"And I found, to my surprise, that the agenda appeared to be substantially the same: to magnify our wrongdoings and those of our allies, to downplay those of the enemy, to simplify matters that were really complex, and to sensationalize."
Up until Katrina 2005, the national media basically fell asleep. Sure they had Abu Gharib and few other small tidbits but, for the most part, they were complicit in selling the war in Iraq to America.
I started to read some more of her stuff, Kevin, and to be honest I just couldn't finish. It's so warped and just plain wrong that I am quite literally sick to my stomach.
And this kind of garbage only helps Al Qaeda and hinders us from accomplishing anything.
I started to read some more of her stuff, Kevin, and to be honest I just couldn't finish. It's so warped and just plain wrong that I am quite literally sick to my stomach.
And the fact that it affects you that way says more about the widening divide in this country than anything I will ever write.
As a Marine who served in the RVN 68-69,I am sickened by your response Markadelphia. Have you no shame? I hope that at some point in your life you finally grow up and realize that there are some people out there that are protecting your sorry butt from being put into a gulag or having your head wacked off by some Islamic extremist. You know nothing about Vietnam, only what your leftist teachers have taught you. Wake-up!
Isn't she wonderful. Besides turning on my man juices, she is elegant and sharp. I would say smarter than me, but I have had one beer (at least) too many to admit to that particular truth, so I shall dance around the edges.
I hope that ends up being a plug for her. She is an amazing read, and a bright woman. Neither of those praises comes lightly, and really, a woman does have to earn her bona fides from me. Pretty is easy, smart is earned and difficult. And really, in spite of the obversity, who I would choose to be with is easy.
I'd be interested in just what part of her series Markadelphia finds sickening.
She seems rational and reasoning, in many ways paralleling my own development in discounting the MSM (particularly the big 3 networks, NY Times and Washington Post)on military issues.
I had an advantage in having access to intel reports, and in one case personally witnessing and event and seeing the MSM flat out lie about what happened. (Seymour Hersh being a particularly shining example of a sleazy lying slug). So I got into the habit of vetting information through multiple sources before the internet (for instance I knew that the photo of the execution of a VC officer showed something that was both legal under international law and a morally righteous thing in the mid '70's), but I understand her transformation as documented to date.
So Mark, what is it specifically that bothers you?
Randy, if I had to guess, I would say that what bothers Mark is the process which caused her thinking to change. (Hey wait a minute! I thought all change was considered good by liberals!) The driving force behind her change is best exemplified by this quote:
"…it was becoming clearer and clearer–at least to me–that the arguments in the media from the middle or the right were making more sense–and had more predictive value–than those emanating from the left."
In other words, it was the scientific method applied to politics which caused her to change her mind: (A) Develop a hypothesis (in this case, there were two: liberal and conservative), (B) Test the results, (C) If the experiment disproves the hypothesis, change it. In short, both liberal and conservative theories and predictions were tested in the real world and she discovered that the leftist theories were completely inaccurate and deficient.
What sickens me is that someone who is sickened by applying the scientific method to political theories is teaching children!
BTW, the very next paragraph after the section I quoted is fascinating:
"It was as though I were sitting in a court of law as a member of the jury and being asked to decide a case. Before, I had heard only the presentation from one side. Now I heard both sides, and was trying to give both a fair hearing, and to approach my task without prejudice or preconceived notions. I was reluctantly coming to a certain distressing conclusion: more often than not, the voices on the left were less credible than those on the right."
Mark's reaction to the idea of someone switching their viewpoints away from the liberal/progressive camp isn't that bad. You should see the reaction when a minoritiy turns away from the Democratic Big Tent. Or 'Big Plantation' would be more accurate, because D's seem to think they own minorities as a voting block. When a black person or other non-white turns away from the l/p idea, they're seen as traitors to their race, wanting to be white, and you should see all the racial-based insults come out. My personal favorite is cartoonist Ted Rall calling Condaleeza Rice a "house nigger" because she dares to work for Bush instead of the Democrats. Michelle Malkin has plenty of experience with this. Likewise, gays who don't adopt the liberal mindset as seen as traitors to the gay rights movement, and any feminist who is also Republican is seen as a trator to the women's rights movement and some kind of Stepford Wife. Quite simply, when you believe in the moral superiority of your politics, it's easy to see someone turning away from these politics as being dangerously weird & wrong or traitorous.
And for alln their talk about wanting social change and progress, liberals are stagnant, or even reactionary on certain issues. But that's another story.
"The first reason many who were antiwar during the Vietnam era have not really faced up to the negative consequences of their actions for the people of South Vietnam is that it is ordinarily incredibly difficult--for human beings of any stripe, whether liberal or conservative--to admit to an error of that magnitude. It is human nature that most people will do almost anything to avoid doing so."
What is more striking still is the depths people will descend to in order to avoid admitting any error of any magnitude. The worst of them will compound error on error on error in order to continue the denial, all the while knowing that they fool no one by doing so, indeed knowing that their efforts are as transparent as glass. It makes the question of changing one's mind moot; one cannot change a mind that one will not use.
I was a little confused by your comment. While I mostly agree with it...
Mark's reaction to the idea of someone switching their viewpoints away from the liberal/progressive camp isn't that bad.
Being utterly unable to read (fairly short) explanation of an epiphany and becoming violently ill isn't that bad?
What would you consider to be egregious? :)
Mark's reaction is exactly the same issue as you remark on, but even more personal - he has to deny her authentic experience, because to give her the respect would call into question (to himself - we've questioned and answered it long ago) his true bonafides as a deep thinker.
Neo-Neocon's story has given me new insights, and it's about her coming around to "my way of thinking". Isn't it interesting that Kevin, others, and I find lessons in her story, and "progressives" run for the Pepto-Bismol?
(For the claims of "wanting" a discussion - How can you have a "discussion" with someone you claim is lying on their beliefs, and whose story sickens them to the point of nausea?)
You should see the reaction when a minoritiy turns away from the Democratic Big Tent.
You mean, a lifelong liberal voter, member of the Academy, highly-educated and an educator, woman turning away from Liberalism?
And not so much against the Democrats as the Liberals. (Big-L. Neo-Neocon still (claims she, and I've seen no reason to disbelief her) holds most of the same morals she did before her change in outlook.)
But she's been able to step back, look at the outside world, at the proof, and decide that the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" is onto something. And she explains why. I'm not surprised by the visceral reaction from someone who claims to teach "critical thinking", yet whose entire worldview is being repudiated by Neo-Neocon.
Kevin's entirely correct, as he often is: the fact that it affects [Markadelphia] that way says more about the widening divide in this country than anything I will ever write.
"and the fact that it affects you that way says more..."
It affects me that way because some of the stuff she has posted on there are flat out lies and a complete "ostrich in the sand" approach to American foreign policy. I don't deny (and never will) how utterly despicable Al Qaeda is, how awful other countries (pretty much all of them) in the world treat their people and us. I know full well who are enemies are and what they are capable of doing. I also know how great this country can be and how far away we get from it when go down paths like Vietnam and Iraq.
The disconnect comes when we think that America is better than everyone else. We aren't and we aren't even trying anymore as we have a "Fuck You-We do and take what we want" approach now to foreign policy. And the media actually under-reports NOT over reports that. The images that I have seen from Iraq will never be shown by the corporate media and you guys think it's bad now? Do any of you know how much is left on the cutting room floor? Good lord, how naive can you be...which leads me to my next comment to Dennis...
I know full well what we are up against. I have mentioned this several times on this blog and my own. I have people that I know and love that have been to Iraq. Some are still there. I know people that have served in Vietnam. You are never going to find a more pro-military guy then myself. What I am against, however, is completely misusing that force by turning fear into institutional madness which is what we have now with this imbecilic group of people running and supporting this war. I had this same problem with Vietnam. Are you actually advocating the meaningless death of thousands of people who didn't even attack us on 9-11? Personally, I think we should focus our attention on the areas of the world where we can actually prevent attacks against us (e.g. Afghanistan and Pakistan). I believe you might want to read this..
At least someone is thinking in the Pentagon. Once we get a new president who knows what the fuck he is doing, maybe this plan will be implemented.
No, sir, it is you who needs to wake up. I can throw a hundred decorated Marines at you that will tell you how fucked up Vietnam was and the current Iraq conflict is...you really need to see the real reasons why we fight and it's not for freedom...although it should be.
As long as "your side" decides to continue to make up a bunch of bullshit, pass it off as fact, and wave the flag-calling anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do TRAITORS-then the people that are trying to destroy this country are going to win.
"leftist teachers"
aka people who won't lie and paint a perfect image of America. By the way, when was the last time you were in a classroom? We don't carry around pictures of Chairman Mao, you know...
"So Mark, what is it specifically that bothers you?"
Well, I suppose at some point I am going to have to go back and really analyze what it is but to be honest with you there's so much I don't even know where to begin. And I got so angry reading it, I don't know if I can go back. Maybe I'll put up a post on my blog about it.
"What sickens me is that someone who is sickened by applying the scientific method to political theories is teaching children!"
What I am sickened by, Ed, is that you support a group of people who want us to obey, submit, and believe anything they say...all in the name of protection and "freedom."
Do you what I want? For the citizens of the earth to know more and be wiser. These people..and I define these people as Busy-Cheney et al, supporters, most organized religious leaders and the scumbags who claim to be followers of Christ.... will do everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen so as to maintain their stranglehold over us.
What absolutely slays me is they are quite clearly dismantling all forms of information (school, media etc) in the hopes of cementing that control over how we think. And what a success it has been because many of you, and obviously the neo-neo Con, think that this what the left is doing!!! I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. The left has a lot of problems , no doubt, but destroying our country? We're all communists? Socialists? Evil snake oil salesman selling isms? What a load of shit...
I'll tell you what, though, she is right about one thing, and DJ, has pointed it out. It is incredibly difficult for people to admit an error of that magnitude. I offer as an example of this Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, George W Bush, Richard Cheney and everyone who believed the incredible tonnage of bullshit coming out of their mouths as to why we fight.
The disconnect comes when we think that America is better than everyone else.
Well Mark, for my money we actually ARE. That you don't, and that you are a self-described liberal, comes as no surprise at all.
I can throw a hundred decorated Marines
Would they be like your examples of corporate coercion. I believe your response was "I don't need to [show any examples]".
Well, I suppose at some point I am going to have to go back and really analyze what it is
Uh-huh, no you didn't even THINK about it for a second - you just gut-reacted. Again, no surprise.
Do you what I want? For the citizens of the earth to know more and be wiser.
No. What you want is everyone to think and act like you. That is the most childesh form of conformity imaginable. Are you sure you're a teacher, and not a student?
Do you (know) what I want? For the citizens of the earth to know more and be wiser. - Markadelphia
No. What you want is everyone to think and act like you. Juris
The principal feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things, war and hunger and date rape, liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things.... It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal. – P.J. O’Rourke
Neo-Neocon relates how she found that the media wasn't the honest truth broker she'd taken them for.
Mark's reply? "De Media! De Media! Helping Boosh!"
On a... (wait for it) ... noted...
GUN RIGHTS BOARD.
I can't think of many places, save perhaps a anti-abortion group, where the media will have less sycophants, and more critics.
Where the audience is incredbly well aware of how misinformed, biased, supporting (the correct ones, doing it harder!) authoritarianism the media is. How badly they report - always biased in the same direction and in the same way.
Neo-Neocon, coming from a very liberal background discovered when she applied some critical thinking. And then started thinking how those discoveries fundamentally shifted everything else she'd known.
By loudly denouncing all bad things, war and hunger and date rape, liberals testify to their own terrific goodness.
Juris, you might find this surprising but I don't want anyone to think or act like me. I also don't want everyone to think or act like the conservative pundit bullshit machine tells them to act...which is exactly what seems to happen these days.
You might also be surprised to discover that I used to think America was better than the rest of the world but that all changed on Nov 22, 1963. Sure, we weren't always perfect and sometimes we were downright horrible but we were an honorable country.
Now we are not.
Oh, and Unix, not that I think you will but go watch this (being that you shut your mind to anyone even remotely not towing the party line) and see how unbelievably wrong you actually are about the media.
For what it is worth, neo-neocon's Mind is a Difficult thing to Change series reminded me of a religious-conversion story.
It had many of the main threads that I have seen and heard in other conversion stories. Essentially, the tale-teller has
(a) a comfortable, settled way of looking at the world that appears to be the most valid way
(b) a growth of unease with this mental structure
(c) the introduction of alternate desctriptions/alternate sources of information
(d) a struggle, in which the person must decide whether to stick with the old way or seek out a new way
(e) the process of assimilation of the new way
(f) the rejection by old "friends", and the internalization of the new way
Neo herself has documented that many people who used to appear reasonable and friendly towards her became implacable enemies, because Neo would openly question what they thought of as true. (See stage (f), above.)
What is funny is that Neo's story is very human. She feels, she thinks, she puts together ideas, she tests the ideas for their soundness. Where some people would spew invective, she is thoughtful.
However, like Kevin, she also tends towards long posts.
I have found that it is hard to take in all of her writings in that series within a single hour's span, let alone a day.
So, Mark--simple question. Did you read Part 1: intro in the series?
Oh, Mark, you're hilarious.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
Oh! He interviews DAN RATHER. So did he ask hard questions about Rather's forged documents? (I'll put a lunch on that he didn't.)
Mark: Notice I didn't even address the war issue.
I addressed guns and their coverage. Which I damn sure know is utter bullshit, slanted towards one particular party, and towards government control.
I didn't even call bullshit on your Abu Ghirab reference (Why bother? Hell, you won't even go read Neo Neocon. You don't argue honestly (declaring you've answered "all" questions put to you. Then declaring that there are so many feudal companies that you need not even name one - for only your last evasion.)
Abu Ghirab is a talisman of the exact sort of made up and largely slanted and invented story as those Vietnamese photos that Neo refers to.
It's simply not worth it engaging with you on a intellectual level. It's a battle of wits with one side disarmed.
Bill Moyers. To prove how the Media was on Bush's side. Man.
You really ought to read Neo's stuff. Stop whining that it makes you sick and is full of "lies". It's not. At most, it's opinion of someone who used to think like you and has changed her mind. Try and understand where she's coming from.
It's far easier for me, granted, because I've known for well over 25 years that the press both willfully and ignorantly lies about guns, the gun culture, slanders guns owners on a regular basis. I've seen press coverage on many issues I had personal experience and knowledge of- and it's totally at odds with how things were. (I could name events. But then you'd tell me I was wrong, so what's the point?)
In one of my more misguided ideas, I became a journalist. (The concept of "change from the inside? Not so much.)
In the aftermath of 9/11, the press had a constant narrative. And it wasn't backing anything having to do with Bush.
But, as I said, I had the headstart that you apparently never did.
You could learn a lot from Neo - even if you never changed your mind about anything.
You might also be surprised to discover that I used to think America was better than the rest of the world but that all changed on Nov 22, 1963.
lmao. Of all the events of the last 50 years you could name, this is it? The death of someone that wasn't even a liberal (remember, he ran in the 1960 primaries AGAINST the real New Deal liberal, LBJ).
Markadelphia, you are even more shallow than I thought. I'm with karrde - I bet you didn't even read an entire post of hers. (To be fair, you didn't need to, you wouldn't have understood it and it merely would have confounded your beliefs).
Mark:"What I am sickened by, Ed, is that you support a group of people who want us to obey, submit, and believe anything they say...all in the name of protection and "freedom.""
Have you forgotten who you're writing this to?!? I'm the guy that gave you a list of reasons why I refused to vote for Bush. It's your constant, never wavering use of logical fallacies like this (this one is the strawman fallacy) that marks you as a fool who has absolutely no grasp of logic or reason. You call any fact you don't like a "lie", no matter how blindingly obvious it is. You are the quintessential example of a man who cannot admit his errors. Ever!
Mark:"It is incredibly difficult for people to admit an error of that magnitude."
I guess you oughta know that better than anyone.
Get this straight, you idiot; reality does not bend down to your "mighty" intellect. It is what it is, and attempting to act contrary to reality, no matter how strongly you believe otherwise, can only result in pain. Just ask any drug addict who jumped off a building while absolutely convinced, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they could fly.
Mark:"…most organized religious leaders and the scumbags who claim to be followers of Christ"…
Coming from you—the guy who claimed the Bible doesn't condemn pre-marital sex, as well as claiming that hell isn't in the Bible—this is outrageously laughable. If you don't even know the most basic and obvious things in the Bible, how the heck could you have even the slightest inkling of what we think, let alone our motivations?
And as for the media being on the side of conservatives, your continued delusional ravings have been tested by one of the most leftist universities in the country: Harvard. Their results? Well… it doesn't surprise the rest of us one bit:
"Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.
…
"The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book "The Media Elite"; "A Measure of Media Bias," a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, "Bias" and "Arrogance." All underscore the media's leftward leanings."
"I started to read some more of her stuff, Kevin, and to be honest I just couldn't finish. It's so warped and just plain wrong that I am quite literally sick to my stomach."
Actually, this is the correct response, except that had you actually been as intellectually honest as you say you are, you would have continued reading.
Not to pile on Mark, but this feeling is normal for one to experience when the truth hits them square in the fact. I know this from personal experience. It's goddamn hard, it hurts, and you end up doubting your own existence for a time as your world goes belly-up, but it all works out in the end and you're better for it. The only easy choice is not making the effort, you know, like not reading the rest?
You just have to plow through and be honest enough with yourself to actually wonder if you're wrong in your assessment. She's probably smarter than you, based on her writings and your responses, so perhaps you should actually concede intellectual authority to her while you are reading HER work. SHE was there, SHE went through the cnage in mindset, SHE drew conclusions and based them on serious thought and consideration. How do YOU presume to know SHE's "warped and plain wrong?" She spent a lot more time thinking about it than you have, obviously, and her conclusions changed her.
The dogmatic always fear those who seek real truth, knowledge, and wisdom. You shouldn't be afraid, it doesn't hurt much, and it's really a small pain compared to the pain you live with now. "Dogma Extraction" always hurts your friends and peers more than it hurts you.
You learn quite a lot when you are actually listening to others, especially if they don't agree with you. I know Kevin is an atheist, so I hope he doesn't get cheesed off when I say this; the most devout, faithful, and knowledgeable, are those who doubt their own religion. Somehow I do not think you have any doubt about your own beliefs.
karrde, I agree with you. Her story is like that a religious conversion, complete with a new set of beliefs that don't always jibe to the facts.
I did read what she wrote in her first post and I have since relaxed enough to read some more of her stuff. I do agree with her in regards to Jenin and how they portrayed the Israelis. Something has happened to the left in this country and suddenly they hate Jewish people. Also odd is that conservatives now love them. I find both sides to be quite hypocritical. Israel is an honorable country and, at least for the time being, we are not. I'd like to see us start to act that way again.
Dennis, I am not going to give you a full name but one marine I know in particular, Ken, served in Gulf I and has some mighty interesting things to say about Bush I, Cheney and why he has a mysterious ailment that no one seems to care about...
And I did give you one marine in a link up top...the one in charge of all the marines...who wants us out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, which is fine by me.
Juris, LBJ was a liar and murderer just in the same way Bush-Cheney are. His efforts for social and economic justice matter little to me as his complete subservience to the defense industry was so apparent that it's really hard to find anything redeeming about him.
Unix, watch the whole program and then decide. I love how you dismiss Moyers-just because someone is critical of conservatives doesn't make them liberal.
Ed, glad to hear you didn't vote for Bush. I forgot about your list and for that I apologize.
"If you don't even know the most basic and obvious things in the Bible"
Well, I know what Romans 10, 9-10 says and that's really all you need to know , right? So I can have all the pre-marital, gay sex I want but if I follow this verse (which I do) then I will be accepted into the kingdom of Heaven. Having the Grace of Christ has nothing to do with behavior. You either have it or you don't.
As to media bias, I will comment above in the long post above.
Kresh, I doubt my own beliefs all the time. That's the problem with "liberals." They look at the grey and that just doesn't jibe with the monochrome world of Republicans. Don't believe me?
Let's see who does better...
Mark: Some problems I have with liberals/Democrats are:
1. Many of them are terribly naive the motivations of other cultures. Case in point, Hugo Chavez. There is a little difference between him, Ahmedinejad, and Dick Cheney. So, running to Chavez and lavishing him with praise for calling Bush the devil is extremely hypocritical.
2. They lack the sack (especially 2001-2005) to say "You are full of shit" to conservatives when they are full of shit. Case in point: Harry Reid. Every time he talks he has all the authority of a librarian passing out warm milk.
3. When it comes to abortion, they are complete hypocrites. They decry the use of the death penalty, gun violence, and some war and yet it's ok to kill babies. Complete bullshit.
People who post here: The problem I have with conservatives and their ideology is:
....Well, let's hear it! And let's see , as Kresh said, what happens when "the truth hits them square in the fact."
Juris, LBJ was a liar and murderer just in the same way Bush-Cheney are. His efforts for social and economic justice matter little to me as his complete subservience to the defense industry was so apparent that it's really hard to find anything redeeming about him.
lmao - again! Mark, you fool, it doesn't MATTER what YOU say. The clear, unambiguous FACT is that Kennedy was NOT the liberal in the 1960 Democratic primary - Johnson was. Kennedy only became a liberal icon because Johnson used his name in conjunction with the Civil Rights acts Johnson pushed through Congress (the Senate in particular). No matter how much you dislike LBJ's war policy (and JFK was an unabashed Cold Warrior too), the man was the last great liberal of the New Deal era.
How strange to throw him in with the other two. But there is a simple reason the left adores Chavez - they share the same anti-capitalist, anti-American rhetoric and beliefs. I'm a bit surprised that you don't have a soft spot for Hugo yourself. After all, all the things he says he wants to do are right up your alley.
Case in point: Harry Reid.
Harry didn't become Sen. Maj. Leader based on his liberal credentials. That he sounds so poor in mouthing liberal platitudes is probably because he (unlike Pelosi) never pushed them before his ascendency. Pelosi you might more legitimately criticize for 'selling out'.
The problem I have with conservatives and their ideology is
You probably think I'm a conservative, don't you Mark. Talk about MONOCHROME vision!
I love how you dismiss Moyers-just because someone is critical of conservatives doesn't make them liberal.
You have no idea why I dismiss Moyers.
Moyers has been intellectually dishonest for years, and not just hostile to "conservatives", but dishonest and rabid. No, I'm not taking anything he "reports" at face value. There's plenty of evidence how he has not reported honestly.
The foundation he heads up pours money into hard-left causes. (Before I'll take you seriously on Moyers, you tell me how much money per year he provides, and to what causes.)
There's no one, save Moyers himself, who thinks he can objectively report on politics in America.
Yet he claims to be a "moderate".
The whole show - interviewing Dan Rather. Who we know presented an obviously false story, using forged documents, and was well aware that none of their "experts" supported their reporting, in an attempt to defeat Bush.
You don't see a problem here.
But you for some reason, consistently back known, proven liars as "truth-tellers" and the people to listen to. Mark, when I've found that someone is dishonest, be it Moore or Moyers, the odds drop dramatically that I'm going to spent time watching. (I'll read transcripts much more readily.)
But that really doesn't matter, you're changing the subject. My point is you're coming to a place where we're very experienced in false/mis/ignorant reporting, or reporting in search of a solution (banning of guns in private hands), and then telling us that of course the press doesn't do any of that.
I disagree. Had he lived, it is my opinion that Vietnam would not have happened the way it did-if at all. Compare NSAM 263 with NSAM 273. Many people in the Pentagon hated Kennedy. They were pissed at him for not providing air support during the Bay of Pigs and thought he wimped out with the blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I do agree, though, that he was a staunch defender of this country in the way it should be done, not the way it was done by Johnson or the way it is being done by our current leadership.
"After all, all the things he says he wants to do are right up your alley."
No, because like most world leaders, he is only interested in power, wealth, and brainwashing people into believing he can lead them to freedom. Remember, I don't have a problem with "good" capitalism.
"Pelosi you might more legitimately criticize for 'selling out'."
"Kresh, I doubt my own beliefs all the time. That's the problem with "liberals." They look at the grey and that just doesn't jibe with the monochrome world of Republicans."
While I seriously doubt that you actually DO doubt your liberal worldview, based on the things you say and write, I am not you, so I'll give you a pass on this one. Maybe it just doesn't come out in your writings well enough.
Our world, that of "Republicans," of which I am reluctantly drawn into (being a conservative FIRST), isn't monochrome, we just happen to base our choices on two criteria: Will it work? Will it not work? It's an on/ off kind of deal. We're binary, not monchrome. We don't like that fuzzy aspect of adding "Does it feel good?" That has no place in the world of real-world decisions and sound thought processes.
That's what makes those who follow a more conservative mindset so different from those who worry about feelings, such as the "liberal" left. Children worry about how a decision makes them feel, and adults make the decision regardless of how it makes them feel. It's why we conservatives get so frustrated with you and your kind Mark, you add this "gray" area to problems, a fuzzy area that doesn't really matter. We don't care about fuzzy, and neither should you.
Let's use buying a car as an example, Mark. "Monochromes" ask: "Can I afford it" while "Grays" ask: "Do I like it?" Here's singular difference between these two philosophies: only the Momochrome question is worthwhile and really important. If the car is affordable AND you like it, great. If the car is unaffordable and you like it, so what? The "Gray" question is pointless as liking the car won't make it any more affordable. The "Gray" question does nothing but make the issue difficult. Your emotions ruin what is otherwise a straightforward question of cost. This assumes that the car in question meets all other criteria for purchase, such as doing everthing you want it to. Obviously, the car is quite imaginary.
Still, good luck with your reading, though I doubt it will come to much. I do hope otherwise.
Had [JFK] lived, it is my opinion that Vietnam would not have happened the way it did-if at all. Compare NSAM 263 with NSAM 273.
Hmmm, you mean the two paragraphs discussing military operations and "influence" in Laos and Cambodia. I guess Nixon wasn't as original as many contend - with the plans to expand the war.
Seriously Mark - are you relying on Olicer Stone's interpretation here?
Markadephia, Why is it that almost without exception, people who escape Communist regimes and come to the United States, almost always become right-wing Republicans?
Remember, I don't have a problem with "good" capitalism.
Sure you do Mark - you can't even define it.
"Pelosi you might more legitimately criticize for 'selling out'."
Completely Agree.
Which in my view speaks volumes to your naivety rather than to Pelosi's perfidy. You see, you actually believe what a politician is telling you in order to get elected. You're doing the same damn thing with Obama.
"people who escape Communist regimes and come to the United States, almost always become right-wing Republicans?"
I don't know. I spend a lot of time with several Russians who live in my area and they are all over the place politically.
"You're doing the same damn thing with Obama."
No, I'm not. Let's hope we get the chance to prove me right. I have to say, though, given our American Monarchy that we now live in (either a Bush or a Clinton), I really have my doubts.
"Seriously Mark - are you relying on Olicer Stone's interpretation here?"
No, I grew up in a family, of both conservatives and liberals, who loved Jack Kennedy. There was always a discussion at the dinner table about whether or not Vietnam would've happened if Kennedy had lived. I talked about it in school and have studied that period in history quite a bit.
For some reason, the comment I originally posted dropped into a black hole. So,
Had he lived, it is my opinion that Vietnam would not have happened the way it did-if at all.
Vietnam was only a part of the Cold War. At least in this case you seem to know you are stating an opinion.
Compare NSAM 263 with NSAM 273.
You mean ppgs 8 & 9 which in both versions outline plans for Laos and Cambodia. I thought that was supposed to be Nixon's evil plan - guess not so much.
Remember, I don't have a problem with "good" capitalism.
I believe the problem you have there is defining it. Remember how every rich person is cheating, stealing and screwing the govt and the little guy?
Except for the rich people that you know, personally?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/01/neo-neocon-alert.html (39 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
"And I found, to my surprise, that the agenda appeared to be substantially the same: to magnify our wrongdoings and those of our allies, to downplay those of the enemy, to simplify matters that were really complex, and to sensationalize."
Up until Katrina 2005, the national media basically fell asleep. Sure they had Abu Gharib and few other small tidbits but, for the most part, they were complicit in selling the war in Iraq to America.
I started to read some more of her stuff, Kevin, and to be honest I just couldn't finish. It's so warped and just plain wrong that I am quite literally sick to my stomach.
And this kind of garbage only helps Al Qaeda and hinders us from accomplishing anything.
I started to read some more of her stuff, Kevin, and to be honest I just couldn't finish. It's so warped and just plain wrong that I am quite literally sick to my stomach.
And the fact that it affects you that way says more about the widening divide in this country than anything I will ever write.
...I am quite literally sick to my stomach.
I always did hear that the truth is hard to swallow; I guess it's tough on the gut too.
As a Marine who served in the RVN 68-69,I am sickened by your response Markadelphia. Have you no shame? I hope that at some point in your life you finally grow up and realize that there are some people out there that are protecting your sorry butt from being put into a gulag or having your head wacked off by some Islamic extremist. You know nothing about Vietnam, only what your leftist teachers have taught you. Wake-up!
Isn't she wonderful. Besides turning on my man juices, she is elegant and sharp. I would say smarter than me, but I have had one beer (at least) too many to admit to that particular truth, so I shall dance around the edges.
I hope that ends up being a plug for her. She is an amazing read, and a bright woman. Neither of those praises comes lightly, and really, a woman does have to earn her bona fides from me. Pretty is easy, smart is earned and difficult. And really, in spite of the obversity, who I would choose to be with is easy.
I'd be interested in just what part of her series Markadelphia finds sickening.
She seems rational and reasoning, in many ways paralleling my own development in discounting the MSM (particularly the big 3 networks, NY Times and Washington Post)on military issues.
I had an advantage in having access to intel reports, and in one case personally witnessing and event and seeing the MSM flat out lie about what happened. (Seymour Hersh being a particularly shining example of a sleazy lying slug). So I got into the habit of vetting information through multiple sources before the internet (for instance I knew that the photo of the execution of a VC officer showed something that was both legal under international law and a morally righteous thing in the mid '70's), but I understand her transformation as documented to date.
So Mark, what is it specifically that bothers you?
Randy, if I had to guess, I would say that what bothers Mark is the process which caused her thinking to change. (Hey wait a minute! I thought all change was considered good by liberals!) The driving force behind her change is best exemplified by this quote:
"…it was becoming clearer and clearer–at least to me–that the arguments in the media from the middle or the right were making more sense–and had more predictive value–than those emanating from the left."
In other words, it was the scientific method applied to politics which caused her to change her mind: (A) Develop a hypothesis (in this case, there were two: liberal and conservative), (B) Test the results, (C) If the experiment disproves the hypothesis, change it. In short, both liberal and conservative theories and predictions were tested in the real world and she discovered that the leftist theories were completely inaccurate and deficient.
What sickens me is that someone who is sickened by applying the scientific method to political theories is teaching children!
BTW, the very next paragraph after the section I quoted is fascinating:
"It was as though I were sitting in a court of law as a member of the jury and being asked to decide a case. Before, I had heard only the presentation from one side. Now I heard both sides, and was trying to give both a fair hearing, and to approach my task without prejudice or preconceived notions. I was reluctantly coming to a certain distressing conclusion: more often than not, the voices on the left were less credible than those on the right."
No wonder Mark is bothered by her conclusions.
Mark's reaction to the idea of someone switching their viewpoints away from the liberal/progressive camp isn't that bad. You should see the reaction when a minoritiy turns away from the Democratic Big Tent. Or 'Big Plantation' would be more accurate, because D's seem to think they own minorities as a voting block. When a black person or other non-white turns away from the l/p idea, they're seen as traitors to their race, wanting to be white, and you should see all the racial-based insults come out. My personal favorite is cartoonist Ted Rall calling Condaleeza Rice a "house nigger" because she dares to work for Bush instead of the Democrats. Michelle Malkin has plenty of experience with this. Likewise, gays who don't adopt the liberal mindset as seen as traitors to the gay rights movement, and any feminist who is also Republican is seen as a trator to the women's rights movement and some kind of Stepford Wife. Quite simply, when you believe in the moral superiority of your politics, it's easy to see someone turning away from these politics as being dangerously weird & wrong or traitorous.
And for alln their talk about wanting social change and progress, liberals are stagnant, or even reactionary on certain issues. But that's another story.
I was struck by this passage:
"The first reason many who were antiwar during the Vietnam era have not really faced up to the negative consequences of their actions for the people of South Vietnam is that it is ordinarily incredibly difficult--for human beings of any stripe, whether liberal or conservative--to admit to an error of that magnitude. It is human nature that most people will do almost anything to avoid doing so."
What is more striking still is the depths people will descend to in order to avoid admitting any error of any magnitude. The worst of them will compound error on error on error in order to continue the denial, all the while knowing that they fool no one by doing so, indeed knowing that their efforts are as transparent as glass. It makes the question of changing one's mind moot; one cannot change a mind that one will not use.
dfwmtx:
I was a little confused by your comment. While I mostly agree with it...
Mark's reaction to the idea of someone switching their viewpoints away from the liberal/progressive camp isn't that bad.
Being utterly unable to read (fairly short) explanation of an epiphany and becoming violently ill isn't that bad?
What would you consider to be egregious? :)
Mark's reaction is exactly the same issue as you remark on, but even more personal - he has to deny her authentic experience, because to give her the respect would call into question (to himself - we've questioned and answered it long ago) his true bonafides as a deep thinker.
Neo-Neocon's story has given me new insights, and it's about her coming around to "my way of thinking". Isn't it interesting that Kevin, others, and I find lessons in her story, and "progressives" run for the Pepto-Bismol?
(For the claims of "wanting" a discussion - How can you have a "discussion" with someone you claim is lying on their beliefs, and whose story sickens them to the point of nausea?)
You should see the reaction when a minoritiy turns away from the Democratic Big Tent.
You mean, a lifelong liberal voter, member of the Academy, highly-educated and an educator, woman turning away from Liberalism?
And not so much against the Democrats as the Liberals. (Big-L. Neo-Neocon still (claims she, and I've seen no reason to disbelief her) holds most of the same morals she did before her change in outlook.)
But she's been able to step back, look at the outside world, at the proof, and decide that the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" is onto something. And she explains why. I'm not surprised by the visceral reaction from someone who claims to teach "critical thinking", yet whose entire worldview is being repudiated by Neo-Neocon.
Kevin's entirely correct, as he often is: the fact that it affects [Markadelphia] that way says more about the widening divide in this country than anything I will ever write.
"and the fact that it affects you that way says more..."
It affects me that way because some of the stuff she has posted on there are flat out lies and a complete "ostrich in the sand" approach to American foreign policy. I don't deny (and never will) how utterly despicable Al Qaeda is, how awful other countries (pretty much all of them) in the world treat their people and us. I know full well who are enemies are and what they are capable of doing. I also know how great this country can be and how far away we get from it when go down paths like Vietnam and Iraq.
The disconnect comes when we think that America is better than everyone else. We aren't and we aren't even trying anymore as we have a "Fuck You-We do and take what we want" approach now to foreign policy. And the media actually under-reports NOT over reports that. The images that I have seen from Iraq will never be shown by the corporate media and you guys think it's bad now? Do any of you know how much is left on the cutting room floor? Good lord, how naive can you be...which leads me to my next comment to Dennis...
I know full well what we are up against. I have mentioned this several times on this blog and my own. I have people that I know and love that have been to Iraq. Some are still there. I know people that have served in Vietnam. You are never going to find a more pro-military guy then myself. What I am against, however, is completely misusing that force by turning fear into institutional madness which is what we have now with this imbecilic group of people running and supporting this war. I had this same problem with Vietnam. Are you actually advocating the meaningless death of thousands of people who didn't even attack us on 9-11? Personally, I think we should focus our attention on the areas of the world where we can actually prevent attacks against us (e.g. Afghanistan and Pakistan). I believe you might want to read this..
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1129/p01s05-usmi.html
At least someone is thinking in the Pentagon. Once we get a new president who knows what the fuck he is doing, maybe this plan will be implemented.
No, sir, it is you who needs to wake up. I can throw a hundred decorated Marines at you that will tell you how fucked up Vietnam was and the current Iraq conflict is...you really need to see the real reasons why we fight and it's not for freedom...although it should be.
As long as "your side" decides to continue to make up a bunch of bullshit, pass it off as fact, and wave the flag-calling anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do TRAITORS-then the people that are trying to destroy this country are going to win.
"leftist teachers"
aka people who won't lie and paint a perfect image of America. By the way, when was the last time you were in a classroom? We don't carry around pictures of Chairman Mao, you know...
"So Mark, what is it specifically that bothers you?"
Well, I suppose at some point I am going to have to go back and really analyze what it is but to be honest with you there's so much I don't even know where to begin. And I got so angry reading it, I don't know if I can go back. Maybe I'll put up a post on my blog about it.
"What sickens me is that someone who is sickened by applying the scientific method to political theories is teaching children!"
What I am sickened by, Ed, is that you support a group of people who want us to obey, submit, and believe anything they say...all in the name of protection and "freedom."
Do you what I want? For the citizens of the earth to know more and be wiser. These people..and I define these people as Busy-Cheney et al, supporters, most organized religious leaders and the scumbags who claim to be followers of Christ.... will do everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen so as to maintain their stranglehold over us.
What absolutely slays me is they are quite clearly dismantling all forms of information (school, media etc) in the hopes of cementing that control over how we think. And what a success it has been because many of you, and obviously the neo-neo Con, think that this what the left is doing!!! I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. The left has a lot of problems , no doubt, but destroying our country? We're all communists? Socialists? Evil snake oil salesman selling isms? What a load of shit...
I'll tell you what, though, she is right about one thing, and DJ, has pointed it out. It is incredibly difficult for people to admit an error of that magnitude. I offer as an example of this Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, George W Bush, Richard Cheney and everyone who believed the incredible tonnage of bullshit coming out of their mouths as to why we fight.
Oh, and one more thing. The only "logical reasoning" I saw on that site sounded an awful lot like this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear
And thusly the divide grows...
The disconnect comes when we think that America is better than everyone else.
Well Mark, for my money we actually ARE. That you don't, and that you are a self-described liberal, comes as no surprise at all.
I can throw a hundred decorated Marines
Would they be like your examples of corporate coercion. I believe your response was "I don't need to [show any examples]".
Well, I suppose at some point I am going to have to go back and really analyze what it is
Uh-huh, no you didn't even THINK about it for a second - you just gut-reacted. Again, no surprise.
Do you what I want? For the citizens of the earth to know more and be wiser.
No. What you want is everyone to think and act like you. That is the most childesh form of conformity imaginable. Are you sure you're a teacher, and not a student?
Do you (know) what I want? For the citizens of the earth to know more and be wiser. - Markadelphia
No. What you want is everyone to think and act like you. Juris
The principal feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things, war and hunger and date rape, liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things.... It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal. – P.J. O’Rourke
Neo-Neocon relates how she found that the media wasn't the honest truth broker she'd taken them for.
Mark's reply? "De Media! De Media! Helping Boosh!"
On a... (wait for it) ... noted...
GUN RIGHTS BOARD.
I can't think of many places, save perhaps a anti-abortion group, where the media will have less sycophants, and more critics.
Where the audience is incredbly well aware of how misinformed, biased, supporting (the correct ones, doing it harder!) authoritarianism the media is. How badly they report - always biased in the same direction and in the same way.
Neo-Neocon, coming from a very liberal background discovered when she applied some critical thinking. And then started thinking how those discoveries fundamentally shifted everything else she'd known.
By loudly denouncing all bad things, war and hunger and date rape, liberals testify to their own terrific goodness.
P.J. is a gift.
Juris, you might find this surprising but I don't want anyone to think or act like me. I also don't want everyone to think or act like the conservative pundit bullshit machine tells them to act...which is exactly what seems to happen these days.
You might also be surprised to discover that I used to think America was better than the rest of the world but that all changed on Nov 22, 1963. Sure, we weren't always perfect and sometimes we were downright horrible but we were an honorable country.
Now we are not.
Oh, and Unix, not that I think you will but go watch this (being that you shut your mind to anyone even remotely not towing the party line) and see how unbelievably wrong you actually are about the media.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2007/04/preview_buying_the_war.html.
Mark--
For what it is worth, neo-neocon's Mind is a Difficult thing to Change series reminded me of a religious-conversion story.
It had many of the main threads that I have seen and heard in other conversion stories. Essentially, the tale-teller has
(a) a comfortable, settled way of looking at the world that appears to be the most valid way
(b) a growth of unease with this mental structure
(c) the introduction of alternate desctriptions/alternate sources of information
(d) a struggle, in which the person must decide whether to stick with the old way or seek out a new way
(e) the process of assimilation of the new way
(f) the rejection by old "friends", and the internalization of the new way
Neo herself has documented that many people who used to appear reasonable and friendly towards her became implacable enemies, because Neo would openly question what they thought of as true. (See stage (f), above.)
What is funny is that Neo's story is very human. She feels, she thinks, she puts together ideas, she tests the ideas for their soundness. Where some people would spew invective, she is thoughtful.
However, like Kevin, she also tends towards long posts.
I have found that it is hard to take in all of her writings in that series within a single hour's span, let alone a day.
So, Mark--simple question. Did you read Part 1: intro in the series?
What do you think?
Bill MOYERS?
Oh, Mark, you're hilarious.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
Oh! He interviews DAN RATHER. So did he ask hard questions about Rather's forged documents? (I'll put a lunch on that he didn't.)
Mark: Notice I didn't even address the war issue.
I addressed guns and their coverage. Which I damn sure know is utter bullshit, slanted towards one particular party, and towards government control.
I didn't even call bullshit on your Abu Ghirab reference (Why bother? Hell, you won't even go read Neo Neocon. You don't argue honestly (declaring you've answered "all" questions put to you. Then declaring that there are so many feudal companies that you need not even name one - for only your last evasion.)
Abu Ghirab is a talisman of the exact sort of made up and largely slanted and invented story as those Vietnamese photos that Neo refers to.
It's simply not worth it engaging with you on a intellectual level. It's a battle of wits with one side disarmed.
Bill Moyers. To prove how the Media was on Bush's side. Man.
You really ought to read Neo's stuff. Stop whining that it makes you sick and is full of "lies". It's not. At most, it's opinion of someone who used to think like you and has changed her mind. Try and understand where she's coming from.
It's far easier for me, granted, because I've known for well over 25 years that the press both willfully and ignorantly lies about guns, the gun culture, slanders guns owners on a regular basis. I've seen press coverage on many issues I had personal experience and knowledge of- and it's totally at odds with how things were. (I could name events. But then you'd tell me I was wrong, so what's the point?)
In one of my more misguided ideas, I became a journalist. (The concept of "change from the inside? Not so much.)
In the aftermath of 9/11, the press had a constant narrative. And it wasn't backing anything having to do with Bush.
But, as I said, I had the headstart that you apparently never did.
You could learn a lot from Neo - even if you never changed your mind about anything.
I certainly have.
You might also be surprised to discover that I used to think America was better than the rest of the world but that all changed on Nov 22, 1963.
lmao. Of all the events of the last 50 years you could name, this is it? The death of someone that wasn't even a liberal (remember, he ran in the 1960 primaries AGAINST the real New Deal liberal, LBJ).
Markadelphia, you are even more shallow than I thought. I'm with karrde - I bet you didn't even read an entire post of hers. (To be fair, you didn't need to, you wouldn't have understood it and it merely would have confounded your beliefs).
100 decorated Marines....how about one? Name , rank, and serial number.
Mark: "What I am sickened by, Ed, is that you support a group of people who want us to obey, submit, and believe anything they say...all in the name of protection and "freedom.""
Have you forgotten who you're writing this to?!? I'm the guy that gave you a list of reasons why I refused to vote for Bush. It's your constant, never wavering use of logical fallacies like this (this one is the strawman fallacy) that marks you as a fool who has absolutely no grasp of logic or reason. You call any fact you don't like a "lie", no matter how blindingly obvious it is. You are the quintessential example of a man who cannot admit his errors. Ever!
Mark: "It is incredibly difficult for people to admit an error of that magnitude."
I guess you oughta know that better than anyone.
Get this straight, you idiot; reality does not bend down to your "mighty" intellect. It is what it is, and attempting to act contrary to reality, no matter how strongly you believe otherwise, can only result in pain. Just ask any drug addict who jumped off a building while absolutely convinced, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they could fly.
Mark: "…most organized religious leaders and the scumbags who claim to be followers of Christ"…
Coming from you—the guy who claimed the Bible doesn't condemn pre-marital sex, as well as claiming that hell isn't in the Bible—this is outrageously laughable. If you don't even know the most basic and obvious things in the Bible, how the heck could you have even the slightest inkling of what we think, let alone our motivations?
And as for the media being on the side of conservatives, your continued delusional ravings have been tested by one of the most leftist universities in the country: Harvard. Their results? Well… it doesn't surprise the rest of us one bit:
"Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.
…
"The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book "The Media Elite"; "A Measure of Media Bias," a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, "Bias" and "Arrogance." All underscore the media's leftward leanings."
For those of you following this thread, the latest post on the media (another really long one) is up.
"I started to read some more of her stuff, Kevin, and to be honest I just couldn't finish. It's so warped and just plain wrong that I am quite literally sick to my stomach."
Actually, this is the correct response, except that had you actually been as intellectually honest as you say you are, you would have continued reading.
Not to pile on Mark, but this feeling is normal for one to experience when the truth hits them square in the fact. I know this from personal experience. It's goddamn hard, it hurts, and you end up doubting your own existence for a time as your world goes belly-up, but it all works out in the end and you're better for it. The only easy choice is not making the effort, you know, like not reading the rest?
You just have to plow through and be honest enough with yourself to actually wonder if you're wrong in your assessment. She's probably smarter than you, based on her writings and your responses, so perhaps you should actually concede intellectual authority to her while you are reading HER work. SHE was there, SHE went through the cnage in mindset, SHE drew conclusions and based them on serious thought and consideration. How do YOU presume to know SHE's "warped and plain wrong?" She spent a lot more time thinking about it than you have, obviously, and her conclusions changed her.
The dogmatic always fear those who seek real truth, knowledge, and wisdom. You shouldn't be afraid, it doesn't hurt much, and it's really a small pain compared to the pain you live with now. "Dogma Extraction" always hurts your friends and peers more than it hurts you.
You learn quite a lot when you are actually listening to others, especially if they don't agree with you. I know Kevin is an atheist, so I hope he doesn't get cheesed off when I say this; the most devout, faithful, and knowledgeable, are those who doubt their own religion. Somehow I do not think you have any doubt about your own beliefs.
Hey! I question my atheism on an almost daily basis.
But I lay down until the discomfort goes away!
karrde, I agree with you. Her story is like that a religious conversion, complete with a new set of beliefs that don't always jibe to the facts.
I did read what she wrote in her first post and I have since relaxed enough to read some more of her stuff. I do agree with her in regards to Jenin and how they portrayed the Israelis. Something has happened to the left in this country and suddenly they hate Jewish people. Also odd is that conservatives now love them. I find both sides to be quite hypocritical. Israel is an honorable country and, at least for the time being, we are not. I'd like to see us start to act that way again.
Dennis, I am not going to give you a full name but one marine I know in particular, Ken, served in Gulf I and has some mighty interesting things to say about Bush I, Cheney and why he has a mysterious ailment that no one seems to care about...
And I did give you one marine in a link up top...the one in charge of all the marines...who wants us out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, which is fine by me.
Juris, LBJ was a liar and murderer just in the same way Bush-Cheney are. His efforts for social and economic justice matter little to me as his complete subservience to the defense industry was so apparent that it's really hard to find anything redeeming about him.
Unix, watch the whole program and then decide. I love how you dismiss Moyers-just because someone is critical of conservatives doesn't make them liberal.
Ed, glad to hear you didn't vote for Bush. I forgot about your list and for that I apologize.
"If you don't even know the most basic and obvious things in the Bible"
Well, I know what Romans 10, 9-10 says and that's really all you need to know , right? So I can have all the pre-marital, gay sex I want but if I follow this verse (which I do) then I will be accepted into the kingdom of Heaven. Having the Grace of Christ has nothing to do with behavior. You either have it or you don't.
As to media bias, I will comment above in the long post above.
Kresh, I doubt my own beliefs all the time. That's the problem with "liberals." They look at the grey and that just doesn't jibe with the monochrome world of Republicans. Don't believe me?
Let's see who does better...
Mark: Some problems I have with liberals/Democrats are:
1. Many of them are terribly naive the motivations of other cultures. Case in point, Hugo Chavez. There is a little difference between him, Ahmedinejad, and Dick Cheney. So, running to Chavez and lavishing him with praise for calling Bush the devil is extremely hypocritical.
2. They lack the sack (especially 2001-2005) to say "You are full of shit" to conservatives when they are full of shit. Case in point: Harry Reid. Every time he talks he has all the authority of a librarian passing out warm milk.
3. When it comes to abortion, they are complete hypocrites. They decry the use of the death penalty, gun violence, and some war and yet it's ok to kill babies. Complete bullshit.
People who post here: The problem I have with conservatives and their ideology is:
....Well, let's hear it! And let's see , as Kresh said, what happens when "the truth hits them square in the fact."
Juris, LBJ was a liar and murderer just in the same way Bush-Cheney are. His efforts for social and economic justice matter little to me as his complete subservience to the defense industry was so apparent that it's really hard to find anything redeeming about him.
lmao - again! Mark, you fool, it doesn't MATTER what YOU say. The clear, unambiguous FACT is that Kennedy was NOT the liberal in the 1960 Democratic primary - Johnson was. Kennedy only became a liberal icon because Johnson used his name in conjunction with the Civil Rights acts Johnson pushed through Congress (the Senate in particular). No matter how much you dislike LBJ's war policy (and JFK was an unabashed Cold Warrior too), the man was the last great liberal of the New Deal era.
Case in point, Hugo Chavez.
How strange to throw him in with the other two. But there is a simple reason the left adores Chavez - they share the same anti-capitalist, anti-American rhetoric and beliefs. I'm a bit surprised that you don't have a soft spot for Hugo yourself. After all, all the things he says he wants to do are right up your alley.
Case in point: Harry Reid.
Harry didn't become Sen. Maj. Leader based on his liberal credentials. That he sounds so poor in mouthing liberal platitudes is probably because he (unlike Pelosi) never pushed them before his ascendency. Pelosi you might more legitimately criticize for 'selling out'.
The problem I have with conservatives and their ideology is
You probably think I'm a conservative, don't you Mark. Talk about MONOCHROME vision!
I love how you dismiss Moyers-just because someone is critical of conservatives doesn't make them liberal.
You have no idea why I dismiss Moyers.
Moyers has been intellectually dishonest for years, and not just hostile to "conservatives", but dishonest and rabid. No, I'm not taking anything he "reports" at face value. There's plenty of evidence how he has not reported honestly.
The foundation he heads up pours money into hard-left causes. (Before I'll take you seriously on Moyers, you tell me how much money per year he provides, and to what causes.)
There's no one, save Moyers himself, who thinks he can objectively report on politics in America.
Yet he claims to be a "moderate".
The whole show - interviewing Dan Rather. Who we know presented an obviously false story, using forged documents, and was well aware that none of their "experts" supported their reporting, in an attempt to defeat Bush.
You don't see a problem here.
But you for some reason, consistently back known, proven liars as "truth-tellers" and the people to listen to. Mark, when I've found that someone is dishonest, be it Moore or Moyers, the odds drop dramatically that I'm going to spent time watching. (I'll read transcripts much more readily.)
But that really doesn't matter, you're changing the subject. My point is you're coming to a place where we're very experienced in false/mis/ignorant reporting, or reporting in search of a solution (banning of guns in private hands), and then telling us that of course the press doesn't do any of that.
"JFK was an unabashed Cold Warrior too"
I disagree. Had he lived, it is my opinion that Vietnam would not have happened the way it did-if at all. Compare NSAM 263 with NSAM 273. Many people in the Pentagon hated Kennedy. They were pissed at him for not providing air support during the Bay of Pigs and thought he wimped out with the blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I do agree, though, that he was a staunch defender of this country in the way it should be done, not the way it was done by Johnson or the way it is being done by our current leadership.
"After all, all the things he says he wants to do are right up your alley."
No, because like most world leaders, he is only interested in power, wealth, and brainwashing people into believing he can lead them to freedom. Remember, I don't have a problem with "good" capitalism.
"Pelosi you might more legitimately criticize for 'selling out'."
Completely Agree.
"Kresh, I doubt my own beliefs all the time. That's the problem with "liberals." They look at the grey and that just doesn't jibe with the monochrome world of Republicans."
While I seriously doubt that you actually DO doubt your liberal worldview, based on the things you say and write, I am not you, so I'll give you a pass on this one. Maybe it just doesn't come out in your writings well enough.
Our world, that of "Republicans," of which I am reluctantly drawn into (being a conservative FIRST), isn't monochrome, we just happen to base our choices on two criteria: Will it work? Will it not work? It's an on/ off kind of deal. We're binary, not monchrome. We don't like that fuzzy aspect of adding "Does it feel good?" That has no place in the world of real-world decisions and sound thought processes.
That's what makes those who follow a more conservative mindset so different from those who worry about feelings, such as the "liberal" left. Children worry about how a decision makes them feel, and adults make the decision regardless of how it makes them feel. It's why we conservatives get so frustrated with you and your kind Mark, you add this "gray" area to problems, a fuzzy area that doesn't really matter. We don't care about fuzzy, and neither should you.
Let's use buying a car as an example, Mark. "Monochromes" ask: "Can I afford it" while "Grays" ask: "Do I like it?" Here's singular difference between these two philosophies: only the Momochrome question is worthwhile and really important. If the car is affordable AND you like it, great. If the car is unaffordable and you like it, so what? The "Gray" question is pointless as liking the car won't make it any more affordable. The "Gray" question does nothing but make the issue difficult. Your emotions ruin what is otherwise a straightforward question of cost. This assumes that the car in question meets all other criteria for purchase, such as doing everthing you want it to. Obviously, the car is quite imaginary.
Still, good luck with your reading, though I doubt it will come to much. I do hope otherwise.
Had [JFK] lived, it is my opinion that Vietnam would not have happened the way it did-if at all. Compare NSAM 263 with NSAM 273.
Hmmm, you mean the two paragraphs discussing military operations and "influence" in Laos and Cambodia. I guess Nixon wasn't as original as many contend - with the plans to expand the war.
Seriously Mark - are you relying on Olicer Stone's interpretation here?
Markadephia, Why is it that almost without exception, people who escape Communist regimes and come to the United States, almost always become right-wing Republicans?
Remember, I don't have a problem with "good" capitalism.
Sure you do Mark - you can't even define it.
"Pelosi you might more legitimately criticize for 'selling out'."
Completely Agree.
Which in my view speaks volumes to your naivety rather than to Pelosi's perfidy. You see, you actually believe what a politician is telling you in order to get elected. You're doing the same damn thing with Obama.
"people who escape Communist regimes and come to the United States, almost always become right-wing Republicans?"
I don't know. I spend a lot of time with several Russians who live in my area and they are all over the place politically.
"You're doing the same damn thing with Obama."
No, I'm not. Let's hope we get the chance to prove me right. I have to say, though, given our American Monarchy that we now live in (either a Bush or a Clinton), I really have my doubts.
"Seriously Mark - are you relying on Olicer Stone's interpretation here?"
No, I grew up in a family, of both conservatives and liberals, who loved Jack Kennedy. There was always a discussion at the dinner table about whether or not Vietnam would've happened if Kennedy had lived. I talked about it in school and have studied that period in history quite a bit.
For some reason, the comment I originally posted dropped into a black hole. So,
Had he lived, it is my opinion that Vietnam would not have happened the way it did-if at all.
Vietnam was only a part of the Cold War. At least in this case you seem to know you are stating an opinion.
Compare NSAM 263 with NSAM 273.
You mean ppgs 8 & 9 which in both versions outline plans for Laos and Cambodia. I thought that was supposed to be Nixon's evil plan - guess not so much.
Remember, I don't have a problem with "good" capitalism.
I believe the problem you have there is defining it. Remember how every rich person is cheating, stealing and screwing the govt and the little guy?
Except for the rich people that you know, personally?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>