Subject:
|
Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:14:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
503 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > Why is it that when Limbaugh, Reagan, Gallagher, Buchannan, Falwell,
> > Robertson, Carlson, Will, O'Reilly et al spout pro-Republican invective it's
> > called "fair and balanced reporting," but when a left-leaning commentator
> > voices an opinion it's called demagoguery? Is that the accursed Liberal Media
> > at work again?
>
> I think you have it backwards, Dave! None of the above would claim to be
> unbiased-- they are honest and open about their conservative leanings. It's
> the print media, the networks, public radio who disingenuously pass themselves
> off as "fair and balanced when in actuality they are just as biased in the
> other direction.
You're injecting another issue into the discussion, which I will address
in a moment. In any case, let's consider what you're saying:
You're claiming that conservative talking heads can't be called demagogues
as long as they are open about their conservatism. You're saying, in
effect, that they're free to make up whatever lies they choose (such as, for
instance, Clinton's cocaine smuggling or covered-up murder or sex addiction
or real estate theivery or what-have-you, none of which has been borne out
despite the efforts of The Conservative Machine). But liberal commentators,
according to you, are demagogues when they voice anti-conservative opinion.
Chretien, and--more specifically--Francoise Ducros, are members of the
Liberal Party of Canada, so according to you they must keep their mouths
shut or at the very least keep quiet their anti-Bush sentiments; for them to
do otherwise would be demagoguery.
As far "as fair and balanced reporting" goes, that's the actual motto of
the conservative Fox News Network, so they set the bar for themselves and
consistently fail to meet their own standard. As for the other conservative
commentators, I'll address Limbaugh specifically because he's the, shall we
say, biggest target.
Limbaugh, with his Talent on Loan from God, prides himself on Excellence
in Journalism. Therefore it's especially disappointing to see that he
maintains no journalistic integrity re: objectivity or truth or admission of
error or even-handedness or un-spun reality or equity in attack. So your
defense of him as an "honest and open" republican commentator is irrelevant;
he himself undermines that defense by alleging and then failing to uphold
standards of journalistic integrity. Yet you bristle when Limbaugh is
called a demagogue, even when members of his own party are on record
referring to him as "a circus clown."
Or are you claiming that the problem is that the so-called Liberal Media
of the U.S. is at fault? If that's the case, then which of the networks,
all of which are owned by huge, conservative mega-corporations, qualifies in
your opinion as a liberal news source?
> I characterized the Canadian's astute observation of Bush's policy as
> demogoguery because it was empty of substance and full of emotional tripe.
That depends. If Ducros based her assessment on Bush's inability to speak
in a coherent, articulate fashion, or perhaps on his inability to run any
business successfully in his adult life, or perhaps on his inability to
formulate a cohesive foreign policy, or perhaps on his inability to
formulate a cohesive domestic policy, or perhaps on his inability to mount a
credible attack on corporate greed/corruption, then I'd say her choice of
"moron" is well-reasoned and, frankly, quite restrained.
> You mentioned Jessica Lange (which I sniped). She "hates" Bush; it's all about
> emotion and feelings with the Left-- let's see some substanitive criticism
> instead of this tired ad hominen blather of "Dubya" and the like.
The entirety of the Republican Platform is based on emotional appeal to
ideology, from its mandate of pro-religion school vouchers to its
Christian-based antiabortion agenda to its rabid anti-civil-rights policies
to its "Christian-morality"-driven judge appointments.
Now you're condeming liberals for speaking emotionally. And not just any
liberals--a Canadian liberal and a US actor, no less, as opposed to a US
political figure like Falwell or Robertson or Limbaugh or Bush, all of whom
speak constantly from emotionalism, intolerance, and ignorance of science.
Why do you hold liberal actors to a higher standard than that to which you
hold actual cornerstones of the Republican far-right?
> So the fact that Hussein has been violating his agreement with the
> UN for the past 10 years doesn't count as a loss for diplomacy? We should have
> taken him out the first time around, but the UN would never have stood for
> that. And now here we are, 10 years later and in virtually the same spot.
You have a real problem staying on-point. Let's discuss your statement in
several parts:
Q. Does Hussein's defiance of treaty count as a diplomatic failure?
A. Not really; diplomacy was never tried. Military action was appropriate
to drive Iraq from Kuwait, but there has been no serious diplomatic effort
toward Iraq in the subsequent 10 years. UN weapons inspectors don't count,
since they were basically a post-war enforcement brigade, not to mention
frequent spies on behalf of the US.
Q. Should we have taken out Hussein during Desert Storm?
A. Morally? Maybe so, but only if we were willing to admit that the US
role of weapons supplier to Iraq would have to have been explained.
Further, the provisions of Desert Storm did not require Hussein to be killed
or captured, and to do so would have been stepping beyond the charter.
Q. Are we in "virtually the same spot"?
A. Yes, after ten years of sanctions, embargos, and military strikes, we
are in virtually the same spot. I'd be greatly interested to see what would
happen in the event of actual diplomatic efforts.
> And give me a break, Dave! The use of the term "moronic" was meant as an
> insult, and a politically-INcorrect one at that.
Well, so what?
> > And your rhetorical point is weakened still further since you're concluding
> > that, because diplomacy hasn't worked in one situation, it cannot work in
> > another.
>
> I asked for an instance where it *has* worked in a major conflict. Can you
> cite?
You're setting an impossible task, you realize; there have been few
instances of conflicts solved solely by diplomacy because such conflicts
almost invariably start as exchanges of force. Therefore there no pure
diplomatic solutions to cite.
Can you show me an instance where pure force solved a conflict and
maintained the subsequent peace?
> I personally happen to believe that there would be peace between Palestinians
> and Israelis today were it not for Islamic extremists.
Maybe, but I don't think the blame can be placed solely on the extremists
of one side or the other. I'm afraid I'm not sufficiently well-versed in
the Palestinian/Israeli conflict to give a more elaborate response.
> > By the way--what *would* Jesus drive?
>
> For starters, it would have to be big enough to carry him and his 12
> disciples....
John--in all seriousness and without any sarcasm, I must commend you for
that. I've heard all manner of condemnation for this ad campaign, with
Robertson going almost so far as to call it blasphemy. Honestly, I don't
see the problem; if it's okay to ask the unanswerable question "What would
Jesus do?" then surely it's okay to rephrase it into the equally
unanswerable question "What would Jesus drive?" I'm gratified and,
admittedly, a bit surprised to see that you have a sense of humor about it!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
| (...) Rome vs. Carthage, the three Punic Wars. The third was pure force, resulting in the total anihilation of Carthage (even in physical terms) and enslavement of the surviving carthaginians. That is, in fact, a permanent solution. Question is, is (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
| (...) I think we can agree that wackos come in all favors. (...) I am not for silencing criticism, but I think that insults are not necessary. How about *constuctive* criticism-- that's what I'd like. (...) I don't watch TV, much less own cable, so (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
| (...) I think you have it backwards, Dave! None of the above would claim to be unbiased-- they are honest and open about their conservative leanings. It's the print media, the networks, public radio who disingenuously pass themselves off as "fair (...) (22 years ago, 24-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
