1
   

Richard Perle, Ann Coulter and America's savage Regression

 
 
PDiddie
 
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 07:25 am
(Please address the questions and concerns raised in this fine piece by Maureen Farrell: )

Thirty-five years ago, Walter Cronkite returned from a visit to Vietnam and challenged President Lyndon Johnson's promises about American victories. "We've been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington," he said, "to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate."

"If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the country," Johnson later remarked.

Can you imagine President Bush making a similar observation of any newscaster?

These days, as veterans like Helen Thomas are "called out" and her successors toss powder puffs during puppet show press conferences, good journalists are hard to find. And it seems, as with Afghanistan, few will be reporting from Iraq at all. According to the BBC's Kate Adie, the Pentagon is warning it will shoot down satellite uplink positions of independent journalists stationed there and is "threatening freedom of information" even before the war starts.

To make matters worse, as the shades go down in Baghdad, another oppressive phenomenon is occurring on the home front. Michael Savage, who advocates arresting leaders of the antiwar movement once combat starts, uses his MSNBC platform to call for a return to yesteryear, 1918 specifically, when the Sedition Act was all the rage.

The Sedition Act, for those too young to remember Eugene Debs, made speaking out against the government a punishable offense. "Whoever, when the United States is at war," the document reads (before listing several seditious offenses). . . "shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States. . . shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both."

Would Walter Cronkite's Vietnam stance make him a right wing target today? Probably. Because just one day after Savage's televised appeal to criminalize active dissent, Richard Perle told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that journalist Seymour Hersh "is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist." And now that Sean Penn, George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Spike Lee and other celebrates have been blacklisted from speaking at the Oscars, McCarthyism is all the rage. Who would have thought that the '70s, with its Farrah Faucett posters and Captain and Tennille duets, would ever be considered a Golden Age of Enlightenment?

What has happened to America? How has it regressed beyond recognition? More and more, it looks as if our nation is taking a giant leap backwards in terms of leadership, the media and the quality of our national debate. Since the Federal Communications Commission eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in the mid 1980s, many broadcasters haven't even attempted to present balanced coverage of controversial issues. And though the Chicago Sun Times recently announced that talk radio was "the key to GOP victory," (showing how effective this shilling can be), media personalities and government spokesman are becoming increasingly hostile as they propel us towards war -- especially in their attempts to squelch dissent.

Link to entire essay here.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,208 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 07:33 am
I urge every dissident to write and speak out in as public a manner as possible so that the govt. would be forced to arrest millions of us for violating such an act. The more the merrier. Clog the system.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 07:37 am
Maureen Farrell has deliberately omitted many significan points of the Sedition Act. Here is the full text, that the link points to:
Quote:
Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States[/color], or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production[/color] . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

The parts marked by me by means of bold script and color show that this is an act prohibiting verbal sabotage, rather than curtailing freedom of speech. Such an act is quite natural to be accepted in any country being at war (if its governing leaders are not traitors or idiots, of course).
Partial truth, IMO, is worse that a sheer lie.
One more consideration: period of war is not the best timing for the public discussions about pacifism.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 07:38 am
Better in their minds to silence the truth -- than to deal with it legitimately.

I was not nuts about Al Gore, but I spoke out loudly for his election because it was my opinion tht George Bush and his handlers were very, very dangerous people.

I am even more certain now than I was then!

They are not going to silence us!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 08:04 am
steissd wrote:
shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . .
\
is this not exactly what the Bush Administration has done by presenting false and forged doucments to both the citizens of the US and to the United Nations?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 09:49 am
It has long been one of my favorite theories that it was the Great Depression along with the sense of pulling together in a titanic war effort that brought about the positive social change of the 20th Century. We had the economy leveled so that the top strata of American society found itself at eye level with the common people. There were exceptions, but, it happened on a scale large enough to tip the scale toward social activism. Roosevelt and succeeding administrations went with the will of the people so that women and minorities were suddenly being given actual civil rights. Programs to help the needy and get the workers busy again were implemented. The golden age we experienced might have been perpetuated for another generation or two but for the corruption that was allowed to control the system after a time. The newer generations do not recall what the Depression or WWII were all about; they do not share the bond that drew Americans together. In the end, all they could see was the corruption. So, egged on by far right wing conservatives, they began to throw out the entire system, good along with bad. We reverted to the days of Hoover and his predecessors. Only another leveling force with the strength and savagery of the Great Depression can, in my opinion, truly turn our course toward being progressive one more time. Even the Democrats are falling in line with the slide to regression, although there is a minority who will never give in. I predict that even if we elect a Democrat in '04 we will not stray from the path of retro politics.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 03:32 pm
Edgar
Indeed. There is a tremendous difference between the thinking and values of the generation that lived through the depression and WW2 and the give me generations [present baby boomers]. I guess adversity helps in character building and understanding.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 03:44 pm
I'm intrigued (and disgusted) by the seeming popularity of Savage and Coulter. I don't much know about her background, but Savage (under his real name) was a health-food huckster in the past. Now he's much more successful, except he's selling hard-right BS. How can anyone take him seriously? The man is clearly making a buck by staking out the farthest right position in the media spectrum. Same thing with Coulter. The more outrageous they are, the more their fans love 'em.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Richard Perle, Ann Coulter and America's savage Regression
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 11:08:56