they rapidly drew a line on the map of Palestine,called it Israel...and the rest is history. Even the British tried the stem the massive flood of Jewish immigration after they did that,but eventually gave up and left...neither had ever set foot in the Holy Land,they had no idea what was going on there at the time,and the two never met again after that one afternoon.

To close off this subject here,I think it's only fair to add that this all took place at the height of the Cold War,and that America was a newly crowned Superpower...and no one really knew what that meant.


In regards to Air Force 1...yes,any aircraft the Prez boards is open to being customarily dubbed AF1...and yes,there 2 official Air Force 1s,and several lesser transporters and back-ups,for different levels of the Gov't.

The AF1s I wished to draw referance to,are the 2 twin 747s which are heavily modified into the flying version of a White House or Pentagon situation room...filled with all the electronics and communucations equipement the Prez would need to continue running the Gov't,and direct national forces,from the air,in the event of an immenent nuclear or similar attack...it's essentially a big Cold War baby...it's worth upwards of 200 million bucks.

The point I wished to make,was that IF the Prez did have accurate info that the terrorists that day knew exactly where he was,what he was doing,and what the disposition of AF1 was...if he was "targeted",the last thing he should have done,was get in that plane,taxi out to an open runway,and launch himself into the air at 200 miles and hour. Thus opening a potentially window of opportunity for him to be subject to attack...AF1 is designed to be effective at 30 000 feet...not 30 inches. A couple of guys with sling shots,standing at the end of that runway,could have attacked his engines. Ask the FAA how many flights are damaged and forced to ground every year after encounters with 4 pounds of errant sea gull meeting an engine...then ask what would 4 pounds of solid rock do?

I think you guys may have come close to having no more Prez...thou I'm guessing that if the terrorists phoned in their own info revealing that they knew the whereabouts of AF1,all they were really trying to do was scare Bush into wasting time taking evasive action...which he did.

Anywho...as usual,all food for thought...sorry for the length,hope it's interesting.

[BBA]

Once they were there,CIA operatives posing as locals started setting parked cars on fire,smashing windows,dropping smoke canisters,shouting anti-gov't rhetoric from the street corners,and generally creating as much mayhem as they could...soon after a massive riot broke out,which eventually focused itself on gov't buildings,the Parlement and the Prime Minister's home...the PM was forced to flee the country in a small plane,with whatever he could carry. The gov't subsequently fell...the CIA dug up and installed the last remnant of the Iranian royal family,The Shah of Iran...called him the legitement leader of all Iranians...and supplied him full of 20 years worth of the best American military firepower money could buy...the Shah installed himself comfortably behind the massive army the USA had given him,and proceeded to rob the country blind <very similar to what King Fahd in Saudi Arabia is doing right now>...but America didn't mind,as long as the oil flowed


Buwahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!........

Good one....HAHAHA ROFLMBO!!!

Man, you just can't do better than that can you? Really...good joke.

[strangerstill]

Where's the humour coming from? :confused:

[BBA]

The fact that that is obviously BULLSH!T

[BBA]

BTW: The planes used as AF1 are designed to operate IN a war time scenerio. They are heavily guarded by F16 and F15 escorts.

The naming goes like this:

USAF plane with President = Air Force 1
USAF plane with V.President= Air Force 2

Navy plane with President = Navy 1
etc...etc... down to Marine 1 and 2.

[Scorpio69]

MTAtech, good call on the bias issue. I think it's unfortunate that most people only want to hear reinforcements of their own opinions. This really does not give much opportunity for growth.
Personally, I actually like to hear other opinions, but only if they're stated as such and not as fact.

I think people really should come to terms with the idea that our government, while probably the best in the world (IMHO), is not above a little propaganda now and again. Our motives typically seem to be for our own benefit. This is not to say that America is not helpful, I just don't think it would happen if there was nothing to gain by it.

[BBA]

Of course there is something to gain in most US dealings abroad.

It's not always a bad thing either.

[Scorpio69]

No, I don't think it's always bad. I just think sometimes things are not followed through to completion, unless it's in America's interest.

Sorry, I forgot the "not".

[Fisheagle]

It is always better to come right out and say what you think with out trying to prove anything very much, for ones proofs are nothing but variations of ones opinion and the contrary-minded listen to neither one nor the other.


Would you say Christianity is an opinion and not a fact, how about, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, and Buddhism… etc.?

[n715dp]

The media is in BUISNESS to do one thing, make money. Unfortunately, this goes along with providing "news" that people want to see. What people want to see is the negative, blood, gore, guts, and sob stories... so all they can do is spin it with the "poor me, everyone is out to get me and I deserve everything for free" liberal attitude.


On a side note - isn't it great that we live in a country where one can speak his/her own mind.

On another side note - HOW STUPID CAN AFGANISTAN GET!!!!!!!

[Llew]

Sorry to inform you BBA...but everything described comes directly from Bill Moyers,one of your country's best journalists,and a staunch Christian...as well as from other historical sources...why don't you look it up?

The area you quoted is a direct quote from the documentary "The Secret Government",as told on camera to Bill Moyers by the CIA agent who was in charge that day in the capital of Iran. The only paraphrase I made was the referance to "cash cow",but that's fairly obvious,considering the British and Americans wanted the oil.
The agent goes on in the interview to say that he didn't think it was wise for the Dulles brothers in the 1950s to try the same formula in other places...because althou the stratagy had seemed to work remarkably well in Iran,conditions were rarely similar elsewhere,and he had told them so,but they went ahead anyway.
I could give you the name of the agent if you like,I still have a copy of the PBS documentary.

I guess it's also a joke that Ronald Reagan illegally supplied arms to Iran,in exchange for a timely political manouver...the release of American hostages,just as he was becoming President? If you've heard of the American Congress...they had a little public Q and A about that not long ago.

Nothing personal,and not trying to upset anyone...but if you want to know why the world is in an uproar,there's plenty of material to cover.

My point about AF1 is that it's not designed for fighting On The Ground...as Bush traveled between the airport terminal and 5000 feet of altitude,he was very vulnerable...especially considering,that in Bush's own words,the terrorists had communicated and told him exactly where he was,what he was doing,where the plane was,etc.

[Fisheagle]

I agree with the everything for free sh_t. Esepecially corporate wellfare

[Llew]

Corporate welfare...there's a good one.

In Canada,national and multi-national corporations,especially the big oil companies,collectively owe hundreds of billions of dollars over many years of unpaid corporate income tax...and their only reply when questioned about it,is: "make us"

So,while hundreds of thousands struggle daily to get by,they stuff their taxes down their own pockets and ingore anyone else...except when they take a business hit in the marketplace,and come back with their hand out begging...

[BBA]

Llew...whatever. I think your misreading something somewhere.
If what you posted is true, I would have known about it from someone somewhere.

Are you sure you don't covertly work for NBC or something? Looks like your trying to spin a lot.

It really looks like your thrashing the good ol USA with manufactured lies. If that is the case, I don't like it, and when others catch on, they won't either.

[BBA]

Llew...BTW: You not friends with this guy- Márcio A. V. Carvalho - Are you?

[Llew]

Of course...PBS,Frontline,The McNeil/Lehrer News Hour and Bill Moyers are famous for their manufactured lies.

And thanks for the dimly veiled threats,it's so nice to be your neighbour.

[Llew]

Just for the record...since these are sensitive subjects,under terrible conditions...

My best friend has a cousin missing,in the WTC,on 9/11.

And my own brother was a visitor to the observation deck of the WTC,just over a month ago.

My desire to talk about all this includes intellectual curiosity as a political science student,a subject I'm passionate about...but I'm also concerned that we are taking on a conflict that may last our lifetimes and then some,and it would probably be good to know as much as possible about it,if we expect to avoid further casualties and find victory.

Know your enemy,know yourself...

If we don't go over this now...several million Arab fanatics <hundreds of millions by some counts> will be reminding us we should have.

They certainly reminded the Soviets.

[Llew]

For anyone interested...

The Secret Government : A Constitution in Crisis

copyright 1987

A Production of: Alvin H Perlmutter Inc.
and
Public Affairs Television Inc.
in association with
WNET and WETA

Written and and Presented by Bill Moyers

Exectutive Editor: Bill Moyers

Book version published by Seven Locks Press

I regret they didn't include the Library of Congress number...


The CIA agent who carried out the orders in Iran in 1953 was George Carrol...I'm not certain the exact spelling of his last name...unfortunately the interview which featured him talking about his own recollections is not in this documentary,but I have seen it in another documentary,produced by the BBC,if memory serves.

Anyone who would like even more info about radical Islamic fundamentalistism as a political and military/terrorist force in the Middle East,might want to search the Web for a 2 part documentary called "Sword of Islam",also a British production,by the BBC,if memory serves...part 1 was filmed in 1987,and part 2 in 1988...again,if memory serves...but that is the title.
It was banned from distribution and aire in the US,because it was too controversial and violent,but was aired in full on the CBC in Canada,and elsewhere around the world.
I would describe it as scarier than The Exorcist....thou by now,it might be out of date.

[Scorpio69]

I must admit I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage here, being no scholar of politics.

BBA, Meaning no disrespect, I think you have to consider the fact that anything you hear could be a fabrication.

I think it not only is not anti-American to question everything you have been told and everything you believe, but it is absolutely vital to our survival. The people that founded our country questioned everything, and that's why we're here.

[Llew]

Scorpio69: Hi...you know more about poli-sci that you imagine...the point you just made is the same note Moyers ends his documentary on...

[BBA]

Hmmm...looks like I may have stepped in something ...now I'm gonna have to do some research since Llew provided specifics.

I wish I wasn't so busy all the **** time!

[Llew]

Hi all...I just wanted to say,that I'm sorry for any insensitivity on my part,I do get enthusiastic about discussions.
This is in some ways the best of all times to raise a subject...but in many other ways,also the worst of all possible times.
I know I wouldn't have said anything right now,if I'd been aware it was such an unknown topic. I feel it's second nature.

I truely hope the world never sees another event like this.

...and who the heck is "Márcio A. V. Carvalho" ??

[BBA]

The english student who propagated the lie about present day footage being from the Gulf War video, esp the part about kids dancing inthe streets.

[Llew]

That would be in a similar vein as the "Kuwaiti nurse" who was paid to say the Iraqis had entered her hostiptal and taken premature babies out of their incubaters in order to steal the equipment...back at the beginning of the Gulf War?

Later it turned out she was a Saudi or Jordanian who'd never been to Kuwait...but was paid to give the scripted news conferances from Saudi Arabia.

Wag the Dog much...?

My fav thou,will always be Al Gore sobbing out the story of being bedside at his sister's death...while the record clearly shows he was in another State,delivering a speech in front of hundreds.

[Mongo]

I have seen both conservitives and liberials try to make political hay out of this disaster.

[cedar2]

and the worst part is, you`re going to see many, many more.

[jokostel]

This is exactly what the enemy wants us to have happen...
YES ENEMY. NOT TERRORIST. 6500+ killed... ~3X OF Pearl Harbor, which all of of you know brought us into WW2.


They wanted to send a message pure and simple. the message was even the Mighty USA is vunerable to attack from a planned timetable of a group of rebellious people.who cares if your liberal/conservative!
does it really matter!?!?!?!?! This is an ACT OF WAR PURE AND SIMPLE.
No sides needed to be taken... the enemy dosent care.
they wanted us to falter... corrupt.... while they sit back and watch it fall apart.
WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN. We must stand united AS ONE NATION not two factions!!!!!!!!!


my .02c

jokostel

[Llew]

Way to go Jokostel,I was wondering if that point would some up...personally I find this adherance to a 2 party system mystifying...as if there's only 2 points of view in the world...often it seems like the 2 only exist,because they're against eachother...

[Scorpio69]

jokostel - Good call, buddy. I'm trying to stay fairly neutral politically. I think it's invaluable to consider both sides of the issue, rather than automatically rejecting new ideas because of preconcieved notions.

Scorpio69: Hi...you know more about poli-sci that you imagine...

Thanks for the compliment! Maybe I should have said I do not keep track of current events (or even historical events) well enough to debate them. I regret to say that my faith in human nature has been shaken by experiece to the point that I take just about everything with a grain of salt. I rarely even watch the news anymore.

[Llew]

The News...one of my fav observations on the state of televised news reporting came in the film "Broadcast News" with William Hurt...without paraphrasing the entire film,the line comes up: "we're not here to report the news...we're here to sell soap".

I've never forgotten that...and I've looked to chek out how true it is as I surf from one report to another. Not surprisingly,it's quite accurate...far and away from what bias one prefers to assign to it...the business of reporting news is the business selling unscripted entertainment,the ultimate Reality TV...they'll do whatever they think they have to to get people to watch,and watch Them...and then they sell alot of soap,and get to do it again and again and again. And like any good entertainment programing on TV,the presentation tries to immitate the potential viewer,so that the people watching at home,feel like they're watching themselves...and get cozy with it,and buy more soap.

Another thing that has often surprised me,is in large US cities like LA...where a news event breaks,and all of a sudden,every 2-bit local radio and TV station has a helicopter in the air reporting Live from the scene. It takes over $200 an hour just to fuel a helicopter like a Bell Jet Ranger,let alone all the other costs of having one in the air for days on end. Where do these little stations get the money for this? Answer: they sell a whole lot of soap.

I have a friend who's a high school teacher...we were sitting around a campfire once,on vacation,over breakfast...and I was reading a page of newspaper that I had happened to find. He looked at me and said...why are you reading that,there's nothing in it...and I replied,what do you mean,this is Montreal's biggest paper? He went on more or less as follows: "A good newspaper may have about 20% truth in it...a good book written by one person,may have as much as 40% truth to it...a well researched clinical treatise,written by 3-4 people may have 60% truth in it...and a full length global encyclopedia like Britanica or Grolier,researched over decades...may have as much as 80% truth to it..." He wasn't trying to be cynical,or political,his attitude wasn't weighted in any one direction...his point was simply: it's difficult to write things down.

Recalling that conversation for basically the rest of my life...I took my overall hunger for information,and approached it with a shotgun mentality...to take in everything availible on a subject,in an effort to distill the largest possible amount of mutually corobeated truth.

It helps to stick to some reasonably good,thou highly varied,sources. Comming back to the selling of soap...try to avoid anyone who's selling soap.

Bear in mind,that no matter how good the sources you choose are,you will still need to stack a minimum 6 or 8 of them on top of eachother in order to get even the most rudimentary picture of what's actually taking place...try not to be distracted by the entertainment value of the particular style of presentation...watch to record a couple of observations,and then more on.

Some of my fav sources for reasonable news coverage: PBS-completely non-profit,no advertizing soap at all...CBC,the best TV news source in Canada,also non-profit,but expected to break even and does carry advertizing for soap...BBC,argueably the best TV news source in the world,very detailed,always in-depth,always long on footage,kinda dry thou always in the thick,also non-profit,but expected to break even,known as a Crown Corporation in the British Commonwealth...CNN,has great coverage,a little light on analysis,a little inconsistant,often spread thin,is a profit based business but already so rich and successful that it matters little,AKA- sells way much soap...the French language side of the CBC news,called RDI <reseau des informations>,has the same general quality as CBC,but often features alot of European shot footage that isn't generally shown in North America...after that,I like to pick up on what's occuring on local news,which generally tends to be entertaining <wristslap>...and then I go for the light science cable shows: TLC,Discovery,A&E,History...and then I go right back to PBS,and start all over again...

The only time I watch the major networks <ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX-Fox is painful> is when I want to see different angles of the same thing,repeated over and over...on the 2 days following the NY tragedy,I must have counted 15 different angles of jets crashing into buildings...this can get masochistic if you have a good attention span.

It can be fun,it's like a treasure hunt...

Live Long and Prosper... Llew

[BBA]

Well...I don't really know about PBS as being a good news source.
It seems I have seen quite a lot of spin from them also.

Non-Profit news companies still sell stories so they can stay in business and keep getting the fat checks the workers get...and if they get good enough, they get more money so a profit geared company doesn't suck them away.
In my opinion, not for profit is just a catch phrase that means 'not public stock' and has little to do with not making money.

[Scorpio69]

Llew, that’s a very interesting point of view. I don't think most people have the time or inclination to watch 6 or 8 different angles of the same story.

It seems to me that, while most news reports will cover the facts, they do influence opinion by their tendency to emphasize certain issues, and (for lack of a better term) water down others. Also, sometimes it's the details they fail to mention that would change the entire tone of the story.

Also by sheer repetition one can drive home a point that is pure speculation, and actually convince the majority it's true. Have you noticed the number of times Osama bin Laden has been mentioned? Even though he is still merely the primary suspect, just about everyone is convinced he's our man. I would be willing to bet that if/when he is taken out of the picture, most Americans will lose much of their vigor for pursuing terrorism elsewhere. It seems most people like to have a single "personification of evil" to fear and loathe. Once the dragon is slain, the masses return to business as usual.

One of the big reasons I stopped watching the news daily is their shameless exploitation of the Elian Gonzales case. While this was initially an interesting and touching story, I have to wonder how many much more important news stories were not aired because of it. I'll just bet CNN's ratings were never higher. After a couple of weeks of little else on CNN, I stopped watching, and will not return unless there's something important going on.

Another thing I find horrifying is the tendency to sensationalize tragedy. IMHO theatrics should be saved for Broadway or the cinema. I can respect the strength of those (reporters) who remain dispassionate, and I sympathize for those whose voices occasionally crack with emotion. I simply cannot abide by those who try to add to the drama. Truly, what can be more dramatic than real life?

[Llew]

Of course non-profit companies make money,it's just that they are not dogmatically seeking to do only that...most successful non-profit organizations reinvest everything they make in order to continue producing,or improve on product. At the end of the day,there's no higher calling than to do just that...no one is working to help the boss trade in his 48' boat for a 52' boat.

Technically speaking,government is non-profit...thou we may be experienceing technical difficulties.

There are several large market PBS stations,like Boston,that are actually more successful than the local network affiliates...those generally tend to be the ones that buy the largest amounts of overseas content and then sublet it to smaller PBS stations...they also tend to be the ones who put up the capital for some of the better documentaries around...National Geograghic,Nova,Frontline,McNeil/Lerher,Charlie Rose,Wall Street Week are all multiple award winners that appear no where else,and have been so for decades.

"The Capital Gang" and similar roundtable discussions by pundits and insiders,which is now showing up everywhere,was started on PBS. PBS was doing live "town hall" meetings,15 years before CNN picked up the idea.

As far as spin goes,it's generally unavoidable,there's no such thing as perfect. One scientific theory suggests the very act of observing something,immediatly changes what it is...as soon as someone sets foot,it's no longer a pristene wilderness.

Any reporter will tell you it's impossible to seperate the event from the effect it has...the best that can be hoped for is minimal spin in some neutral direction. Most journalists follow a mantra that goes something like: "comfort the upset,and upset the comfortable"...as a means of avoiding bias,and bringing some purpose to what they do.

One thing that I find distracting to a sence of quality,is when the mass media starts adjusting everything to suit the preconceived notions of the majority of its viewers. They fix it so the viewers are always looking at themselves,and thus feel artificially comforted and secured every time they tune in. That isn't so much bias or spin,as it is a trick for maximizing profits...it's the same marketing ploy used to sell sit-coms. People don't go out and buy soap if they're not hearing what they want to hear,and seeing what they want to see...even it it's complete BS. A profit driven TV station is not getting paid to tell you the truth,in whatever form...they're getting paid to sell you soap...any real news that turns up is just a nice side-effect.

I tuned out the whole Elian G. case after the first couple of days too,it was always more of the same overdramatized fluff. The largest source of that fluff thou,was the "Miami relatives",who were pulling any publicity stunt they could dream up,no matter how flimsy. I think in the end they likely contributed to Elian going home,because they were behaving like such a pack of news hogs. I laughed out loud when they were going thru the streets crying,with torn clothes,trying to convince people Elian was absolutely going to be imprisoned and tortured if he went back to Cuba. There's a subtle attempt at spin.

The major networks might not have had much choice but to put in the coverage they did...because they had to compete with a local scene that never settled down...one of the challenges in the market,is that everything often reverts to the lowest common denominator.

Scorpio69...the Miami relatives seemed to be trying hard to cash in on hurt to Castro with "sheer repetition"...if it didn't work,it was because they were writing their own material. There's showbiz for ya, lol.

I guess that's one reason everyone now focuses on Osama bin Laden,even thou he could be a figurehead/distraction,and perhaps not one of the major players involved. The terrorist one knows nothing about,is usually the most harmful.

Everyone knows the bin Laden name and face...so he sells soap.

The Gov't probly likes bin Laden for the same reason...if they can nail him,or at least focus on him,the economy may stabalize and head back to normal...and they won't have to raise taxes to make up revenue shortfalls next year,or the year after. Then they'll all keep their jobs longer. Spin!

One way or the other,everything is spin...the thoughts in one's own head are subject to spin from one's own desires. Marshall McCluhan pointed out..."the medium is the message" ...when a medium as powerful as TV is used,it changes everything it touches. People are driven to hysterics by it quite often.

One thing I like about some European news sources...during off hours,they'll roll 20-30 even 40 mins of footage shot earlier in the day,with no commentary at all...just a note in the bottom corner saying where the scene is,and what time it was filmed.

Personally,I find it useful to declare everything bullsh*t,and then sift back thru it to see if there's anything useful. It's not overly time consuming,I watch an average of about an hour's news a day.

Spin may not always be a bad thing...aren't the best teachers the ones that can entertain the students at the same time? It's in the way that you use it.

If you want to destroy bin Laden...get the paparazzi after him. Follow him everywhere he goes,and publish everything he does.

That's how Carlos the Jackel's career ended,he got too famous and became an embarassment to his own people.

[Llew]

Thinking about terrorism...there are alot of hurt,angry and outraged people...and I'm one of them.

A story came back to mind today as I was asking myself questions about terrorism.

I've only ever heard a couple of confirmations of this story,in some terrorism interviews...but,it's still interesting.

Back in the '80s,in Beirut...when there was a rash if kidnappings of foreign nationals,mostly from the West...there was also a kidnapping of one offhand Russian official,an economic attache,I think.

The same things held true...the group that had him wanted to pressure the Soviets for something or other...get out of our country,give us more weapons,change deoderants...whatever.

The Russian responce put an end to all Middle Eastern terrorism against Russians.

The KGB found out the name of one of the people responsible for the kiddnapping...didn't matter who it was,probly someone minor.
They chose a male member of that person's family,at random...and kidnapped him. They then killed their hostage,cut off the testicles,stuck them in the corpse's mouth and dumped the body back on the family's doorstep.

Within a couple of days,the attache was back...in health and with an apology. If memory serves,he even still had his briefcase,which had some currency and all his papers in it.

I don't wish to condone or condemn the actions taken by the Russians,it's one interesting example in a history of fairly shocking actions...anyone can see,it's a case of who you want to wake up to be the next morning.

There are people calling for a just war...and there are people fretting about how "we're the only people ever to use nukes..."

It'll be interesting to see who we all are,when this long night is over.