Can you believe what this idiot GOP Sen. said?

blatham wrote:

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.

Hey, if they kept me up after my bedtime I might call it an "atrocity, " but what the hell would that mean? There is an identifiable distinction between what happened in Abu Ghraib and what happened in My Lai. There is an identifiable distinction between what happened in Abu Ghraib under Saddam and what happened there under US control. If you want to call them all "atrocities," fine, but what do you call castrating a man and feeding him his testicles? A "really bad atrocity?." If using guard dogs to scare the hell out of prisoners is an "atrocity," what is feeding Uday's rape victim to his pack of dogs? A "really, really bad atrocity?"

I think you're being a bit coy here in any case. For the majority of people calling the actions at Abu Ghraib "atrocities," there is a deliberate intent to associate them with unarguable atrocities such as My Lai, The Battan Death March, Babi Yar, The Rape of Nanking, El Mazote, and The May 5th murder, by Hamas, of a pregnant Israeli woman and her four children.
I do enjoy these talks with you, finn. Your style in debate is energetic and agressive, and yet displays the sort of grace and expertise one might see in, perhaps, an accomplished figure skater. Are you really Tonya Harding?

Yeah...the terminology we use can reveal more about us than about our subjects, I agree. And it surely is the case that Abu Ghraib is not The Killing Fields. And perhaps it is the case that human behavior is such that, in the manner of the Haida Gwai, we ought to have 50 unique terms describing the cruelties done by men to other men. But there's another issue here too, of course, which informs our sentiments and words. When some plumber from New Jersey gets busted going into a cheap motel with an even cheaper prostitute, that's not particularly noteworthy. But if he is Jimmy Swaggert, it is. Moral hypocrisy is frowned on by the gods, and the gods are right.

blatham wrote:

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?

I'm afraid I don't know what your are trying to say here, or for that matter how you have come to the confident conclusion that I believe Rumsfeld is informing me of anything.
You said, "It is not Rumsfeld's job to inform citizens." I thought this a rather odd new interpretation of representative democracy.... elected/appointed government officials have no responsibility to inform citizens of anything. Hmmm. And then I suggested that, given the amount of hours Donald has spent in front of flag-bedecked microphones telling us all something, it becomes a puzzle as to how we might define or describe that 'something' coming out of his mouth. Care to be specific? You can pick any word you like here.

blatham wrote:

so the bright shiny war stuff with brave soldiers and things exploding was fine earlier, now something else is finer

You're straining here in order to be insulting. The media are either singularly focused on stories that suggest the occupation is going poorly, or they are not. You seem to be agreeing that they are. I have never contended that the stories of bombings and beheadings should not be reported, only that to do so to the exclusion of stories that might suggest that progress is being made reveals a bias.
No attempt to insult. I was straining otherwise. Through the first months of the war, and indeed through the run-up to the war, media coverage was obsequious and overwhelmingly laudatory of the government's case. And it happily broadcast images and 'facts' as if it were an arm of the administration's media department. There were a handful or two of sceptics in the mainstream media, but one had to reach into foreign press or into low distribution journals to find much in the way of independent analysis. Then, the media very definitely were focused on a war and occupation that was, they dutifully reported, going just swimmingly. You'll recall, that this bit of our discussion was as regards the claim that the media is 'left', and I said, quoting a political operative interviewed in Atlantic magazine, that the understanding his profession has of the media is that it is interested in conflict. So it will climb all over Bill Clinton vs all that is good and right and apple pie. And it will climb all over a war going badly. After Kerry is elected, if his wife gets in an argument at a diner, they'll be there with satellite dishes in a minute.

blatham wrote:

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.

So manipulating the truth is acceptable providing it engenders an outcome you desire?
You can't be serious?! Please see above on Rumsfeld. Manipulating truth is something governments ought NOT to do and that is the fundamental reason why this administration is despised as deeply and broadly as it is, and why it is in the trouble it is in.

blatham wrote:

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?

It's not surprising that Europeans, Canadians, Australians et al know more about what is happening in this country than Americans know about what is happening in their countries. The media of these countries run a hell of a lot more stories about America than the American media runs of Europe, Canada, Australia et al. For Americans to know as much about these countries as their citizens know about America, requires a lot more work on our part than on theirs. True.

If Canada was the only superpower on earth, my bet is that Americans would know more about Canada than Canadians would know of America. Also true, but with some critical caveats arising from our differing histories (too big for here, but related to your revolution and our lack of one)

But knowing more about America than an American knows about New Zealand, doesn't make the New Zealander an expert on American politics or press.
Again, true. But 'reasonably well informed' is criterion enough for you and I and everyone on numerberless areas of life which we might make reasonably sound judgements concerning. I'm sure you could, for example, sit down with someone who had never had the opportunity to study the Italian Rennaissance, and yet go some distance towards increasing his understanding of that subject.

blatham wrote:

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.

If this is true, it says more about the rest of the Western World's entrenchment in the Left, than anything about America, and further supports my belief that any "outsider" who chortles over the notion of a liberally biased American press is hardly an expert on the American press.
Well, you are at some risk here of sounding like one of those old fellas who shuffle down park paths, muttering at dogs and people and trees passing by, "You're ALL crazy." Please don't feel insulted, it's a fate I may well meet myself.

blatham wrote:

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.

But it's not conceivable (let alone quite conceivable) that one would accuse the other of being too liberal, and so your analogy, like your insult, strains to hard.
Again, no insult intended. But I suppose there is no good reason to argue about what dinner conversations might arise around that family's table. Yet, you understand the point...these terms are relative.

To the ignorant ear, Portuguese and Spanish sound very much alike. What would be your take on someone who found it amusing that a Portuguese and a Spaniard might not understand each other?
You've skated right past me here, I'm afraid.

blatham wrote:

Nah...you are not nearly so innocent of smug as you pretend.

Said the crime lord to the pickpocket.
That's funny, finn. Wondered what you'd come up with there. I'll be sending someone over later to get my 50% of the fine hankies.[/[/color]quote]

Lookit, you've hooked yourself up with a gang who can't shoot straight. Too bad. The whole bunch who hyjacked the White House last election believe in a view of the world that defys belief. (Let's insert a democracy in the Middle East and watch the spillover...they'll love America and hug us round the neck. uh.. yeah.) They've screwed up at every turn of the road whether it was the wacko Missile Defense System, or Condi's focus on China whilst North Korea presented the most immediate problem (still not dealt with), or the biggest, god I don't know what to call it, psycho-idea of invading Iraq for (insert reason of the month here.)

Yeah, it's not their fault. Like hell. If you're at a baseball game and the batter smacks one to middle right and the center fielder gets under it but let's it hit him on the head. Do you blame the hitter?

Do you know what I think? I think we can do better than these guys and Condi Rice. I think we can do it without punching holes in the Constitution or arresting everyone with a brown face, I think we can get more of the world thinking that the US hasn't gone completely mad and find ways to work together to defeat terrorism and set more people free. I think you start by facing reality not like the Bush blindeye policy where nothing has been in error. (I seem to recall there's a mental health condition that describes thinking that way, it's connected to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder somehow, maybe we should send someone over to have a look at George.)

Hey, batter up.

I do enjoy these talks with you, finn. Your style in debate is energetic and agressive, and yet displays the sort of grace and expertise one might see in, perhaps, an accomplished figure skater. Are you really Tonya Harding?

Yeah...the terminology we use can reveal more about us than about our subjects, I agree. And it surely is the case that Abu Ghraib is not The Killing Fields. And perhaps it is the case that human behavior is such that, in the manner of the Haida Gwai, we ought to have 50 unique terms describing the cruelties done by men to other men. But there's another issue here too, of course, which informs our sentiments and words. When some plumber from New Jersey gets busted going into a cheap motel with an even cheaper prostitute, that's not particularly noteworthy. But if he is Jimmy Swaggert, it is. Moral hypocrisy is frowned on by the gods, and the gods are right.[/color]

You said, "It is not Rumsfeld's job to inform citizens." I thought this a rather odd new interpretation of representative democracy.... elected/appointed government officials have no responsibility to inform citizens of anything. Hmmm. And then I suggested that, given the amount of hours Donald has spent in front of flag-bedecked microphones telling us all something, it becomes a puzzle as to how we might define or describe that 'something' coming out of his mouth. Care to be specific? You can pick any word you like here.

No attempt to insult. I was straining otherwise.

Through the first months of the war, and indeed through the run-up to the war, media coverage was obsequious and overwhelmingly laudatory of the government's case. And it happily broadcast images and 'facts' as if it were an arm of the administration's media department. There were a handful or two of sceptics in the mainstream media, but one had to reach into foreign press or into low distribution journals to find much in the way of independent analysis. Then, the media very definitely were focused on a war and occupation that was, they dutifully reported, going just swimmingly. You'll recall, that this bit of our discussion was as regards the claim that the media is 'left', and I said, quoting a political operative interviewed in Atlantic magazine, that the understanding his profession has of the media is that it is interested in conflict. So it will climb all over Bill Clinton vs all that is good and right and apple pie. And it will climb all over a war going badly. After Kerry is elected, if his wife gets in an argument at a diner, they'll be there with satellite dishes in a minute. [/color]

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.

Finn wrote: So manipulating the truth is acceptable providing it engenders an outcome you desire?

blatham : You can't be serious?! Please see above on Rumsfeld. Manipulating truth is something governments ought NOT to do and that is the fundamental reason why this administration is despised as deeply and broadly as it is, and why it is in the trouble it is in.

Finn: If Canada was the only superpower on earth, my bet is that Americans would know more about Canada than Canadians would know of America.

Also true, but with some critical caveats arising from our differing histories (too big for here, but related to your revolution and our lack of one)

Again, true. But 'reasonably well informed' is criterion enough for you and I and everyone on numerberless areas of life which we might make reasonably sound judgements concerning. I'm sure you could, for example, sit down with someone who had never had the opportunity to study the Italian Rennaissance, and yet go some distance towards increasing his understanding of that subject.

Finn: To the ignorant ear, Portuguese and Spanish sound very much alike. What would be your take on someone who found it amusing that a Portuguese and a Spaniard might not understand each other?

You've skated right past me here, I'm afraid.

No, but it's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. You're not really Elvis Stoiko are you?

Your response on the use of "atrocity" seems to have morphed into a response on the even handedness of the press in Iraq. You're not really a loveable plasticine character are you?

My problem is with attempts to equate what the US did at Abu Ghraib and what Saddam did at Abu Ghraib. The use of the term "atrocity" is but one tactic in that attempt.

Of course, if he is deliberately hiding important information for political reasons (as opposed to national security reasons) than he does deserve to get the boot. The fact that any number of people don't like or trust Rummy is not proof that he is unduly deceiving the citizenry. Forbidding soldiers still and video cameras (I knew I'd remember the origin of this vein of debate) doesn't constitute hiding information or deceiving the citizenry.

Not hard enough apparently, but that's OK, a well turned insult can be amusing. A forced or cheap one, not so.

I'm afraid I don't buy into the self-created myth that journalists consider the objective truth as a sacrament.

In fact, while it irritates me when I find evidence of their bias (the cited NPR report on the Abu Ghraib hearings), I don't think it is a leading cause of the downfall of Western Society. The press has always been biased. I have more difficult with their sanctimonious and dishonest protestations that they are free of bias, then the practice of that bias.

blatham, didn't your parents ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

True as well, but my point is that dismissing the contention that the American media has a liberal bias as an amusingly quaint notion is not the product of reasonably sound judgment. You seem to have explained it as a product of perception: The "Outsiders" reside so far to the left in the spectrum of political thought that when they look to America they can't help but see only The Right, and thus the notion that anyone is leftist in the US is amusing.

I don't think your explanation holds water, other than for leftists such as yourself who seem to insist on speaking for The Rest Of The World.

Your explanation is that to the European or Canadian (leftist), both sides of the political discourse in the US sounds pretty much like the same rightwing rhetoric, and so when an American declares there is actually a difference, the European or Canadian (leftist) finds it amusing. Much the way the ignorant lout in my analogy, convinced that Spanish and portuguese are the same language, finds it amusing that a Portuguese and a Spaniard can't understand one another

OK Joe, rather than simply continuing to grumble, how about expounding on some of your grumblements

Why do you think a democracy in Iraq will not have a "spillover" effect in the Middle East?

Can you share with us some examples of where there has been a lack of cooperation between the US and another country, in terms of fighting terrorism, because of our invasion of Iraq? All of the European nations that decried the invasion take great pains to explain that they are still working closely with us in fighting terrorism. Are they wrong?

Time is a liberal magazine? What other jokes do you know?

Time and Newsweek

MUSHILY MODERATE BUT STILL BARELY LIBERAL

You get that, Joe Nation. They are not conservative magazines.

I don't like Rumsfeld, and I don't trust him. I hold that already there is enough evidence to suggest it more likely than not that he has hidden negative information for reasons strategic and for reasons political. That case is not yet proved (which will take further documents or a high level whistleblower). The new rules on cameras follows exactly upon the release to the public of the Abu Ghraib and other photos...if you can forward some credible and rational alternate reason (other than PR, that is, to attempt to eradicate transmission to the public of REAL, ACTUAL EVENTS) for this new policy, I'll give you a gold star for creativity.

Granted. Ought we to use my example, or this sentence of yours as the better representative of a case in point?

There are ways to analyze media sources that ARE valuable, however, and you know this as well as I. Lack of citation, fallacious argument, unyielding partisan support, unquestioned assumptions, pounds of cliche per column inch, etc. For example, Ann Coulter and Al Franken are commonly equated, as if they were something like equidistant outriggers on some centrist and more objective canoe. But an analysis of their work brings critical dissimilarities.

My mother was Russian Cossack, conservative and ambitious. My father was a homosexual Englishman and a union organizer. I am still very confused about what they taught me. I am not Peter Jennings. His mother was a wimp, obviously.

I'm not sure how to get around this impasse. Part of the problem is where an observer might personally think the 'center' ought to be located, and that is a variable based on personal political policy preferences. But I do think that another part of the problem is a general acceptance, in the US, of the notion of 'liberal media bias'. All I can do here, I think, is recommend Alterman's book. It's by far the best (thorough and rigorous) analysis of the subject I've come across.

I'm sure that passions ran high, once, on whether 7 or 27 angels might fit on some smallish bit of Sheffield geography. The arguments would have been highly detailed and paradigms of concision and contrast. Positions held would have seemed, from inside the debate, so critically and vastly disparate that only some tragic Montague and Capulet denouement might pop those fellows out of their unsuspected insularity. Somewhere, right this very moment, Carl Rove and Dick Cheney are composing this very narrative. We, that is, myself and the rest of the world for whom I've been asked to speak, await the 'pop' sound with some eagerness.

I doubt very much that the Toronto police department permits its officers to carry cameras with them while on patrol and to take photos of crime victims and arrested or killed perpetrators, (The Toronto PD is required, from time to time, to shoot a criminal, isn't it?) or the Quebec Fire Department allows its men and women to carry video cameras to the scene of a fire.

By all means yours, it is so much more representative of the point.

I would be interested in such an analysis, because I'm afraid I don't see much of a fundamental difference between the two.

Ahhh...An aggressive, overbearing mother and a weak, unassuming father.
It's the classic formula for the raising of a Rosicrucian. You stand revealed blatham.

I have to confess that I have not read Alterman's book, not because it reaches a conclusion which I cannot accept but because it is very difficult to believe that Alterman can consider an issue of bias, without bringing his own considerable bias to bear. I wouldn't read a book on the same subject by Sean Hannity; for the same reason.

Very nicely turned, but somewhat obtuse. Is this difference without distinction between the Left and Right (such as they, laughingly, may be) in the US, or between the US and The Rest of The World?

As regards the right/left question of America, if it makes some sense to say, in a general way, that the Netherlands or Canada tends to have more 'leftist' policies than does the US, then surely it makes some sense to voice the corollary of that.

thanks BBB...I am forever in DiIulio's debt for that brilliant "Mayberry Machiavellis". And he was the first admin official to blow the whistle (wouldn't ya love to know what Rove threatened him with?)

finn

I actually read a piece written by someone who had worked editing footage for one of those reality cop shows. The main problem was pumping it up for drama. I do understand that a police force wouldn't let really damaging footage be released. Of course, there is no question that they SHOULD.

For a military force in a democracy, this holds true even moreso. It is not part of the job we assign them to act with malfeasance and then cover that up, particularly when such malfeasance may well put the public they are supposed to be defending at even more risk than that public was before. We expect them to follow laws and codes and we have every right as taxpayers to demand full accounting of what they are up to. Precedent tells us nothing other than what has been precedent. But we have learned that these guys will lie and that a good activist free press doing dilligent research and pushing things into the public view is the best tool for keeping us truly informed...not big splashy centcom backdrops and the pretence of informing.

My use of 'facist' was tempered with 'in the direction of'. It's a strong word I know, but I despise this tendency to deceive and obstruct justice - on the premise that they know better than we do what it is we need and want to know - more than perhaps any other that a government might get up to.

As to your last paragraph...perhaps we were arguing a bit sideways here. There ARE differences between right and left in the US (my little purple joke notwithstanding). But all in all, the left in America wouldn't register in most european countries as even close to being radical, but as very midstream. NIMH and Walter Hinteler have talked about this on quite a few threads.

blatham wrote:
thanks BBB...I am forever in DiIulio's debt for that brilliant "Mayberry Machiavellis". And he was the first admin official to blow the whistle (wouldn't ya love to know what Rove threatened him with?)


We could line up ten times as many "White House Officials" who would say nothing but favorable things about Bush and the Administration and some people would dismiss them, out of hand, as liars or sycophants, and yet these same people unquestioningly believe everything negative every anonymous White House official spouts. And if the critic actually identifies himself, then it immediately becomes gospel. Well, that's more than a bit undiscerning. DiIulio does NOT just say negative things. And, the negative things he does say corresponds with other information to hand. And, if you look at DiIulio's past, and his resume, and his set of beliefs, what he says can hardly be dismissed in the slipshod manner you've attempted above.

Other than the obvious partisan explanations for this dichotomy, I have to wonder why so many people prefer to believe the negative over the positive. This applies in far more areas of life than simply politics. How about considering the alternate notion that these negatives reflect something real. Bush, when campaigning for the nomination in Florida, was pulled aside from his ubiquitous handlers by a young Canadian satirist who inquired what Bush thought of Prime Minister Poutine. Bush went on to express his deep admiration for Prime Minister Poutine. Now, I wasn't in the slightest offended by the fact Bush didn't know Cretien's name (I was thrilled when Jean got a pie in the kisser) but it was an indication early on as to just how uneducated and incurious this man is. And, as we know from much else, he lies through his teeth. And, as we are coming to discover, he's done just about eveything wrong in terms of making US citizens more safe. Unless you consider that it is somehow impossible that a dangerous incompetent might end up in that post, then it will require some discernment as to whether Bush matches that word.

Anyone who has operated with a large and complex organization knows that there are always grumbling malcontents who view everything with cynicism and find fault with every effort. This, of course, doesn't mean they aren't sometimes accurate in their assessment, but the mere fact that they are not voicing the company line doesn't make the line that they are voicing credible. Well, ok, there you admit the possibility. What makes DiIulio credible is rather a lot.[/[/color]QUOTE]

I'm all for a vigorous and free press. I also don't countenance the adminstration holding back information unless it affects national security.
Forbidding soliders from carrying cameras and video cameras with them as they go about their military business is not holding back information. It is not the job of the military to provide us with 138,000 freelance reporters in Iraq.

An extension of your point would seem to be that we should all find it hugely amusing whenever anyone in Europe complains of right wingers in their midst.

finn said

Quote:

I'm all for a vigorous and free press. I also don't countenance the adminstration holding back information unless it affects national security.
Forbidding soliders from carrying cameras and video cameras with them as they go about their military business is not holding back information. It is not the job of the military to provide us with 138,000 freelance reporters in Iraq.

You and I have a different idea about what the full range of duties and responsibilities a military force has in a democracy.

Indeed

Clearly, the policy was not established for security reasons, nor to make the military more efficient...it was established precisely and only to obstruct US citizens and the rest of the world from more easily knowing what naughties the military might get up to. And that has as a purpose the desire to have the military operate according to it's own arbitrary standards or to the standards of the DOD, as opposed to laws, regulations, and particularly to the wishes of the population it is supposed to serve. Your argument is empty, and it avoids all the tougher questions. It is morally despicable for Rumsfeld to have established the policy, and for Bush to have allowed it. If the military is competent and not fukking up or breaking codes of conduct, then there's no need for the policy.

Well I guess that's that. Blatham has spoken.

Quote:

An extension of your point would seem to be that we should all find it hugely amusing whenever anyone in Europe complains of right wingers in their midst.

No, that doesn't follow, finn. The claim I make (that likely everyone on this board from outside the US would make) is that the functional political center in America is considerably to the right compared with almost all other western nations, and that the breadth of real policy alternatives is relatively narrow. I'm not going to argue about this any further. It's an observation made countless times by bright people who do know what they are talking about. The claim isn't startling nor unpredictable given your nation's history over the last hundred years, and given that you have a two party system. Whether or not it is terribly important is another matter, but the fact of it is clear.

An extension of your point would seem to be that we should all find it hugely amusing whenever anyone in Europe complains of right wingers in their midst.

Come to think of it, Pym Fortuyn didn't seem like such a bad guy. Maybe there's more to your point than I've gathered.

In the end, even the most outspoken Pim-defending editor retreated and dropped his support for the guy, over an allegation of Fortuyn belittling pedophelia that I'd never heard of.