Always pleased to oblige you. I know folks commonly don't treat you right. But language is important, and euphemisms too plentiful in the world of war. It's a necessary focus of attention.
I'll note that a Brit paper today has written that Rumsfeld has now banned all cameras and cel phones with cameras from soldiers in the Iraq theatre. That's pretty clearly an indication that the fellow is rather more interested in presentation and information control than he is in keeping citizens really informed as to the true states of affairs.
Very many people outside of the US are indeed expert on US politics and press. Dropping down from 'expert' to 'quite familiar', that is the case far moreso, on average, than is the converse. Your take on the Belgian or Australian press, please?
Canadians are no more literate than Yanks. And, sure, bias is present in all viewers. And, you don't have to accept a Canadian's judgement on your nation's policies or on other observations about your complex country. But, on the other hand, why not attend to the viewpoints from outside? That would seem to be intellectually prudent, if personally uncomfortable sometimes. Not doing so has the disadvantage of all the possible consequences of hubris. But perhaps most immediately, critical commentary on America is an inevitability wherever and whenever America's rhetoric and policies and actions reflect assumptions of unique and superior moral attributes. The price you pay for accepting such self-definition as would permit the degree of demand for untempered unilateralism is the price which is now being exacted.
blatham wrote:Always pleased to oblige you. I know folks commonly don't treat you right. But language is important, and euphemisms too plentiful in the world of war. It's a necessary focus of attention.
Indeed language is important which is why a word like atrocity should not be used loosely. If someone called the abuse at Abu Ghraib "attitude adjustment," or "psychological persuasion," then I could understand your concern for euphemistic language, but that simply has not been the case. Well, let's have you dragged onto Main Street where you are forced to wack off and then we'll have someone shove a lightstick up your ass, and then you can relate the proper word to express this event. If 'atrocity' doesn't come readily to mind, then we'll call in those fellas whose care resulted in homocide, and we'll check with your mother, as she's burying you, whether that word has applicability.
By the way, I have no complaints about how folks treat me, but appreciate your obvious concern. My pleasure. I consider you are deserving.
blatham wrote:I'll note that a Brit paper today has written that Rumsfeld has now banned all cameras and cel phones with cameras from soldiers in the Iraq theatre. That's pretty clearly an indication that the fellow is rather more interested in presentation and information control than he is in keeping citizens really informed as to the true states of affairs.
First, the story must be confirmed. Yes. The Brit papers have had some problems with fabrication of late. You're going with the plural here for added oomph, I see. Secondly, it's not his job to keep
citizens informed of anything, It's not? He sure spends a lot of time pretending to be doing that. Heck, two weeks ago, speaking to the Senate commission, he claimed that's just what he had done with the January press briefing ("There were some abuses. Investigations are under way") and I get the convincing notion that you think he has been informing you...or is that an incorrect impression? Is he fibbing? Hiding negative things from you? but I wonder how many photos taken by soldiers of smiling Iraqis have been clamored after by the press. Since the media, whose job it very much is to keep citizens informed as to the true state of affairs, are primarily interested in the negative stories coming out of Iraq, no, as a wonderful article in the recent Atlantic which queried campaign operatives from both parties related, the media are interested in conflict...so the bright shiny war stuff with brave soldiers and things exploding was fine earlier, now something else is finer why should one of the targets of their bias help them along? On another thread it was pointed out that the fact that approx 1,000 Iraqis staged a protest against the insurgents was virtually ignored by the media. One Canadian A2K poster, in essence, applauded this acknowledged bias as it would serve the greater good by helping to defeat Bush in November. Well, I confess that I, along with the great majority of the western world's populations - and likely your own in the US too - would applaud that outcome, if not the missing coverage.
blatham wrote:Very many people outside of the US are indeed expert on US politics and press. Dropping down from 'expert' to 'quite familiar', that is the case far moreso, on average, than is the converse. Your take on the Belgian or Australian press, please?
I'm sure there are experts on American politics and the press outside the borders of the US, but I wouldn't describe them as "many." I'm equally sure that there are "many" outside of the US who are "quite familiar" with American politics and the press, but if they found my contention that members of the American media are, overwhelmingly, liberal and often reveal a liberal's bias to be something to "chortle" over, than it is clear that they are neither expert nor even knowledgable about the subject. To the contrary. The point was two-fold; first, that generally speaking, Europeans or Canadians or Australians are more educated regarding America than are most Americans regarding lands outside. That's a generalization (you're one of the exceptions) but true so far as generalizations are truth-bearing. And as American sourced news is often carried elsewhere, folks outside have a good picture of what your news is doing. But how much news coverage from New Zealand comes into your home? The second point was that to most of the rest of the Western world, American political discourse is overall so far to the right, that arguments that it is left-favoring seem like Tito arguing in relationship to Stalin, he was a real softy.
I don't know how it is relevant to this discussion, but I have never been to Belgium or read a Belgium newspaper. I have been to Australia and have read Australian newspapers while there and (online) since returning. I don't know, though, that I can form a reasoned opinion on whether or not they are biased one way or the other. However I would not be surprised to learn that Australians believe them to be biased one way or the other and certainly not moved to chortle. Well then, imagine a dinner conversation between Rupert Murdoch and his son. It's quite conceivable one might accuse the other of being too liberal. Resist chortling.
blatham wrote:Canadians are no more literate than Yanks. And, sure, bias is present in all viewers. And, you don't have to accept a Canadian's judgement on your nation's policies or on other observations about your complex country. But, on the other hand, why not attend to the viewpoints from outside? That would seem to be intellectually prudent, if personally uncomfortable sometimes. Not doing so has the disadvantage of all the possible consequences of hubris. But perhaps most immediately, critical commentary on America is an inevitability wherever and whenever America's rhetoric and policies and actions reflect assumptions of unique and superior moral attributes. The price you pay for accepting such self-definition as would permit the degree of demand for untempered unilateralism is the price which is now being exacted.
I am both interested in and open to viewpoints from outside, but for me to take them seriously, they, like viewpoints from the inside, must be reasoned. If they are merely smug quips or irrational rants, I'm afraid I feel compelled to ridicule them.
I am currently reviewing my old copies of Time and will show you just how liberal Time really is.
You probably won't accept that since liberals don't accept evidence that does not conform to their prejudices.
.
General Is Said To Have Urged Use of Dogs
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 26, 2004; Page A01
A U.S. Army general dispatched by senior Pentagon officials to bolster the collection of intelligence from prisoners in Iraq last fall inspired and promoted the use of guard dogs there to frighten the Iraqis, according to sworn testimony by the top U.S. intelligence officer at the Abu Ghraib prison.
According to the officer, Col. Thomas Pappas, the idea came from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who at the time commanded the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and was implemented under a policy approved by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top U.S. military official in Iraq.
"It was a technique I had personally discussed with General Miller, when he was here" visiting the prison, testified Pappas, head of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade and the officer placed in charge of the cellblocks at Abu Ghraib prison where abuses occurred in the wake of Miller's visit to Baghdad between Aug. 30 and Sept. 9, 2003.
And while we wile away our wasted time here somewhere in America they are making plans and watching. As we stay distracted by the Iraq debacle, they get to walk through the mall unwatched. We poke fun at each other and ask for proofs of every variety for any innocuous comment, meanwhile they are noticing where they can leave a bag unattended. In case no one else has noticed we are in a war here. Here, not over there, here. So while my friend Jim Inhofe is outraged by the outrage, to get back to the subject of this thread, and we continue to beat the completely fossilized dead horse of the subject as to whether the media is liberal or conservative or just wacko, which in the light of what I am about to say makes that all pretty goddamn unimportant, I am pretty hot about the fact that here in New York City our lives are on the line.
We are walking around, each of us, with our backpacks and our headphones and a target on our backs. Get it? We may die this summer while some gasbag on radio is still trying to tell us how bad it was under Saddam, or some grinning neo-con points out that housing starts did make a uptick in May. The war is here, and that's what we should be outraged at, the war is here.
Are you paying attention?
Talk to you later.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
Joe
Well, let's have you dragged onto Main Street where you are forced to wack off and then we'll have someone shove a lightstick up your ass, and then you can relate the proper word to express this event. If 'atrocity' doesn't come readily to mind, then we'll call in those fellas whose care resulted in homocide, and we'll check with your mother, as she's burying you, whether that word has applicability.
It's (Rumsfeld's job to inform citizens) not? He sure spends a lot of time pretending to be doing that. Heck, two weeks ago, speaking to the Senate commission, he claimed that's just what he had done with the January press briefing ("There were some abuses. Investigations are under way") and I get the convincing notion that you think he has been informing you...or is that an incorrect impression? Is he fibbing? Hiding negative things from you?
so the bright shiny war stuff with brave soldiers and things exploding was fine earlier, now something else is finer
Well, I confess that I, along with the great majority of the western world's populations - and likely your own in the US too - would applaud that outcome, if not the missing coverage.
To the contrary. The point was two-fold; first, that generally speaking, Europeans or Canadians or Australians are more educated regarding America than are most Americans regarding lands outside. That's a generalization (you're one of the exceptions) but true so far as generalizations are truth-bearing. And as American sourced news is often carried elsewhere, folks outside have a good picture of what your news is doing. But how much news coverage from New Zealand comes into your home?
The second point was that to most of the rest of the Western world, American political discourse is overall so far to the right, that arguments that it is left-favoring seem like Tito arguing in relationship to Stalin, he was a real softy.
Well then, imagine a dinner conversation between Rupert Murdoch and his son. It's quite conceivable one might accuse the other of being too liberal. Resist chortling.
Nah...you are not nearly so innocent of smug as you pretend.
Since you asked, no, I don't think you are paying attention, I think you, especially you, are in denial. Your view of the present is that everything is going okay, that the actions of this President have made us somehow safer than we were on 9/11 and that with a little bit of luck all will be well in Iraq by Christmas. Maybe sooner.
Right.
Well, give it up. Take off those neo-con brightshades and have a look at the world as it is, the world as it is now, due to the actions of this dim bulb that you and yours support even as his decisions, his choices and his mistakes drive us deeper into a completely unsupportable position.
How can you continue to back the efforts of this administration? Mere kneejerk reaction? An inability, equal to the President's, of refusing to see the errors apparent to almost everyone else?
It's okay. Continue to think that we are on the right course. Just ignore reality. When the bomb goes off because this President couldn't focus on national security because of his obsession with Iraq going badly, I will be thinking of you.
see you later.
Maybe.
And I do mean maybe.
Are you paying attention yet?
Joe
