Huffington on the Media on Dead Mine Rescuers
I’ve been only half paying attention to the ongoing saga of the miners trapped in the Utah coal mine. Something about the “Little Boy” (or adult mine workers) “Trapped in a Well” (or a mine) storyline seems so clichéd, so tailor-made for shallow, breathless coverage by a growing crush of media, that I feel a personal duty to avoid the story, the same way I feel obligated to say “no” to any extended warranty while buying consumer electronics, just on general principle. Which is callous and insensitive, I realize; those miners and their families are going through a horrible ordeal, and any decent human, given half a chance, would (and should) feel powerful emotional sympathies. Which may just be another way of saying the same thing: in a context in which large corporations are mobilizing armies of bubbleheads and technicians and equipment to tap into my essential humanity for the purpose of selling soap (or whatever CNN is hawking during the commercial breaks from the mine coverage), cultivating my inner cynic becomes an act of justifiable (if regrettable) self defense.
I did have a moment when listening to NPR the other day when it occurred to me how the rescue effort has played out like a metaphorical version of the Iraq war: ill-equipped, ill-trained (if sincere) efforts in the early going (like the True Believer twenty-somethings who staffed the CPA in the early Iraq reconstruction effort); followed by people with some sense of what needed to be done, but without the required expertise to pull it off against a tight schedule (as when the initial rescue wells went astray and missed the miners’ presumed location); followed by repeated expensive-but-doomed efforts that amounted to too little, too late. And the whole time, we had the spectacle of those in power (generals and politicians in the case of Iraq, mine owner and Bush-appointed mining safety official in the case of the collapsed mine), posing for the cameras and apparently focused at least as much on maintaining a fiction that they bore no blame for the unfolding disaster as on actually living up to their obligations.
Sigh. And now the metaphor gets an extra layer, as we grapple with the sunk-cost fallacy: More are continuing to die as a result of the initial mistakes. Do we keep going as a tribute to the fallen? Or pull out and face the realization that they died in vain?
Anyway, I was interested by Arianna Huffington’s commentary on the media’s coverage of the affair: It Shouldn’t Have Taken the Deaths of Three Miners to Get the Media to Focus on Mine Safety.
So last night, suddenly, after the tragic second collapse at the Utah mine, there was a dramatic shift in the TV coverage of the story. All at once, faux folksy mining boss Bob Murray, who had been everywhere, was nowhere to be found (even sending in a junior executive to handle this morning’s press conference). In his place, at long last, were actual scientists, and experts on mine safety and the workings of the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Bush mine safety czar Richard “Recess Appointment” Stickler was also absent last night, and did not appear again until this morning’s press conference.
So many questions were finally being asked. Prompting one more: What took so long? Why did it take a tragic second collapse before the Murray and Strickler PR Show was finally replaced by actual journalism?
On the specific question she raises about the media, I think it’s just the latest in a long line of examples of how entertainment and business values are displacing journalistic ethics. Bloggers are gradually assuming the role of journalists. Which I realize is problematic in various ways, but it’s also just the reality of the situation.
August 18th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I did have a moment while I was reading this, that I was reminded of a Stretch Armstrong action figure I had when I was five or six. A fellow can turn any discussion of anything into a discussion of anything else if he stretches his metaphors far enough, but its up to the reader to decide how elastic those metaphors really are.
The idea that bloggers can be journalists is silly. Bloggers aren’t journalists, they’re editorialists. They’re guys who either a) read news stories and write their opinions on them ,which isn’t journalism or b) read other people’s blogs with which they are predisposed to agree and re-write the blog entries they like in their own words and provide a link to the original blog. That isn’t journalism either. Other than a few at the top of the blogger food chain, there are very few people writing blogs of any political stance who have the access to the sort of first-hand information that would allow them to write anything other than opinion, anyway. If we can’t trust Dan Rather, who at least has direct access to Washington and has actually interviewed the major players to get the story straight, how are we to trust whatever array of basically anonymous commentators, armed with nothing more than the morning newspaper and a gut feeling to keep us straight, no matter how intelligent, well-educated, or well-intentioned they may be?
Bloggers are also partisans. Nobody ever started a political blog because they wanted to remain neutral. Nobody trusts a partisan, not in the real world, anyway. There’s too much partisanship in the media, already without compounding the problem with the further introduction of an anonymous internet where basically anyone can say anything he wants to utterly devoid of any editorial restraint. None of this is to insinuate that everyone (or anyone) who writes a blog is dishonest; its just saying that we are who we are, we calls ‘em like we sees them whether we really sees them with our own eyes or not and even honest people filled with that ol’ party zeal are far too eaten up with the cause to be trusted as impartial sources on any level.
August 19th, 2007 at 5:42 am
LB,
I also tend to trust people who make their living at a given profession and have a lot to lose. If a blogger tells a bald face lie and is caught, who cares, he goes to his nine to five the next day and brings home a check at the end of the week. Whereas someone like Dan Rather throws a carrier away when he not only gets caught promoting forged documents, but continues to stand behind those documents even after they are found out.
But I think there is problem with real journalists as well, part of it is that they are lazy, and part is the 24 hour news cycle. It is more important to get it first than to get it right. Some of the laziness comes from having a monopoly for so long, Bloggers, Fox, and talk radio have introduced a level of competition even if it is partisan that is helping there some. I am stuck with getting breaking news from CNN and Fox news because the pictures are still worth a thousand words. But I prefer to get in-depth analysis from talk radio and newspapers, then fact check them a little as best as I can. They have careers to lose if they get too much wrong.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:34 am
Yes, and as much as internet and radio talk sources present themselves as alternatives to TV news and print media, they are ultimately dependent upon traditional media for their content. Rush Limbaugh and Josh Marshall don’t break stories. They find stories in the newspaper or on TV to interpret for their audience. They may have valid arguments that the “mainstream media” is approaching a story incorrectly, giving it too much importance or too little, but, while this can be seen as a valuable auxiliary to traditional media, it hardly constitutes an alternative to it.
The roots of the Talk Radio / Blogger axis are somewhat troubling, as well, in that so many radio talk guys, and bloggers, are people have started their shows or blogs, based on the idea that the mainstream media is too liberal or too conservative. This notion explicitly implies that it is the purpose and duty of the talkshow host or blogger to save the listener or reader from the other side’s lies and distortions. This is a crusader mentality, and hardly conducive to objective newsgathering.
You bring up the 24 hour news cycle. The 24 hour news cycle is problematic because it is a very rare day when there is actually 24 hours worth of important news. Realistically, its a rare week that has seven days worth of important news stories.
This is true, even in wartime. A friend and I were watching CNN just before the initial bombing of Iraq and, even with such an important event about to unfold, the network’s stretching to fit airtime was comical: “Will the US bomb Iraq? Here is an expert who says the US will bomb Iraq. Here is an expert who says we won’t bomb Iraq. Stay tuned for a panel discussion among several experts, some who believe the US will bomb Iraq, while others disagree. Charles Von So and So is a noted historian, best known for his books on Aaron Burr and Abraham Lincoln. We’ll get his opinion on whetther or not the US will bomb Iraq in a moment, but first, Bill Bennett…”
August 19th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Interesting points all around. If you’ll pardon my selective quoting:
leftbehind:
shcb:
I think all of these statements together get to the bottom of what’s changing about the media. I’ll just add this: I believe what is fundamentally missing is in-depth reporting, which is currently often confused with in-depth analysis.
It’s absolutely true that bloggers and talk radio hosts and other editorialists are not reporters. But too much news I think has become simply reporting the event and it’s immediate consequences. And I think this is where the 24-hour news cycle comes in. I’ll modify leftbehind’s statement about there being not enough important news to fill 24 hours and say that there are only just enough important events in 24 hours to fill a 20-minute (or so) news loop.
News reporting is a business, and the free market has optimized that loop (or in the case of the internet, a page of news links) to be the size of news chunk that best fits the demand. The 24-hour news feed isn’t a long sequence of different news stories — it’s a regular repetition and evolution of that news loop, so that anybody tuning it will get the latest version of top event reporting within the time available.
The really unfortunate thing is that when news reporting is so optimized around that chunk size, theres no time for fact-checking, for reporting on a news-makers’ history, for putting events in the context of relevant facts and other stories. This makes the news is easier to game (by making statements that nobody will have time to debunk), and tends to favor stories that can be completely covered within the least time (human interest, celebrity news, political talking points, violent acts etc). So for those of us who very basically want more depth and are willing to spend the time on it, the only thing that can fill the demand is editorialism, so we listen to talk radio and write lengthy posts on political blogs, scraping for facts to back up our opinions and intuitions.
So what’s the solution? There probably isn’t one. Although pulp reporting has always been with us, there was a time when reporters were more inclined to push the meaty, harder-to-tell stories because it was the Right Thing to Do. And really, I think there are a lot of these people still working at the newspapers, where the format is more friendly to in-depth reporting; we’ve mostly gotten what we’ve collectively asked for in TV coverage (and this is why I never watch TV news in large part).
It’s just sad that the TV news loop seems to set the agenda, and too much in-depth news reporting is dismissed as editorialism (and vice versa).
To take one example, I think it’s a real shame that al Jazeera has been cast as anti-American propaganda, when it really does seem to merely be reporting news that’s close to home that happens to be unflattering to the interests of people in power.
August 19th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
to borrow the tag line of my favorite liberal pundit, Linda Ellerbee, “and so it goes”
August 19th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Good points, YMatt, and you’re a good man to point out the essential difference between reporting and analysis. I think that’s at the heart of what all three of us are trying to get at here.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I’ve got no objection to anything said on this thread, great analysis all around. To be added, perhaps, is how much of “news” is pushed forward to help fulfill some agenda (and whether any stories repressed.) This refers to a wider scope than the 9/11 blackout/hit pieces (if any journalist dared write a balanced article pointing out the flaws in the official conspiracy theory they can be assured it would not make it past their editor’s desk.) Who owns the media, are their interests in general and overall served by the stories that are run? Absolutely. Are the injustices of the world that our press reports upon “of interest” on their own merits (rarely) or because the reporting of them serves a military, political and corporate purpose (almost always.) Does anyone have a good idea about how much the CIA spends (never mind the present government administration) on ensuring “the news” goes in the general direction that they want?
August 21st, 2007 at 4:05 am
Well, so much for a civil discourse, let’s do it again sometime guys.
Knarly,
You are an idiot, I don’t mean to insult you, I am using that term in the clinical sense. You are certainly well read on the subject so you are not ignorant of what happened on 911, you seem a smart enough guy, capable of making rational decisions, so you are not stupid, that only leaves an idiot.
In America we have the first amendment that protects the press and individuals from congress passing laws abridging free speech, this amendment of course is not absolute, none of them are. This amendment only gives you the right to speak freely, it doesn’t give you the right to be heard. News agencies are private endeavors, they are under no obligation to publish your hogwash, and they certainly are under no obligation to publish your hogwash until every man woman and child is brainwashed into believing it. Besides, your nonsense has been published, it has been discussed by Rosie on primetime, movies have been made, articles have been written and published. Everyone has seen, few have bought. Now you can be a true believer, and as far as I can see you can write about it to your little heart’s content here and other blogs, climb the fence of the White House and yell at the top of your lungs and you may even get to profess your beliefs on national TV. But guess what, we don’t have to listen.
Sorry guys, but it needed to be said.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:36 am
I think more and more people are tuning into news stations because they are telling them what they want to hear, not necessarily what the real story is. I think that is especially true for talk radio. And I totally agree that “in-depth analysis” is becoming blurred with “in-depth reporting”.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:32 am
I’ve been thinking some lately about the way the Internet (in particular, though talk radio and cable tv and the trend away from real journalism in which subject-matter experts do in-depth investigating and reporting are all part of the picture, too) has made it easier for people who are inclined, for whatever reason, to favor a particular interpretation of reality to convince themselves that that version is correct.
Basically, if your personal “scientific method” is more about seeking out confirming data, rather than disconfirming data, the ease and efficiency that the net brings to the creation and distribution of information (and the intentional elimination of intermediate filters via the net’s “dumb in the middle” design) means you will be able to succeed spectacularly in that effort.
In a way, it’s analogous to the way the steam engine magnified human muscle power, or the way the internal combustion engine and the highway system magnified humans’ ability to move themselves from one place to another. Except in this case what got magnified was our sensory abilities, our ability to use our eyes and ears to gather information about the world and integrate it with our mental models of what’s happening out there. Our perceptions, basically.
Obviously, this process has been going on for a long time; there were newspapers and telegraphs and radios and televisions, and all of them have had an impact on human perception. But the Internet has, I think, carried us past a certain threshhold that makes this effect especially powerful. These days, a person can take a suspicion and amplify it into a full-blown conspiracy theory, amassing data and coordinating with fellow conspirators from all over the globe, building what looks to that person like an overwhelming case in practically no time at all.
Of course, this isn’t all about people deluding themselves. The same forces also make it easier to quickly identify and amplify accurate perceptions. The technology itself is “truth neutral”; you can find whatever it is you’re looking for. It’s up to you to decide what you’re going to look for, and the seductive nature of confirmation bias means that for a lot of people, what they end up looking for is confirmation of their pre-existing beliefs.
I think I’m going to write up a longer version of this idea and post it on the site under the title, “The Perception Engine”. I’m interested in what you all think about the idea.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:18 pm
JBC,
Sounds fun, the thing that I wonder is does it matter? But I will wait to discuss that on your next post.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
jbc - Sounds valid. “Seductive nature of confirmation bias” is clever, the concept is something I have been mindful of in trying to be objective when examining the flip side of articles by certain “out there” bloggers. Most importantly, that concept fits like a glove with the stated principles of Operation Mockingbird.
I would strongly suggest familiarizing yourself if you are not already with that program.
shcb - I liked your post, basically you are asserting your right to remain ignorant, and I guess we’ll have to respect that. Further, your continued name calling and vociferous angry opinions in response to what are basically questions in my previous post simply puts a spotlight that you have a deep fear to consider the uncomfortable. “Cognitive dissonance” is the clinical term for you.
shcb, if you had written that post for a 9th grade civics class, you would probably get a C+ or even better, as it reflects well the principles one would find in a textbook. It does not reflect what is seen in the real world, where yes you do see all kinds of diverse points of view but dissenting voices are placed on page 13 or ridiculed not on their merits or lack thereof but rather they are ridiculed for their divergence from the well - groomed common perception.
For example, where were all the dissenting voices in the lead up to the Iraq war? Answer: they were almost totally buried in the American press. That is the observation. Go find your own theory, but in so doing you will need to research the available evidence:
Consolidation of major media
Ownership of major media (subsidiaries of companies that make what???)
Stated objectives of CIA and societal “leaders”
(a) historical context of societal manipulations
(b) operation mockingbird
(c) subsequent activities
Opinions of independent experts (i.e. try to avoid the Fox News shills)
There are tons and tons of examples that support the opinion of a less than completely free press. For example:
Also, recall this:
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 am
The press has always been accused of trying to hide dissent against the Iraq War. If that was their aim, they have done a spectacularly poor job of doing so. The dissent against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been among the most well-documented protest movements in American history. Was there a single college student who marched anywhere in the world who wasn’t on CNN for at least 30 seconds? Has there been a single celebrity who has garnered less attention by dissenting against either war? How many mothers of dead servicemen have become famous in their passionate support of the war?
If you have a moment, take out a piece of notebook paper and fold it down the middle. On one side of the fold, write the names of well-known people (i.e. people who are well-known to the average person, who only watches ABC, NBC and CBS) who are not traditional political pundits but are known for their outspoken views against the Iraq War. On the other side of the fold, make a similar list, only with well-known people who are known for their outspoken support of the war. The list of well-publicized dissenters will certainly outgrow the other.
There is a good argument, however, that while the media wasn’t hiding dissent, it was sabotaging the cause a bit by promoting the wrong face of dissent. There were certainly better, more credible voices against the War than Eminem, the Dixie Chicks and Jeanine Garafolo, but media’s emphasis on celebrity tended to crowd intelligent dissent out of the picture in favor of more flashy celebrity commentators. I’m not sure how far Steve Earle got in school, but he dissects world affairs as if he never got past the 6th grade. Couldn’t the media have found someone more intelligent to present an educated commentary on the Afghan War? How many serious students of history and politics were never even heard as Sean Penn giggled to himself about WMDs at the Oscars? I’m no great fan of Noam Chomsky, but shouldn’t he get more airtime than Rosi O’Donell for chrissakes?
August 25th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
In response to “leftbehind Says:
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 am”
Was there a single college student who marched anywhere in the world who wasn’t on CNN for at least 30 seconds?
Yes, in fact very, very few were. Further, that coverage was microscopic relative to the overwhelming pro-war commentaries.
Has there been a single celebrity who has garnered less attention by dissenting against either war?
Yes. Celebrities who dissented against the war in 2002/03 were marginalized. Ed Asner might be a good example.
How many mothers of dead servicemen have become famous in their passionate support of the war?
that’s a pretty despicable question even for you to be asking Leftbehind. anyway, seems the president mentioned one or two in many speeches, so they are not ignored.
If you have a moment, take out a piece of notebook paper and fold it down the middle. On one side of the fold, write the names of well-known people (i.e. people who are well-known to the average person, who only watches ABC, NBC and CBS) who are not traditional political pundits but are known for their outspoken views against the Iraq War. On the other side of the fold, make a similar list, only with well-known people who are known for their outspoken support of the war. The list of well-publicized dissenters will certainly outgrow the other.
Nice try, sneaky. People are more likely to remember the people who display remarkable courage by being outspoken critics of the military industrial media complex war machine, while those who sing with the choir are unlikely to be remembered. You might benefit from taking some time to learn about sampling techniques and statistics.
There is a good argument, however, that while the media wasn’t hiding dissent, it was sabotaging the cause a bit by promoting the wrong face of dissent.
a bit ???
Couldn’t the media have found someone more intelligent to present an educated commentary on the Afghan War?
It was not a matter of finding, it was CHOOSING those people deliberatly
How many serious students of history and politics were never even heard as Sean Penn giggled to himself about WMDs at the Oscars? thousands
I’m no great fan of Noam Chomsky, but shouldn’t he get more airtime than Rosi O’Donell for chrissakes?
No. It does not make any difference as long as the level of debate amounts to basically misquoting people and then calling people names. Rosi is much more susceptible to insults about appearance and lifestyle than is Noam.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Knarly - What? Alex Jones didn’t have a protestors on his show? It was probably because they were being interviewed everywhere else. You and I can both agree that the media didn’t handle the protest movement as it should have, but it was hardly ignored.
How was Ed Asner marginalized? Was he passed over for Brad Pitt’s role in “Troy” or something because of his antiwar stance? How were the Dixie Chicks marginalized by their anti-war views? They probably have twice the fan base they had before the war, have won a grammy and are the subjects of a sympathetic documentary. Steve Earle was a cult figure before he wrote “John Walker’s Blues -” now he’s the subject of a serious biography and a documentary of his own. Every entertainer should be so marginalized. Sean Penn’s won an Oscar since he spoke out, and how, exactly, has Jennifer Aniston’s career been impacted by her “fuck Bush” statements?
Yes, people are more likely to remember people who are outspoken critics of war, particularly if there are a lot of them, they are very vocal, well known and you see them a lot.
A despicable question? There are no despicable questions - only despicable people who won’t answer them (and I think I asked you a question you never found your way towards answering on the “Admiration and Envy” thread, while we’re on the subject. Suffing Sucatash!)
And yes, I realize that Noam Chomsky is probably one of the Shadow Police or something, but I’d still consider him more of a go-to guy on the Iraq War than Rosie O’Donell, and can’t imagine why you would feel differently.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Make that Suffering Sucatash!
August 25th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Another question you probably won’t answer is this (and it’s an honest one): when you talk about the “overwhelming pro-war commentaries” from the pre-war media, who are we talking about? If we eliminate all the cronies, all the partisans such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannety and the Fox News crowd, was the media really all that unified behind the War in Iraq? Was the New York Times for the war? Was the L.A. Times? Were CBS, ABC, NBC all presenting a unified front in favor of war? Were most of the nation’s major newspapers? Was CNN? C-Span? Was MSNBC unilaterally pro-war back then, which was a while before they started aping Fox?
I’m not trying to say that there was no pro-war faction in the media, nor am I trying to advance that old saw about the Liberal Media Agenda. I’m simply saying that, as I remember it, a debate did take place, whether it was flawed or not. I honestly don’t believe there has ever been a shortage of anti-war voices in what we would call here the mainstream media, whether or not they were the right ones.
I should probably ask someone other than Knarly, since I would really like a serious answer to this question. Guys?
August 25th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Here in Denver we are blessed with two newspapers for as small a city as we are, they combined a few years ago but still maintain some independence. The Post is left center, the news is right center, the Post moved slightly more left a few years ago when they hired a Managing Editor (I think that is his title) from the Boston Globe. There were articles pro and con in both papers, of course more pro in the News and more against in the Post. Bias plus bias equals balance. Even Fox News had people that argued both sides of the issue, you mentioned Sean Hanity, remember Allen Combs? He’s there arguing the opposing view every night. What Knarly fails to realize is that having the right to speak doesn’t mean others have the obligation to listen, and if they do listen, they have no obligation to agree. Unless everyone believes as he does, SOMEONE in the press is being silenced, because if the news was getting out, surely everyone would agree with him. I think we should be attacking Iran as we speak, but because Katie isn’t telling her few remaining listeners that we should be attacking Iran doesn’t mean there is a left wing shadow government run by Nancy P that is giving Katie marching orders, The Perky One just doesn’t agree with me, most Americans and almost all the rest of the world doesn’t agree with me on this one, I can live with that. Hell, I’m probably wrong.
The Dixie Chicks is a great case study. Early in their career they had a small but loyal fan base because they are incredibly talented, they wanted to go big time so they signed on with Sony, who sent them to superstardom, the place they wanted to go. When they got there they didn’t like being a “pop” group and they didn’t like to be told what to wear and what to sing, so they reneged on their contract so they could get “back to their roots”, the traditional country western crowd. This is a very patriotic crowd, the girls said what they said, their audience exercised their right not to buy records, the radio stations exercised their rights not to play the songs, and congress passed no laws abridging them of their right to free speech. And speak they did, they didn’t apologize to their fans, they screamed their protests on the morning shows, they did a semi nude cover with anti-American slogans painted on their bodies, and still the country western crowd didn’t buy their records or go to their concerts, shocking. So who loves them now? The “pop” crowd, only problem, the pop crowd doesn’t like country music. But somehow they are the victims.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
In response to “leftbehind Says:
August 25th, 2007 at 7:40 pm”
Knarly - What? Alex Jones didn’t have a protestors on his show?
don’t know, I’ve never watched his show.
How was Ed Asner marginalized? Was he passed over for Brad Pitt’s role in “Troy” or something because of his antiwar stance?
got me there, I have no idea. I can’t tell what might have been. (stop with the asner/troy/pitt visuals already will ya?)
How were the Dixie Chicks marginalized by their anti-war views?
they lost much exposure, e.g. were not played on radio for a long time. yes their fan base might have grown in correlation with anti-war sentiment, but I would bet beer that there was very little if any cause-and-effect relationship there.
They probably have twice the fan base they had before the war, have won a grammy and are the subjects of a sympathetic documentary.
So, you say “A” then “B” therefore “A” caused “B”? More rwnj Big Bogus Logic from Lefty. Documentary? I never heard of the documentary, can’t be that big a deal - except maybe for the people who were already fans (sounds like you.)
Steve Earle was a cult figure before he wrote “John Walker’s Blues -” now he’s the subject of a serious biography and a documentary of his own.
(when did he write that?) Steve Earle was far, far from being an obscure cult figure in 2003.
Sean Penn’s won an Oscar since he spoke out,
Perhaps Sean is the exception that proves the rule, he has been a remarkable spokesperson (not necessarily a good one) (see Hurricane Katrina involvement)
and how, exactly, has Jennifer Aniston’s career been impacted by her “fuck Bush” statements?
Such a fair question (not)! So let me answer thus: she was passed over as the new “Cover Girl” model, turned away from a leading Broadway role, Prince Harry refused to return her phone calls until she recanted her politics, and Demi Moore turned down a lesbian scene with her out of pure spite for her comment. So “and how, exactly,” are you going to prove any of that false or prove your rwnj buddies little tiny brained pet theory that her career was aided by her political stance?
Yes, people are more likely to remember people who are outspoken critics of war, particularly if there are a lot of them, they are very vocal, well known and you see them a lot.
You are very wise, and good looking too.
A despicable question? There are no despicable questions - only despicable people who won’t answer them
okay, i’ll give you that for now without prejudice as I reserve the right to disagree; but I do not understand the relevance of your question “How many mothers of dead servicemen have become famous in their passionate support of the war?” Let’s see, a mother loses her child in a war she finds that she can not (did not or can no-longer) support, speaks out about that and in so doing she gains notoriety. So, explain to me what exactly is the point of your question?
(and I think I asked you a question you never found your way towards answering on the “Admiration and Envy” thread, while we’re on the subject. Suffing Sucatash!)
I’ll see if I can find it and respond if it is not another stupid question about Alex or InfoWars (which have some great stuff and some horrible stuff, for those with intelligence enough to DISCERN the difference (apparently not you from your comments on the “Admiration and Envy” thread. I haven’t looked at that thread for a while (will do so now) but most of your questions were leaning toward the ridiculous rhetorical (i.e. you and your rwnj’s have a pet answer from your Republican party speaking notes memo sheet while everyone else has a better answer encompasses far more knowledge than will ever fit into your red state.)
And yes, I realize that Noam Chomsky is probably one of the Shadow Police or something, but I’d still consider him more of a go-to guy on the Iraq War than Rosie O’Donell, and can’t imagine why you would feel differently.
Very insightful of you about the “shadow police”, I’ve heard mention of a “left wing gatekeeper” role but reserve judgement until (if ever) I can digest the info from both sides of that debate; …you imagined far more in my response than what I had said. All I said was that Rosie was misquoted (lots.) But I took my eye off the ball (ball=Rosi’s objections to the Iraq war) and was looking at the bat (bat=Rosi’s questions about 911). So to explain, I was referring to that fact that Rosi was presented as saying outright that “911 was an inside job” when at the time she did not say that. All she was saying was that WTC7 fell at (near?) freefall speed, symmetrically, into its footprint, in a manner heretofore never seen from anything but controlled demolition, and how was that possible? It was a question. The overwhelming rwnj media response to that was to spew frothing at the mouth comments on to the airwaves that she was stupid, irresponsible, fat, etc. which may or may not be true, but they do nothing to address the fact that her questions (not statements at the time of the debate, but questions based on observations of a building falling (as a picture perfect controlled demolition) which were basically true. WTC7 fell just like a controlled demolition. But I digress to talk apples when the subject is oranges, my bad and me apologize.
Regarding “leftbehind Says:
August 25th, 2007 at 7:55 pm”
I honestly don’t believe there has ever been a shortage of anti-war voices in what we would call here the mainstream media, whether or not they were the right ones.
I should probably ask someone other than Knarly, since I would really like a serious answer to this question. Guys? You’re kidding, right? RIGHT??? Why don’t you ask shcb, he’ll give you a “fair and balanced” answer (not)
By the way, do you think you will ever get the real America back, or has it been lost thusly (per Boston Legal clip):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P682rGIhZwI
August 26th, 2007 at 5:51 am
Knarly,
I won’t give a fair and balanced answer, I’m an advocate just like you. I give my side, you give yours, balance. Toby Keith writes songs with a pro American slant, he is a hero with his target audience. The Chicks take an anti-American stance, they have to go find a new audience, balance. Do you think maybe the whole Brad, Angie, Jen thing may have had something to do with her not getting the Cover Girl gig? While many companies would like to capitalize on the notoriety of a situation like this three way love affair, the Cover Girl position is somewhat long term, there is a possibility of nasty event happening with those 3, maybe Cover Girl didn’t think it was worth the risk. Personally, I didn’t realize she had made statements against the war, maybe I remember a little something about it, but no more so than any other star. She hasn’t sustained it like Penn, The Chicks, or Clooney has she?
I always think it is funny that the boycott of “big oil” or a company that produces toy guns or god knows what else is a great and noble cause with liberals, but let a bunch of red necks decide not to purchase records from two cute and one rich fat chick and it is a crisis that threatens the American way of life.
August 26th, 2007 at 6:52 am
If you don’t know that Ed Asner was “marginalized” for his views, you shouldn’t have asserted so strongly that he was. That’s disingenuous and dumb.
As for the Dixie Chicks, they were dropped from country stations, just about the time they were starting to re-tool their image to cross over into the pop market, anyway. Their records were still played as much on pop stations after their comments on Bush, perhaps more as the group became a symbol of dissent in the face of attempted censorship. Clearly, the group became higher-profile in the non-country music press after their comments. “Taking The Long Way,” the first album the group released after the controversy, sold 526,000 copies in its first week, which made it the number one album on the Billboard 200 right out of the starting gate. The album would go on to win a Grammy. Make whatever cause-and-effect assumptions you feel like, I’m simply saying that the Chicks were hardly the victims of an effective media black out.
The documentary on the Dixie Chicks is called “Shut Up and Sing,” it’s no “Terrorstorm” but a lot more people have heard of it, and its actually a documentary.
When compared to the commercial success of the Dixie Chicks, Steve Earle’s cult status is even more apparent. How much Steve Earle have you ever heard on country radio, even before “John Walker’s Blues?” In 2003, Steve Earle had not entered a single on the Billboard Charts in 13 years.
How can Sean Penn be a remarkable spokeman if he’s not a good one?
I never said Jennifer Aniston’s career was helped by her “fuck Bush statements.” I simply hold that it hasn’t hurt her. She’s still as high profile and popular as she ever has been. Courtney Cox won’t make out with me, either, and I supported the War.
You’re absolutely correct when you call me wise, but I would be more flattered by your characterization of me as “good looking” if you had ever actually seen me. Granted, I come across well in conversations like this, and my naturally bubbly personality might lead you to believe I’m cuter than I actually am, but my ears stick out a bit and my hair is thinning. Thanks anyway - that was a really sweet thing to say.
By asking my question regarding military mothers, I was drawing attention to Cindy Sheehan, who was not a media figure before the war, but who has since become a well-recognized public figure, political candidate and lightning rod for political dissent. Were the media making a concerted attempt to hide anti-war protests and marginalize anti-war sentiment, as you suggest they have, Cindy Sheehan is the last person they would have put on television, especially at the time she was at her highest profile. How does it help corporate media sweep dissent under the rug to give airtime to a grieving mother who is outspoken, well-spoken, and has become a physical rallying point for the protest movement?
My question on the “Admiration and Envy” thread is not really about the content on “Infowars,” as it is a question regarding your reading comprehension/retention. I find it odd that you can spend as much time as you do on a site that is primarily concerned with the workings of what Alex Jones calls “The Illuminati” and have, by your own admission, never heard of the Illuminati. That’s like reading “Roots” and never realizing Kunta Kintay was black. If you’d said “yes, I’ve read what Alex Jones has to say on the Illuminati, but I think it’s foolish,” I’d understand, and move on. But for you to say that you’ve never even encountered the concept after pouring over Infowars as much as you have suggests a profound inability to read a piece of information and understand what is being said. This has a direct bearing on your credibility here - how are we to take anything you post here on face value if we can’t say for certain whether or not you’ve actually been able to read and understand either your source material, or anything we have written. The fact that you have used the term “Illuminati” yourself on this very blog, is puzzling as well.
I’m glad my “Shadow Police” comment was so “insightful,” but I was kidding, and have no idea what you are trying to say. “Left wing gatekeeper?” Isn’t that who Rick Moranis was looking for in Ghostbusters?
Whatever Rosie said or didn’t say, and whatever the rightwing reaction to it, my assertion that she is a poor spokeswoman for any point of view still stands.
August 26th, 2007 at 6:55 am
And no, I wasn’t kidding. I really would like a serious answer to my question and, no, I don’t think you’re capable of giving one.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
leftbehind, my answers to your questions on the Admiration and Envy thread were provided at 12:52 am August 26th, or a full 6 hours before your insulting, stupid, and stupendously inaccurate speculations in your previous two posts above.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
re: Ed Asner - The point all along was that it was “disingenuous and dumb” for you to suggest that people speaking out about the war enhanced their careers by doing so. There is no way to legitimately prove that inane assertion, or to disprove it. So I simply reflected your own argument back at you by saying that Asner suffered, and your response was that your own reflection was “disingenuous and dumb”. In any event, this might be of interest to Asner fans (which by now probably excludes all rwnj’s?)
www rense com/general70/asner.htm
re: Sean Penn - “remarkable“ was a poor choice of word, replace it with “notable“.
re: Cindy Sheehan – I suggest we agree to disagree here. My impression is that initially giving her exposure was like walking a lamb up to for a slow slaughter – almost like a sacrifice to Molech (a joke). The safe bet in the early Cindy days was that this average housewife would implode, self-destruct or shrivel up and vanish like any ordinary person subjected to the overwhelming onslaught of the pro-war proponents. That turned out to be a bad bet by the media execs. In an extraordinary way Sheehan faced the onslaught and overcame the extreme scrutiny and ultra harsh criticisms from all you pro-war rwnj’s on the street and on radio and tv. But I do not think she was victorious or even half as effective as she could have been on a level playing field, because the media execs still had control of the manner in which she was presented in the major broadcasts. Sheehan was often presented in a confusing context and then was usually sandwiched between very politically correct looking pro-war speakers in a far clearer context, in more sedate surroundings presenting pro-war messages. I may be wrong, but that was my observation. This is all a moot discussion now anyway, isn’t it?
August 26th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Lefty,
re: Illuminati - again, my answers to your questions on the Admiration and Envy thread were provided at 12:52 am August 26th, or a full 6 hours before your insulting and inaccurate speculations in your previous two posts above. However, you might want to consider that the people described in the links do meet, officially, on a regular schedule; then ask yourself whether it is reasonable to assume that during the course of these official gatherings there might be instances where people with related interests or goals might discuss those matters as they relate to moving forward into the future. That sounds reasonable to me, but evil? Naaaah. You’d have to have some actual real first hand exposure to those people to make that judgement.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
re: Left wing gatekeeper – not trying to say anything about that, thought that you were. This does not interest me.
re: Rosi – yea, whatever.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:46 am
re: re: Ed Asner - If this answer made any less sense, you’d be that bald guy in “The Princess Bride.”
re:re: Sean Penn - I agree. “Remarkable” was a poor choice of words.
re:re: Cindy Sheehan - Isn’t Moloch a figure of some importance to the Illuminati? I know Alex Jones discusses Moloch at some length, and William Cooper connected the worship of Moloch to the Mystery Religion on his “Hour of the Time” broadcasts. Any thoughts on this?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I wish I had more time to take apart rwnj comments, but knarly seems to be doing a decent job of it. Often feels like we are speaking completely different languages. (see post “Churchill, his arms wide”)
But just to mix things up, I will use a universal language to expose what is a pretty obvious lie. This ‘universal language’ is of course mathematics. In another post the rwnj crowd was saying something about how the highway of death wasn’t so deadly after all, Iraqi civilian casualties exaggerated for political gain etc. Yet in this same thread there were claims of 300 to 600 Iraqis killed and 1400 to 2000 vehicles. These two numbers just don’t add up. Let us say we think 500 Iraqis were killed. And 1500 vehicles… see where I am going with this? Each driver would have had to be towing two other vehicles. Does each bad guy Iraqi nasty drive until his ride gets gibbed, then run back and grab another? A typical military truck holds more than one bad guy typically. just sayin…
The answer is that rwnjs already have their answer: it is Whatever Supreme Leader Says It Is! (duh!)
You may now return to bickering about Ed Asner ;-)
August 27th, 2007 at 10:41 am
o and please read this:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle
August 27th, 2007 at 11:09 am
That would be utterly fascinating if it had anything to do with the conversation at hand.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:12 am
And while we’re on the subject of you being an asshole, quit trying to kiss Knarly’s ass. He read your dismissive comments regarding his “sooper dooper conspiracy theory,” and he knows what a shitty friend you really are.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Back to the subject at hand: Knarly - Isn’t Moloch the object of worship at Bohemian Grove? Wasn’t Moloch once worshipped by the Jews and how might that figure into 9-11?
August 27th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
OK, so you want to discuss famous folks and how support for Fuhrerous George’s Really Bad Idea helped or hurt their career?
How about Ted Nugent? (and can I just say it up front here: fucking typical)
“Facing a draft, Nugent bravely wet his pants
Rocker is all talk as he calls Obama, Hillary vile names
August 27, 2007
BY RICHARD ROEPER Sun-Times Columnist
So Ted Nugent roams a concert stage while toting automatic weapons, calls Barack Obama “a piece of —–” and says he told Obama to suck on one of his machine-guns. He also calls Hillary Clinton a “worthless bitch” and Dianne Feinstein a “worthless whore.”
That Nugent, he’s a man’s man. He talks the talk and walks the walk, right?
Except when it was time to register for the draft during the Vietnam era. By his own admission, Nugent stopped all forms of personal hygiene for a month and showed up for his draft board physical in pants caked with his own urine and feces, winning a deferment. Creative!
Ah, but that was a long time ago. Nugent isn’t just a washed-up rocker — he’s a right-wing madman who’s not afraid to call out some of the leading Democrats in language so vile it makes the Dixie Chick Natalie Maines’ comments about President Bush sound like a love poem.
You’d think even someone such as Sean Hannity would dismiss Nugent as a macho clown, desperate for attention.
Yeah, right.
In a discussion on his show last week, Hannity refused to condemn Nugent’s remarks, saying, “I like Ted Nugent . . . he’s a friend of mine,” and even laughing loudly as Alan Colmes read the transcript of some of Nugent’s remarks.
Funny. I don’t remember Hannity being so cavalier about the Dixie Chicks went they criticized Bush.
Not that he’s operating under a double standard or anything.”
so
Let us recap: the Dixie Chicks had one of their number say they were ashamed the pretzelnitwit was from Texas and the reichwing mob went nuts.
Ted Nugent crapped his pants to get outta Vietnam, but he is a reichwing hero (and gun loving über nutcase, borderline psycho).
Typical.
You sure you don’t want to babble on about Ed Asner?
August 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Oh, Iky…Count on you to turn a serious discussion into a name-calling contest. I wish you would introduce me to guy who lets you fly airplanes? I want to suck his dick, too.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
you start off with I’m an “asshole” and “shitty” then bemoan the tone?
oooookkkaaaaaayyyyy
Whatever you say Senator…
“Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.
Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.”
Are ALL Rethuggles™®© closet gay hypocrits?
August 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
C’mon, Inky-doo-doo, even you can come up with better than Ted Nugent - he’s an easy mark. Even I called him out as a jackass years ago, on this blog, back when JBC posted about Steve Earle and “John Walker’s Blues.” Your post says a lot more about you being a pussy and going after obvious targets that it has any bearing on anything I’ve posted on this thread.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I only use “asshole” because I believe in using clinical terms.
I’ve already declared myself openly gay on this blog a long time ago - do you have a problem with that, you social conservative bastard? Just because Jerry Falwell’s dead you think you can take his place? I’m black, too - you got a problem with that?
Are all Liberals homophobic cheesedicks, or just you?
August 27th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
What’s the matter, Anita Bryant? Cat got your tongue?
August 27th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Why don’t you climb down out of the Florida Sunshine Tree and say something?
August 27th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
enkidu,
Maybe the Iraqi’s left their vehicles and ran, 1500 vehicles, 1500 Iraqi’s, trucks and tanks start to explode in front of and behind, 1000 Iraqi’s run like hell to the nearest sand dune, 500 dead. That’s what I would have done.
The Washing Post said 200-300, the article I was citing said a more accurate Minimum was 800-1000, with 6000-8000 being unrealistic and 10,000 or tens of thousands being absurd with an estimated 1800 vehicles between the two areas of attack
August 27th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I think he had to go to a Promise Keepers meeting, or something.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
See. I wouldn’t ordinarily get so mad about this, but’s just the principle of the thing. I mean here’s a guy who goes on and on about what a Liberal he is, and how right wingers are so full of hate, yet every time he wants to really insult the Republican Party, or whoever he figures to be his adversary at the moment, he throws up some example of a homosexual Republican - as if there is something immoral, insulting or comical about the very nature of homosexuality. “Not only is Larry Craig one of those stupid rethuglicans, but he’s also a QUEER!!!” This began around the time I mentioned, in one of my posts, that I am a gay man, and there are numerous examples of it on this blog.
I know, he’ll try to make some sad argument that he really isn’t condemning homosexuality he’s merely pointing out Republican hypocrisy by outing gays within a political party that condemns gays itself. This is a bogus argument. How is he exposing any hypocrasy other than his own when he implies, just as the Moral Majority or the Promise Keepers or any of Enk’s fellow homophobes imply, that people like Larry Craig or Jeff Gannon, or myself are shameful just because we are gay - even as he tries to pawn himself off as Liberal who’s trying to love everybody and protect everybody from that bad ol’ George Bush. Maybe I shouldn’t have voted for George Bush, but at least George Bush never called me a faggot, and Enkidu has come just this short of that mark, as I see it.
Inky is like a lot of people who call themselves Liberal, but who still harbor some of the hatreds they chastise the worst of the right wing for displaying. He pretends to be a friend to Gays because he’s willing to give lip service to feel-good concepts like civil unions, but in his heart he thinks we’re here to laugh at and use as a pawn against the “other side.” He treats gays just like he treats Knarlyknight - as a convenience, and that’s why he’s a hypocrite, an asshole and a shitty friend.
And he really needs to stop throwing the nazi imagery around as freely as he does. The nazis were some of the most vicious homophobes in World History. Somebody might make the connection.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:33 am
If I could jump into the Iraq war/media coverage thing for a second.
I think the failure of the media at the time - and I’m talking about all media - was not necessarily their lack of coverage of dissent, but it was more that they were not asking the questions and providing the context that people like Moore, Dixie Chicks, etc. were asking and saying. What I do recall from that time however, is when someone was on a show expressing dissent, there would be two or three “analysts” on shortly after tearing a strip into them and their statements.
It seemed like all the media just believed what the administration was saying, without question. It’s a shame that you can’t believe what your leaders are telling you. I honestly can’t see this (supporting military action so blindly) happening again by the media anytime soon. At least I hope not.
Which is kind of dangerous. Because there are serious threats out there, and the protectors of the free world now have zero credibility when it comes foreign policy.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I could barely stop laughing after I read looneylefty’s “See. I wouldn’t ordinarily get so mad about this, but’s just the principle of the thing.”
I have no problem with homosexuals. It is the rightwing nutters who blather on and on about the sins of other folk (while quite a few are hypocritically tasting the fruit of the forbidden tree, or root or whatever). Why is it that rwnjs seem to pass all the laws against homosexuals? Why is it that Massachusets has the lowest divorce rate in the country yet is one of the most liberal states in the union? Why was Mark Foley sending gay come-ons to minors (or near minors) while passing laws to penalize creeps who send come-ons to minors? See a pattern here? I am sure others do, but can you?
I have voted for every gay rights initiative and will continue to mock and deride rwnjs who do not. Even a moran’s reading of your convoluted ‘logic’ (I am using that term somewhat satyrically here) would not pass the sniff test. Tighty righties fear and despise gay folks, liberals do not.
I have entrusted my two children to a fine lesbian couple (probably our best friends down in the city) time and time again. I wouldn’t trust you with a butter knife leftymcfrootloops.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
NL - there are evil turds floating around out there. One of them currently fouls the white house (and I aint talkin Barney here, tho I hear he would like to resign as well).
Ask yourself this simple question: are we safer after invading Iraq?
A rational assessment of the situation would have to answer: no.
The American media is entirely owned by corporations and moneyed interests. The internet is breaking thru this cosy and creepy arrangement. Sure there is tons of noise to any signal, and you can delude yourself that FauxNEWZ really really IS fair and balanced and stuff! Or that dailyKos is is a hate site full of nazis and the kkk or other non-sense, but there are facts and there is spin.
Try reading something out of your usual list of web sites. I find the BBC, Al Jazeera, working for change, the daily show and colbert much more fact based than the corporate kleptocracy that is modern Duhmurkkkin big media.
ymmv
August 28th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Reading Enkidu’s next-to-last post reminded me of a gag badge I saw in an old Mad magazine. It was supposed to be a badge for the “Bigot’s Union,” and had on it a picture of a Hasidic Jew, a black guy, a woman and an American Indian, and bore the inscription “Don’t get me wrong, some of my best freinds are…” Then again, reading Enkidu’s posts always reminds me a little of old Mad magazines…
Glad to see you finally found your way back, Ink, but your protestations of respect for homosexuals are hollow. Let me guess: your best friend’s a black guy and you still tear up when you remember Juan, the kindly old Mexican who used to take you fishing when you were five. Your great love and history of activism for the gay community of your native Fagbash Flats not withstanding, every reference you have made to homosexuals anywhere on this blog - which is the only place the rest of us here can evaluate your remarks without having to rely on you to tell us how tolerant you really are - has been degrading and insulting.
To say that much of the right wing hates homosexuals is all too obvious, but at least they’re honest about their feelings. They don’t pretend to be tolerant when they’re not. Many of them do point the accusing finger at others, and then turn around to do the same thing, but then again so do you. You ramble on and on about other people’s supposed hate, then you make hateful implications regarding homosexuality all over this blog. You really do act like you were raised by a, what were your words, “genocidal racist.”
What, exactly was the point of bringing up that Senator’s homosexuality, in the context of the conversation being held on this blog? Did it have anything to do with anything anyone else has said on this thread? Do you even know what anyone else on this thread has said? Why even bring up homosexuality at all here, except to turn it into a cheap shot? Why have you never mentioned homosexuality on this blog until I brought it up pertaining to my own sexuality, after which you bring it up every time you and I lock horns? Why did you, all the sudden, come up with the insult “Fruitloop,” which you never called me before I outed myself here, and which you never call anyone else? Either you’re trying to use homophobia as a rhetorical weapon, or my sexuality has touched on an issue that is too close for your comfort. Hmm…it has been my experience over the years that homosexuality is kind of like a fart - more often than not, the smeller’s the feller, if you catch my drift, Lovey ;)
I’m reminded of a picture I saw once of the protesters at Tieniman Square. The most striking picture taken during those protests was a picture of a brave student protestor, facing down a tank. I wonder what would have happened that day had you been in that tank and that demonstrator had been wearing a slogan of gay pride on his t-shirt.
And while we’re on the subject of Knarlyknight, how come you were big buddies with him until I made fun of you for it, then you made fun of him and his “sooper dooper” conspiracy theory, now you’re trying to make nice with him again because I called you out for being a jackass to him? What an awful way to treat somebody, particularly somebody who has a hard time making friends, and got really excited when he thought you two had hit it off? I admit, I haven’t been all that nice to him myself, but at least I had the courtesy of being an asshole from the get-go, and I didn’t pretend to be his friend when I really wasn’t. I’m really glad you and I aren’t friends.
Not to be the spelling nazi again, but what kind of moron spells the word “moron” wrong? You spelled it “moran.” Not that my spelling is very good, either, but it’s awfully hard to make someone else look stupid when you can’t even spell “moron” right, yourself. Sorry to be such a fag about it, but come on…
August 28th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Not to get dragged into any of this, but “moran” is probably a joking reference to the following image:
http://memewatch.com/thelist/archives/pix/morans.html
At least, most of the people I know who use that spelling are making a tongue-in-cheek reference to that image.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
That’s gayer than I am.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
It is a cool coincidence you had that image handy, though
August 28th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
shcb - so you got 1000 Iraqi’s running the hell scared into the desert, with Appaches or whatever with night vision how many would survive the night? Or the next day? Oh yea, 35 - 40 degree heat, no water, they’l be fine once they find the Howard Johnson’s.
rwnj idiats. LOL.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Is this working? Posts are not sticking…
August 29th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Leftbehind reveals a lot about himself by what he fixates upon.
For example, leftbehind writes endlessly about homosexuality, completely missing two points. The first is that it was in response to his own trashtalk that Enkidu introduced the Senator; the second point lefty missed was that Enkidu clearly states his reason for doing so (i.e. to suggest that ALL republicans are closet gay hypocrites as per last line of the enkidu quote below):
It is like driving past an accident scene to read how leftbehind turns the discussion into filth and then gets upset when all the shit ends up sticking to him.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Both enkidu and leftbehind are acting like juvenile idiots (except of course that leftbehind isn’t acting); what is truly disturbing is that it is clear from leftbehind’s comments that he thinks that the excerpt about Sen Larry Craig is solely about homosexuality and completely misses the fact that the arrest was for lewd conduct in a public place.
Not sure if this applies to America, but in Canada homosexuality is upheld by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (just think of it as an updated and improved version of your Bill of Rights) and lewd behaviour in a public place is a crime.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:57 am
So enkidu’s post raised the issue that a LEWD behaviour (whatever that was) in a men’s restroom got Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) arrested. Lewd behaviour in a public place is an ultra-hypocrisy for ANY public figure - yet all so common with the Reichwing rulers in America. It almost reminds one of the era just before the collapse of the Roman Empire.
NOTE: Leftbehind takes a extreme exception to the raising of the homosexual component and completely overlooks the obvious fact that the arrest was for lewd behaviour in a public place. There is a big issue there. Leftbehind sees homosexuality (acceptable) and lewd behaviour in a public place (unacceptable) as one and the same; by his vehement defending of the homosexuality apparent in enkidu’s example, without discerning that there is a lewd behaviour component, leftbehind is essentially stating that lewd homosexual behaviour in a men’s restroom is acceptable. Anyone here willing to take their child into a public restroom at the same time as leftbehind?
Lewd behaviour in public restrooms is apparently normal practice for Lefty based on his remarks or lack of perception about this key component of enkidu’s snippet and thus it may well be just part and parcel of Lefty’s gay existence or fantasy world.
The worst kept secret of our era is many of the elected Repugnant officials are highly repressed closet fags (let’s pick just one of many examples) … the popularity of the Jeff Gannon (a gay prostitute) visits to the White House (many apparently without sign-out times – nice work secret service!) who also favour torture (but only if it is referred to by a euphemism, like “extra-ordinary rendition” or “enhanced interrogation techniques”.) But I digress.
The point is that leftbehind apparently had “come out of the closet” on this blog (does that mean he is a closet Republican hypocrite fag?) a long time ago but now we find evidence that he has no problem with coming in public restrooms, and thus probably does not care if children are present too.
Normally I would have just quietly hoped that people would take NorthernLite’s queue and talk about something relevant, like the astute observation that the leaders of the free world have zero credibility, but as leftbehind says: “See. I wouldn’t ordinarily get so mad about this, but’s just the principle of the thing.”
By the way, “but’s” is a typo. Leftbehind probably meant “butts”.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:00 am
“on this blog” (but apparently not in real life, does that mean he is a closet …?)
August 29th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Another of leftbehind’s fixations, that of Alex Jones with his year 2000 infiltration of Bohemian Grove which was attended by those he suspects as being members of the Illuminatii and which contains Molech a big Grove owl statue), now make a lot more sense when one considers what people say about the Bohemian Grove:
Enough about the shit that sticks to leftbehind.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Northernlite, further to your recent ON TOPIC post about media treatment of war dissenters, you might want to consider the following two blog entries, the first of which (911blogger) begins with this quote from the second (from obsidian wings):
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10902
http://www.obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/08/by-hilzoy-once-.html
August 29th, 2007 at 4:58 am
Knarly,
Highway of death, those are good questions, most of them were answers theoretically in the article I linked to way back when. they go through how tey came up with their numbers, citing similar attacks by Isralies and the.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:59 am
Oops, didn’t cut and paste the right one
Knarly,
Highway of death, those are good questions, most of them were answers theoretically in the article I linked to way back when. they go through how they came up with their numbers, citing similar attacks by Israelis and the resulting casualty rate, I know you don’t like numbers but they are well documented in this case. They also say, locals saw many Iraqis’ running from the area and that our forces encountered some of them the next day, it doesn’t say if we killed, captured or ignored them.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:06 am
Knarly - Thank God we’re back on topic, and thanks for fleshing out the info on Bohemian Grove. Not to get stuck on this Moloch thing, but I think it’s important, and explains a lot.
As far as I can tell, Moloch in an Old Testament diety whose cult, at some point in Jewish history, competed with the cult of Yahweh. The Illuminati, at least as Alex Jones and some other commentators define them, continue the worship of Moloch. Does this have any bearing on 9-11? I know you won’t want to go into this, but I think you have studied the matter, and realize there is a lot more going on here than how fast a plane had to travel to hit the Pentagon. Either you’re in to tell the whole story or you’re helping prop up the lie.
Larry Craig was not arrested for lewd behavior, although his behavior was probably lewd. He was arrested for Disorderly Conduct. None of this has anything to do with media coverage of anti-war dissent, which is what was being discussed when you initially entered the conversation, nor does it have anything to do with anything you or I have been discussing since the conversation diverged a bit. As usual, Inky barged in with nothing to say, and re-directed the conversation towards his new pet topic, homosexual Republicans. Had Larry Craig not been gay or Republican, Inky would never have interjected him into the conversation. I take the blame for introducing the gay/Republican dictomonomy some time ago, but it really seems to have excited Inky’s imagination in a way I never could have forseen. Maybe you’re right - maybe he is a closet. I wonder, if he really believes all Republicans are closeted gays. Would this explain why he spends so much time hanging around his Dad’s “genocidal Republican” friends?
August 29th, 2007 at 6:18 am
But this is not to short-sheet your own comments. Congratulations, I thought Inky was going to be the one who would come right out and call me a “fag” first. Good thing you saved him the trouble - he’s a liberal, you know.
Thanks for establishing some important facts about fags, namely that we’re emotionally immature, that we all cruise for sex in bathrooms, and we’re all pedophiles. The scales have been lifted…now, if you’d only be so forthright about Moloch and the Illuminati.
Speaking of the Illuminati, maybe you’re on to something with this fag/Bohemian Grove axis. After all, Oliver Stone thinks we killed JFK, maybe we blew up the World Trade Center, too.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:16 am
You should thank Alex Jones for digging up your Nixon quote for you:
infowars.com/articles/occult/bg_nixon_tape_homosexuals_audio.htm
The Homosexual Conspiracy seems to be a real hot topic at Infowars/PrisonPlanet:
prisonplanet.com/Pages/300504_six_year_old_boy_wants_to_kill.html
prisonplanet.com/Pages/270504_hate_crime.html
everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1056095
In picking my links from the Alex Jones, I tried to pick out the “good information,” from the “bad information,” but I get so confused sometimes. Knarly - you spend entirely too much time on Alex Jones’ websites - is this that “good information” you’ve been telling us about?
August 29th, 2007 at 9:40 am
My info this time came from Wiki, but if you want to contiunue your plugs for Alex Jones I don’t care.
Your twisting is blatant so I’ll not waste my time except to point out the only one I suggested is gay (and perhaps criminally lewd) is YOU. Nice of you to stick up for Sen Larry Craig, you might get some special favours from him if you point out how you discerned that it was disorderly conduct for which he pleaded guilty while the investigation was for lewd behaviour. Funny your ability to discern these differences for petty plea bargains or whatever, yet have no concept of discernment or judgement when it comes to the real issues.
Still focused on Alex Jones andMollech I see, you poor idiot. No sense continuing this dialogue, I have better conversations with my dog.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:45 am
shcb
I posted a rebuttal to the Highway of Death numbers thread in this meta-thread, but the intertubes ate it (must have been the two links I put in there?)
Basically, try this: go to the google, type in Highway of Death, then click Images. Peruse a few, a dozen if you have the time. Please note that a significant fraction of the vehicles are military trucks. How many armies drive around with a single driver in each truck? And note the large number of civ buses and such. Sure there are plenty of stolen mercedes and bmws and the like, but they appear to be less than a third of the total (guesstimate).
So let us say 2000 vehicles… each with a driver… any passengers? In the rwnj world the answer is No Sir! why? because it would be embarrassing if the US of A were committing a war crime by massacring retreating enemy forces that were complying with the UN order for withdrawl (ok, that is stretching it a bit, but it plays on the arab street, sigh). The reality based answer is that there was probably significantly more than 1 driver in each vehicle. Yet once the shooting starts rwnj worldview is 75% of these 2000 guys got away. If there were on average 5 guys per vehicle (averaging a military truck with say a dozen and a stolen bmw with one driver - rounding down, way down, and guesstimating wildly). The islomonutjob answer is that we massacred 10,000 Iraqis on those two roads. Funny how my estimate is approximately 10,000 total retreating enemy soldiers (fair game imho) and the total body count are the same. I would guess there were about 10,000 legitimate targets on that road (not counting vehicles ;-) I would bet we killed… what? 1/4? 1/3? 1/2?
That’s about 2500, 3300 and 5000 dead Iraqi irregulars.
I’ll wrap this up by saying one reason I didn’t vote for GHWB in ‘92 was they screwed up the Iraq War I (’despite’ winning it… like a tenth rate military is going to stand up to all the USA and its broad coalition can dish out? riiiight). The highway of death should have been littered with Rethugglican™®© Guard corpses and vehicles. Instead they got away, the Rethugglican™®© Guard slaughtered the Kurds and Marsh Arab uprising (our no fly zone didn’t work too well when we let the helis fly to machine gun the anti-Saddam uprising).
But don’t let facts or figures, reason and intellect get in the way of a good story. One where Duhmerkkkuh can do no wrong. Where shrubco is competent. Just keep the partisan bullshit spigot cranked to 11 and screw them crazy seditious libs! yeeeeehaw!
August 29th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Knarly - Your quotes came from Alex Jones, and I’ve provided the links to prove it, as I always do. Practically every time I’ve ever traced any of your facts or quotes, they’ve always ended up on either Prison Planet or Infowars, which are both Alex Jones sites. There is no fag anywhere in the world that could be up anybody’s ass as far as you are up Alex Jones’.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:05 am
If homosexuals are worshippers of Moloch, is that why God hates fags so much?
August 29th, 2007 at 10:05 am
looney lefty
you are too whacked to ‘debate’
lets recap, shall we?
I ‘jack the thread for a moment to make a point about statistics and how not knowing some information can lead to a fundamentally biased ‘analysis’ of the same limited amount of information (see highway of death etc)
Your response: I’m and asshole and shitty
I respond with a thread relavent topic: famous right wing turds
ie Mr I-crapped-my-pants-to-stay-outta-’Nam Nugent
and a great article about war graft and waste and stupidity (bet lefty didn’t bother to read that one!)
Your response: flibberty gibbit!
I then mentioned a breaking news story about a prominently anti-gay Sentator is guilty of lewd and lascivious behavior (which happened to be teh gay ;-)
Your response: Inky hates teh gay!!!1!!!1!~
Suddenly your black and gay? And Rethugglican™®©?
Wow what a scary panalopy of contradictory (o lets just say it - insane!) voices must make up your society of mind. Just keep being your crazy self loony. If you are the finest the Rethuggles™®© have to offer, we sane folk will set things right starting in Jan of ‘09. You just keep bein you man!
In a word: hilarious.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:16 am
jbc - thx for fielding the “moran” idiocy
The star spangled moran is a tenacious breed of chicken hawk.
It clings to the fetid Swamps of Hypocrisy and fouls (fowls?) the lofty peaks of the Federal (over-)Spending Mountains. Perhaps other more Ornithologically interested posters could help me fill out the life cycle, breeding habits (ugh) and psychoses that this breed exhibits.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am
You should thank JBC for the Moran save, but I still have my doubts as to whether or not you really knew you’d misspelled “moron.” For JBC’s save to be valid, we’d have to believe that you’d seen that picture before, and it’s a really off chance that such a picture would run in your local paper, the Fagbash Times-Picayune. Moreover, we’d have to believe you would actually realize the word was misspelled in the picture and, judging from your usual performance, that’s a big stretch.
All the sudden? I’ve been gay for a while, and black for a whole lot longer. You’d know this if you actually read anything on this blog other than your own posts, or do you even read those? Sorry my politics don’t fit into your stereotypes, Massa Ink. The only thing worse than a mouthy faggot is a nigger who doesn’t know his place, huh?
August 29th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Signed yout friend, teh gay.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Inky, did you write the script for the little South Carolina beauty queen?
August 29th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Enkidu,
I didn’t go back and read that article I have been quoting, but those numbers sound reasonable from what I recall. They said the Washington post number of 200-300 was way to light and the 10,000 of the Palestinian woman was way to high. If you reread what I said, they used the 1,000 or so as a minimum. In the article they used figures of 15 to 30 percent based on similar battles by the Israelis. I recall they agreed the number of soldiers to be around 10,000 before the attack. So 2,000 to 3,000 with 1,000 as a minimum sounds reasonable. But that is a far cry from 10,000 and I’ve read things written by Joyce where she says the numbers were “in the tens of thousands”. When I hear that, I don’t think of 10,001 I think of something like 30,000 as a minimum.
I agree with you on Bush 41, I was pissed when we stopped early and then didn’t help the Kurds, that was a black mark on the UN and Bush for not standing up to the UN. I think Clinton learned from that mistake and didn’t get UN approval before he went into the Balkans and he won the war. I like Bush 41, I think he is a decent man and a workable president, but certainly not a great president. Stories I have heard say he probably wouldn’t have had the courage to attack without Thatcher.
August 30th, 2007 at 8:43 am
hey lefty, let’s make a deal.
So… you doubt that I knew the proper spelling for “moron” and wasn’t using “moran” satyrically. So if I can come up with a post that factually proves that I used it corrrectly in context, you will please leave and never come back to lies.com again? If I can’t come up with that factual proof, I’ll never come back to lies.com ever again (I know how you will miss me sweetcheeks). You have my word that I’ll live up to my end of the bargain.
Deal?
August 30th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Don’t do it boys!!!! Don’t take that bet!!!!!!! It’s not worth it!!!!!!!!!
August 30th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I WOULD miss you, you foolish, foolish, beautiful man, and I think you would miss me too. Maybe the other mooks around here think this is all about issues and politics, but you and I know differently.
If you really wanted me gone, you wouldn’t try to call me out to on the Larry Craig thread above when I had made no direct effort to confront you. If you really wanted me gone, you certainly wouldn’t have tried to pigpile on me with Knarly over that stupid 9-11 truth crap you don’t even believe, and which you disavowed immediately after. You called me out because you wanted to argue. You like to argue. You live to argue. You don’t get to fight like this in real life, do you?
You called me out because I’m the only one here that gives you what you want. Most of the posters on this site won’t call you on your shit because you give lip service to the same Liberal pieties they do and the ones who will…well, they won’t give you the fight I can, do they? This place would be as boring as shit without me, and you know it.
If you wanted to have dull little conversations about Congressional rules and proper military deportment and stupid little non-issues like Valerie Plame and a bunch of lawyers nobody gives two shits about getting fired, you’d do it in the same measured, calm, flaccid way everybody else does, but that’s not what you’re after, is it? You want to rage. You want to flame like the sun. It makes it easier be Dan or Bob or whatever your real name is when you can come here for a while be Enkidu, the Man of Iron, sent down from the mountaintop from God himself to smash the jaws of the wicked and knock the Cheney’s from their jeweled thrones.
And what is the mighty hero without an adversary? You can’t rage when there’s nobody to rage at. Flames mean nothing when there’s no one to burn. I’m the Loki to your Thor, the Joker to your Batman.
Hey, I’m not casting stones. You and I are a lot alike. Too much alike, really. I come here for my fix, too. Obviously, I must be drawn to your anger, or I wouldn’t provoke it every damn day. Obviously, I really enjoy being a jackass, and feel incredibly blessed to find someone who feeds off shabby treatment as robustly as you do.
We don’t meet here as Democrat and Republican, or as Liberal and Conservative. Those are just excuses for us to get together do what we love the best - derail other people’s serious conversations by hurling juvenile insults at one another. What kind of Liberal votes for the first George Bush? What kind of homosexual votes Republican? You and I are two sides of the same, argumentative coin. We were made for each other, you and I. Ah, and the good times we’ve had.
If you really want me to leave this blog and never come back, stop posting yourself. A blog without Enkidu is no blog for me.
I love you, man.
August 30th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
…also, I refuse to believe that a father of children who is supposed to be a fighter pilot could be possessed of an ego so easily bruised that he would actually take the time to prove he can spell “moron” correctly, simply because his feelings were hurt by some jerk he doesn’t even know who doubted his ability to on a weblog. That’s a little emotionally stunted, even for you.
Just what would it prove if it does turn out I’m wrong and you can spell “moron?” Are you suddenly John Kenneth Galbraith because you can spell “moron” correctly? Are any of your acerbic ramblings any less vitrolic to the point of chaos because you’re good with small words? If this isn’t the most childish conversation I’ve ever taken part in with a supposed adult, I’ll voluntarily ban myself from the entire internet for the next fifty years.
Besides, anybody with half a brain can spell his own name correctly, at least once for Pete’s sake.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:11 am
leftbehind,
Bullshit. Amusing BS, such that for once it was possible to
read most your post, but still BS. And shcb was right to warn you about the challenge, you would lose.
For the record, lefty is wrong again about enkidu wasting time defending himself. It is leftbehind who has wasted so much time (i.e. text) in speaking about the moron/moran issue. After enkidu’s use of the term on August 28th, 2007 at 1:12 pm , lefty used 856 words in his childish and erroneous attack whereas enkidu used merely 153 words to defend it.
shcb, early you stated about the highway of death that “They also say, locals saw many Iraqis’ running from the area and that our forces encountered some of them the next day, it doesn’t say if we killed, captured or ignored them. ” Think man. Think. You defend the right of your troops to attack and slaughter the retreating soldiers on the highway of death as a means to prevent their re-grouping and going home to fight again another day, obviously captuing them was not the approved option. So now you are suggesting that the troops might have ignored or captured the very same comrades of those they slaughtered days earlier. Ahh, yes, the marines got so teary eyed about their high tech shoot ‘em up hours earlier that they decided to make nice with the “gentlemen from the Baath Republican guards” who fucked off when they were trying to kill them. Makes perfect sense if you are a believer in fairy tales.
Also for the record, I submit this as the most childish conversation leftbehind has engaged upon, due to his own stupid fixations which purposely dragged down an other rational conversation:
August 31st, 2007 at 10:12 am
leftbehind,
Bullshit. Amusing BS, such that for once it was possible to
read most all of your post, but still BS. And shcb was right to warn you about the challenge, you would lose.
For the record, lefty is wrong again because it is leftbehind who has wasted so much time (i.e. text) in speaking about the moron/moran issue. After enkidu’s use of the term on August 28th, 2007 at 1:12 pm , lefty used 856 words in his childish and erroneous attack whereas enkidu used 153 words to defend it.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:12 am
Also for the record, I submit this as the most childish conversation leftbehind has engaged upon, due to his own stupid fixations which purposely dragged down an other rational conversation:
August 31st, 2007 at 10:13 am
Also for the record, I submit this as the most childish conversation leftbehind has engaged upon, due to his own stupid fixations which purposely dragged down an other rational conversation: