What's with all the bushlike thinking that's flourishing on thread after thread?

[cali]

There seems to be an explosion of "you're either with us or against us" types of posts and threads. Comments such as no republicans should be allowed in heaven (can you possibly get any sillier than that?) and comments about Brokaw being a repub propagandist, just to mention a couple. Lately, there's been even more black/white thinking than usual; the Ford was nothing but a thug threads are emblematic of this kind of simplistic thinking.

As someone who lives in the grey zone most of the time, I'm a bit befuddled by all the absolutism that's permeating DU lately.

[Beelzebud]

1. Are you a Republican plant?

LOL Just kidding.

[Eurobabe]

2. Quick call the exterminator

We've been infested!!

[Virginia Dare]

3. Deep resentment and anger...

it's pretty obvious, isn't it? :shrug:

[zanne]

106. DU has been the only outlet many of us have had

For four to five years, Dems were silenced by Republicans, in government and in our personal lives whenever we wanted to discuss politics. We were yelled down, exluded and ridiculed. I don't know how some people can claim objectivity in a political climate like that, and if they do, I think they're lying. We needed to vent then and we deserve some good victory venting now. To some people, the "grey areas" are red.

[monmouth]

4. Couldn't agree more. Maybe the kids have been left home alone or something...

[WinkyDink]

97. Tweety, is that you?

[tridim]

5. DU is just anxious to get down to business..

and get on with the investigations of BushCo. This Ford stuff seems like a diversion, even though it's SOP.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, DU and the entire country will change drastically on the 4th.

[xultar]

18. Well to be honest...we can get down to business instead of all the crazy

Ford posts.

Shouldn't we be talking about the get down to business shit anyway? Why is Ford interrupting that? It's like DU has ADD.

[hfojvt]

47. we do seem to follow whatever is on TV

apparently when we wake up in the morning we are strapped to a couch and forced to watch CCN or something, or even if we are watching the Rose Bowl, we are unable to change the channel if they cut to the Ford burial or a Ford commercial.

Then again, apparently, someone is forcing me to read these threads. I guess I could try to write one of my own on some policy matter and then monitor the zero replies that it generates.

[xultar]

49. Touche! Point taken and I hear you. I'm done with this shit. Thanks for the words of wisdom

because I got lost in it myself.
X

[pitohui]

6. "the best lack all conviction..." as they say

get out of the grey zone, stop being befuddled, when a man cuts a deal with the devil to become president, it is fair for others to point out that the price is hell

there's nothing wrong with a little so-called absolutism when it's called for -- most of so-called absolutism is just a democrat or a liberal daring to make a simple honest declarative statement

for some reason our society won't tolerate that, all democrats are required to be ninnies who use endless hedge words while republicans are allowed to speak in the simple language of the people

i'm sick of it frankly

people speaking their minds is not bad, people speaking out against gerald ford and his poisonous legacy is a positive good

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. Excellent post! You absolutely(sic) nailed it.

[cali]

8. No thank you.

Even though I often don't live up to the words in my tagline, I try. And I'd a thousand times rather belong to the group in the first part of that line, than those in the second.

I do NOT see bushlike absolutism as a good thing. You seem happy to embrace that route, but it ain't for me.

[xultar]

20. Agreed!

[aquart]

28. Tarring us all with a pretty wide brush.

And reserving a seat in heaven for yourself, I see. But, actually, equivocators have their own ring in hell.

The Republicans have been happy to be fascists (by any other name) for a buck. The results have brought us all to ruin. Pretending it hasn't happened is NOT a worthy occupation. It's delusional.

[cali]

40. I haven't tarred anybody.

I'm deploring a certain kind of thinking and expression. And I'm certainly not denying that the republicans have been completely disasterous to this country and the rest of the world. Didn't say anything remotely like that. But you know that.

[Blue_In_AK]

78. I agree with you, Cali...

It's absolutism that's gotten us in this mess in the first place. Just because the Republicans do it doesn't make it all right for us.

[Rosemary2205]

10. I'm not sure that's what Cali means.

I don't want to put words in Cali's mouth of course, but I don't think condemning Ford's policies and acts as president and saying all "repukes" are worthless human beings who deserve to rot in hell is quite the same thing. I too have seen more of the latter recently (not just regarding Ford) and it bothers me.


Edit - dropped a word while typing. -- ooops -- I was right the first time! LOL

[ariellyn]

14. Well said pitohui...cali claims to be "grey" but is obviously against those in

one spectrum or the other. Grey my ass...

[cali]

No. It's not ideas that I have a problem with

it's the "with us or against us" stuff, and the totally over the top spewing. A good example is the post that stated that Tom Brokaw=Rush Limbaugh. C'mon, not only is that ridiculous, it's pointless. And serious threads seem to be sinking all too swiftly.

[ariellyn]

29. Why is a claim that Brokaw=Limbaugh "over the top", "ridiculous" and "pointless"? n/t

[onenote]

38. because it is.

I find it hard to believe someone can't see the differences (even if you can cite some similarities).

[ariellyn]

42. Oh OK. It's settled then. nt

:sarcasm:

[onenote]

45. okay, then. Tell me why it isn't ridiculous or pointless

And remember, you're definitely the assertion that Brokaw "equals" (i.e, is identical to) Limbaugh, not that he shares some similar views or sentiments, but rather is interchangeable in all respects.

Go ahead, explain how that isn't a ridiculous and pointless assertion.

[hfojvt]

51. I'd like to see it explicated

If it cannot be then it is highly unwarranted. Provide some evidence and argument to back up the claim, then it might not be such a clearly outrageous statement. I have read an essay comparing Letterman to Limbaugh and that was fairly interesting, but it was an essay and a comparision, not a statement of absolute equality.

[ariellyn]

56. See my thread currently in GD. n/t

[hfojvt]

63. I've seen the thread

but could not seem to find where the argument was ever built up. One quote from devilgrrl doth not an argument make. You cannot link to a post? You cannot explain which ocean you are talking about by being more Pacific?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=4338249#4340572

[Old and In the Way]

59. Actually, in some ways, I think Brokaw is worse than Limbaugh.

Limbaugh is an obvious tool of the RNC. No one can ever mistake his partisan bloviating for what it is...pure Republican propaganda. Brokaw, and other mainstream newsreaders, have the patina of respectable centrist moderation. They select and frame the stories of the day for a far more significant cross-section of the American electorate. Their political bias is much harder to discern....but it shows up by what is and isn't covered in their daily news broadcasts. Brokaw, et al, are paid handsomely to finesse public opinion covertly. They use scalpels as opposed to hammers, like Hannity and Limbaugh. They move the middle slowly, over time, rather than trying to influence the polls and people's opinions in the short term, like the Republican propagandists.

So I guess I agree Brokaw does not equal Limbaugh....but the end result may be worse for our democracy over the longer term.

[ariellyn]

61. The "=" was a quick way to summarize the comparisons between

the two. The main point is, they both disinform. I agree, Brokaw is even deadlier because he is "trusted" (obviously way too much by many here) whereas Limbaugh's trust account is overdrawn. Still, they use the same media to achieve the same purposes for the benefit of the same people.

[coalition_unwilling]

76. Chomsky refers to Brokaw and his ilk as engaging in

"manufacturing consent". Limbaugh is an imperialist with an iron fist, Browkaw an imperialist with an iron fist in a velvet glove.

[LittleClarkie]

86. Wow, you're good. Now, tell me what he had for breakfast this morning.

Actually, I reckon he just wants people to think a bit before being so narrow in their pronouncements.

[coalition_unwilling]

72. Amen to that. The corporate whore media, had it existed in 1859,

would have called John Brown and the abolitionists crazy and terrorists.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Not all that unusual.

I see it here all the time. There are topics where the 'thinking' is almost always "black-and-white" and "you're with us or against us." I am guessing that people are just digging their heels in awaiting the arrival of the Democratic Congress and the possibility that this nightmare of a presidency is about to make a radical (or even a slight) change.

[specimenfred1984]

11. "I hope this thread gets locked, it's so sick" lol

That's the kind of response I get from you "grave pandering" types.

Did you know you are a "type"? You are if you're calling others "types".

[xultar]

12. Really. You need to let it go. You're about to get an aneurysm.

[xultar]

13. Great post!

[cali]

17. Thanks, xultar

I can't tell you how much I value your sane voice in thread after thread!

[xultar]

23. Hey. I look for you myself. Sometimes I lose my way and I need your voice of sanity!

:pals:

[AZBlue]

15. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I'm always disappointed when Dems act like spoiled children on the playground (a.k.a., Republicans).

[cwydro]

16. There are plenty who agree with you Cali

and I am one of them.

[BuelahWitch]

31. I'm with you too, Cali

[librechik]

19. gotta concur about brokaw

Republican thru and thru--though he might actually be a paleocon type.

[cali]

25. Got any evidence for that?

Anything aside from your impression or your gut or whatever?

[librechik]

58. Have you ever watched Tom Brokaw?

yup that's all I got. Just watching him kowtow to the worst of the worst and support the impeachment and defenestration of Clinton--And I was encouraged in my analysis by many days reading the Daily Howler.

gut says (R-Montana)

[Robbien]

21. I have had enough of GOP rule making and GOP domination

Playing with the GOP means they make the rules while Dems go fetch the coffee. Giving the GOP room at the table means you will have to be entirely occupied watching them like a hawk in order that they don't steal the table and chairs and change the locks to the room.

[leftofthedial]

22. and you are obviously against us

...

[katsy]

24. I'm one of the angry ones.

But I still appreciate your POV.

We're a big tent party, remember?

With the help of our friends at DU, our anger will be channeled productively. Just look at the last election! Did you feel that love? Some of us angry ones worked very hard to get out the vote and talked ourselves blue trying to get through to voters. We're really okay and have some damned good reasons for our anger. But I, for one, will try to walk on sunshine for a while.

Love us too!

:hug:

BTW, why does it cost so much for adults to get into the Betty Ford clinic? Geeesh, one would think it was reserved for the haves.

[cali]

27. Thanks, and I appreciate your pov.

Sorry, your tone excludes you from the mentality I'm referring too. You're all too reasonable. And I'm angry too. My post wasn't really about anger.

[katsy]

34. Reasonable?

POOP!

Gonna go sharpen my knives a little more.


:evilgrin:

Happy New Year All!

[k_jerome]

26. wait till you see what they have to say about KO if...

he has any kind words for Ford.

[Goblinmonger]

32. Oh *shudders*

we CAN'T question KO. We must agree with him 100%. It's all mega-dittos to KO.

[k_jerome]

36. have you read about the evil Tom Brokaw yet? ha.

and its not questioning. its vindictiveness hatefulness.

[Goblinmonger]

44. I believe I misinterpreted your post.

I get it now. My apologies. I am not usually so slow on the uptake.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Ford was a rotten crook.

Pardoning the guy that gave you the job is a textbook example of utter corruption.

Frankly, apologizing for the bastard strikes me as Bush-like thinking.

[cali]

33. I haven't apologized for Ford.

I simply recognize that people make terrible mistakes and decisions. That doesn't necessarily make them terrible people. Is Jimmy Carter terrible for supporting the thugs in El Salvador even after receiving a letter from Archbishop Romero pleading with him not to send more arms and support? Is he rotten for opposing the Sandinistas or the Indonesian government? Is Clinton without redemption because of the sanctions against Iraq?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Ah, terrible mistakes and decisions.

Youthful indiscretions and all that.

And what's with always bringing Clinton into things? It's like some sort of obsession with some people.

[cali]

37. It has nothing to do with youthful indescretions and

of course I didn't say that or anything remotely like it. As for Clinton, I think it's fair to point out that most Presidents make some pretty ghastly mistakes. As I said before, that doesn't necessarily make them terrible evil people.

[uppityperson]

84. why if a couple presidents are mentioned, someone always picks out Clinton and says

"what's with always bringing Clinton into things"? Why not notice that Carter got mentioned several times and Clinton only once and both of them because they were dem presidents? Why if Clinton is mentioned does the argument then become about him and not about the issue? argh

[aquart]

41. No. This I do NOT believe.

Nixon did NOT give Ford the job of President. He gave him the job of vice president. Big distinction that you're blurring. If Nixon had believed he was really in jeopardy, he could well have put up a poison pill...although maybe his power was too vitiated by then. Ford replaced Agnew, not Nixon, by Nixon's appointment.

I do believe there were people in the Republican party who were pleased with the arrangement because it made it easier to remove a political liability....but Nixon wasn't planning for his removal from office. Therefore, he made no deal with Ford when he gave him the Veep job.

And Nixon had no power to give Ford the presidency. The constitution of the United States gave him that when Nixon resigned.

Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached. He couldn't stand that humiliation. He didn't resign because he was promised a pardon. There was simply no need to guarantee that.

So I completely believe Ford that there was no prior agreement. I also still believe the pardon was the wrong thing to do.

The way you've warped the argument, if it could be proven that there was no agreement, then Ford is a shining innocent good fellow. You've put the focus on collusion when collusion is not the wrong that was done. The pardon itself was wrong.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Yes, yes.

And Nixon didn't really break into the Watergate, he just hired some guys to protect us from the Communists.

[aquart]

100. Seeing conspiracy everywhere

gets you ignored.

No one had to promise Nixon anything. It was go or be impeached. He went. That was the deal he got.

The crimes for which he went unpunished were, however, a wide-ranging conspiracy which you have just reduced to nothing with that pointless sarcasm.

But continue to box shadows by all means.

[Pathwalker]

60. How come no one minds the Democrats who helped

put Ford in the Vice-Presidency? What are they - chopped liver?

[aquart]

101. No. Smart cookies.

Nobody wanted to be governed by Agnew.

[AngryOldDem]

74. What should Ford have done, then?

Please enlighten me, as well as most other historians (liberal and conservative), who have concluded that the pardon was the right thing for Ford to have done. Also, please enumerate what criminal activity Ford did in the scant two years he was in office. Just because he exercised his constitutional privilege and made a decision that you -- after lo these many years -- still have problems with, that hardly justifies the label of "crook."

Nixon had left office in disgrace. How long do you think a private grand jury/criminal investigation of the man would have taken, knowing that Nixon would have fought ANY legal process tooth and nail rather than admit culpability? Don't you think that Ford as president, and the nation as a whole, had larger issues to contend with rather than a scandal that had, by the time the pardon came down, virtually played itself out? People in the administration had already been tried, convicted and imprisoned, or were in the process of so being. Need a list? Haldeman. Erlichman. Dean. Mitchell. Liddy. Colson. Care to add to the list? The Nixon administration WAS held accountable for Watergate. It would have been a different story, of course, had he continued to thwart the impeachment process or showed utter contempt for it entirely. But he did not. And quite frankly, by the fall of 1974, Richard Nixon just was not worth this nation's time and attention anymore.

If you have a bone to pick, take it up with Al Haig. He was the one who leaked to Nixon that a pardon was imminent, which meant to Nixon no further apology/admission of guilt was needed since the pardon took care of that.

In the meantime, look at all the other issues confronting Ford in 1974. Vietnam. An economy that was tanking. A looming energy crisis. Ford himself said that at least 25% of his day was taken up with some Watergate- or Nixon-related issue. That is, at least to me, an inordinate amount of time that had to have been spent in more fruitful pursuits. The scandal needed to be put behind us. Period. The pardon did that, and while the esteemed minds here may disagree, history will continue to bear out that wisdom. I suggest that it is time for many on DU to reconcile themselves with that fact.

If that makes me a BushLite apologist...well, I'd rather be that than what I've been seeing here for the past couple of days.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. Oh...don't forget the shit-stirrers.

Seriously, I think there are some here that just like to "cause" trouble. If someone posted that it was a beautiful day in their town, someone would come along and make a nasty comment. There is plenty of rigid thinking that occurs here and we are all guilty from time to time, but some seem to be as stuck in their POV as the Republicans (we're always right, never wrong).

[Cleita]

43. I find the ignore and hide a thread functions very effective in

filtering out those posts and posters so that the thread and posts by real progressive come to the top. Thank you administrators for supplying us with those functions.

[Union Thug]

48. There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos ...

..thx Jim Hightower - that sums it up.

[cali]

52. One can be resolute

without being an absolutist. Deploring over the top, hysterical black and white thinking is not being in the middle of the road.

[novalib]

50. The ONLY "Bush-Like" "Thinking" I'm Seeing

The only BUsh-like "thinking" I'm seeing is coming from some one this board who think that Presidents like Clinton and Carter ae NO BETTER than SLIMEBALLS like Ford and Nixon.

I post something pointing out that President Carter WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, and someone shoots back that "So did Kissinger".

I post that Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize, and someone else shoots back that he did something or another with rebels in Indonesia.

YOU ARE FUCKING MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!

OVERALL, CLINTON and CARTER were (although NOT perfect Presidents) FAR AND AWAY BETTER THAN SLIMEBALL FORD!!!!!

WHY are some here so INTENT on SILENCING others here who want to SPEAK THE TRUTH about FORD -- that he was a SLIMEBALL WHO PARDONNED NIXON -- AND that he was WORSE than Carter or Clinton.

WHY are some here so INTENT on TEARING DOWN Presidents Clinton and Carter, and DENEGRATING their accomplishments??!!!!

THAT is the "Bush-like" "thinking" I am seeing today!!!!!!!!

[cali]

54. Oooh, more capitalized

hysterics from you. Quelle surprise.

[novalib]

55. SO Special!!!

Et vous parlez francais, aussi!!

I wish I were like you!!

[Blue_In_AK]

79. Novalib, you've simply got to stop with the shouting...

You're going to give yourself a heart attack.

[Red1]

53. Certainly

shrub and his handlers deserve the utmost criticism, but these guys

http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm

are the ones that keep putting idiots like nixon, reagon, bush 1 & 2, into office,
they have as much blood on their hands as anyone. they are responsible for all the
moronic agendas carried out by shrub and his bosses.

[valerief]

57. Dem fundies, that's what we are! nt

[sandnsea]

62. Lack of basic humanity

It's a funeral. I really can't figure out what people expect. Would they want someone to stand up at Clinton's funeral and talk about the blue dress?

I don't buy all this revisionism as to Ford as a President, but today's not the day to be dwelling on it.

[novalib]

64. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT???!!!

"I don't buy all this revisionism as to Ford as a President, but today's not the day to be dwelling on it."

What THE FUCK do you expect us to do???!!

MOURN the death of a SLIMEBALL who PARDONNED NIXON???!!!!

Besides, I didn't get ANY Mail today, so I don't have any mail to look at.

And I REFUSE to watch any TV that is carrying ANYTHING about SLIMEBALL!!!

I would MUCH RATHER use this day to TELL THE TRUTH (and REFUTE THE LIES) about SLIMEBALL FORD!

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[novalib]

68. "When Future Generations Ask What You Did"

"When Future Generations Ask What You Did To Combat the LIES and the EVIL", what will YOU said YOU did??!!

As I said on that thread, I WILL SAY that I REFUSED to SHUT UP!

I did not let them SILENCE ME!!

I SPOKE THE TRUTH!!! TO POWER!!!

[GOTV]

105. I spoke TRUTH to POWER...

... by sitting in front of my computer posting on liberal message boards.

AND I GAVE NO QUARTER!

[cali]

66. Your posts are almost a parody

of the type of crap my OP was referencing.

Yes, yes, I know I'm an evil elitest meanie.

[spanone]

67. I hope that we 'democrats' can be everything the thugs were not.

Gracious. Inclusive. Open to ideas. Encouraging input. Sharing information. Otherwise, what's the diff?

[Jcrowley]

69. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand

Gerald Ford as the errand boy for the Empire was involved in some rather gruesome machinations.

And Brokaw is the quintessential corporate propagandist. He'd never have made it to the point of being a multi-million dollar anchor spot if he didn't go through all the hoops that require you to be a propagandist.

Both are criminally complicit in numerous ways.

Don't know about it being black-white-magenta-purple-green or that it matters but the historical record is quite self-evident and massive.

It's pretty safe to say that if you or I were responsible for as much death and destruction as Gerald Ford we would've been hauled off to the clink at the least.

[novalib]

71. GREAT POST!!!

THANKS for saying what you said!!!

I was beginning to think that I was on the edge of sanity here!!

[cali]

80. This post is a perfect example of what I meant.

Sadly, it comes from someone who often posts interesting and informed material, and who is clearly quite bright. Look, what you said about Ford applies just as much to Carter and Clinton and virtually every other man who's been president over the last 75 years. Comparing you or me to a person who wields the power of the presidency is utterly misleading- and pointless.

As for Brokaw, he simply worked for the corporate media. Does that make him a propagandist? I don't think so. That's not to endorse the type of news that the corporate media doles out, but no, sorry, I don't think labeling him a propagandist is accurate.

Your declaring that the historical record is self-evident and massive, is also meaningless. One can compile evidence and amass a historical record to about such things to support one's position. That doesn't prove much.

Your statement that Ford and Brokaw are criminally complicit is off the shelf stock talking points. Where are the legal experts to back that claim up?

Finally, I'm not defending either Ford or Brokaw, nor am I interested in doing so. I am defending complexity and ambiguity and their uses in the historical narrative.

[novalib]

82. EWWWWWW!

I think I am going to PUKE!!!

I cannot believe I am reading this sort of drivel on DEMOCRATIC Underground!!!

"what you said about Ford applies just as much to Carter and Clinton and virtually every other man who's been president over the last 75 years."

GAG!!!! DOUBLE BARF!!!

So. Ford and Carter and Clinton and EVEN NIXON are all pretty much the same.

SOME of us think that there is QUITE a bit of DIFFERENCE between CARTER and CLINTON on the one hand and FORD and Nixon on the other!!!!

"As for Brokaw, he simply worked for the corporate media. Does that make him a propagandist? I don't think so."

TRIPLE GAG!!! Someone get me the PEPTO BISMAL -- QUICK!!!

This comment of yours is really BETTER THAN IPECAC at making me HURL MY LUNCH!!!

Brokaw and ALL the corporate WHORES who say nice things about SLIMEBALLS like Ford are truly PROPOGANDISTS!!!

Finally, "Finally, I'm not defending either Ford or Brokaw, nor am I interested in doing so. I am defending complexity and ambiguity and their uses in the historical narrative."

QUINTUPLE FUCKING BARFO PUKEARAMA VOMITUS!!!!!

After just defending BOTH Brokaw and Ford, you say that you are "defending complexity and amibiguity and their uses in the historical narrative".

WTF is THAT supposed to mean???!!

WE all Know that things are "complex" and "ambiguous"! NO ONE needs YOU to "defend" "complexity and ambiguity"!!!!!

Excuse me for a minute or two!!! I need to kneel at the foot of the Porcelin Goddess!

[cali]

85. be careful not to fall in the toilet with all

your shit.

[novalib]

94. STILL No Arguments???!!!!

My, MY!!

We go from speaking French (quelle surprise, remember???) to speaking FRENCH ("your shit")!! And, NO, I will NOT PARDON YOUR FRENCH. (Somehow, speaking about PARDON on a thread about SLIMEBALL FORD seems so appropriate!!!!!!)

I know I shouldn't tell you that I am laughing as I write this, but I am ROARING with LAUGHTER!!!!

I guess it's REALLY TRUE what they say -- those who have no arguments simply swear!!

[cali]

96. Here's an idea. Seriously.

Turn off the caps and learn how to have a discussion on a discussion board. Try reading the exchange between Jcrowley and myself in this very thread for clues on how to do that.

[Jcrowley]

83. Sure it does

As for Brokaw, he simply worked for the corporate media. Does that make him a propagandist? I don't think so.

Definitely propagandists. It's what they do, it is the nature of the business. Manufacturing consent is there job as well as avoiding all historical context and presenting countless obfuscations. There is a myth that is rather widespread that the MSM is not doing their job when in fact they are.

Of course it's not so clumsy as the Old Soviet-Style propaganda, in fact Russian apparatchiks openly marveled at the US propaganda system, and that is what makes it so pernicious and malevolent.

This crap shapes opinions and ideas which in turn can determine behavior. It creates all sorts of lies and misdeeds which cost many many lives.

AMY GOODMAN: Think about Dan Rather the night that the bombs started falling on Iraq. He said, "Good Morning Baghdad"

DAN RATHER: CBS news has been told...

AMY GOODMAN: And Tom Brokaw said "we don't want to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq because we're going to own it in a few days.

TOM BROKAW: Shock and awe...

AMY GOODMAN: And Peter Jennings was interviewing Chris Cuomo who is a reporter for ABC and he was out on the street, where we were, Times Square, thousands of people in the freezing rain who had come out to protest the war. They had all sorts of signs that were sopping wet and people were trying to keep the umbrellas up and the police charged a part of the crowd. Jennings said to Cuomo "what are they doing out there, what are they saying?" And he said, "well they have these signs that say no blood for oil but when you ask them what that means they seem very confused. I don't think they know why they're out here." I guess they got caught in a traffic jam. Why not have Peter Jennings, instead of asking someone who clearly doesn't understand why they're out there, invite one of them into the studio? And have a discussion like he does with the generals.

NEWS CLIP: It's captivating to watch this technology at work.

AMY GOODMAN: Why don't they also put doctors on the payroll. That way you can have the general talking about the bomb that Lockheed Martin made and the kind of plane that drops it and whether it was precision guided or not. And then you can have the doctor talking about the effect of the bomb. Not for or against the war, just how a cluster bomb enters your skin and what it means when your foot is blown off, if you're lucky and you're not killed. So why not have doctors and generals at least. But this is just to show how low the media has gone.

http://www.democracynow.org/static/IMIATOW.shtml

And yes one could make a case that all of the US presidents for at least the time frame you reference have been involved in foreign policy decisions that perpetuated or US hegemonic desires. Many historians have made that case.

[cali]

87. You're cherry picking quotes.

from Brokaw, Jennings and Rather, and much as I enjoy Amy Goodman, so was she. Let me note here that if Rather was such a die hard propagandist for the republican machine, it's hard to understand his insistence on going with the story about bush and the National Guard. I'm assuming you'll come back with a retort about how it got him fired, but that's merely one example. About 10 months ago, I think, Brokaw did a a damning little special about a group of Iraq war veterans. This morning he had harshly critical things to say about Saddam's lynching. No, I don't think that the media, lousy as it is, corporate as it is, is Pravda on the Hudson.

[Jcrowley]

90. Propaganda

http://www.desmogblog.com/when-balanced-journalism-is-anything-but-balanced

Are you familiar with the work of Alex Carey?

Recommended reading:

Review of Alex Carey, Taking the Risk out of Democracy: Propaganda in the US and Australia
(University of NSW Press, 1995. 214 pp., $19.95)
Reviewed by Alex McCutcheon in Green Left Weekly

As Alex Carey sees it, "The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy''.

Throughout this book of collected essays with its unified theme, Carey succeeds in showing the reader that far from being a natural outcome of "market forces'' or some natural "law of nature'', the present hegemony that corporations enjoy has been the result of a consciously pursued goal whose origins lie within corporate America.

Carey makes the crucial (and often forgotten) point that in a technologically advanced democracy, "the maintenance of the existing power and privileges are vulnerable to popular opinion'' in a way that is not true in authoritarian societies. Therefore elite propaganda must assume a "more covert and sophisticated role''.

In the US, corporate propaganda has played upon the high level of religious beliefs in the community, beliefs which leave its citizens predisposed to see the world in "Manichean terms''. This outlook leads towards a preference for action over reflection, a "pragmatic orientation'' that is perfectly suited to the corporate aim of identifying positive symbols with business, while assigning negative values to those that oppose them, such as labour unions and welfare provisions.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25/006.html

[cali]

92. I'm not, but thanks for the recommendation

It looks like a fascinating read. I've made a note of the book and author and I'll pick it up. I'm particularly interested by the little snip about the author focusing on "action over reflection". I must note though, that it has long seemed to me that most people gravitate toward a Manichean view of the world. We don't live in a society that values reflection, that's for certain.

cheers, cali

[coalition_unwilling]

70. You're either with the working class or you're against the working

class. Which side are you on????

[ariellyn]

77. Cali's "grey." n/t

[cali]

81. I'm with the working class. I'm with the poor and disenfranchised

I'm with the middle class. No need to stand with the rich. They don't need any help.

None of that had anything to do with my OP, but what the hey, it's not something I minded answering.

[coalition_unwilling]

98. It was my way of re-framing the "with us, against us" trope

that you were railing against in the OP. From my point of view, you either believe in and work to advance the interests of the working class or you're working on the side of the oppressors. There is no middle ground in that struggle. But I'm a Dem Socialist (and a male) and trained to think this way.

[Marie26]

73. Exactly!

Thank you! IMO, it's fascism. I think that we should all be mindful of not only the fascism around us, but the fascism inside us. Liberals like to think that they are exempt from an authoritarian/fascist mindset, but we are not. We live in a culture now that puts out constant images of torture, violence, domination & dehumanization - in our news, our entertainment, even our games. And it does filter through to everybody, regardless of political orientation. Bush-speech & Bush-think is infecting the nation.

[DeepModem Mom]

75. I'm wondering if it's what you hear at almost every death in a family --

that a death brings out the best in some people, and the worst in others.

[uppityperson]

88. Just goes to show that ocassionally I will find a post I agree with from most everyone

"most" everyone. We each have our hot topics.

[Rex]

89. Just trying to keep it 'fair and balanced' eh cali?

I hear ya, GD is just a biased madhouse! :crazy:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. lol

[Bluebear]

93. Word. nt

[cali]

95. Cute.

I could have put it differently, but I was trying to be at least somewhat diplomatic about the plethora of stupid threads where the poster is doing nothing more than blurting out some half assed one sentence "thought" like Ford is a thug and I'm mad because the mail isn't being delivered today. Yeah, I regret the lack of reflectivity that too many engage in, and no it doesn't have to do with where someone is on the political spectrum. Make a cogent argument for your pov and don't just say shir for shock value.

[Lurking Dem]

99. cali

Check out the French soup kitchen thread. You'll wonder what site you're on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3033096&mesg_id=3033096

[rman]

102. You mean like "Sheehan is inflammatory"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3033888#3035032

[aein]

103. i agree

[GOTV]

104. It's majorititis...

... The dems have just returned to the majority and every sub-group thinks it's their doing and now they're demanding their payback. The rest of us are just piling on and it's pissing them off.

[AzDar]

107. After enduring 6 of the most destructive and partisan years in U.S.

History at the hands of the Republican Party...WE NO LIKEE REPUBLICANS.
That is all.