Jul 24, 2003 12:23 pm Oh, wait, I just remembered, they aren't POW's, their corpses, so THAT must be what makes it OK to air...
...argh...
Disgusted by the media...and the administration...
Posted on Jul 24, 2003 11:27 am
dbmasters
Administrator Since: Apr 03, 2002
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't our US administration cry "Geneva convention violation" when Iraq showed pictures of our dead soldiers on their TV...Ummmmm...what exactly is different about showing the bloodied, dead faces of those couple loser sons of Sadam? Is that not humilating? Isn't that a violation as well?
Does the media really think I want my daughters seeing those pictures while she is in the room and I am watching the "news" (such as it is) or anything else...
This REALLY pisses me off.
[ Back to Top ]
Jul 24, 2003 12:23 pm Oh, wait, I just remembered, they aren't POW's, their corpses, so THAT must be what makes it OK to air...
...argh...
Jul 24, 2003 12:28 pm go here www.georgewbush.com/ and stare at the right side of your screen so that G Dubya's on your left periferal just visible from the corner of your eye. It kinda looks like he's flipping everyone off.
We're the bullies on the block, Americans, and it's important that we all do our part and vote in 2004 for what we believe in. God save America before she destroys herself.
Jul 24, 2003 12:36 pm good call, dB. that particular geneva convention hipocrisy was actually first done in the scope of gulf war II when CNN broadcasted images of iraqi POWs being rounded up.
as for america destroying herself...check this out:
Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say
www.nytimes.com/2003/07/2...9da90268a049263
finally a NY Times article on the diebold machines. imagine what would happen if one party controlled the voting machines, and controlled the outcome of every election with little or no regard to what people would actually vote for. also, these voting machine companies are overwhelmingly owned by wealthy republican families. enjoy.
Jul 24, 2003 12:38 pm And might I ask who/what party you would vote for. I would rather have somebody like Bush in office than a wussy like Gore woulda been.
I am more of a Libertarian when it comes to party beliefs...kind of a right-center position. God help us if the left comes into power.
Actually, extreme right or extreme left will kill us, just in different ways, the right will kill us physically and left will kill us economically by spending us into the poor house...of course the right is good at spending when it comes to war...but we would be physically dead before economically dead.
Jul 24, 2003 12:50 pm i've never been too concerned about how much of a wuss a politician is. I guess I'm a bit of a democrat myself, but I never seem to agree with the interests of most anyone running for office. Sorry, I'm a little center-left :O), and the independants interrest me with new ideas, but I'll let the individual decide who gets mine, not the party.
But man, that computer stuff has me wondering if I really have any say at all. At least I don't live in Florida where my vote means nothing :O\
and thanks for editing yer post ;O)
Jul 24, 2003 12:59 pm I don't like left for one simple reason, they seem to want to give all my tax money to people who they think need it more than me. I would rather keep my money and do with it what I want. Most tax hikes (in my memory) have been added by the left...
They want to have special programs for every minority, every person they consider "in need", which looks great on paper but is ALWAYS taken advantage of and always will be.
The right is often mislabelled as the rich people party, which really isn't true, most middle-america farmers and blue collar working men living from paycheck to paycheck are on the right too, they want to keep their money and plan for their own retirement and help themselves not everyone else who the gov't feels needs it.
Thats my main problem with the left.
<steps off soapbox>
Jul 24, 2003 01:06 pm I won't even get into my feelings on rightwing conservatives. I just won't even go there ;O)
But you're right that's there's problems with either stance, left or right. Especially extremists, something this country has been able to avoid for the most part of it's 200 years. We have a wonderful bi-partisan (is that the right word?) balance, and it'd be a shame to see things change. I know that's kind of a conservative statement right there, but I'm just looking at the big picture. This things has worked for this long, why change it now? If it ain't broke don't fix it.
If I have children, I'd like them to grow up under the same liberties my father grew up in.
Jul 24, 2003 01:08 pm you guys are playing by the rules here, and what's happening now is that we're beginning to find out that the rules don't work. it's not a right vs left battle. politicians from both colors have to abide by america's elite consensus, and thus we get to choose whichever we think is the lesser of two evils on election day. the past many presidents have been monuments of corruption and anti-american ideals. but what does that mean when they're bathed in the stars and stripes with a thumbs up ready to get on air force one?
Jul 24, 2003 01:12 pm The most productive times for America has been when there has been a divided governmental body, as soon as one side controls it all is when problems start arising.
Me and most everybody I know and were friends with growing up were very liberal, very left-wing people until the first time we had responsiblities and jobs and people that depended on us, then most of us became much more conservative pretty quickly.
Jul 24, 2003 01:13 pm dB...
Who do you consider to be the 'Left'? Do you consider the Democratic Party to be the 'left'?
If so then Clinton is part of the left that will ruin us, in your estimation. But didn't he leave Bush with a surplus which Bush immediately doled out to his backers. I really don't want to get into a rant again with you guys on this subject but the Corporatist (fascist) government we have today wants to bleed the wealth from this country and the world. They don't care who gets hurt (our military and economy) or how far they have to go to achieve their ends. They don't believe in democracy, (fraud in voting machines, Patriot Act) and they twist the truth/history every chance they get to make themselves look good, read Coulters new book or just listen to Hannity or Gush Flembaull. This religious fanatical regime is dangerous. Not only to our American way of life but also to the world . The middle class in this country was built on liberal ideas, unions, GI Bill etc., ideas which these guys are dismantelling everyday so that their corporate sponsors can make profits and to hell with us the common person. The average Joe-Lunchbox Republican has no idea how far right these guys are and some in the party are starting to wise up. Don't be fooled. Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Halliburton, Bechtel and the rest are not about We The People, they are about profits and the rest be damned.
Jul 24, 2003 01:16 pm I consider over-liberalism to be left and over-conservatisim to be right...to hell the parties...
As far as who left who how much money or debt, it all depends on your sources and who you believe and support...numbers can always be manipulated....if you really wanna buy that new guitar the checkbook will ALWAYS balance out in your favor if you want it to...
Personally, I think it's the lefties that need to wise up, but I am not gonna sit here and waste my time arguing about it...
Jul 24, 2003 01:29 pm i'm not irresponsible or dependant, and i'll try not to take that as an insult. in fact, i just remembered why i stay out of these political threads
Jul 24, 2003 01:31 pm It's not intended as an insult, just my personal opinion...and actually, I just remmebered the same thing you just remembered...and I was doing so good for a few days...
I listened to some radical left-winger the other day on "Patriot Radio" (my new favorite talk radio station) that was preaching to subsidize parents so they can stay at home easier rather than use daycare (sounds great), pay every american a salary whether working or not and regardless of job (sound kinda like [fill in obivous answer here]), give more money to welfare, subsidize this, aid that...and yet she had absolutely not one solution or answer that made sense about where the money would come from to fund all that...it kinda cracked me up.
And mind you jamie, when I am ripping on lefties, it's extreme lefties like that...
Jul 24, 2003 01:44 pm It saddens me to think that if dB and I were to meet face to face we would probably have much in common and get along just fine until politics came up... then we would be at each others throats. Not physically of course. There's a deep political divide in this country today and I fear what it will mean to the U.S. in years to come if we follow our present path.
Sheesh.....
I'm done. Label me a ranting liberal who' s working to bring down the present government thru peaceful, legal, American methods.
Jul 24, 2003 01:51 pm Maybe so, but it's not bad, I'm a muscian and a programmer, not making any foreign or domestic policy here.
I was once a very active and vocal liberal...I just can't in good conscience support it anymore.
Jul 24, 2003 01:58 pm dB
check out thom hartmann's radio program on www.ieamericaradio.com/
thats my favorite.
and if you really want the hard left listen to
mikemalloy.com
also on ieamericaradio.com
back to work for me.
thx for letting me vent.
Jul 24, 2003 02:06 pm talk radio is there for ENTERTAINMENT. that's one of the large problems we're dealing with...many people get their news from neoliberals and neoconservatives who exist only to shock people and make you wonder why they are allowed to have a driver's license.
one of the characteristics of neoconservatives is that they used to be liberals who eventually came to the conclusion that liberals are promising too many things to too many people.
what ever happened to being a real, dynamic person with political beliefs that went beyond ideology and classification? to some, i might be considered liberal, but i am quite conservative. it's a mix, and we're all different on different issues because we see it from different perspectives. that's the point of the way that the constitution set up our government.
our political system is poisoned. it is dying.
Jul 24, 2003 02:10 pm also...the clinton surplus was fake. he used social security funds as general funds, which accelerated the baby boom social security problems. this isn't a conspiracy theory. you can find statesmen in congressional hearings talking about it. it just makes people feel good to think that our country has been up and down instead of steadily declining as a result of corruption.
Jul 24, 2003 02:19 pm Quote:
what ever happened to being a real, dynamic person with political beliefs that went beyond ideology and classification
Well, now that is pretty simple, in order to fund a campaign in this large of a country you need help, so people donate to help your cause, then you "owe" those people for their generousity, you get the help, this large group of supporters that have helped you get the word out about you and gain more support, then you have to make sure everybody in your support team is getting the same word out, so you need to control the propoganda...er, "message", I mean, and everybody financially involved wants to be part of that control mechanism...
Then you know what you have? A political party...
Jul 24, 2003 02:24 pm i wasn't talking about "elected representatives", but about people on the whole.
it's interesting how it costs an average of $1 million to run for a seat in the House, and $5 million on average to run for the Senate.
the whole gamut of government theory states that governments are ALWAYS the enemy of the people in one way or another, and the whole point of things like our constitution is to restrain our government. we're in a new era that is infinitely more complex than the era of the Founding Fathers, and our current state is showing that we need a new set of ideas to live by that reflects our new understandings. our government is pretty much a relic of buildup that occurred during the cold war. old power structures that won't let go. just wait for bush's second term.
Jul 24, 2003 02:39 pm Im ... trying... to .... keep .... my ... fingers off.. the keyboard.... I'm trying to control myself....
(it would be better for my blood pressure if I just went back to work and didnt read/comment on this thread)
AHHHHHH! I cant help myself.... AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!
Bush's second term will bankrupt this country, will destroy our military, will turn the rest of the world against us, will plunge us into a depression, will destroy all environmental safeguards, education and all social programs will suffer, our States will have to raise taxes inorder to function......
AHHHHHHH!
Jul 24, 2003 02:49 pm exactly crash. can everyone repeat "martial law" along with me?
it's called the rise of fascism. it's happening to the italians all over again, and the germans are watching, completely aghast.
Jul 24, 2003 05:16 pm You guys sound like liberals ;-)
Jul 24, 2003 07:20 pm we're allowed to release the pictures without being hypocritical because:
the reason why we were mad that al jazeera was releasing pictures of dead soldiers, and the reason it's a violation of geneva convention, is because if you release pics of a dead soldier, the dead soldiers' families find out about the death of thier son or daughter in the most shocking, lousiest way possible. and thats not good.
here, though, the idea is that the higher ups of the iraqi regime don't have that right. because they messed up by being tyrants who abused thier own people. also, we need to release the pics so that the iraqis can have a chance to judge for themselves whether we're lying or not.
i'm not defending the admin. i fear for the future of this country because its citizenry seem to not think. the people of this land elected a TUMBLEWEED into office. its not that the administration is scary and blind thats the real problem, because that will pass. the problem is that people--somehow--couldn't see that bush does literally not think. at least in public. in the debates. his performance in the presidential debates was nothing but the recitation of vague ideologies. he was a failure. so it would seem that party affiliation is all that matters to most voters. but people have to go beyond that or you end up in a spot like we are now. gore, whatever you want to say about him, at least had a mind. that at least hints at the idea that he might be reasonable when confronted with new information.
Jul 24, 2003 07:51 pm but we did violate the geneva convention by releasing video of captured POWs back in the first few days of the war.
Jul 24, 2003 08:35 pm yeah i guess so...i don't remember that, though? what'd we do?
Jul 24, 2003 08:38 pm Yes, people that ellect based strictly on party affiliation is really stupid. However, it's a decent bet that if you elect "your party" and they get in office they will try to do what the party proposes (in the big picture anyway). The big problem is, I personally can't find a party that believes everything I do, it'sa little of these guys, a little of those and a dash of the other...
Releasing those pictures didn't bother me so much from the admin side as it does that the media shows this **** when I am raising to young girls that I really don't think are old enough to understand what's up, nor do I want them to know what is going on at 2 years old and 5 years old. Coming from the TV stations that preach about how they hold such "old school values" and **** like that really ****** pisses me off. My personal anger about this subject is far more far more targetted at the media than anything or anyone else.
And as far as the president and what everyone thinks of him, I am bored and tired of hearing it and talking about, everyone has a different opinion, and nobody can accept anyone elses. THAT, my friends, is the main problem. Different opinions are healthy, how you deal with them can sometimes not be so...as has been amply demonstrated in these forums by myself and many others.
The purpose of this thread was not to start a political rant, as I am VERY, VERY tired of them. The point was, that I, as a parent, am troubled that I have to work so hard to keep my kids from seeing bloodied bodies in the public media. Then they turn around and run specials talking to psycholigists discussing why our kids are growing up so de-sensitized and hostile.
The bunch of ****** dumb *** **** heads...
Jul 24, 2003 09:37 pm fortymile - back in the early days of the war, while iraqi state TV was broadcasting videos of captured coalition POWs, we were broadcasting videos of iraqi POWs. then people in the bush administration started crying about the geneva convention, and it was just ridiculous. the geneva convention doesn't matter when it comes to the morale of american troops or the goals of whoever is at the helm of the american empire.
Jul 24, 2003 09:47 pm Hoooly Coowww! (Harry Carry's voice)
I went to dinner, came back and the smack talkin' column is workin' overtime.
Actually, I'm thrilled to hear people voicing opinions, that went away a little in the late 70's and early 80's.
dB, I think you know my opinion of the media. And my big problem is I don't expect much from the politicians, but I hope to get accurate insight from the big medias, but probably won't. I think they all want to be writers for UPN.
Jul 25, 2003 01:36 am i remember that POW stuff back in the early days now. the admin probably felt justified because they are drunk on the wholesomeness of the very idea of america and the stereotyped ideals of what we represent. they figure that since 'we're the good guys' we dont have to follow the rules. in one particular way, they seem to have a weird point--any POW's we take are pretty much certain to at least survive. that is, we dont make a habit out of torture, and that's policy. (except in the case of terrorists, i'll wager.) on the other hand, none of this self-righteous crap gives license to violate int'l law.
as for GW, i wasn't trying to start some kind of political fight. i'm not affiliated with a party, partly (but not entirely) because ever-more these days, it just seems like politicians act like little kids in a playground fight. i was just pointing out that we could have elected into office an actual tumbleweed and as long as someone told the weed what to say and do, the country would be about as ok as it is now. :)
Jul 25, 2003 05:52 am i thought we were supposed to be the good guys, this gloating over two dead people makes it seem less so.
i can see the point of showing the iraqi people, they really do need to know, but when about 85% of them haven't got power for/or tv sets, it's not gonna do much..
Jul 25, 2003 10:06 am word spreads in iraq without TV. they've got a press, even though it's thoroughly censored by paul bremer and co.
the whole "good guys" image is pretty common. take a look at american foreign policy since the 1900's or so, and it becomes clear that the USA actually engages in state terrorism over and over again. it is extremely disturbing, and THAT is the reason why there are terrorists that we're disproportionately afraid of. we are not the good guys anymore. now we are almost as bad as the nazis, and the whole world knows.
Jul 25, 2003 10:16 am This is in no way intended as a fight starter, but I am really curious to know what people think and their answers.
If America is the axis of evil, why do you live here? And if you move, where would it be to and why?
Jul 25, 2003 10:41 am minkus, i'm from the UK, not america, and include us in the good guys. it's the attitude shown in your post of america-centricism that could lead to this sort of thing....
i know that iraq has a press, but if you listen and watch the news, the maion problems seem to be that no-one believes the american ifidels unless they see it. some iraqis have said they will not believe it till they are dragged around the country on the back of a truck.
and i don't see how you can be disprportionately afraid of religious fanatacism,
there is a lot wrong with the UK, but rather here than many places, america included (sorry guys, i'm a limey through and through). the world's nice to visit and all, but i wouldn't wanna live there!!
i also believe that if a place is terrible, thenyou should stay not go. if everyone who wants more leaves, then no-one pushes change forward.
Jul 25, 2003 01:22 pm i wouldn't say america engages in state terrorism. the rationale behind what a group or a country does can make an act seem like terrorism or not....the rationale and motive both count. if you can come up with a legitimate reason why it's for the greater good, then that counts for a lot. if it's just totally selfish, then you're getting closer to terrorism. example: the palestinian terrorist groups are self-justified. they want thier turf and they'll kill to get it. thier actions are no longer for the greater good. with iraq, with most of the stuff the western world gets involved in, there is usually a pretty good justification. in this case, if not WMD, you can't deny hussein was a tyrant and his people were being needlessly mistreated. maybe not the best of reasons, but there's always -- something -- there to make us look like the good guys. the flak we would take for outright pursuing our interests in a blatantly imperialistic way would be too great. the media, sucky as they are, help in this in that they are a 'check and balance' on power. the way that they report on the doings of government has the power to enrage the citizenry. when the leaders get out of hand.
Jul 25, 2003 03:12 pm terrorism is a larger definition than just suicide bombing and all that.
i'm not so sure that annihilating thousands of people to get rid of one, and then leaving the country in shambles is a great thing. being happy that saddam is gone is a bit simplistic.
the media is absolutely complicit in what is going on. you can look at papers from other parts of the world and get a far better perspective than from any american news media outlet. the american media abandoned their role as a government watchdog a long, long time ago.
i live in america because i want to make it better in whatever way that i can. this place really is amazing in many ways, and there is a strong potential to be that shining beacon of hope once we get past all the garbage. if i had to live somewhere else, i'd probably check out australia first.
the main problem in iraq is that they were invaded by the people who are responsible for the absolutely abyssmal lifestyles that they lead. you could say that it's all saddam's fault, but then you've got people like former secretary of state madeleine albright saying how a half million iraqis (mostly children) dead solely because of the sanctions imposed by the US is "worth it". there is no perspective up top.
we don't need to get together and hold hands and sing kum ba ya, but it is extremely important to respect life. a dead iraqi kid should not be worth less than a dead american soldier. but somehow, that's the way it is.
Jul 25, 2003 07:14 pm i often think australia would be a nice place to live.
as for the media, i didn't mean that they were watchdogs. what i meant was that they're so bloodthirsty to dig up the dirt about anyone and anything--whatever makes for a good story, wherever the corruption is--that they automatically perform a watchdog service. the media tends to go where 'thier own' payoff is. not always, but more than enough to make 'sketchy individuals' generally wary. the media digs for dirt, puts it on the screen, and, suddenly, complicit parties become concerned for thier own welfare and reputation. look at what's now happening with that messed-up british intelligence. that stuff counts, and that's what i'm talking about. people dont want to be in hot water. no one is trying to be 'good' here, they're all pursuing thier own interests. but i do think some good sometimes comes out of it. the 'free' media exposes crap even as it makes its own. it makes it a bit harder to get away with stuff here, with a salacious, heartless, fickle media informing the collective mind. she'll be a patriot when the guns roll out, but then she's got to dig up a new scoop. when the tide washes back out, the media is about as faithful as a 12 year old girl in pigtails gossiping on the playground. i do think people realize that.
as for the sanctions issue, that depends on what you think is right and workable. both ends of the argument have some truth to them (but by and large, it appears that sanctions dont work well, in general, do they?) as for the 'bombing a country to get rid of one man'--well, that is a little presumptuous, isn't it. terroristic in its way, but with a vision towards a greater good (assuming that the invaded parties 'like' capitalism and freedom. and there was another presumption right there. we weren't, after all, asked to do this.) still, i wasn't entirely against the war. and then again, star trek's 'prime directive' has always made sense in its way. i think what i did was to realize that i didn't know everything i needed to know to make an informed decision. not without being able to evaluate intelligence myself. and we never really had that option, and regular people never do, with war. all you can do is be a mindless patriot, a conspiracy theorist, a person convinced he has all the answers, or a spectator. or a soldier.
don't take that wrong, i'm not coming down on you or anyone.
Jul 25, 2003 09:11 pm media... murdoc (most of the large papers,and the fox stations) needs to be the bush lap dog so he can break the law and make a monopoly...have you guys seen the oil tanker chevron runs from nigeria to new york ? its called the condalisa rice ( she sat on the board before her appointment)... what about haliberton ? dick channys company that now has the exclusive contract to rebuild the iraqi oil fields...or perhaps texas based mci getting a 50million dollar contract to set up a wireless network in iraq,none of these contracts were bid on (the democratic way)..in closing its nice to see an example of american democracy in action reguarding the hussain brothers.no habius corpus, no trial,they were guilty dammit and they had to die, and all must see the liberation , thanks mr murdoch.THERE NOW I FEEL LIKE A RECORDING ARTIST!
Jul 25, 2003 10:07 pm yeah, they were the whole point of all of this. they dont get a trial.
still, though, i follow. i follow, mang.
Jul 26, 2003 01:22 am the media is owned by very few companies these days, and that affects things. there is also a lot of what is being referred to as "self-censorship" going on almost subconsciously with reporters and editors. that's why there was the questioning the commander in chief = anti-americanism going on, along with the demonization of the anti-war movement. even if people tend to realize that the media has issues, they don't tend to notice the subtleties of the effect that it has on your subconscious thinking, your views, and such.
the sanctions were ridiculous to begin with. file this under "saddam is a dickhead", which was never a question of yes or no, but was always presented as a logical way out even though it had very little to do with the idea of starting a WAR while the invading country is having serious economic troubles, the invadees were trained to hate the invaders through their media for over 10 years, and the region in which this war was to be launched was a complete hornet's nest. it's no surprise that there is a full on guerilla war starting, and it's no surprise that bush's sec of treasury is talking about how the death of saddam's sons will bring our economy back to health. does any person hearing that really believe it anymore?
the only reason why i'm vocal and i care about this even though there is plenty of sometimes healthy, sometimes unhealthy resistance is because it absolutely shocks my conscience.
Jul 26, 2003 02:52 am the 'questioning the leadership=anti-americanism' thing was the most ridiculous thought i have ever heard--i was shocked that people actually took this to heart. there were sooo many people earnestly putting this idea forward, too. being a compliant little sheep in all circumstances is just not smart. as carl sagan used to say, in another context, arguments from authority 'are not good enough.'
Jul 26, 2003 05:17 am ok, so there are many ideas in this thread I'd like to address.
1) I completely agree with deploring the gore and violence our everyday "news" likes to "shock" us with. I even saw in a collage of clips put together on 60 Minutes one time, an execution in what looked like Saudi Arabia. I saw a person shot in the effing head. What the hell is that? I've also seen a group execution in china, where 4 people were lined up and shot at close range in another collage on my local news station. They are just short clips that most people probably don't even catch, but utterly disturbing for me.
2) As for right wing/left wing politics, I think a good stance (for me anyways) is to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I hate when the government takes my money (esp. for overkill defense spending) but I do believe in strong spending on education. I'm also very "liberal" when it comes to environmental issues.
3) I've noticed the words democracy and capitalism have become pretty synonymous. However, democracy is a government system and capitalism is an economic system. People seem to assume that our democracy allows for a capitalistic economy, but in reality we are, for the most part, operating in an oligarchical economic system that is not too far from being monopolistic. Capitalism allows for free markets where supply and demand determines the price of goods and services. But in our system, connections to government, fear of lawsuits, and oligarchical rings of corporations set our prices, usually at a detriment to the average consumer. The aforementioned Bush cronyism is a prime example of this.
4) I completely agree that people in America no longer think. We have become so accustomed to being spoon fed what to think that most of us no longer take it upon ourselves to come up with our own ideas. To me, this is the number one problem looking to the future.
5) What should we do in Iraq? Didn't the Ottomans hold down that whole area of the world for quite a while? Perhaps we need to take some lessons from how they kept everything in control (I don't know what tactics the Ottomans used, but perhaps there is something in history that could be useful). Just an idea I thought I'd throw out.
Jul 26, 2003 01:31 pm yeah. i think the ottomans were pretty ruthless at times and that they ended up doing things that today would be considered war crimes like the my lai massacre (vietnam war). plus, there definitely is a difference between being occupied by people who look like you a bit (dark skin) and those who totally don't. i think we're continually getting more and more screwed in iraq, and it actually might be most helpful for everyone if we pulled out. that's a tough one though.
it's also amazing that we will get such gruesome images on TV, but the only way you will get images of the civilians that we killed or the disfigured babies born poisoned by DU is if you go to certain anti-war places on the internet. it's another form of mind control.
also, the logical end of pure capitalism is a small collection of monopolies. as much as americans have been indoctrinated to hate socialism and communism, a capitalist system must be adulterated in order to work.
Jul 26, 2003 02:32 pm irony..
the top two headlines @ msn.com right now:
(1) Iraqis glad to be rid of Saddam's sons
(2) Grenade attack kills three US soldiers
Jul 26, 2003 08:31 pm yeah but i still say that the media...
in some ways, plays for no one but its own interests. remember the images of the little iraqi boy who lost both parents in a US bombing attack, and who had lost both arms.
the media tends to go after what makes good news. that mostly involves seeking out the sensational, the lurid, and the shocking. they'll watch their words when its 'time to be on the same side.' but as soon as the dust clears, no one is 100% safe. media scandals are big trouble for all types of people, no matter what side they're on. from my angle, that's how the media is an unintentional watchdog service. the money-connections that are necessarily part of the media web often get edged out by less obvious factors. while the media may be to some degree 'controlled' by interests, there are myriad individual voices in the public eye which are not under those same controls. when one of them gets to talking in a public forum, and as long as people are listening, it is, after all, the media's job to report it. to me that's how it's essentially a headless beast. i've never seen the logic in equating the media with conspiracy. the only real rule it seems to follow is to not expose the the 'collective shadow.' or to question too much the ideas held generally 'sacred.' if that makes any sense.
Jul 27, 2003 02:44 am people in the victim fall prey to the herd mentality at times, and there are also a number of instances where if people report on something "delicate", they run the risk of being fired. those orders come from higher up. the fewer hands that control those orders, the more power they have to do it. here's an interesting article:
www.washingtonpost.com/ac...anguage=printer
Jul 27, 2003 11:04 am "If America is the axis of evil, why do you live here? And if you move, where would it be to and why?"
Either Australia or Austria. While I've never been to Australia, I know people who have, and it sounds wonderful. I have been to Austria, and it's such a beautiful place. Not to mention, while I was there I discovered there is quite a large underground punk scene, so the only downsides I see to this are that A) it snows there B) I'd have to learn German and C) most people that live there don't have cars.
Jul 27, 2003 01:36 pm well, this country has a number of publications that report the news from different political perspectives. i often read the economist magazine right alongside adbusters, for instance. you can select.
ok, fine. networks and publications do have political biases...fox news is the most blatantly obvious of the lot. but they do have to report on 'what's news.' 'what's news' is not entirely in the hands of these puppet-news agencies. the most they can do is to put a spin on things, but my point is that in some situations, spin-making takes place beyond the reach of the news. a scandal can be created by regular people in public office, such as democrats throwing the knife at republicans. then the news must cover it. how can you not say that the threat of public exposure abutomatically makes people watch their backs, and so by extension, that the media is an--admittedly inadvertent--watchdog?
the whole reason for bringing this up was the idea that there are mechanisms in place that prevent the US from growing into a truly imperialistic enterprise even if some factions wanted it to. 1. there are a multitude of viewpoints in any western country, and a media that at the very least must report on those viewpoints, 2. americans hold sacred the idea that our days of geographical imperialism are over, for good. and, 3. especially in america, there are people who are far more moral than is truly healthy for them to be. if americans catch wind that something truly nasty is afoot, something completely unjustified, then i believe that that thing cannot come to pass. such a thing will often initially become scandal outside of the news--often in a clash between political parties--which the news must then, at the least, report, thereby spreading awareness of it. in the end, people get upset at what's clearly wrong, and they often don't need the news to tell them what that might be. in the case of iraq, i have often thought...'suppose these conspiracy people are right for once and it really was all about oil. then damn, they finally found a workable excuse to go in there. something which may not even be entirely true, but something that looks legitimate.'
Jul 27, 2003 02:24 pm having one term for "conspiracy people" isn't at all accurate. there are some people who analyze actions and find conspiracies where they clearly are (i.e. warren report's magic bullet theory). those are the people i listen to. then there are conspiracy nuts who are all up in arms about the illuminati and the NWO and all that garbage, which discredits the entire concept of government conspiracies. the iraqi oil thing was clear clear clear from day 1. it wasn't a conspiracy theory. it was a conspiracy.
the threat of public exposure doesn't motivate the media. they are the sole source for public exposure, and can decide what gets air and what doesn't. if they were truly freaked about it, then we'd hear a lot more about how the entire american election system has been subverted by electronic voting machines. it's dead true, but no one in the mainstream media will touch it.
Jul 27, 2003 05:30 pm so..WHAT KINDA SONGS ARE WE COMIN UP WITH ABOUT ALL THIS..IF YOU GUYS COULD JUST MAKE SOME OF THIS RHYME OR MABY WE COULD MAKE THE COMMENTS 4 LINES AT A TIME (2 LINE BRIDGE HERE AND THERE MIGHT BE OK)I CAN DO A GOTHY NO RHYME TALKING THING WITH HEAVY TUBE LIMITER AND ROOM MACHINE440 ON IT IF RHYME IS A PROBLEM. ANYONE GOT A GOOD 32 BIT MACHINEGUN OR BOMB BLAST SAMPLE?
Jul 27, 2003 05:45 pm Or maybe we could learn how to properly use the caplock key...
:-P
Jul 27, 2003 06:25 pm WHATS WRONG WITH CAPS THIS IS EASIER FOR AN OLD GUY TO READ,I USE SMALLZ WHEN IM DOIN HOMEWORK FOR ENGLISH CLASS i PROMOSE
Jul 27, 2003 06:31 pm Because it is annoying as hell to read and in any basic internet "netiquite" is rude and implies shouting.
And it looks amatuerish and silly, pretend this is English class.
Other than that I have no problem with it. Just STOP IT PLEASE.
Jul 27, 2003 06:32 pm That's probably the most annoying thing I've read all day.
Jul 27, 2003 09:25 pm "the threat of public exposure doesn't motivate the media. they are the sole source for public exposure, and can decide what gets air and what doesn't."
--i'm not saying that the threat of public exposure motivates the media. the threat of public exposure makes would-be-conspirators watch thier backs. 'the media' as a single, controlled-from-above entity is a fictitious notion. the media as a 'single body' does not exist. we have a varied media in the states, with different media entities carrying different party affiliations. news starts in 'regular' spaces. it begins with people pointing fingers loudly, in the real world. and once a story is picked up by a media entity that feels justified in giving a story credence, the other media hubs have no choice but to report it. it has become news. the only thing media has power over is the spin that they place upon it.
otherwise how did 'the liberal media' wind up covering the clinton sex cases? why weren't they paid off and told to shut up? because ken starr began pointing fingers loudly. he made it news.
in general, it seems that people who are 'trying to get away with something' worry about being exposed. because it can and does happen, all the time, and it can't be controlled in most cases. yes, media hubs have power structures. but the business of media is essentially chaotic because it's composed of competing ideologies. that is my 25 cents. someone can slap me now.
Jul 27, 2003 10:35 pm the media covered the clinton sex cases like mad because the president lied about sex in the white house with an intern. what's interesting is how ken starr, who was appointed to check out the whole whitewater deal, ended up focusing on sordid details and a blue dress. the reality about whitewater was plenty worth the distraction that the whole series of events was.
yes, news does start somewhere, but each article does end up on an editor's desk before it gets printed. reporters are also required to look the other way on certain cases, like the whole anthrax deal. the 'parallel universes' article above just talks about a few examples of why the american media is completely bogus. there's a difference between knowing that it is bogus and knowing exactly HOW it is. tends to make you more angraaaay! raaar! :-)
powerful conspirators will have to factor in how to avoid being caught (like any criminal), but it is definitely not impossible. if it were, then why do we still not really know who all killed kennedy? it sure wasn't lee harvey oswald all by himself!
your comments are very well thought-out and make logical sense, but there is a difference between our media in principle and in practice.
it's really tough to write an anti song without writing stupid lyrics. the beastie boys song and the one that zack de la rocha did were pretty dumb. i guess the largest part of the challenge is deciding how to write lyrics that don't include buzzwords of the day like 'WMD' or 'foreign policy' or 'globalization'. of course they're all worth talking about, but it seems like there is more artistic value to something like "stop, children, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down." sorry DONE211, but it also seems like war sounds have been done (no pun intended).
Jul 28, 2003 01:55 am of course it's possible to avoid being caught... but no one wants to get caught in the first place.
i think both points of view are feasible. i dont see how you could prove it either way. i hope i'm not sounding like some idealist with my previous comments. i have hunch you're more politically attuned than i am, mink--possibly you have been immersed in politics and worldly affairs for some time longer than i have been. but what can i say. in my spare time i'm an armchair chaos mathematician. i believe that things slip through the cracks. :)
radiohead write good politically-tinged lyrics. thom has a knack for stepping way back and seeing a particular kind of 'big picture.'
Jul 28, 2003 02:04 pm the only way you could prove either way is by looking at what has actually happened. this proves beyond any reasonable doubt that it definitely is the case.
i have just been looking into these exact topics for a while, doing a lot of critical thinking, sorting out the shocking conspiracies that actually happened versus the garbage that keeps people looking forward to...what was it, dB? 2010?
good call on radiohead.
Jul 28, 2003 02:27 pm 2010, baby, we're all gone anyway, so none of this other crap matters.
Jul 28, 2003 03:27 pm No, it's 2010 according to the "official government document" that I saw, and you better believe it! If not those aliens will stick one of those anal probes up your butt!
:-D
Jul 28, 2003 06:58 pm Actually it's 2103, they told me ;-)
Jul 28, 2003 07:05 pm its 0105 here...what the hell kinda timezone you guys talking about?
Jul 28, 2003 08:07 pm Mat, they lied to you so you'd think you had more time, it's all a conspiracy, I am sure Minkus has some facts to back it up :-D
Jul 28, 2003 08:44 pm you bet i do! uhh...look behind you!
Jul 29, 2003 11:04 am "radiohead write good politically-tinged lyrics. thom has a knack for stepping way back and seeing a particular kind of 'big picture.'"
That must be why their stuff is so depressing! Not that you can tell what he's saying in any case (at least on the live shows I've seen) sounds like one long morbid wail to my ears, but people seem to like 'em so what do I know!
My daughter once said to me (she's 18 now) "Dad I loike music from the 60s and 70s...its always so happy" - guess that was before she got into The Doors!
Jul 29, 2003 01:14 pm the doors were so happy...yeah they were dark, but they were celebratory too. that's what rock's missing these days. i wish that was still cool. radiohead are depressing sometimes, but not in a stereotypical way. thom is purposefully vague, but at the same time ultra-specific...he uses original imagery. the result is that you the listener have to connect the pictures to get a hint of what he's talking about. no steretotypes in this band. no 'i'm trapped' or 'i can't see' or 'i'm blind'...i swear, i keep hearing those same three lines in nearly every radio rock song...for the past ten years. its the same song on the radio! always! it makes a mockery of the 'artists.'
Jul 30, 2003 06:46 am Being depressed sees to be hip with the kids currently, so radiohead fit the bill.
Not sure what you mean about the Doors being 'happy' that wouldn't be my description, but the did come up with some good tunes (Light My Fire etc) which I haven't heard from Radiohead. Though comparisons are of course silly as they are very diferent styles/times.
But thankfully occasionaly kids do remember they are supposed to be having fun and then you get something upbeat and exciting like the White Stripes coming along! Yipee. And then you remember why rock is so GOOOOD.
Incidentaly, I blame U2 for all this depressing stuff myself - always took themselves far too seriously IMO!
Jul 30, 2003 07:39 am I'm with glynb, I don't think the Doors were "happy", I love the Doors, I love their music and all that, but happy? I don't see that at all...generally speaking. Jim Morrison was a disturbed fella.
As far as kids being depressed, I don't think thats a "current" thing, most kids, at certain ages (typically when about to get out of high school and are unsure of what comes next) tend to get depressed or very distant. Which, looking back, I can understand, the ease of high school is over, ya actually have to go out and earn your way in the world. Typically attitudes and beliefs change quickly, "cliques" change rapidly and THEN you begin to find out what your made of...
Jul 30, 2003 12:21 pm ...back to the origional topic as a matter of explination....
Showing dead bodies publicly is a violation of the geneva conventions...the point most people miss is that the US is not a signature of the Convention, we just use it as a matter of guidance. Which is why we can maintain custody of our own people when they commit war crimes. essentially we're supposed to be nice people :) You never heard the bitching and moaning other countries had toward us when one of our soldiers punched a prisoner in kosovo (I think he was bitten...those prisoners were weird I've heard though)... I think he got an Article 15 (max 1/2 of 2 month pay, restriction, extra duty, etc...usually a lot less) ...instead of the 3 years in prison.
imagine getting a job later in life though...
"Do you have any felonies on your record?"
"uhhh...no... just international warcrimes..."
Jul 30, 2003 02:44 pm depression is mass marketed today. it's an attitude that sells, these days. in my opinion, its reach has something to do with kids wanting to believe they are special in a callous world that beats them down.
the doors being happy: 'celebratory' is what i meant. i love the doors. jim revels in darkness, and that's a form of celebration. you know who else does that? danzig.
radiohead do take themselves seriously. but you havent heard good songs from them? ok computer in my opinion is one of the best albums ever made, and i dont say that because i identify with depressing lyrics: i have this problem where i cant even HEAR lyrics without a lyric sheet.
Jul 31, 2003 06:15 am "radiohead do take themselves seriously. but you havent heard good songs from them? ok computer in my opinion is one of the best albums ever made, and i dont say that because i identify with depressing lyrics: i have this problem where i cant even HEAR lyrics without a lyric sheet."
I must admit I haven't heard the album. I suppose I will one day. I'm usualy behind the times when it comes to music. I never get into what everyone tells me i should be into until its not hip any more, which isn't necessarily a bad way to be. It's just that I've seen at least two live concerts broadcasts by Radiohead, one in Germany and Glastonbury (UK) and
neither of them inspired me to get hold of their stuff, life's too short to seek out depressing material, I want to be entertained and uplifted! But like I say, they are very big so there must be a market for their stuff.
"Showing dead bodies publicly is a violation of the geneva conventions...the point most people miss is that the US is not a signature of the Convention, we just use it as a matter of guidance."
I genuinely did not know the US was not a signatory, but I guess they have a history of not signing up to things, like the Kyoto protocol to try to save the planet, also have they ever paid up their UN subs arears?
As for the photos, if it prevents one US soldier from being killed by someone out there who has hopes that the regime will come back as it was, if it helps Iraqis to believe that the past has gone and to have faith in a better future, then it was worth publishing them. In Italy they published photos of Mussilini after he was hanged during WW2. Whilst I don't support this routinely happening for ordinary soldiers, there are exceptions where brutal dictators are concerned IMO.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.