News Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[loseyourname]

So you agree that the reasons that are used as a pretense for the usage of the force are false?

I can't give a blanket answer for that. I'm sure there are world leaders that could care less about the moral implications of their actions and will simply do anything to increase the power and security of their own nation or even just their own ruling party. On the other hand, there are likely world leaders that do perform military actions based largely on moral concerns (though I highly doubt they will ever perform an action that is not in the own interest out of moral concern). All I'm saying is that, regardless of their internal motivations, I find it to be a good thing that, publicly, we try to hold our leaders to some moral standard.

 

[loseyourname]

We export half the oil we consume.. so i don't see why we have to pay for oil at international prices if we don't import it from any country. it's under our soil...

The companies pumping the oil unfortunately have to offset the costs created by OPEC by spreading them relatively evenly across their customer base. If they gave lower prices to Argentina and other nations that had their own oil (US, Canada, etc.), they'd have to really gouge nations with no oil, in which case their sales would likely go down at some point (there does eventually become a point at which alternative energy, expensive as it is, would be less expensive than oil) and they would then have to raise their prices elsewhere to offset the costs. Either way, the prices end up high. That's just what happens when you subvert the market the way OPEC and other cartels do. No one complains about the diamond cartels because they are a luxury good, but oil is essential to many everyday activities.

Edit: You will find extremely high costs of gasoline in many European nations, but this has nothing to do with the prices charged by oil companies. It is simply that they tax the hell out of it.

 

[Burnsys]

To answer the college student whom you just quoted, the SOA has been shut down. It might take a while, but I get the impression that the US (and most other nations, for that matter) do learn from their mistakes.

It wasn't a mistake loseyourname. it was premeditated.. it was on purpouse. It was usesfull for them. what mistake? what grade of knowledge do you think the army had about what was going on there? you think they where blind?

In an attempt to deflect public criticism and disassociate the school from its dubious reputation, the SOA was renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in 2001. The name change was a result of a Department of Defense proposal included in the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 2001, at a time when SOA opponents were poised to win a congressional vote on legislation that would have dismantled the school. The name-change measure passed when the House of Representatives defeated a bi-partisan amendment to close the SOA and conduct a congressional investigation by a narrow ten vote margin.

In a media interview, Georgia Senator and SOA supporter the late Paul Coverdell characterized the DOD proposal as a "cosmetic" change that would ensure that the SOA could continue its mission and operation.

 

[loseyourname]

It wasn't a mistake loseyourname. it was premeditated.. it was on purpouse. It was usesfull for them. what mistake? what grade of knowledge do you think the army had about what was going on there? you think they where blind?

Intentional misdoings are still mistakes. You're confusing "mistake" with "accident." I'm not implying that no one had any idea what was going on.

 

[Burnsys]

The companies pumping the oil unfortunately have to offset the costs created by OPEC by spreading them relatively evenly across their customer base. If they gave lower prices to Argentina and other nations that had their own oil (US, Canada, etc.), they'd have to really gouge nations with no oil, in which case their sales would likely go down at some point (there does eventually become a point at which alternative energy, expensive as it is, would be less expensive than oil) and they would then have to raise their prices elsewhere to offset the costs. Either way, the prices end up high. That's just what happens when you subvert the market the way OPEC and other cartels do. No one complains about the diamond cartels because they are a luxury good, but oil is essential to many everyday activities.

Edit: You will find extremely high costs of gasoline in many European nations, but this has nothing to do with the prices charged by oil companies. It is simply that they tax the hell out of it.

America imports half of it's oil consumption... but what you mean then is that 30 millons people who live in argentina have to pay for their own country oil international price to 3 foreing companies becouse if not they sales would go down in other countrys which has no oil?

 

[Burnsys]

Intentional misdoings are still mistakes. You're confusing "mistake" with "accident." I'm not implying that no one had any idea what was going on.

sory.. anyway they are not trying to fix anything.

In a media interview, Georgia Senator and SOA supporter the late Paul Coverdell characterized the DOD proposal as a "cosmetic" change that would ensure that the SOA could continue its mission and operation

 

[russ_watters]

So you agree that the reasons that are used as a pretense for the usage of the force are self-serving?

Of course! Countries act primarily based on their own self(ish) interests. That is neither unusual, nor is it wrong.

We export half the oil we consume.. so i don't see why we have to pay for oil at international prices if we don't import it from any country. it's under our soil...

That's basic economics: if the oil companies, even in Argentina, didn't charge the same as everyone else charged, people would just buy all the oil in Argentina at those low prices and resell it at higher prices globally. That's the way supply and demand works on a global market.

Why should a company - Argentinan or otherwise - charge one price to one person and another price to another person?

edit: regardless, this is part of your 'everything is America's fault' attitude. OPEC sets the prices, not us.

It wasn't a mistake loseyourname. it was premeditated.. it was on purpouse. It was usesfull for them. what mistake?

They did something they shouldn't have done, realized it, and stopped doing it. That's pretty much the definition of "mistake".

 

[loseyourname]

America imports half of it's oil consumption... but what you mean then is that 30 millons people who live in argentina have to pay for their own country oil international price to 3 foreing companies becouse if not they sales would go down in other countrys which has no oil?

The companies don't differentiate by country. If their sales go down anywhere, it just means that their overall sales have gone down, in which they case they have two choices: raise prices or go out of business. Granted, they can also downsize a good deal, but I would imagine they have already done so since the boom years they had. By spreading the costs evenly across their customer base, they avoid ever having the sales drop in the first place and remain able to better serve the entire base.

 

[klusener]

Of course! Countries act primarily based on their own self(ish) interests. That is neither unusual, nor is it wrong.

That means you agree that the Iraq war was for your interests and not for the sake of the Iraqi people.

 

[Burnsys]

Of course! Countries act primarily based on their own self(ish) interests. That is neither unusual, nor is it wrong. That's basic economics: if the oil companies, even in Argentina, didn't charge the same as everyone else charged, people would just buy all the oil in Argentina at those low prices and resell it at higher prices globally. That's the way supply and demand works on a global market.

Why should a company - Argentinan or otherwise - charge one price to one person and another price to another person? They did something they shouldn't have done, realized it, and stopped doing it. That's pretty much the definition of "mistake".

They didn't stop doing it, they just changed it name...

"In a media interview, Georgia Senator and SOA supporter the late Paul Coverdell characterized the DOD proposal as a "cosmetic" change that would ensure that the SOA could continue its mission and operation"

you can set one price for exporting and another price for the inner market... after all the oil their are exporting and selling came from our soil... it should be used to help the country get out of the crisis.. not for 3 foreign corporations profits...

 

[loseyourname]

you can set one price for exporting and another price for the inner market... after all the oil their are exporting and selling came from our soil... it should be used to help the country get out of the crisis.. not for 3 foreign corporations profits...

You're misunderstanding the way capitalism works - the way it has to work. If they lowered the price for every country that imported no oil, they'd have to raise prices elsewhere. In doing so, they'd lose business and eventually be forced to raise the prices in countries with their own oil as well. If they did this, which is what you want them to do, you'd actually end up paying more. There is no way around this and there is no malicious behavior here on the part of any oil company. The only body that behaves maliciously in causing high prices is OPEC.

I could cry the same cry you do. Why do Californians have to pay higher prices than the rest of the US when we have oil and they don't? Heck, I had oil derricks in my backyard back in Long Beach. The answer for me is a little more convoluted. We have stricter emissions laws here that require expensive additives be mixed with our gasoline, which makes for expensive gasoline.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm not a Fox watcher, but I don't see any problem other than overzealousness.

I don't have the article at hand, but it was a behind the scenes description of O'Reilly among others, which indicated a problem much more than "overzealousness." I'll just point to the "Outfoxed" documentary, and the out-pour of complaints to the FCC to make FOX remove their tag-line.

If a country is run by terrorists and kills innocent civilians as a matter of policy, why shouldn't we attack?

Let's not forget the same was said of the PLO, but though it became more moderate over time, the U.S. refused to recognize it as a legitimate government or Lebanon as a sovereign state. Who knows what direction Hezbollah would take. Not to mention Iraq, which even if it does not become an Islamic republic, isn't it really whether or not they become an U.S. ally? But the real issue is that terrorism is a world-wide guerilla phenomenon, and cannot be addressed in the traditional way of war against states.

Democracy is not relevant here: Democracy or otherwise, terrorism is terrorism. In an effort to disparage democracy, people claim Hitler was popularly elected. It isn't true, but if it was, so what? Just because the majority in a country agrees with it, does that make it any less wrong?

It is relevant because Bush has been claiming that U.S. foreign policy is to end terror by spreading democracy. The root of terrorism is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the U.S. taking sides, continued U.S. intervention, etc.

 

[SOS2008]

...Yeah, Gibson gets a little heavy-handed at times, and he's extremely sarcastic...

I would describe some of these folks as in-your-face hostile, and why I believe this suppresses dissent, certainly more frightening than tree-hugging whale watcher types.

...Gibson has difficulties with arguments that we shouldn't be interfering with other peoples' choices of forms of government, and, that is the point of his piece, that they will NOT be able to sing that song for once.

I accept that.

 

[SOS2008]

Actually, I'm not surprised. Fox's slant is not any further to the right than the other networks are to the left, but their tone is much more sensational. The rhetoric is heavier.

What news agencies are to the left? CNN? MSNBC? I see balanced reporting in these U.S. news agencies, even PBS most of the time, but never with FOX News. The old stereotypes of the press being liberal never fades...

 

[SOS2008]

Who owns most of the world's debt anyway? ( i mean, whos been giving out all the money). Isnt it some countries that yoru average person wouldn't have ever guessed? I am feeling a bit average right now since i can't remember it myself..

I don't know about worldwide debt, but China owns most of the U.S. debt...

 

[Shadow]

And if we have to bomb a democracy back to the Stone Age because it was sticking with its roots and sending terrorists to attack us, we could bomb it back to the Stone Age with a clean conscience.

First off please do not misquote. I do not in any way support bombing a democracy back to the stone age, as fox put it. But naming this topic as though fox news said straight out "Lets bomb a democracy back to the stone age" is an outrage. In your own post it is worded quite differently (as I showed above) and it also says BECAUSE it was sticking with its roots and sending terrorists to attack us. Your title makes it sound much more malicious and war mongering than it is, it certainly made my heart stop.

 

[Bystander]

Re: my remarks on Gibson -

I would describe some of these folks as in-your-face hostile, and why I believe this suppresses dissent, certainly more frightening than tree-hugging whale watcher types.

Gibson's remarks suppress dissent? How? I haven't watched Dan Rather for 35 years, an "in your face" kinda guy if ever there were. You don't like Gibson, switch to the teletubbies or whatever suits your fancy Rather was losing money and ratings for CBS, and he got canned. Gibson starts losing money for Fox, he'll get canned. Neither is elected to any office in the various levels of govt. in this country, neither makes policy, and neither can be gagged for expressing opinions. Rather got his butt into trouble for presenting opinions as fact, and Gibson will get the same treatment if he should happen to follow suit. You don't like the commentary? Again, exercise your rights to change channels.

Frightening? Tree huggers? Spiking trees? Killing loggers? Yeah. [begin sarcasm]Very proud to step forward and pick up the liabilities for such actions, too.[/end sarcasm] For Russ: this is where I got off the "moral high ground" and started looking for more rational bases for "moral" human behavior standards.

 

[SOS2008]

Re: my remarks on Gibson - Gibson's remarks suppress dissent? How? I haven't watched Dan Rather for 35 years, an "in your face" kinda guy if ever there were. You don't like Gibson, switch to the teletubbies or whatever suits your fancy.

News Hounds: “Fox News' John Gibson has gone even farther than other journalists in falling, hook, line, and sinker, for the Bush claim that the Iraq elections are related to some Lebanese demonstrating for the removal of Syrian troops from their country. Gibson went over the line on "The Big Story" Wednesday (March 9), however, when he said the U.S. could bomb Lebanon "with a clean conscience" if it votes democratically to retain Syrian troops. …And to think just a few minutes earlier on the same show, Gibson aired a tape of Bush saying, "Free societies don't attack their neighbors." No, "attack" is too wimpy. They bomb them back to the Stone Age, right Herr Gibson?”

But my main point with regard to dissent is that FOX News is watched by a large number of Americans (as indicated by ratings) who then think it’s okay to behave the same way. Change the channel? I prefer the FOXBlocker “…an innovative new product that filters out the FOX News network. … With every order placed, FOXBlocker.com will send an e-mail in your name to the TOP 10 advertisers at FOX News letting them know that yet another subscriber has opted out of FOX News. Protect yourself and your family, or send one to a misguided right wing friend.” Teletubbies? Who watches NASCAR, WWE Wrestling, etc.? Sounds more like a right-wing program. Seriously, I think there’s agreement that all agencies should be required to report in a fair and balanced way if they want to have the word “news” in their name (whether with a left or right slant).

 

[Bystander]

News Hounds:(snip)
But my main point with regard to dissent is that FOX News is watched by a large number of Americans (as indicated by ratings) who then think it’s okay to behave the same way.

non sequitur "Monkey see, monkey do?" Woodstockers, hippies, liberals, bomb throwing bolsheviks, and other such mental giants take their cues from the tube, perhaps, but this is a bit of a stretch to portray the entire country marching lockstep behind the "Svengali Gibson in pursuit of the fourth reich."

(snip)Seriously, I think there’s agreement

Source this "agreement."

that all agencies should be required to report in a fair and balanced way

---- as judged by whom? "Just the facts, ma'am," was Friday's line on Dragnet, but you cannot be serious --- journalists have no idea what facts are, much less how to report them, never have, and never will. Their only role is to inform the public that something has happened and may be of interest to the public in terms of attention, correction, remediation, whatever --- other than this, a journalist is "the boy who cries wolf" for a living.

if they want to have the word “news” in their name (whether with a left or right slant).

 

[SOS2008]

This may belong under earlier threads on dissent from popular opinion, but aside from FOX News, and earlier threads about paid pundits, here’s more on the topic of suppression, most notably the umbrella company Sinclair Broadcasting Group (with around 62 stations):

http://www.never-be-silent.com/

“The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, one of the nation's most powerful television conglomerates, has a sad record of using its public license to promote Republican causes. Earlier this year [2003], Sinclair tried to censor an installment of "Nightline" on its 62 stations when Ted Koppel announced plans to read out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq.”

There is an entire list of litany regarding Sinclair, which continues…

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/gop_web_sites_s.php

“The owners of influential Republican Web sites, most notably freerepublic.com, lucianne.com, and townhall.com, have largely made discussions of immigration reform taboo, by banning any material from prominent Web sites and writers who call for the enforcement of America’s immigration laws.

…Although a large plurality of FReepers support immigration enforcement, Jim Robinson has little tolerance for that position. His computer software automatically blocks any posts linking to the premier anti-illegal immigration Web site, VDARE.com, and his moderators delete any posts of articles by prominent restrictionist writer Steve Sailer. When I once sought to post one of Sailer’s articles, Robinson threatened to ban me from the site."

And while there may have been 48% who did not vote for Bush, there are how many "red" states compared to "blue" states? Sorry, but I can't boo-hoo about mistreatment of conservatives in this country.

 

[misskitty]

To be fair, the Spanish-American war was based more on false pretense than it was on the Spanish mistreating Cubans. At a time when most of the important western European nations had large empires, the US had no colonial holdings. Taking Spain's possessions in the Caribbean and South Pacific was a good start and the falsified USS Maine incident provided the excuse (not human rights abuses).

Yes alright. The final cause was and excuse in the end ended up being the USS Maine. However, when we orginally went to "war", I don't even think we can call it that, the reason was humanitarian rights. It wasn't the final reason, because your right. However, humananitarian rights was the original excuse cited by Former President McKinley. I was merely trying to parallel that this isn't the first time the United States has acted on an issue while citing human rights. In the end, both you and klusener are right, the main drive was the desire to become a world power.

 

[misskitty]

It wasn't a mistake loseyourname. it was premeditated.. it was on purpouse. It was usesfull for them. what mistake? what grade of knowledge do you think the army had about what was going on there? you think they where blind?

Just because it was pemeditated doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake. Look up the definition: b : to make a wrong judgment of the character or ability of

If you don't believe me, here's the site's url:

http://www.m-w.com/cgibin/dictionarybook=Dictionary&va=mistake&x=16&y=13

 

[SOS2008]

Oh, I forgot to mention Christian Radio (about all you can get when you drive through "red" states). Talk about sad, all the liberals have is NPR -- Like a comedian recently remarked, can't they at least play some Rock music every now and then? LOL

 

[misskitty]

Oh, I forgot to mention Christian Radio (about all you can get when you drive through "red" states). Talk about sad, all the liberals have is NPR -- Like a comedian recently remarked, can't they at least play some Rock music every now and then? LOL

You might want to consider subscribing to XM. Its a satilight radio station...you might be able to get some rock on one of their station.

 

[russ_watters]

Let's not forget the same was said of the PLO, but though it became more moderate over time, the U.S. refused to recognize it as a legitimate government or Lebanon as a sovereign state. Who knows what direction Hezbollah would take.

We should recognize a country (government) before they become legitimate? That's backwards.

Not to mention Iraq, which even if it does not become an Islamic republic, isn't it really whether or not they become an U.S. ally?

You don't have to be an ally - you just have to not be terrorists and not be a rogue nation.

It is relevant because Bush has been claiming that U.S. foreign policy is to end terror by spreading democracy.

Ending terror (against the US) is more important than spreading democracy. That should be self-evident.

The root of terrorism is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the U.S. taking sides, continued U.S. intervention, etc.

Everyone takes sides. The US happens to like the side that isn't terrorists. And intervention? One of Bin Laden's prime complaints was the US's presence in Saudia Arabia - and they begged us to come and save them from Saddam. The ME is a chaotic place because it has oil and the US is there because it is chaotic and has oil. You've got the cause-effect relationship screwed up.

I would describe some of these folks as in-your-face hostile, and why I believe this suppresses dissent, certainly more frightening than tree-hugging whale watcher types.

How does one person expressing support, no matter how zealous, constitute suppression of dissent? And I think you underestimate how dangerous, subversive, and destructive the tree-hugging whale watcher type is. Don't get me started on tree-huggers and nuclear power.

Anyway, I find talk of right-wing censorship tiring, considering the liberals are supposed to be the champions of freedom, yet ideological censorship in this country is typically liberal. One word for you: Berkeley.

What news agencies are to the left? CNN? MSNBC? I see balanced reporting in these U.S. news agencies, even PBS most of the time, but never with FOX News. The old stereotypes of the press being liberal never fades...

CNN is fairly close to center, PBS is as well. MSNBC is heavily left, as is CBS. It'll be interesting to see if Dan Rather is the cause or effect of CBS's left leaning (now that he's diminished). Dan Rather is lucky he's not in jail for attempting to tamper with the election. In any case, he, more than any other high-end reporter was open and unapologetic about his stance and his adjenda.

That the media in general leans left is not open for debate. It is well established. Its just one of those things: certain fields lean in certain directions because of the type of people they draw. It should be no surprise that engineers (for example) lean to the right.

For Russ: this is where I got off the "moral high ground" and started looking for more rational bases for "moral" human behavior standards.

[shrug] Some people are so zealous that their ideology clouds their judgement. Ask a tree-hugger if cutting a guy's face off with a chainsaw is ok and they'll certainly say no. Ask if its ok to spike a tree so that a logger's chainsaw snaps back and cuts his face off, they say yes. I don't find such hypocrisy particularly surprising or difficult to reconcile with the concept of morality.

 

[russ_watters]

Dan Rather quotes: http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2005/nq20050228.asp

I'd also just like to point out that Dan Rather's bias is particularly distressing because he's in a position where he is supposed to be (or at least act) unbiased. Its not like he's doing an opinion column (such as the subject of this thread). He even claims he's unbiased while at the same sticking to a fabricated story designed and timed to effect the election.

 

[Bartholomew]

Um, where is there any bias there? Looks to me like the man's just stating facts.

 

[SOS2008]

We should recognize a country (government) before they become legitimate? That's backwards.

What if these people want a government that, though associated with Hezbollah, may prove to be moderate over time? No matter what direction the PLO went, the U.S. would not accept it--because it was not an ally.

You don't have to be an ally - you just have to not be terrorists and not be a rogue nation...Ending terror (against the US) is more important than spreading democracy. That should be self-evident.

Terrorism is a worldwide guerilla war. The traditional approach of going to war against nation states will not end terror, and in fact fuels it.

Everyone takes sides. The US happens to like the side that isn't terrorists.

The argument here is that many view the U.S. and Israel as "rogue nations" doing things just as bad as terrorists with regard to creating conflict, etc.

And intervention? One of Bin Laden's prime complaints was the US's presence in Saudia Arabia - and they begged us to come and save them from Saddam. The ME is a chaotic place because it has oil and the US is there because it is chaotic and has oil. You've got the cause-effect relationship screwed up.

The U.S. is there for oil, and keeping a status quo for the safekeeping of it. Oil is not the cause of terrorism. Long-standing disputes over land, which have become religious disputes as well (Bush hasn't helped this with his use of the word "crusade"), and U.S. intervention has been the reason for terrorism.

MSNBC is heavily left...

My picture is next to the word "liberal" in the dictionary (why I don't need to post it ) and I find MSNBC to be to the right more than the left. -- Oh wait a minute, I'm fiscally conservative...

Dan Rather is lucky he's not in jail for attempting to tamper with the election.

Please. He did leave his career prematurely, which is more than can be said about the so-called "Swiftie" claims regarding Kerry, not to mention the effect this had on the election--I haven't seen anyone losing their jobs over that.

That the media in general leans left is not open for debate. It is well established.

So well established this couldn't possibly change, and the media couldn't possibly be leaning more and more to the right?

 

[russ_watters]

Um, where is there any bias there? Looks to me like the man's just stating facts.

Facts laced with rhetoric reflect bias. One example:

“The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor.”

Re-arranging it to look purely factual and unbiased, it may look something like:

'The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative adjenda to [cut funding to/ eliminate/ restructure/ etc.] government aid programs.' [insert most appropriate factual substitution for the rhetoric]

I'm sure you can identify the rhetoric in the rest.

 

[Moonbear]

Facts laced with rhetoric reflect bias.

It's interesting that I've never really noticed that before about Dan Rather, but I think it's because he's well-known for use of hyperbole, so I guess I just take most of his statements as over-exaggerated to keep people listening.

That's a problem with any media source nowadays. Unfortunately, with more variety of sources, there is more competition for viewers, which means newscasters go to greater and greater lengths to tantalize the viewers into listening. It's hard to find any unbiased source for news. It is good to have a liberal and conservative source and compare the story as presented by both to find the facts somewhere in between.

 

[Bartholomew]

Facts laced with rhetoric reflect bias. One example: Re-arranging it to look purely factual and unbiased, it may look something like:

'The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative adjenda to [cut funding to/ eliminate/ restructure/ etc.] government aid programs.' [insert most appropriate factual substitution for the rhetoric]

I'm sure you can identify the rhetoric in the rest.

"The Republican majority took a big step today"?? Oh, yeah, that would have been real unbiased.

 

[russ_watters]

What if these people want a government that, though associated with Hezbollah, may prove to be moderate over time? No matter what direction the PLO went, the U.S. would not accept it--because it was not an ally.

That is quite simply not true. The US never recognized the PLO because the PLO embraced terrorism and a policy of annihilating Israel. Sorry, you're just being unrealistic. Don't apply that to real life or you may get hurt: If someone is pointing a gun at you, for example, don't attempt to shake his hand.

Terrorism is a worldwide guerilla war.

Guerilla warfare and terrorism are not synonomous. The Arab enemies of the west have made their choice and are being treated appropriately in response.

The argument here is that many view the U.S. and Israel as "rogue nations" doing things just as bad as terrorists with regard to creating conflict, etc.

That is simply not a valid argument. As I said before, the UN was near unanamous in its characterizations of Afghanistan and Iraq. And how criminal dictatorships view the US simply isn't relevant. Their opinions simply don't count.

The U.S. is there for oil, and keeping a status quo for the safekeeping of it. Oil is not the cause of terrorism. Long-standing disputes over land, which have become religious disputes as well (Bush hasn't helped this with his use of the word "crusade"),

Oil is the reason that autocratic nations can sustain themselves. Iraq and Iran would not be the problem-children they are if there was no oil. Religious/cultural conflicts are also part of the problem.

and U.S. intervention has been the reason for terrorism.

While technically true, it simply isn't a valid reason. I have already pointed out why: OBL and others have stated explicitly that all it takes is for us to have any presence at all in the region, regardless of the reason. Even when we are invited.

My picture is next to the word "liberal" in the dictionary (why I don't need to post it ) and I find MSNBC to be to the right more than the left. -- Oh wait a minute, I'm fiscally conservative...

My boss is to the right of Rush Limbaugh (seriously). He laments that Bush is too liberal. So to someone far from center on either side, the center is so far away, it looks like the opposite side.

Please. He did leave his career prematurely, which is more than can be said about the so-called "Swiftie" claims regarding Kerrie, not to mention the effect this had on the election--I haven't seen anyone losing their jobs over that.

Check again. The producer of the story (who wrote in a memo about the possibility the story could affect the election) was fired outright and forced 4 others out (including the top 2 executive producers of 60 Minutes Wednesday).

So well established this couldn't possibly change, and the media couldn't possibly be leaning more and more to the right?

With the inception of Fox news, it is certainly leaning less left than it used to (on average). But the pervasiveness of the bias far outweighs the influence of one right-leaning network.

edit: just realized you misread: by "well established" I didn't mean that it was entrenched, I meant the media's liberal bias is well documented and not a subject for debate.

 

[russ_watters]

"The Republican majority took a big step today"?? Oh, yeah, that would have been real unbiased.

That's in the quote. Did you not notice that all I did was cut out the rhetoric? "a big step", while not completely emotionless, is not anywhere near as emotionally charged a phrase as "demolish or damage" is. So it isn't really that objectionable. Did I assume too much about your ability to detect rhetoric...?

 

[Bartholomew]

The studies I've read about--in Al Franken's book, _Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them_--indicate that the media is right-leaning. Polls were taken of media figures and they answered with a Republican bias compared to the answers of average Americans.

Big reporters make big money, so they tend to be Republican. It's in their best interests.

 

[Moonbear]

That's in the quote. Did you not notice that all I did was cut out the rhetoric? "a big step", while not completely emotionless, is not anywhere near as emotionally charged a phrase as "demolish or damage" is. So it isn't really that objectionable. Did I assume too much about your ability to detect rhetoric...?

Actually, "big step" was in the original quote. And in the context, it isn't particularly biased because it's referring to the Republicans following their own agenda, not to the cuts being made. Though, this brings up an interesting point, that if someone is reading or listening to a statement with their own biases in mind, it's easy to read too much into a statement and take even a fairly neutral statement as being biased.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ, Dan Rather originally used "a big step" ironically. By quoting him and removing the end of his sentence as he worded it, you take it out of context.

You may think that aggression against a party is more biased than being in favor of it, but I disagree. "A big step" is just about on the same level as "destroyed," especially when you consider that destroying is exactly what they were doing.

"Restructuring" and "eliminating" also are two words highly favorable to the Republican point of view--"restructure" doesn't sound so bad and "eliminate" sounds like they're getting rid of something evil, instead of an actual social program. An unbiased way to say it is, "The new Republican majority in Congress cut funding today for social programs."

 

[russ_watters]

The studies I've read about--in Al Franken's book, _Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them_--indicate that the media is right-leaning. Polls were taken of media figures and they answered with a Republican bias compared to the answers of average Americans.

Al Frankin is right up there with Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh. If you're looking for unbiased assessments from political zealots, you're looking in the wrong place.

Big reporters make big money, so they tend to be Republican. It's in their best interests.

That quite simply isn't true. If it were, the logic would apply to celebrities as well.

Businessmen tend to be conservative. Reporters tend to be liberal.

 

[Bartholomew]

Moonbear, whenever anyone says a "big step" they are either positive about the step, or using the phrase ironically (as Dan Rather did). It's not a neutral phrase.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ, Al Franken was not the one whose opinion I read. I read about the opinions of media figures as determined by polling, which Al Franken was (as far as I know) not a part of, and was simply reporting.

 

[Bartholomew]

Yeah, celebrities are unusual in that respect. Perhaps it's that they make SO much money that they just don't care.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, Dan Rather originally used "a big step" ironically. By quoting him and removing the end of his sentence as he worded it, you take it out of context.

Taking it out of its rhetorical context was the entire point of editing it. Are you just being argumentative here? In any case, I didn't detect any sarcasm in his "a big step" But apparently, you didn't either:

You may think that aggression against a party is more biased than being in favor of it, but I disagree. "A big step" is just about on the same level as "destroyed," especially when you consider that destroying is exactly what they were doing.

So you're saying "a big step" was supposed to be ironically in favor of the Republicans? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

In any case, you could probably substitute "made progress" for that. Its not a major issue to me though.

"Restructuring" and "eliminating" also are two words highly favorable to the Republican point of view--"restructure" doesn't sound so bad and "eliminate" sounds like they're getting rid of something evil, instead of an actual social program. An unbiased way to say it is, "The new Republican majority in Congress cut funding today for social programs."

I put the other choices in there largely because I don't know precisely what that bill did. If it canceled a program, then "eliminate" might be the appropriate word.

In any case, I don't consider this a productive line of discussion. I've made my point.

 

[russ_watters]

Moonbear, whenever anyone says a "big step" they are either positive about the step, or using the phrase ironically (as Dan Rather did). It's not a neutral phrase.

You're just not understanding the issue (the grammar!) here at all. If someone has a goal and makes a lot of progress toward that goal, it is not showing bias to say they made a lot of progress toward that goal. What constitutes "a big step" may be subjective, but its not really emotionally charged.

'Auschwitz was a big step for Hitler's Final Solution' isn't saying anything ironic: it is probably true that Hitler considered Auschwitz "a big step".

 

[Bartholomew]

It's a matter of usage, not simple grammar. "Big step" is not used in a neutral sense. It always is positive (except in the case of irony). The fact that you didn't realize the positive connotation of "eliminate" tends to tell me you're no judge of what connotes what.

 

[Bartholomew]

And no, you haven't made any particular point. You should also notice that those quotes from Dan Rather are neither outrageous nor interesting. He happens to favor one point of view over the other (and ALL on the same broad topic of cutting taxes and funding to social programs). If that's the best that your Republican site could come up with, they don't have a case.

 

[russ_watters]

Arright, we're done here, Bart. Grow up. When you want to have an intelligent conversation, please do.

 

[Bartholomew]

Resorting to insults when rhetoric fails?

 

[SOS2008]

That is quite simply not true. The US never recognized the PLO because the PLO embraced terrorism and a policy of annihilating Israel...

There are two sides to the story regarding annihilation, but back to the topic... The PLO became more moderate over time, and Arafat was participating in peace talks. As I've said in another thread, Jimmy Carter has stated that the last agreement was not a fair one, and as we know, if Arafat had accepted it he would have been assassinated. Likewise, in another thread I posted a list of dictators the U.S. has supported. The point remains that the U.S. supports pro-American countries, and this is the primary variable--not the type of government or even atrocities committed. There are theories on this (stability via status quo, etc.).

Guerilla warfare and terrorism are not synonomous. The Arab enemies of the west have made their choice and are being treated appropriately in response.

Terrorists USE guerilla warfare tactics. Recently this topic was being debated via a panel and audience, and only one of the panel members shared your school of thought, while the others shared my school of thought (that traditional war against nation states is not effective against terrorism). There are many books, etc. on the topic if anyone wants to delve more into this.

...And how criminal dictatorships view the US simply isn't relevant.

I was referring to world opinion, not what dictators think.

My boss is to the right of Rush Limbaugh (seriously). He laments that Bush is too liberal. So to someone far from center on either side, the center is so far away, it looks like the opposite side.

Agreed. One could go on forever about which extremisms are worse (e.g., tree-huggers versus white supremest rednecks, or bombing abortion clinics, etc.)--both are bad.

Check again. The producer of the story (who wrote in a memo about the possibility the story could affect the election) was fired outright and forced 4 others out (including the top 2 executive producers of 60 Minutes Wednesday.

I don't want to continue digressing into this aspect of this thread, but my question was what happened to those who smeared Kerry's military service? The "Swiftie" stories were just as damaging to his campaign if not more. Also, that Bush did not serve his full time in the Guard was fully documented by other news agencies. The decapitation of Dan sucessfully over-shadowed what otherwise was a true story.

edit: just realized you misread: by "well established" I didn't mean that it was entrenched, I meant the media's liberal bias is well documented and not a subject for debate.

Everything subjective is subject to debate.

 

[russ_watters]

Terrorists USE guerilla warfare tactics.

While that's generally true, that's irrelevant. The point is that terrorists use terrorist tactics. If terrorists only used guerilla tactics, they'd be called guerillas and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Recently this topic was being debated via a panel and audience, and only one of the panel members shared your school of thought, while the others shared my school of thought (that traditional war against nation states is not effective against terrorism). There are many books, etc. on the topic if anyone wants to delve more into this.

Source? I'm not even sure what your "school of thought" is and I'm pretty sure you don't understand mine.

In any case, while terrorism is carried out as a matter of policy by nation states, then war against nation states will be useful in fighting it. Do I need to point out that this thread is about nation-states who practice terrorism, not terrorism in general?

I was referring to world opinion, not what dictators think.

Be specific. Who, precisely, considers the US a "rogue nation"? If you are talking about public opinion, you're mixing apples and oranges.

I know Il has made such statements, as have some Iranian leaders. Saddam did as well. France hasn't. Germany hasn't. The UN has made no such determination. In fact, France, Germany, and the UN in general (as I said before) agreed with our characterization.

...but my question was what happened to those who smeared Kerry's military service? The "Swiftie" stories were just as damaging to his campaign if not more.

So what? The swifties weren't reporters. There is no charade of impartiality there. They are a completely different animal. And besides - if you want to swing that stick, remember that the Democrats did several times more of that kind of 3rd party attack than the Republicans did. It just happens that the swifties struck a chord and the democrat's groups (MoveOn.org, for example) did not. It wasn't for lack of trying.

Also, that Bush did not serve his full time in the Guard was fully documented by other news agencies. The decapitation of Dan sucessfully over-shadowed what otherwise was a true story.Everything subjective is subject to debate.

That's how Rather justified it as well: if the general spirit was true, it doesn't matter if the evidence is fabricated. You really believe that? How does that work out in a court of law? How does that jive with the concept of "ethics"? Its pretty sick that Rather would claim to be ethical while holding that position.

Its ironic that it backfired, but it is quite right that it did. You cannot base a point on lies. Heck, if it takes a lie to prove a point, what does that say about the point? Perhaps its not that strong of a point. The democratic party still doesn't understand that you can't convince people you're right by lying to them. Seems self-evident to me.

 

[russ_watters]

More on what it means to be a "rogue nation":

Afghanistan is, to my knowledge, the only country ever taken down because of its support of terrorism, so it is of particular relevance to this thread. Below are exceprts from UN resolution 1267-1999 (about two years before 9/11).

http://www.un.int/usa/sres1267.htm

Determining that the failure of the Taliban authorities to respond to the demands in paragraph 13 of resolution 1214 (1998) constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

1. Insists that the Afghan faction known as the Taliban, which also calls itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, comply promptly with its previous resolutions and in particular cease the provision of sanctuary and training for international terrorists and their organizations, take appropriate effective measures to ensure that the territory under its control is not used for terrorist installations and camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts against other States or their citizens, and cooperate with efforts to bring indicted terrorists to justice;

2. Demands that the Taliban turn over Usama bin Laden without further delay to appropriate authorities in a country where he has been indicted, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be returned to such a country, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be arrested and effectively brought to justice;

[emphasis added]

This is what it means to be a "rogue state", SOS. Its not just some arbitrary, flippant remark made by an overzealous President to sound good in a speech as people like to claim. Its real and its recognized by the international community of nations.

So I ask you: who and on what basis would someone make the claim that the US is a "rogue nation"? In what UN resolution can I read such damning words about the US?

 

[Bystander]

I asked for sources re. "general agreement" a couple pages back, in reference to suppression of free speech, and SOS has provided sources. (This thread is growing too rapidly and wandering a bit --- hence the note to the casual browser)

This may belong under earlier threads on dissent from popular opinion, but aside from FOX News, and earlier threads about paid pundits, here’s more on the topic of suppression, most notably the umbrella company Sinclair Broadcasting Group (with around 62 stations):

http://www.never-be-silent.com/

“The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, one of the nation's most powerful television conglomerates, has a sad record of using its public license to promote Republican causes. Earlier this year [2003], Sinclair tried to censor an installment of "Nightline" on its 62 stations when Ted Koppel announced plans to read out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq.”

There is an entire list of litany regarding Sinclair, which continues…

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/gop_web_sites_s.php

“The owners of influential Republican Web sites, most notably freerepublic.com, lucianne.com, and townhall.com, have largely made discussions of immigration reform taboo, by banning any material from prominent Web sites and writers who call for the enforcement of America’s immigration laws.

…Although a large plurality of FReepers support immigration enforcement, Jim Robinson has little tolerance for that position. His computer software automatically blocks any posts linking to the premier anti-illegal immigration Web site, VDARE.com, and his moderators delete any posts of articles by prominent restrictionist writer Steve Sailer. When I once sought to post one of Sailer’s articles, Robinson threatened to ban me from the site."

The first amendment does NOT guarantee you an audience. The first amendment does NOT guarantee you that anyone is going to pay you for exercising your free speech right. The first amendment places NO constraints on coroporate policies. The first amendment HAS been interpreted judicially to strike various FCC regulations regarding language and other content matters in the broadcast industry.

Corporate decisions to edit/censor otherwise control content are NOT forbidden under the first amendment, NOR do such decisions count as "suppression of dissent."

It's a free country --- you don't like the content on Fox and want to change it, it's traded on Wall St. --- buy it and run the company the way you wish.

And while there may have been 48% who did not vote for Bush, there are how many "red" states compared to "blue" states? Sorry, but I can't boo-hoo about mistreatment of conservatives in this country.

Where'd this come from? Face it, you can't "boo-hoo" about treatment of libs.

Businessmen tend to be conservative. Reporters tend to be liberal.

You've mentioned that you're not a Fox watcher; it is intriguing to note the number of Fox staff who have migrated from CNN and other organizations --- it suggests that the bias is at more the institutional level than individual.

Getting back to Burnsys' original "yank bashing," it is worth noting that "imitation has been described as the sincerest form of flattery;" I'll submit that "yank-bashing is the most sincere expression of envy."