US journalism political leanings
The Pew State of the Media annual report has an interesting section on how journalists descibe their political leanings compared to the population.
- Conservatives – 8% of journalists vs 36% of US population
- Liberals – 32% of journalists vs 19% of US population
This explains the New York Times et al.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Media, media bias, United States
March 25th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Just because a person holds a set of political beliefs it needn’t colour their work provided they’re professional. I don’t imagine that, if these sorts of surveys were done 20, 30, or for that matter 50 years ago the responses would have been all that different – media is a profession that tends to draw a majority of liberal thinkers.
However, the perceived bias exhibited by media has worsened over time to the extent that journalists are now amongst the least-trusted of professions. There’s a plethora of reasons for this (enough to fill a book, of which a number have been written) but broadly it’s due to declining standards and declining budgets, and the blurring of lines between reportage and opinion.
As objectivity has declined, the natural inclination of the media has become left-leaning because journalists aren’t forced by their editors to question their assumptions. Fact checkers aren’t employed – even sub-editing is outsourced overseas to people who’d be lucky to know if the source’s name was spelled correctly let alone whether their reported answer was consistent with earlier opinion.
While the right in the US has reacted by establishing alternative voices – most notably Fox News but also in radio – in NZ it’s been ridiculously complacent. With the notable exception of Radio Liberty (which lasted not long at all) no one has even attempted to establish a counterpoint to “liberal” media – and as the demise of that venture showed, not enough businesses are prepared to support such an effort.
As I’ve said before… to those who have the wherewithal to do so… perhaps it’s time for money to be put where you’d like mouths to be.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I’d agree with Rex on the point that most journalists are professional enough to work hard and report fairly. There are plenty of professionals in the public service who do the same thing by holding themselves to a professional standard, sometimes implementing policy they personally disagree with.
It would be interesting to see what the results would be if a similar survey was done of New Zealand journalists. It is important for every group in society to be held to account. I would like to see more critical voices of the mainstream media – not for the sake of being critical, but because it reinforces a higher standard; Much in the same way that the Official Information Act improves the quality of policy advice.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Journalism as we understand it is in crisis as far as I can devine here in New Zealand. How many times have we been aflame with a variety of views and facts and links here in teh blogosphere, ony to see those same issues raised usually a lot later in the media, or ignored. My pet theme the EFA is one such example.
That is why, the PM can confidently declare that an issue such as the EFA is a ‘beltway issue’ and pass it – she knew that the media is asleep at the wheel, and far from being custodians of free speech, they are sleeping sentries, who always call alarm after the event, when it is too late. And for those who might claim the Herald was too vocal in its opposition to be seen as ‘objective’ – I would reply that they were too late to the party, the damage was already done by the time they woke up. Despite the fact we’d been anlaysing and getting hot under the collar for months before, here in teh blogs.
I know for a fact that if teh EFB had been mooted in the UK, the press would have given it and its proponants an absolute savaging. But not here, in cuddly-wuddly land.
how many times has the Govt made statements which are plainly untrue, and had them parroted in the press the next day – devoid of analysis or fact-checking?
How often this year have Govt PR releases found themselves re-written for mass consumption?
How often this year has a burning issue been ignored, or re-interpreted by the TV media so that it exonerates the perpetrator or ridicules the accuser?
How often has a political party been able to pretend the moral high-ground because not one journalist has the guts to say ‘wait a minute, last week, you did the opposite, didn’t you?’
how often has a politician given the press a ‘telling off’ and they have fled, like gutless wonders, leaving the politician to stick his snout back into the trough, undisturbed??
And how often has talk-Radio got stuck into any of the above?
So Newspapers – lazy. Talk-radio M.I.A. Magazines – just lovely. Tv ‘Marvellous!’
No my friends, if you really want to know what is going on – go to your blogosphere, where everyone is equal.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
DPF,
You must have seen the exchange on the Krauthammer thread where some of your rabid little ACTettes served up for me a study of media bias in the U.S. (for reasons that I can’t fathom, since I never ever said anything that was inconsistent with the study’s conclusions). Anyway, the study, by two academics from UCLA and University of Missouri, and published in highly reputable Quarterly Journal of Economics (2005) v.120 n.4. finds that:
“For instance, the two most conservative outlets are the Washington Times and Fox News’ Special Report, two outlets that are often called conservative (e.g., see Alterman [2003]).”
Not only that, but if you look at the table on p. 1228 you see that CNN NewsNight comes in almost bang on where the average US voter is on the ADA rating scale. And, if you look harder, you will see that all of those “liberal” mainstream media are MUCH closer to the average US voter than the only right-wing outlets included in the survey.
It is important to remember that the average US voter would not be considered anything other than fairly right-wing in NZ, Australia, Canada & Britain, not to mention continental Europe. In other words, if you were to compare the so-called “liberal” media in the US to the average NZ voter, they would be right-wing. There are some great studies on the supine reportage of the Iraqi War for the first couple of years, which explain why anti-war sentiment took so long to manifest itself, even after it was clear that the reasons for going to war were lies.
As for Lee C’s ridiculaous statement “I know for a fact taht if teh EFB had been mooted inthe UK, the press would have given it and its proponants an absolute savaging. But not here, in cuddly-wuddly land”, well, he/she obviously doesn’t read the Herald, NZ’s largest-by-far circulation daily.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Oh, and DPF, you’re obviously not familiar with the theory that journalists try to compensate for their biases and tend to overcompensate in doing so.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I doubt there is much point in trying to convince someone about the left-wing (and specifically Democratic party) bias of the US media when their starting point is a Chomskian view that all the media in the US are off to the right save Mother Jones and the Nation. Oh and Z magazine. That Liberal media are not really left-wing, the NYT is in the bag for Bush administration, and so forth.
Still – the following excerpt from an interview should be of interest to other readers. The interview was conducted with Mark Halperin (MH), political director of ABC News and co-author of a new book – The Way To Win: Taking The White House In 2008 – that appears to be aimed largely at Democrats.
In the interview by Hugh Hewitt, Mark Halperin defends the more traditional view (Japapete’s ‘theory’), that unbiased news coverage (excepting commentary or opinion journalism) is an honorable if never fully achievable goal. I’ve long ago given up any hope of that or even my more modest request for merely balanced reporting. However I thought the following quotes are of interest:
Assuming that you don’t object to reading material from a show run by a religious, right-wing host you can read the entire transcript here:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=1f133562-cfd3-40f8-af2f-129219d59c8d
==============
MH: You’re asking me should people be skeptical? I think anyone who’s conservative should be skeptical of anything the old media does.
HH: But the old media is overwhelmingly liberal, correct, Mark Halperin?
MH: Correct, as we say in the book.
HH: And so everyone that you work with, or 95% of people you work with, are old liberals.
MH: I don’t know if it’s 95%, and unfortunately, they’re not all old. There are a lot of young liberals here, too. But it certainly, there are enough in the old media, not just in ABC, but in old media generally, that it tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction, which is completely improper. And it goes from the big and major like CBS’ outrageous story about President Bush’s draft record right before the 2004 election, to the insidious and small use of language describing Nancy Pelosi’s liberal policies and ideas different than they would Newt Gingrich’s conservative ones.
HH: And these liberals…you know, Terry Moran on this program said…Terry Moran on this program from ABC, your colleague…
MH: Right.
HH: …said that the media hates the military, has a deep suspicion of it. Do you agree with that?
MH: I totally agree. It’s one of the huge biases, along with gays, guns, abortion, and many other things.
…..and from earlier in the transcript.
MH: First of all, I never say MSM, because I don’t believe the old media is mainstream. They’re out of the mainstream on most of the issues I’ve been referring to. So I don’t use that phrase.
I believe that as I’ve said several times, happy to say again, that anyone who’s conservative in this country has every justification to be skeptical about anything, an internal memo, or product that goes on the air, from the old media, because of a forty year or more history of liberal bias on a range of issues.
And after what CBS News did in 2004, regarding the President’s National Guard record, I would be…I am thankful that any conservative looks to us ever for news and information, given how outrageous what they did was.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Amazing that New Zealand has the opposite pattern. Is it a function of newspaper ownership?
March 25th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Jafapete, wouldn’t that theory mean that the conservatives become liberal and the liberal become conservative? Or have I just reductio ad absurdum’ed this theory? Anyway, meh.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Does this mean Tane is a Journalist?
March 25th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Leftists are drawn to journalism and similar professions, more than conservatives and the right, for whatever reason. I expect it is the same in NZ, despite the occasional principled stand by some (thanks NZ Herald on the EFA). More here on the US situation of “Leftist Thought Control”
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55537
March 25th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Tom Hunter: “the more traditional view (Japapete’s ‘theory’), that unbiased news coverage (excepting commentary or opinion journalism) is an honorable if never fully achievable goal.”
Never fully achieveable would be an understatement in my view. That old leftie, Prof Ruth Butterworth, put it this way when I studied this stuff at graduate level: “Objectivity is bullshit”. Nice and succinct, and something I’ve subscribed to ever since.
I do believe, however, that one should recognise biases, including one’s own, and take these into account when consuming the news.
I also object to the deliberate use of misinformation by the likes of Faux News. Remember the polls that found that the majority of Faux News veiwers thought that Saddam hussein was responsible for 9/11?
And I certainly stand by my statement that the political centre in the US is well to the right of where it is in NZ and that we must therefore take this into account when reading anything about American politics, including the interesting piece by Halperin. Perhaps there are more liberal reporters because liberal reporters demonstrate greater capacity for critical thinking, and critical thinkers make better reporters! Problem solved.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
# stephen Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says: March 25th, 2008 at 8:44 pm Jafapete, wouldn’t that theory mean that the conservatives become liberal and the liberal become conservative? Or have I just reductio ad absurdum’ed this theory? Anyway, meh.
Stephen: Almost there. It means that the liberal reporters are more likely to lean towards the right in their reporting, and vice versa. Hey, when I was a public servant I dished up the best propaganda in the ministry for the Tory minister. this is what Widerstrom meant by being professional. Edit: But I certainly didn’t “become” conservative!
March 25th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
As Rex says, more or less: just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean you’re not being followed. In other words, just because you read an article critical of Bush from a lefty journalist, doesn’t mean it’s not true and vice versa.
Too bad people aren’t more objective. The world might get somewhere.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I consider myself conservative and also liberal. It’s not a contradictory viewpoint because the two positions are not opposites.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Against this I posit the indisputable fact that MOST PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Left, right, conservative or liberal these are just words.
There are only those that believe in freedom and justice and those that don’t.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
When faced with facts like this
* Conservatives – 8% of journalists vs 36% of US population
* Liberals – 32% of journalists vs 19% of US population
Not to accept there is overwhelming left wing media bias in the US and by extension all Western countries (as undoubtably surveys in all Western countries would show similar ratios if taken), would mean to accept a theory that the centre ground of a Western nation’s politics’ are somewhere on the left side of the major centre-left party, and thereby that democracy is a total sham, as election’s are not at all a fair representation of the people’s will.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Isn’t it interesting how increasingly polarised our views on media have become? And some of us learned in the Muldoon years the damage of polarisation.
And it’s increased in pace and intensity esp in the last two decades n’est pas?
Personally I don’t ever forget Dr. Goebbel’s extremely sly comment: “A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.” To a huge extent that’s what the US has now: e.g. look at the lack of criticism of Israel, across the board.
I have for years ignored left or right paradigms, and always look to the underlying message, I think criticising stories simply because of the author or the publication, is insane. Rather, I look to the facts they lay out. Sometimes there aren’t many, other times they’re compelling. But many, (fools in my view), refuse to look, if an angle goes against their philosophy. Now that’s just dumb.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Jafapete, such a mentally fucked up commie he sees universities studies described by their authors as demonstrating a lack of bias at FOX news as showing the exact opposite. Such a detached from reality jerkoff he can find no answer to studies that confront coolly and calmly and reasonably and rationally the left’s claims about FOX’s bias other than to peddle more Geobellian style propaganda- ie “repeat the lie over and over and over again, and eventually it will become accepted as the truth” (Adolf Hitler circa 1939.)
“Remember the polls that found that the majority of Faux News veiwers thought that Saddam hussein was responsible for 9/11?”
Sure I remember them. The pathetic push polling done by a bunch of liberal liars and phonys who later issued a statement saying that the correlation between viewing Fox News and holding misconceptions does not prove that Fox News’ presentation caused the misconceptions. In fact that statement more or less admitted that the poll was utterly fake.
I also remember that the same poll also found that the belief that “Iraq was directly involved in September 11″ was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers, but strangely this finding is unknown to many people- because it is a fact deliberately ignored by the left liberals who control the mainstream news media for the reason that it entirely neutralizes the propaganda peddled about the prior question.
“even after it was clear that the reasons for going to war were lies”
There were no lies. You’re the liar. Put one claimed lie by Bush here with date and exact quotation and source.
Read that requirement Pete. But more- COMPREHEND IT.- Points to remember- Just one lie. Not twenty. Not some phony left web page full of baseless allegations smears and lies. Not one hundred. Just one. Pick the best lie you’ve got and put it here, and I’ll prove you wrong, and I’ll prove that contrary to leftist’s claims, Bush did not lie and has only been the victim of a massive global hate campaign coordinated and managed by the left’s international network of liars slanderers cowards communists and con artists. Just one lie Pete. Your best.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Might want to see a similar poll on the political leanings of literate and illiterate Americans.
As Stephen Colbert observes, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
March 25th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
AND I thought we had all agreed that I had told everyone to stop saying “Faux News”.
Am I not in charge here or something?!
[DPF: Only between 1 am and 5 am when I am asleep
]
March 25th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Nice to see redbaiter still believes in Bush. I guess someone out there has to. You might not be able to fool most people most of the time but for sure there’s always some sucker out there still ready to believe when every other person of faith and half a brain has seen the light……….go redbaiter…..you’re a LEGEND!!!!!
March 25th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Jafapete
You studied at graduate level sometime in the last 20 years of post-modernism and came away with the notion that: “Objectivity is bullshit”? Say it ain’t so.
Laughs aside, I would say that that well-worn notion may well be the case in many situations but that many modern reporters have taken it as an excuse to not even make the attempt. I’ll grant that it has been aided by (as Rex pointed out) increasingly crappy editing and fact-checking, driven by cost cutting, faster news cycles, a TV ratings approach across all media that emphasises “if it bleeds, it leads”, as well as much shorter careers and articles where the ‘hook’ and the soundbite are one and the same thing. Most of the MS media is shallow and unprofessional nowadays, especially in NZ, and that’s as big a problem on it’s own as any bias.
As has been pointed out on this thread bias always existed but those feared creatures known as editors often acted as a check and balance. That whole notion has, I think, gone by the board. Not just because of the factors mentioned above but because the whole “objectivity is bullshit” meme has been completely accepted.
John Campbell is very much a proponent of your approach and has commented often that we all have our biases and should be open about them – and I suspect most journalists and debaters nowadays think as you and he do. John firmly believes in the Pilger style of advocacy journalism.
The argument goes that we really should not complain or even be very bothered by incidents such as the one at TV3 several years ago, where a photo of Bush appeared on the TV3 6pm news for several seconds above the title “Professional Facist”, or taking quotes out of context.
They have an interpretation and they’re trying to reach it – and nobody on the progressive spectrum objects to that. When objections to this approach have been raised by silly old traditionalists over the past 20 years (like Halperin above) they have been dismissed with the argument that the bias was always there and is simply being brought out in the open. If one wants balance nowadays forget about trusting a single news anchor and their team – we were told to go and seek out the other side of the assumptions and the arguments from other sources.
Fair enough. Except that the problem comes when the other side of the debate is not permitted a similar usage – the views they claim to apply to the world cannot be the real ones. In seeking balance people in the US have increasingly turned away from CNN and the NYT and headed for Fox News and the Weekly Standard and Instapundit.com. This is an inevitable result of what Campbell has argued for but now we find that people are outraged, disgusted and appalled by Fox and co., not to mention folks lower down the foodchain like Kiwiblog.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
>>Might want to see a similar poll on the political leanings of literate and illiterate Americans.
I’ve seen many a survey which bears out the anecdotal evidence that socialists are as thick as pig shit
March 25th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
JafaPete:
You know, Pete, I’m wondering why you declare victory on the basis of an unsubstantiated argument – an argument you’ve repeated over several threads now.
Why is it unsubstantiated? For starters, you haven’t provided the title of the article. This could be a significant omission. For all I know, the article could be about the deadweight loss associated with Clintonesque cigar-smoking. Equally, it could be an article on ownership concentration in the media market. I simply don’t know. And I need to know, in order to discern how your brief throwaway line about conservative outlets fits into the article as a whole.
And why have you omitted the preceding sentence/paragraph before the sentence beginning “For instance”?
Again, (so far) unsubstantiated and meaningless dribble.
I’m left thinking that you’re another Phillip John/Roger Nome – a pseudo-academic who mistakes a bibliography for an argument.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
The political leanings of journalistic staff mean bugger-all in comparison with those of the owners and editors. *cough*Rupert Murdoch*cough*.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Perhaps there are more liberal reporters because liberal reporters demonstrate greater capacity for critical thinking, and critical thinkers make better reporters! Problem solved.
Ohhhh you big sweetie! I realise that you are new to Kiwiblog, but if you’re going to taunt right-wingers you’ll have to be much more subtle than that. Let’s take a look at some recent comments (Jan 26) by Jonathan Chait in the Los Angeles Times shall we…….
Lying? Sleaze-mongering? False claims?
But for the purposes of this thread the money shot has to be the following:
Hey, no one can say that US conservatives (and conservative reporters) did not warn everybody about those Clinton characterstics.
But I guess the ole’ Acme Superior critical thinking hat just could not be slipped on during the 1990’s when solidarity was required. Back then Chait and the rest of the “liberal” reporters simply did a Monica; they swallowed and hoped that the stains didn’t show.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:30 am
I don’t know who auckland pete is nor for which unfortunate minister he worked as a spin doctor but I do know he can’t read a relatively straightforward study and comprehend it. Have a look for yourselves at the study he distorts.
But just to focus the mind, here’s a quote from the authors: >>I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican,” said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study’s lead author. “But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.”<>Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.<<
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
It’s actually interesting to watch that article evolve. An early (2004) version of it is available at
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
And the 2005 version: http://web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/Critical%20Review%20offprint.pdf
Clearly, in his world, “objectivity _is_ bullshit”
March 26th, 2008 at 12:37 am
First try vanished – if it appears later on, my apologies. Trying again because heading to bed.
First, pete consistently fails to understand the article. Here’s a couple of quotes from the UCLA press office summarising main points: >>Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.<>”I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican,” said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study’s lead author. “But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.”
“Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,” said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.<<
Here’s a 2004 version of the article (which is perhaps more interesting): http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
And the 2005 version: http://web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/Critical%20Review%20offprint.pdf
I’ve also got a 2003 version, if anyone wants it,
So I don’t know for which unfortunate minister pete did spinning, but it’s pretty clear he doesn’t read very well – or maybe it’s just that, in his world, ALL “objectivity is bullshit”.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:37 am
deleting, sorry
March 26th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Too many links?
First and second try vanished, apparently marked as spam (which may be a fitting robotic judgement) – if it appears later on, my apologies. Trying again because heading to bed.
First, pete consistently fails to understand the article. Here’s a couple of quotes from the UCLA press office summarising main points: “Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.”
“I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican,” said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study’s lead author. “But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.”
“Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,” said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.”
Here’s a 2004 version of the article (which is perhaps more interesting): http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
And the 2005 version: web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/Critical%20Review%20offprint.pdf
I’ve also got a 2003 version, if anyone wants it,
So I don’t know for which unfortunate minister pete did spinning, but it’s pretty clear he doesn’t read very well – or maybe it’s just that, in his world, ALL “objectivity is bullshit”.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Francis:
Nice research – and thank you for proving my point.
So Jafapete was mistaken (or lying) when he said this:
Having established that Pete hasn’t fairly portrayed his prized article (thanks to Francis), what was his argument again?
- The so-called “liberal” mainstream media in the US is right-wing by NZ standards.
- The Washington Times and Fox News’ Special Report are extremely right-wing and not representative of (in Pete’s words, ” close to“) the average US voter.
- CNN NewsNight is a near-perfect representation of the average US voter (“almost bang on where the average US voter is on the ADA rating scale“).
Pete appears to think his argument is an objectively provable fact.
*Snigger*
The words “the only right-wing outlets included in the survey” are important. They expose Pete’s argument as being several million dollars short of a bankable argument. How can one examine a bag of Granny Smith apples (leaving out other varieties like Golden Delicious) and say they typify the apple population, or draw meaningful conclusions about their popularity in the US?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:06 am
“The political leanings of journalistic staff mean bugger-all in comparison with those of the owners and editors. *cough*Rupert Murdoch*cough*.”
You smug pretentious mindless fool. Can’t you see why the scenario you’re suggesting is utter fantasy? Can’t you see how your infantile allegation cannot withstand logical scrutiny for more than a nanosecond???? How could Rupert Murdoch control everything said or written by every journalist in his employ in very newspaper in every office in every town in every state in every country in the world???? Even if he could somehow manage this superhuman feat, how could he be accused of enforcing a certain political line when some of his outlets are right wing and others left wing???
This utterly outrageously stupid proposition is so typical of the kind of baseless irrational bullshit that underpins so many of the myths of leftism. Just utter fucken dumbfuck insanity. Yet they believe it so absolutely and they repeat it over and over again as if it is undeniable unchallengeable truth. Leftism is a mental disease. There’s no other rational explanation.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Ryan
“Might want to see a similar poll on the political leanings of literate and illiterate Americans”.
I always wondered why the poor voted democrat…now i know its because they are smart.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:01 am
>>“The political leanings of journalistic staff mean bugger-all in comparison with those of the owners and editors. *cough*Rupert Murdoch*cough*.”
Even a primary school kids would know that is bullshit, pity a lot of kids get dumber as they go through education system
If you watch the Simpsons there have been quite a few episodes they have taken the piss out of Rupert Murdoch
Oh and what channel does the Simpsons run on
None other than Faux
Jeez if he can’t/won’t control personal insults against himself on his leading channel, it’s pretty amazing how he controls the political opinions of a large percetage of the world
He must truly be the antichrist
March 26th, 2008 at 6:33 am
I have felt a left wing bias in the media for quite some time. For example I remember being intrigued by an media roundup conversation between Larry Williams, Debra Hill Cone and a NZ Herald journo last year. They were discussing the 800K rort by Labour in the last election. Debra said how surprised she was that the media were taking it to Labour as they had been so “complacent” in the past and covered up many stories including major Labour infighting.
What was fascinating was that neither the NZH journo or Larry contradicted her.
Another example, when did we see – anywhere – an analysis of the claims made in the now infamous EB brochure? The greens wanted to share the bed with Labour after the election, but never was there any analysis on how their odd policies would affect NZ. And of course we all remember the Peter Doon affair when the PM contacted a news outlet, leaked the story on the commissioner, encouraged them to print it to prepare the way for his firing. (Anyone want to take bets this was NOT the first time she had done this). The rest of the media learned of this appalling activity fromt he PM, and it could have tipped the balance of the last election, but for inexplicable reason, they would not print it. In fact, if it hadn’t been for the Bloggs, we would never have known it even happened.
It’s no wonder the PM is so angry with the bloggs. It’s the one place where the left leaning journos are on equal ground with the righties.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Is the fact that Jewish people dominate ownership of US media and the fact that US media give Israel a very free ride, just a mere coincidence?
Before anyone cries “anti-semitic,” here are the facts of US media ownership.
And remember that Colin Powell stated, “It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel.” It’s just that the US media hardly ever does it. How convenient.
And of course you also have other influences.
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1530.htm
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1534.htm
March 26th, 2008 at 7:31 am
this one is for chief obama-hater.(.kiwi in america)..
(gee..!..as i told you it would happen..eh..?..
the obama-wave..part two..!)
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/obama-regains-big-lead-in-north-carolina/
(and on an antipodean note..i am cheered the next president of the united states used to be a ‘barry’/'bazza’..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 26th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Just in response jafa – I really do not think you read what I posted last time. If you had you might have been less quick to (for reasons best known to yourself) ‘point-score’ and address the main thing I was getting at – that blogs are quicker on the uptake, more democratic and beter infromation-banks than the traditional media. Unless of course one can’t read in the first place, or melely gleans the single point one can find to somehow reinforce one’s preconceptions, in which case the traditional media is the perfect one stop shop. And you are welcome to it.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:39 am
“..blogs are quicker on the uptake, more democratic and beter infromation-banks than the traditional media..”
(ahem..!..whoar..?..anyone..?..)
(twenty stories/links so far..this morning..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 26th, 2008 at 8:53 am
*snorts*
A funny little fellow, aren’t you? Let’s look at whoar in the context of that quote, eh Philu.
“..blogs are quicker on the uptake, more democratic and beter infromation-banks than the traditional media..”
Democratic? That is difficult to judge as democracy on a blog is usually delivered through the comments. Whoar does not seem to attract comments, which means it is simply your view of the world.
Better information bank? Not true unfortunately. For information to be useful it needs to be understandable. Whoar, sadly, scores very low on any readability index you can care to name as the punctuation outweighs the content.
Twenty stories or links so far? Great. Fabulous. I’m sure Fark, 4Chan or any number of other sites that are about on par with Whoar have had a number of stories and links thus far. Unfortunately having a voluminous output does not equate to having a … wait. I’m using big words there, you might not understand them.
Quantity is not equal to quality. That’s simple enough.
(ahem..!..whoar..?..anyone..?..)
That should be your catch phrase. Anyone? Anyone? Visit my blog? Please … ?
/lol
March 26th, 2008 at 9:06 am
whore is right.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:26 am
jafapete
Its hard to know if you are trying to prove that the US media isn’t biased or just that Fox News has an obvious tilt to the right. The overwhelming left leaning bias in the US media is provable beyond doubt in so many ways. To name a few:
1. The media studies previously cited and clarified by francis and others
2. The admission of even liberal reporters (Mark Halperin being but 1). Bernard Goldberg, former senior CBS News Correspondent who was a for years a Democrat wrote the book “Bias” that details so many instances of media left wing bias that there is not space on a blog post to do justice to them all.
3. The absence of any conservatives AT ALL on the faculties of Columbia School of Journalism and the Journalism School at the University of Southern California. I link to David Horiwitz’s article in “Front Page” http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=548CBE25-92AA-444C-94A1-8CC4D0621770 where he examines this issue
4. The American viewers and listener have voted with their remotes/dials. Shows on Fox like “O’Reilly Factor” and “Hannity and Colmes” out rate their competition on more left leaning CNN and MSNBC by substantial margins. O’Reilly’s show out rates all his same time slot cable competition COMBINED. Left wing talk radio is virtually non-existent outside of a couple of markets like LA and San Francsisco. For years “Radio America” was propped up financially by left leaning business sympathisers whilst on the right, a large variety of hosts maintain large and profitable audiences devoid of any subsidy from supporters on the right.
5. The speed at which left leaning outlets (NY Times and CBS) rush to publish material they hope will damage Republicans even if their evidence is either flimsy (McCain’s alleged ‘improper’ relationship with a lobbyist unsubstantiated by anyone prepared to go on the record OR the CBS “60 Minutes” prpven to be false hit job on Bush in the runup to the 04 election on his Texas Air National Guard record that eventually cost Dan Rather his job). Meanwhile anything damaging to Democrats gets buried (little interest in Congressman Jefferson of LA’s FBI money laundering and corruption charges – or the blatant conflict of interest of CA Senator Feinstein to name but a few)
6. The fact that the left leaning newspapers all over the US (notably the NY Times, LA Times and WaPost) are experiencing plummeting readerships and thus tumbling shares prices whilst right leaning Washington Times and NY Post are gaining readers.
7. The prominence and warm fuzzies coverage given to causes dear to the heart of the left (global warming, Palestinian issues, Cuba, peace at all costs) and the more hostile coverage (or non coverage if the news is good – eg improvements in the war in Iraq) to issues of more significance to the right (Israel, containing Iranian nuclear ambitions).
The cumulative weight of all these is too much to deny nor mere co-incidence.
jafapete is right in that the political centre of NZ is to the left of the US. But that said, NZ has almost no right leaning media and that which exists (Investigate Magazine) is vilified and marginalised.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:30 am
jafapete is right in that the political centre of NZ is to the left of the US. But that said, NZ has almost no right leaning media and that which exists (Investigate Magazine) is vilified and marginalised.
The Herald’s gone out of print?! WHERE WILL I GET MY SUDOKU.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:39 am
PaulL: whore is right
Oh no doubt, blogs certainly provide a more accountable and more immediate information delivery than the traditional media. But for that you need to go to a blog that is widely read, has a credible author and an active community with input from all sides of an issue. Whoar.co.nz is none of those things.
Ryan: The Herald’s gone out of print?! WHERE WILL I GET MY SUDOKU.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:40 am
philu
I have always stated that I am agnostic as to who is the easier Democrat to run against – Obama or Hillary. As for the PPP Poll in NC, it confirms what previous polls show, that Obama is likely to win NC. Recent polls confirm Clinton’s big lead in PA. There are no recent or regular polls in Indiana, WV, KY or MT. The demographics in WV and KY match OH where she won big. MT is a caucus so should favour Obama. Regardless, neither candidate has any chance of winning outright – the victor must rely on the super-delegates. You believe Obama will be the nominee and the President. He may well be the nominee but all indications are that Clinton will fight this to the bitter end even to the point of fracturing the party. As far as I am concerned, that’s fine by me.
But he will not be the President. McCain continues to hold strong (and if anything a growing edge since the Pastor Wright furore) leads over Sen Obama in the key battleground states and wider leads than over Clinton in the same states. If Obama cannot win PA, OH and FL then he cannot be President. Obama is by far the most left leaning unvarnished liberal to have ever run for President. Last time the Dems put up genuine lefties (McGovern and Dukakis) they were easily beaten. Carter had the tail wind of Watergate and was a relatively centerist Governor of GA – Clinton ran as a new centrist 3rd way Dem eshewing many positions dear to the left both on the hustings and in office. He, or course, never won over 50% of the popular vote gaining office due to Perot splitting the right’s vote in ‘92 and ‘96. So go ahead and dream your dream – history aint on your side.
I wish you’d be a little more sophisticated in your analysis phil. I guess if you are limited to a couple of lines filled with ….and ??? and whoar!! or () then its a bit tricky. But then of course you bragged to japapete that you have a closet full of conservative scalps since no one on Kiwiblog could ever beat you. If you call nasty impatient name calling when you are asked to back you assertions with more detail winning well – that became the giggle of the weekend for me!
March 26th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Well, teachers and journo’s usually flatted together while studying liberal arts subjects and ‘rattling the sabres’ at the student union aka spending the taxpayers money on rallies and rags.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Oh and I note with interest the failure of jafapete to provide redbaiter with just one Bush lie. Go ahead – its not hard. Let’s have your best shot.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Wasn’t it that thing he does, moving his lips I think it’s called.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Yes, I had a good chuckle at that too.
However it was less bragging than Phil and Jafa high-fiving each other in the usual manner of white urban lefties who are down with the street moves – that is, clumsy, awkward and embarrassing to watch, probably because Phil kept missing the hand:
March 26th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Totally agree with Kiwi in America about the media bias in the United States.
In New Zealand on the other hand the media used to lean towards National but for the last few decades are almost uniformly left-leaning in my view. Watch your news reporter interview Helen Clark — he or she shares the same worldview on most issues — homosexuality (a wonderful thing), smacking (child abuse), Exclusive Brethren (part of the religious right wing conspiracy) etc etc etc.
That 80% of New Zealanders were against the anti-smacking bill and the media are now uniformly for it shows the left-wing bias of today’s media in New Zealand.
In the area of religious reporting I think the media’s bias is most clear. The exclusive brethren are suspicious right-wing fundamentalists who should be marginalised and vilified is an example.
But the more subtle bias is the media’s choice of spokesperson when it comes to religious issues. For years they have gone to the same old mouthpieces — Lloyd Geering, Jim Veitch and Richard Randerson. They represent the extreme Liberal end of Christianity and not the breadth of Christianity in New Zealand. It would be like interviewing Keith Locke as a representative spokesman on foreign affairs (oops they already do that).
If the media wanted to really find out what is going on in the area of religion they need to talk to ministers and pastors of vibrant growing congregations. People actually attend these churches — I wonder how many people attend Richard Randerson’s church for example?
Brian Tamaki of destiny church would be one such minister, Paul De Yong of Christian life Centre in Auckland would be another plus there are a number of Baptist pastors in Auckland, Christchurch and Tauranga with congregations of over 1000 on any given Sunday. But the media don’t normally talk to them — heck they might really believe in the Christian faith and who can abide that?
March 26th, 2008 at 10:04 am
A word on polls by the way. This far out from the General they are almost meaningless because so much water can go under the bridge. Kerry led Bush by as much as 17 points in the summer in 04 but still lost in November (Swift boat ads sure helped – Obama’s Wright clips will be fodder for conservative 527’s come the General).
Not all polls are equal. CBS and ABC polls notoriously over sample Democrats sometimes by big margins. Gallup is a little better. Zogby have been a joke for 2 election cycles and were the worst again through the primary season. Rasmussen has consistently been the most accurate. Quinnapiac University in FL are good. There are of course a number of local media polls in certain markets that do well (eg the Des Moines Register poll in IA seems to get the quirky IA caucuses better than most).
Obama will undoubtedly recover some ground in my opinion. All politicians on the receiving end of a big hit eventually recover unless the hit is so big that their campaign is finished so, in anticipation of some crowing from the likes of phil, I will go on the record to say that Obama will recover some ground. Where Obama has a more long term problem is the General election in the battleground states among key demographics. If he is the nominee, blue collar white Democrats in OH and PA are going to respond negatively to 527 ads re-running the Wright rants. Same with Independents. Obama was leading McCain with Independents – that has now reversed. In a close election, and I believe it will be very close, these shifts in small sub groups can make or break a candidate.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I think Obama is toast. Lets not mince words – in a Christian US society he has been linked to a nutcase Muslim “Mentor” and the US ain’t that liberal while they’re still shooting them in Eye-Rak.
Off course my analysis could be grossly oversimplified.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Hi All, So much to respond to, and so little time (deadline looming),
Tom, No, I studied media politics just before post-modernism really came into vogue, and I have always recognised that while it provides a few useful insights, taken as a whole, it’s bollocks. Happy?
And Tom, the line about liberal reporters making better reporters was said in jest (although someone should do a study). But as for your rejoinder, a couple of criticisms of the Clintons does not make for a good argument. I have mixed feelings about the Clintons too, but I do know that Bill would have done a much better job in the WH these last 7 or so years.
No Francis, I didn’t misunderstand the article. I actually looked closely at the article, not the press office summary. This is because (1) the definitive version is the published article, especially if it is in a very highly reputable journal like QJE (ISI Impact Factor of 3.9, for those who know about these things). You see, there is this thing called the referreeing process, in which experts in the field “peer review” the paper and make suggestions or criticise mistakes with the logic or the evidence. As a result, the published version is almost always a much better piece of work. Also (2) when you look at the published paper you can look closely at the constructs employed, how they are operationalised, methods used, etc. I have a few issues with the operationalisation of ideological bias in this paper, but they’re rather technical. And (3) the press office release is designed to generate media interest, not inform. If you go around relying on press releases of studies then you won’t be taken very seriously in some circles, even if you are here.
I would have thought it obvious that the basic problem with any such exercise — and this applies to interpretation of the figures in DFP’s original post — is where do you put the centre? The authors of this study had to front up to this problem — possibly after prompting from the referees. As they put it themselves, “a separate goal is to express whether a news outlet is left or right of center. To do the latter, we must define center. This is a little more arbitrary…” If you can’t understand this point, you’re beyond help.
So, where do we put the centre? I can’t see much point in their comparisons with sitting US senators, except that it provides handy reference points. Hence I pointed to Figure II in the paper, which includes two measures of the “average” US voter. And if you can’t understand that looking at it from a nNZ perspective, the “average US voter is well to the right of what we would consider the centre, then, once again, you are beyond help.
Here’s the link to the *published* paper: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf
March 26th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Well, I put together a response to Tom Hunter & Francis (sorry, but Redbaited & KIA’s efforts are simply too stupid to warrant a serious response), but it seems to have disappeared in the ether. When I tried submitting again I got a wordpress message saying that i’d already submitted it. Must be a right-wing conspiracy. I guess it may turn up, but I’m off for a flat white, as we jafas are wont to do at about this time of the morning.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Agree with you Scott, about the media’s arbitration on “Christian” issues.
You said: (And I agree)
“Watch your news reporter interview Helen Clark — he or she shares the same worldview on most issues — homosexuality (a wonderful thing), smacking (child abuse), Exclusive Brethren (part of the religious right wing conspiracy) etc etc etc.
That 80% of New Zealanders were against the anti-smacking bill and the media are now uniformly for it shows the left-wing bias of today’s media in New Zealand.
In the area of religious reporting I think the media’s bias is most clear. The exclusive brethren are suspicious right-wing fundamentalists who should be marginalised and vilified is an example.
But the more subtle bias is the media’s choice of spokesperson when it comes to religious issues. For years they have gone to the same old mouthpieces — Lloyd Geering, Jim Veitch and Richard Randerson. They represent the extreme Liberal end of Christianity and not the breadth of Christianity in New Zealand. It would be like interviewing Keith Locke as a representative spokesman on foreign affairs (oops they already do that).”
Add to that that the DomPost’s favourite “mainstream Christian” spokesperson is the Rev Margaret Mayman, NZ’s first openly Lesbian “minister”, who lost half the flock at St Andrews on the Terrace upon her appointment.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:40 am
expat
Wright is Christian not Muslim however Wright gave an award to prominent anti-Semitic black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan. Wright also travelled to Lybia with Farrakhan to meet that great friend of the west – Muammar Gadaffi.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Agree with you too, Kiwi in America. The treatment of Communism in particular by the media is close to the position of David Irving on the Holocaust. I am sick of talking to teenage schoolkids who know NOTHING about how many people Che Guevara murdered, or Castro, or Mao, or Stalin. I am sick of the attitude among pigshit thick Kiwis that there was any sort of equivalence between the 2 superpowers of the Cold War. Or that egalitarianism is a goal that can be reached without massive coercion and State violence towards not merely a small “rich prick” minority, but to as near as much as 99% of the population that the distinction hardly matters.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:47 am
jafapete
Allow me to translate from leftese into English. “KIA’s efforts are simply too stupid to warrant a serious response” actually translates to “I have no counter arguments so I’ll do the usual left wing thing and insult my opponent, deem his position as being so untenable as to not warrant a response and scuttle away hoping people will believe me and accept my position as being one of substance”.
Like finding the Bush lie, pick just one of my “stupid efforts” and give it a go.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:49 am
“I’m off for a flat white”
Don’t hurry back. If its one thing Kiwiblog doesn’t need its another sausage machine socialist endlessly spouting the traditional lies and myths that underpin the leftist psyche, and who always turn to water when their bluff is called.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Agree with Redbaiter and Peak Oil Conspiracy: The “Bush Lied” thing is itself evidence of the leftwing media putting across a massive lie on the dumbed-down masses. It is nice to see so many people on Kiwiblog awake to this. Keep calling the bastards on this. “Come on then, NAME one lie that George W. told……”
Hello…….hello……..hello…………..? (echo………echo……….echo………..)
March 26th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Correction, thanks, “conspires with them dang Muslims” was the point I meant to get across. They (Wright and the Obama twins, Mr and Mrs) have some strange, almost militant opinions on race that will go down like a bucket of cold sick with Joe Sixpack when it comes time to stuff the ballot box.
Is the US ready for Obama? No, not while the US is fighting a Holy war against the evil Muslim empire. But look at the choices, Obama or a couple of white crackers with their hands in the till.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Then there’s the role of the blogosphere in keeping the media honest. It works far better in the US than it does here. I long for the day when John Campbell goes the way of Dan Rather…………..
Who KNOWS what sort of lies the lefty mainstrem media got away with BEFORE “Powerline” and the “Drudge Report”? Heck, Joe McCarthy could have ended up vindicated, instead of a whole generation of Commie espionagers getting away scot free…..
March 26th, 2008 at 10:57 am
That Sadam had stockpiles of WMD’s that were about to be turned on the God fearing (oil consuming) Christians of the world? That lie?
March 26th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Jafapete is a typical smug and condescending ivory tower leftist who has spent all his life in the company of like closed minds, all in lemming like agreement with each other on every issue, all believing in and propagandising the same socialist lies, all travelling the same road, marching in step, all singing the Internationale in unison, all imagining themselves as the born to rule intelligentsia, and all therefore completely unable to cope with any challenge that comes from the real world.
He’s left gawping and gaping at the sudden realisation that there are people out there who regard him as a dumbfuck brainwashed fool, and who have questions and comments that leave him scrabbling for a response. Welcome to Kiwiblog dipshit. This aint your usual back slapping commie staffroom.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:01 am
# lloydois Add karma Subtract karma –4 Says:
March 25th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
“Nice to see redbaiter still believes in Bush. I guess someone out there has to. You might not be able to fool most people most of the time but for sure there’s always some sucker out there still ready to believe when every other person of faith and half a brain has seen the light……….go redbaiter…..you’re a LEGEND!!!!!”
Actually, one of the best indicators of greatness in a US President, is if they are continuously savaged and lampooned by the bloody traitorous liberals at the New York Times and the like. Look at Ronald Reagan. “Communism is the focus of evil in the modern world………we are duty bound in the name of the Lord Jesus to resist it with all our might……….”
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH go the Liberals……………Rant, rant, rave, rave, scream, scream, etc, etc………
March 26th, 2008 at 11:01 am
“That lie?”
Why is it that people who are asked this question can never comply with the simple requirements. I’ll tell you. Because they don’t know anything. Totally uninformed on the issue, full of mainstream media bullshit, all they can do is weakly repeat the same old same old propaganda. Read the question you boring dumbfuck. For once in your life use your fucken brain.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Well, well, well, here’s the Wall Street Journal 2 days ago on “Saddam’s Terror Links”……
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120631495290958169.html
And where will any NZ-ers ever get to read this sort of angle if “Investigate” doesn’t do an article on it?
March 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am
“And where will any NZ-ers ever get to read this sort of angle if “Investigate” doesn’t do an article on it?”
So right. The NZ mainstream media are largely only liars and propagandists who follow in sad mindless lockstep with the traitors and fifth columnists who produce the New York Times. The younger journalists are the worst. Half educated and fully indoctrinated, heartlessly manipulated by their politically partisan educators and “mentors”, unconsciously advocating a left wing perspective on every story, they have brought journalism into even greater disrepute by making the media industry almost completely irrelevant and a source of scorn and contempt to anyone seeking the truth.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:36 am
KIA: “jafapete, Allow me to translate from leftese into English.”
Oops, I meant Redbaited and P.O.C.’s posts are too stupid to warrant a serious response. Got my acridnyms (as philu might say) mixed up. Sincere apologies.
Edit: Actually, KIA, you make some good points about US polls. In fact, I’ve been saying similar things myself. On the distance to the Election, I’m inclined to agree with that great American Bill Maher that it’s a sad thing for the country when the Democratic primaries are expected to outlast the Republican candidate.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:45 am
If the media wanted to really find out what is going on in the area of religion they need to talk to ministers and pastors of vibrant growing congregations. People actually attend these churches — I wonder how many people attend Richard Randerson’s church for example?
Brian Tamaki of destiny church would be one such minister
Yes . . . when will the New Zealand media finally give some airtime to Bishop Tamaki? They’ve sure hidden his light under a bushel.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Well, well, well, Here’s Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard 2 days ago……
“What’s happening here is obvious. Military historians and terrorism analysts are engaged in a good faith effort to review the captured documents from the Iraqi regime and provide a dispassionate, fact-based examination of Saddam Hussein’s long support of jihadist terrorism. Most reporters don’t care. They are trapped in a world where the Bush administration lied to the country about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and no amount of evidence to the contrary–not even the words of the fallen Iraqi regime itself–can convince them to reexamine their mistaken assumptions.”
March 26th, 2008 at 11:48 am
DO READ THE WHOLE THING:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp?pg=1
And wake up from the liberal “mainstream” media take on the recent Pentagon report………..
March 26th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Actually Tom Wolfe nailed the US media a long time ago in The Right Stuff:
And Wolfe later gives a side-splitting example of how this worked in practice:
You don’t actualy have to be either left or right to see how this Victorian Gent would deal with the immediate emotional aftermath of 9/11, or Darfur, or Rwanda, or Iraq in the 90’s, or Iraq now! As Wolfe said – this grave gent lives on….. Though I would say, not in excellent health, thanks to 40 years of education in: “white male power structures”, “objectivity is bullshit”, “advocacy journalism” and so forth. Insert those viruses into the Gent and we certainly have something from the Victorian era – Mr Hyde.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Since some people think quoting liberal journalists is clever, here’s something from “Weekly Standard” “journalist”
Matt Labash. Note that the WS is considered the prime voice of Republican neoconservatives, and is owned by… Murdoch.
JournalismJobs.com: Why have conservative media outlets like The Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel become more popular in the past few years?
Matt Labash: Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it’s true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actually.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
hey Jafa..!! Go and have another flat white with your politically one dimensional comrades will you, you gutless boring tosser. You’ve got nothing worth a pinch of goat shit to add to this discussion.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Well, well, well, here’s the Wall Street Journal 2 days ago on “Saddam’s Terror Links”……
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120631495290958169.html
And where will any NZ-ers ever get to read this sort of angle if “Investigate” doesn’t do an article on it?
Well there’s this guy near my work who writes similar material of comparable standard. Of course, he’s a homeless guy and he writes on fences and walls using his own excrement . . .
March 26th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Oh, and on the Wall Street Journal article about Saddam and terrorist organisations…
(1) It doesn’t say anything about Saddam and 9/11. In fact, what it says is, “It’s true that the Pentagon report found no smoking gun, “i.e., a direct connection on a joint Iraq-al Qaeda operation.”
(2) True, it does find evidence that Iraq under Saddam trained terrorists, etc. But do you know who the biggest supporters of al Qaeda were in the region? Members of the Saudi royal family! Oops. Maybe that’s why the WH is so inexplicably silent about this report.
(3) The main reason given for invading Iraq at the time was the imminent threat (EDIT: although overt use of that phrase was mostly avoided by the Bushies) from WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! Five years, still no sign of any WMDs. To be fair, the report does admit that this was “the main Iraq intelligence failure”.
Find me some WMD and then I’ll say that there was some reason to invade.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Hahha.. Where’s the LIE Pete?
Another dumb fuck propagandising leftist hoist on his own petard. (that’s an old saying that means blown up by his own bomb Pete, seeing as you probably weren’t taught that in all your years getting through that caring liberal education process otherwise known as Communism 101, and its a reference to your mistake of labelling other people liars, and then being proved as a liar yourself) Of course you could always plead ignorance. Quite often a completely admissable claim from any leftist, given they very infrequently know their arse from their elbow. I could rip you to shreds on Iraq as easliy as I have on the media bias issue Pete, but right now I’ve got more pressing things to do than amuse myself toying with the daft misconceptions of insular navel gazing group think leftist retards.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
(2) True, it does find evidence that Iraq under Saddam trained terrorists, etc. But do you know who the biggest supporters of al Qaeda were in the region? Members of the Saudi royal family! Oops. Maybe that’s why the WH is so inexplicably silent about this report.
Cant be bothered reading through the thread to find any refernce you may have posted, so can you please post (or repost) a source. I ask because one of the key objectives of Al Qeada and Osama Bin Laden was the downfall of the Saudi Royal Family – the King of Saudi Arabia banished Bin Laden from the Kingdom when Bin Laden got his knickers in a twsit when the King dared to allow Yankee soldiers a base for their attacks against Saddam Hussein during the original Gulf War.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Would be more interesting to look at the political leanings of editors, rather than the journalists. It is the editors after all that decide what issues are researched and what content is printed, not the journalists.
If this was done I wouldn’t be surprised if a conservative/corporate bias is revealed – ala herman and chomsky’s “myth of the liberal media”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic
March 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Funny! Knowing you said that in jest however, I have to add. the Herald’s hardly a right wing paper. Just because they chose to oppose Labour on one issue doesn’t mean they’re suddenly in the right’s pockets.
Pascal,
Yes, mainly in jest, but I wasn’t thinking about their recent Oppose Labour! campaign. I was thinking of the lead-up to the last general election, culminating in the coverage of the results:
Brash Defiant in Defeat
Clark Struggles to Form Government
(As best I recall, that’s not an exaggeration. Those were the two article titles.)
What counts as “left-wing” and “right-wing” bias in the minds of most people in this thread, as far as I can gather, is vastly different from what I consider left- or right-wing bias. Certainly there is a socially liberal bias in the media – most journalists are educated and therefore liberalised, democratised and secularised. For me, that also makes them capitalismated, which is a significant part of bring right-wing in my mind. You will not find a mainstream Kiwi journalist entertaining any ideas that step outside of the bounds of capitalist liberal democracy.
People don’t need to be “in the right’s pockets” to present journalism within a context that seems natural to them. I’m not necessarily saying that’s a bad thing, just that it’s a thing.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
did you hear there are two types of republicans..?
millionaires..and suckers..
(ok..!..line up suckers..!
you know who you are..and we know who you are..!)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 26th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Oh, come ON, Chomsky is a credible observer on this issue? The guy who called Vaclav Havel, jailed by the Soviets for 20 years, a “Capitalist lap-dog”?
SPEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW…………..
March 26th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
And I’ve said THIS before, but if you want to tell whether the Herald or any other media outlet is “right wing” or “left wing”, look at what they say if any National Party politician suggests privatisation of ANY government assett or activity…….or school choice, or freeing up workplace insurance (ACC is a bloody rort).
Not too hard to tell, is it, really?
March 26th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
And would those who claim that “Bush lied”, or made up stuff about Saddam having unaccounted-for WMD’s, get your THICK heads around THIS:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/cluster_document.pdf
6 March, 2003. The United Nations Monitoring, Inspection, and Verification Commission. 175 pages. Titled:
“UNRESOLVED DISARMAMENT ISSUES: IRAQ’S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES”
Funny, but the list of stuff unaccounted for after MORE THAN TEN YEARS of UN weapons inspections bears an uncanny RESEMBLANCE to the list of stuff that the George W. Bush Administration expressed concern over………..how ODD. What a COINCIDENCE.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
does anyone else think phil-the-inferior belongs in the ranks of the truly demented/’barking’..?
(‘over there’..!..(as far away as possible from ‘humans’).. with the likes of ‘ratty-biter’..?..and d4j(erk-off)..?..and the other furniture-gnawers..)
on another thread he gives praise to the leader/driver of the anti-communist witch hunts of the 1950’s..joe mccarthy..(!)
(see what i mean..?..)
feckin’ howling at the moon..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 26th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
And would those who claim that “Bush lied”, or made up stuff about Saddam having unaccounted-for WMD’s, get your THICK heads around THIS:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/cluster_document.pdf
6 March, 2003. The United Nations Monitoring, Inspection, and Verification Commission. 175 pages. Titled:
“UNRESOLVED DISARMAMENT ISSUES: IRAQ’S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES”
Funny, but the list of stuff unaccounted for after MORE THAN TEN YEARS of UN weapons inspections bears an uncanny RESEMBLANCE to the list of stuff that the George W. Bush Administration expressed concern over………..how ODD. What a COINCIDENCE.
The TRAGEDY is that so many Kiwis, not having a “Fox News” to keep the MSM honest, end up uncritically swallowing the “Bush Lied” line from the likes of John a-hole Campbell.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
ARRRRR COME ON, Farrar, POST my stuff.
Philu, the Soviet Archives that were opened after the collapse of the USSR (what a shame, I know, I know), show McCarthy to have been RIGHT. A whole host of traitorous Commie swine got away with a massive espionage job. But as we are saying, don’t hold your breath to see this make the mainstream media. It only got found out around 14 years ago, after all……..
March 26th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
of course..over here you would have two types of actites..
the millionaires..and the (sucker) ideologues..
(i wonder if the ideologues have noticed yet that they do all the donkey-work..?..as i said..’suckers’..)
(and..ahem..!..having been a (wrung-out) full-blown ’sucker’ for the green party..i know of what i speak..)
i’m ok now..!..i’ve been able to ‘put it behind me’..(thanks for asking..!..)
oh..!..hang on..!..act would have three types..!
the millionaires..the suckers..and the opportunistic reef-fish hovering around the (scattered) millionaires..
jostling..
(you know who you are..!)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
oh..!..and there’s ‘gooner’..seems a nice enough chap..
..just a bit ‘confused’..eh..?
March 26th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
“Oh, come ON, Chomsky is a credible observer on this issue? The guy who called Vaclav Havel, jailed by the Soviets for 20 years, a “Capitalist lap-dog”?”
Um … quote? Chomsky routinely denounced the soviet block as an authoritarian horror show. Read any of his interviews on the subject.
“PhilBest”
And BTW – the democrats/liberals are more right-wing than NZ’s Natioanal Party – to say that the US has a “liberal bias”, is kind of meaningless. Chomsky puts it this way: “if you have two “business” parties in a two-party system, and you prove one is favored by journalists, that ’s meaningless –
A) Because voters have very little choice anyway – wither way you vote for the business elite… and
B) Journalists don’t chose which stories get printed anyhow.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
yes..phil-the-inferior..
sit down lad..!..let me tell you a tale of times gone by..
t’was the cold war..(an ideological war fought both with the communist countries..and internally within most european countries..
’spies’/informants..were widely used by both sides..(cf the number of east german officials/people working/informing for the stasi/secret police..)
also..b4/and post second world war was a searching ground for ‘new ways’…wars/imperialism having rendered the then political systems..bankrupt..
now..with that ‘context’..
your point..?
and even outside that ‘context’..just looking at mccarthy..
he was a vile power-mad opportunist..who delighted in wrecking lives/careers of the’progressives’ of that era..
they aren’t called ‘the mccarthy witch-hunts’ for nought..
(once again from you..phil-the-inferior..we get revisionist ‘dissembling’..
eh..?..)
get over in the corner with ‘ratty/d4j(erk-off)..!..and the other numbnuts..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
(mmm!!..smashing pumpkins on whoar fm one..followed by amy..’i treated myself..etc’..i’m no good.’!..)
March 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Ryan
You forgot this fabulous headline about Labour from early 2000:
“One Hundred Days That Lifted Our Spirits”
Chunks. Fingers. Throat. Blowing.
What counts as “left-wing” and “right-wing” bias in the minds of most people in this thread, as far as I can gather, is vastly different from what I consider left- or right-wing bias………….
………..You will not find a mainstream Kiwi journalist entertaining any ideas that step outside of the bounds of capitalist liberal democracy.
Which simply brings us back full-circle to the comment I made early in the thread:
Shorter version: the NZ media, US media, in fact all Western media, are in that famous cage.
You’re not concerned about their left-wing bias because ‘Liberals’ don’t even really count as left-wingers. Labour as class traitors and so forth. Most of us as the “Little Cogs” in Pilger’s famous phrase: “Little Eichman’s” in Ward’s language. Who cares if a bunch of journos are in the tank for Labour or the US Democrats – they’re just fighting over the spoils of a system they could destroy if they really wanted to but cannot because they’re enslaved to it.
Lovely.
Chomsky and Herman pulled that rhetorical stunt a long time ago, and while I can admire the sophistry of implying that everybody is right-wing from one’s perspective in order to deflect criticism of Far-Left lunacy, it rapidly turns into a conspiracy theory. After all, if that is the view taken then even if the fabulous Mr Obama is elected President nothing will really change – which then explains why those US editors whose political leanings are towards a conservative/corporate bias have been so willing to allow all those journalists to genuflect in his direction in so many articles over the last couple of years.
Here in NZ John Campbell is about as close to stepping out of that cage as you can get while still holding down a job at TV3. The job though – that’s the trick. We capitalists designed a truly fiendish system: criticise and smash the system while still being part of the system – tricky. Wonder how the poor luvey will react one day if he finds out how much Pilger despises such journalists.
In any case the fact remains that even if you despise them or despair of them from your perspective you’ll still happily live with their anti-right-wing bias, enable it and reinforce it. The enemy of my enemy sort of thing.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“and while I can admire the sophistry of implying that everybody is right-wing from one’s perspective in order to deflect criticism of Far-Left lunacy”
Did you know that the policy of Sweden’s ruling conservative party is more left-wing than our Labour party’s? The point is that there’s a huge spectrum of political orientation available, yet only the authoritarian right are represented in US politics.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
March 26th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Bush’s lies. Where to start?? Well, let’s start with the WMDs. For those who can’t be bothered going to the numerous websites devoted to listing the man’s lies, here’s a very incomplete sampling:
“I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got a good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction…” March 6, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
“If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?” October 7, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
“And we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells the world he does not have.” February 8, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-17.html
“We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents.” June 5, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030605-1.html
The last one is my favourite. NO mobile biological weapons facilities have ever been found. Bush went on to say, “This is a man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he’s got a big country in which to hide them. We’re on the look. We’ll reveal the truth.”
Yeah, right.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Wow, thanks nattyhq for proving my point about where the relative centre of political gravity falls in the USA. And a fascinating website as Boris Johnson says. I feel soooo smug!
March 26th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Lies, lies, and more Bush lies. There are numerous websites devoted to listing them, and books have been written analysing the most important lies (e.g., “Big Bush Lies”). For those who insist on reliable sources, here are some statements about just one of Bush’s whoppers, WMDs, from a very reliable source… the White House! Enjoy, neocon toadies!
“I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got a good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction…” March 6, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
“If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?” October 7, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
“And we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells the world he does not have.” February 8, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-17.html
“We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents.” June 5, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030605-1.html
The last one is my favourite. Bush went on to say, “This is a man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he’s got a big country in which to hide them. We’re on the look. We’ll reveal the truth.”
Yeah, right.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
nattyhq
I wonder if you could point out precisely what about Barak Obama and his policies cause you to say that he represents the authoritarian right? If I have read you smug little post correctly, in your left leaning world, Obama is right wing?? PLease enumerate his right wing policies – enquiring minds want to know!
March 26th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
jafapete
Still waiting for one Bush lie. Go on – you must have at least one. I’m sure natty could assist.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Did you know that…….
Well yes actually I did, having followed politics around the world for 2 decades plus, and having long been aware of Dear Leader’s fascination with the Swedish Model.
I take it that in your world Sweden’s ruling conservative party can remain more left-wing than NZ’s Labour party even while supporting the introduction of scholarships for every child to take to a school of their parent’s choice.
That’s ACT policy here I understand: competition, free choice and all those other accoutrements of the business elite.
Perhaps Labour are not the lost cause you thought they were!
March 26th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Um, I did post something, and then it didn’t show up, so I posted it again (after this morning’s experience I copied it), and then the first post showed, and now both are on my screen, but with a little message saying, “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” It’s all a vast right-wing conspiracy!
Meantime, you can satisfy your quest for Bush lies at http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm, http://www.bushlies.net, bush-lies.blogspot.com, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031013/corn, pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html, http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html, tvnewslies.org/html/bush_lies.html, http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html, and so on.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Philbest
When debating with Chomskyites there is no point in mentioning Vaclav Havel. He long ago turned away from ‘the other soul of socialism’ and is now just in the tank for capitalism like the rest of us. So his comments carry no weight with the remains of the far-left.
There is no point even in appealing to the possibility that he reached his conclusions after having been subjected to imprisonment, beatings and house arrest at the hands of Lennists, because they’re just right-wingers too.
Yes. Really.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
>>Redbaiter –1 Says:
>> March 26th, 2008 at 11:01 am
>> “That lie?”
>> Why is it that people who are asked this question can never comply with the >> simple requirements. I’ll tell you. Because they don’t know anything.
>> Totally uninformed on the issue, full of mainstream media bullshit,
>> all they can do is weakly repeat the same old same old propaganda. Read
>> the question you boring dumbfuck. For once in your life use your fucken
>> brain.
Redbaiter sucessfully debates the point and sums up with a great argument as to why I am wrong! HA HA HA.
Where do they come from? On the bright side it does make one thankful for not being aflicted as Redbaiter is.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:01 am
NattyHq
Don’t get me wrong I think Political Compass is a very useful self measurement but I think the results on the Political Compass for political parties/politicians/countries are total wrong
All countries in Europe fall on the economic right? Puleeeeeeeze
I answered if as I was Helen Clark and got
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67
Now I am not saying that is correct. It seems a little too economically leftwing
But you can’t possibly suggest that Helen Clark/NZ Labour falls in the Socially Authoritarian half
With about 80% of the country being on opposite more conservative side of the issues such as anti-smacking/ legalizing prostitution/civil unions/ tougher sentences for criminals than her
I would be interested to hear the results if somebody else tried it too
March 27th, 2008 at 6:39 am
emmess perhaps you don’t realise that Clark and the left in general are extremely authoritarian.
Lefty supporters are not prepared to entertain opposition to their point of view, because they arrogantly assume that what they believe is the correct thing to do for the sake of humanity. Therefore the opposition is mistaken and merely need to be educated in order that they see what the “advanced thinkers” already see.
Lefty politicians are not so naive. They know exactly what they are doing and they cynically use the power of the state to achieve their ends which is to simultaneously weaken the independence and power of the individual while at the same time advancing the power of the state over the individual.
Clark’s administration is littered with specific examples and at the macro level we see it in the following ways: the extraordinary amount of legislation and additional bureaucracy; the social engineering legislation you mention in your post; the manipulation of naive journalists, who swallow the lie that it’s all about humanity, hook line and sinker; the squashing of opposition using unconstitutional means via the EFA and installing heavily biased speakers throughout their entire term of office.
What many don’t appear to realise and this thread is a perfect example, is that sometimes the right also produce authoritarian politicians and the present President is one of those. Look at how he has unconstitutionally advanced the power of the Executive Branch over the Supreme Court and the Congress for example. But many conservatives appear to be as naive as lefties when it comes to objectively analysing those of their own ilk, which is a shame because by the time history exposes such people, the damage they have done is already embedded and it’s far too late to do anything about it.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Just for the record, I did post a bunch of Bush lies about WMDs, but, 15 hours later it is still being “moderated”. For what reason is unclear. There is no abuse nor expletives in the email, although the Bush lies are pretty unsavoury, I guess.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Yes, I posted a link too. and my posting has also not appeared. My link was to a report produced by the UN Monitoring, Inspection, and Verification Commission in March 2003, titled “Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq’s Proscribed Weapons Programmes”
Now it is a funny thing, but after nearly TWELVE YEARS of UN Inspections inside Iraq, (during which time they were constantly stonewalled and played games with), UNMOVIC produced a list of stuff about which they were STILL concerned. Even funnier, that list of stuff bears an uncanny resemblance to “Bush’s lies”.
Hint: a President who lists stuff that has been given to him by a whole host of authorities, including his own nation’s intelligence agencies, the intelligence agencies of other countries, AND THE UN itself, is actually NOT “lying”.
There is actually a 2006 CIA report that has never been declassified, entitled: “Iraq WMD retrospective series; No5: Misreading Intentions: Iraq’s reaction to inspections created picture of deception”. The title kinda says it all, doesn’t it?
If you care to read up on the history of the way Iraq treated the UN weapons inspection teams, it is just incredible to think that Iraq DID NOT have any WMD’s. If they DIDN’T have anything to hide, why did they ACT so exactly like they DID have EVERYTHING to hide? If it is ever proven conclusively that Iraq whisked stocks of WMD’s off to Syria prior to the invasion, of if a previously-undiscovered cache is unearthed, it would actually explain everything. It is just not a credible explanation at all, that Iraq did NOT have them.
Try the book “Saddam’s Secrets” by (UN weapons inspector) Jim Trevann. And “The Bomb in my Garden” by Mahdi Obeidi. Iraqi scientist Obeidi tells the Iraqi point of view. Iraqis in the regime itself believed that they DID have WMD’s that Saddam was concealing from the UN inspections, even if they themselves were not directly involved. The regime was heavily compartmentalised, with contact between scientists and scientists, and Generals and Generals, being strictly forbidden. (The whole structure was designed to prevent opposition to Saddam building up). There was a whole host of stuff that Iraqi scientists were forbidden to tell UN weapons inspectors. Iraqi scientists were never permitted to talk to UN weapons inspectors without “minders” present. The impasse in 2003 could have been broken had Saddam been prepared to allow scientists to travel to Jordan to talk to the UN free of coercion. He was not even prepared to allow this. He genuinely believed to the end, that there would be no invasion. He regarded the whole set-up where his mates Chirac and Putin would veto UN authorisation of an invasion, and the emasculation of US power in the face of this, with derision.
I can quite understand Redbaiter’s willingness to have your type “bring it on”. Tragically, the wider public has been propagandised with the lies of the anti-Bush MSM and it is a shock to you to find that not everyone has been such an easy pushover.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
“Philu” calls ME “revisionist”. Spoken like a true Stalinist, “philu”.
Come on, tell us that tens of millions of deaths in the former USSR is capitalist “revisionism”. Tell us how wonderful Communism is, and how it is entitled to be treated as a moral equal to free democratic capitalism………
Tell us why it is OK for David Irving to be prosecuted for Holocaust denial, but for professors, teachers, and journalists to carry out a massive de facto Gulag denial con job. Tell us why it is OK for heroes like Whittaker Chambers to be vilified for turning against his Soviet espionage handlers and blowing the whistle. Tell us why it is OK for Soviet archival evidence to be ignored.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:07 am
“Just for the record, I did post a bunch of Bush lies about WMDs”
Just for the record you hapless non comprehending socialist moron, you were specifically instructed that a bunch was not what was required. Read the post again for chrissake. Just one was all you were asked for- a quote with date and source clearly referenced. Your best one, so that once that has been demolished as a lie itself, and a slander, and partisan propaganda, then the others you have that are inferior will also be by logic unable to withstand scrutiny.
JUST ONE. A quote with date and source. Is that request really so fucken impossible for you propaganda spieling hate merchants to comply with???
..and for God’s sake learn to read and comprehend. You show all the signs (like that other time wasting bandwidth wasting knuckle dragger “expat’) of being an absolutely worse waste of time than most leftists, who habitually have the comprehension skills of week old road kill. I only have limited time to indulge myself in this amusement, and if you dumbfucks can’t read or comprehend, and force me to repeat even the most simple concepts, and explain them over and over again as if I’m communicating with an infant, it takes all of the interest out of it. So come on Pete, lift your game boy. Honestly, I just don’t have the time (or the patience I’m sorry) for numb nutted drooling dumbfucks.
Here- from the above post- out of sympathy for your apparently parlous mental state, I’ll repeat it for you one more time-
————————
But more- COMPREHEND IT.- Points to remember- Just one lie. Not twenty. Not some phony left web page full of baseless allegations smears and lies. Not one hundred. Just one. Pick the best lie you’ve got and put it here, and I’ll prove you wrong, and I’ll prove that contrary to leftist’s claims, Bush did not lie and has only been the victim of a massive global hate campaign coordinated and managed by the left’s international network of liars slanderers cowards communists and con artists. Just one lie Pete. Your best.
————————
You cannot comply of course. You know that on a one to one basis, your lies can be easily exposed for the gutless cowardly smears they really are, and that means that the only way your propaganda can succeed is by means of clouding the issue, and obfuscation, and camouflage, and diversion, and you achieve this by means of dumping so many allegations out there they become impossible to deal with. Don’t think people aren’t awake to your feeble and cowardly strategy to avoid accountability for your cowardly slanders. Your desperate attempts here to ignore what is in effect an extremely simple request prove that everything I claim about the left’s Hate Bush campaign is perfectly correct.
PS- here’s another simplicity that you apparently cannot comprehend. Posts with massive numbers of urls are always held for moderation. Learn the forum rules dipshit. Why is it always the left who need everything explained to them in such infantile terms??
March 27th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Chomsky and other Leftists like to weasel out of the responsibility of THEIR Left-wing ideology for the massive death and suffering that it has caused everywhere it has been tried. This just does not wash. It is IMPOSSIBLE to IMPOSE egalitarianism WITHOUT force. If you want to take an intellectual stance against “inequality”, you cannot avoid complicity in force. The leftists that take the ground that “the end justifies the means” are at least intelligent enough, or honest enough, to admit it. They are still deeply morally wrong.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:12 am
“Philu” calls ME “revisionist”. Spoken like a true Stalinist, “philu”.
True of course, but why worry. As nothing more than a poorly educated uninformed low IQ welfare beneficiary of extremely narrow political perspectives, is anything Philu writes here ever relevant or of the slightest import?? I’d say your responses to his posts would be a good literary example of the legendary pearls before swine.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Deleted duplicate post
March 27th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Chomsky and Herman pulled that rhetorical stunt a long time ago, and while I can admire the sophistry of implying that everybody is right-wing from one’s perspective in order to deflect criticism of Far-Left lunacy, it rapidly turns into a conspiracy theory.
Well, no, it doesn’t turn into a conspiracy theory – that’s precisely Chomsky and Herman’s point. There are no people sitting around in dark rooms deciding what will or will not be in mainstream media. It’s unconscious self-censorship and the nature of market media. TV One’s 6pm news doesn’t sit down and decide to dumb down New Zealand and distract them from serious issues by playing a full overseas piece on Britney Spears. It’s just that people like watching that stuff, so they’re unlikely to turn the channel to TV3 while it’s on.
Similarly, mainstream media don’t get together and say, “Right, this year we’re going to promote the idea that only National and Labour are viable parties worth caring about.” They do it because their job is to give people stories they’ll expect and want to watch. If TV3 gave a similar amount of attention to minor parties’ policies that it does to Labour or National, viewers would feel like they’re missing out on what’s really important – Labour and National.
It’s certainly not sophistry (in the negative sense) to point out that mainstream media is right-wing, if by “right-wing” we mean “capitalist”, which is much more what it originally meant. It’s patently obvious that the discourse in mainstream media is higher-tax capitalism versus lower-tax capitalism, and between socially liberal capitalist government versus socially conservative capitalist government. Chomsky’s point is that this is not the result of a conspiracy, but the natural organic development of context, bias and thought in general.
The point is not to “deflect criticism of Far-Left lunacy”, but rather to point out that there is no real criticism while any opinions outside of that spectrum are unreflectively dismissed out of hand as being “far-right” or “far-left”.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:38 am
“Tragically, the wider public has been propagandised with the lies of the anti-Bush MSM and it is a shock to you to find that not everyone has been such an easy pushover.”
Nothing has demonstrated the ideological corruption of the mainstream media as much as their failure to challenge the misinformation and politically motivated hysteria underpinning three of the left’s most outrageous lies- Global warming, the Iraq war was / is a failure, and that Bush lied as a means of gaining public support for the war. Rather, led by the traitors and fifth columnists at the New York Times, they have been willing participants in these massive propaganda campaigns. Its why nowadays they’re regarded by a large sector of the population with utter contempt. Whatever degree of credibility the mainstream media ever had has been diminished to infinitesimal. They are largely just worthless partisan scum.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Chomsky and other Leftists like to weasel out of the responsibility of THEIR Left-wing ideology for the massive death and suffering that it has caused everywhere it has been tried. This just does not wash. It is IMPOSSIBLE to IMPOSE egalitarianism WITHOUT force. If you want to take an intellectual stance against “inequality”, you cannot avoid complicity in force. The leftists that take the ground that “the end justifies the means” are at least intelligent enough, or honest enough, to admit it. They are still deeply morally wrong.
Please read Chomsky before associating him with authoritarian state socialists. It makes you look all “cool” and “hip” if you have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:52 am
“There are no people sitting around in dark rooms deciding what will or will not be in mainstream media.”
You are wrong Ryan. There is plenty of evidence out there to make the case that media organisations are run by leftist ideologues who make it their business to see that anyone who does not subscribe to the party line is not employed. Read Bernard Goldberg or even our local journo ‘Fairfacts Media’, who has recently written on this very point on ‘No Minister’. Read that stats that Mr. Farrar provides in his item.
The sad thing is the same pattern of political control, by means of not hiring anyone unsympathetic to left liberal viewpoints is duplicated at universities. Hence so many graduates with only one political perspective. Universities have been turned into leftist indoctrination camps, with graduates (especially those with the insecure psychological profile that makes pseudo liberalism seem attractive) exiting university completely ignorant of alternative viewpoints on so many issues that challenge the leftist norm.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Redbaiter,
How many high-school or tertiary finance or economics students in New Zealand are taught anything other than capitalist economics?
I certainly see your point about the tendency of academics and journalists to be “liberal” in the sense you mean – socially liberal, and often in favour of higher taxation and wealth redistribution. But by the same token, that tendency for people in those fields to have similar opinions takes the form of them all being capitalists. Liberal capitalists.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
It’s certainly not sophistry (in the negative sense) to point out that mainstream media is right-wing, if by “right-wing” we mean “capitalist”, which is much more what it originally meant.
Since we live in a country that enjoys a free market economy and almost everybody supports this basic model of political economy it doesn’t seem very useful to me to describe everyone who endorses capitalism as ‘right-wing’, since it captures about 95% of the population. Don’t you think you’re making the same mistake as Redbaiter?
March 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
‘Capitalists’ in favour of ‘higher taxation and wealth redistribution’??? Yeah right.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
it’s quite a narrow..almost ‘cartoon-like’ track/belief system you run on..
eh ratty..?
maybe you need to pull your head out of your arse once in a while..eh..?
just pull it out..and have a look around..
the world is slightly more nuanced..than you would have us/seem to..believe..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Jafa
I don’t know if this will be seen amidst the chaos of yet another fight with Chomsky worshippers but here is my response to your delayed posting.
…….Post-Modernism……. It’s bollocks. Happy?
Yep!
…. Was said in jest….
And I know that you know that I knew…. Oh fuck it. Fair enough, but such things are said here in all seriousness by the occasional appearance of Public Address types – they of the tilted nose.
But as for your rejoinder, a couple of criticisms of the Clintons does not make for a good argument. I have mixed feelings about the Clintons too,….
Not really the point. There were several points, although you probably had to read between the lines or perhaps around the context of that single example. I’ll try to be more explicit.
First, Chait was simply one of many ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’…….. oh hell – Non-Right reporters – who decided that they would side with the Clintons in the 90’s because they felt that the alternative was worse and that they had no choice, despite probably having ‘misgivings’ themselves.
Second, in 2008 they do have a choice. A wonderful choice – not just someone who’s even more polished and media savy than Bill but who can bring healing hands to the tortured soul of racist America and whose leftiness is so far hardly compromised – so they’ve gone for Obama.
Now up to this point one could fairly say that this is just politics, Fox and National Review will store their anger at McCain and back him because they feel the alternative is worse, although I recall no Republican candidate who brought forth the sort of semi-religious adoration that Obama does.
But the third point is where it gets juicy, for only now do the Chait’s of the US profess themselves to be shocked, …. shocked,… by these Clintonian tactics and begin to wonder at what may underlie them. Tactics that are exactly what Clinton’s opponents complained about in the 90’s – only to find themselves dismissed as right-wing nutcases and frothers: ‘trailer trash’ as a term perhaps being applied to more than just a young women. The only time the MSM could be said to be putting the Clinton’s under pressure was when sex came to the fore – and that almost certainly had far more to do with the modern mass media obsession with sex scandals than politics, let alone idealogy. Even there the rationalisations ran thick and fast.
The fourth point is that all of the above was made far worse simply because of the sheer weight of numbers of Chaits pumping out the rationalisations and excuses in the MSM in those pre-blog, pre-Fox days: their overwhelming dominance in the US media market at the time. Hence the laughter on the right-wing at Chait’s slowly dawning comprehension that, maybe, just maybe, the conservatives were right about the Clintons. The amusement that yet another intelligent, critically-thinking, well-read, self-professed ‘liberal’ had made a jaw-dropping misjudgement of the character of their primary political representative (whether such critical faculties have made similar misjudgements about their idealogical aims is another question).
That all this has long been accepted by the denizens of The Nation and Z even as they complain about their side of the arguments being squeezed out gives me no comfort at all. John Campbell raised the same issue after the beating he took on Corngate in 2002. I’m paraphrasing here but Campbell said something to the effect that he had never before realised how true Chomsky’s observation was – about ‘liberal’ society controlling the messages – until he found himself under fire from journalists and friends who he had thought were on the same side as him.
But so what? The far-left never once considered that conservatives and libertarians might have had very similar complaints. That they too would be pissed off at their arguments and ‘messages’ consistently being dropped into a black hole by self-professed media liberals who had considered such arguments and dismissed them as not worthy of further discussion by the masses. The far-left never gave a shit because, as shown by the likes of Ryan, we were simply lumped in with the ‘liberals’ and social democrats as all right together, in a categorisation that seemed to extend far beyond merely being ‘capitalists’.
Corngate is a classic example: while all the sturm and drang swirled around whether our precious GE-controls had been knowingly breached and reporters breathlessly covered the fight between Labour and the Greens (and took political sides), the point was that it was a fight between, once again, two arms of the left.
The truly 1984 quality of the debate was that the Greens (and Campbell) pushed the implication that they were in virtuous opposition to two ‘right-wing’ parties – National and Labour – who were pro-GE (sort of) solely because they were both in bed with business. It’s quite clear that such arguments were not ad hoc but part of a long-standing idealogy – and judging from this thread it’s one that is very much alive.
That there were right-wing arguments out there that the whole anti-GE thing was bullshit from a science and technology viewpoint, and that Corngate was a storm in a teacup, never entered into the mass-media picture. That itself is a wonderfully self-reinforcing mechanism because one can then claim that the arguments are ‘fringe’ and further proof that they need not see the light of day.
It’s not just that arguments are disappeared but the language control itself of the Chaits of this world. In the example I gave he talked about the ‘irrational’ loathing of the Clintons. Since I was living there at the time I can certainly attest that some of it was. But the implication (and it’s always an implication) is that his new-found distaste for them is not ‘loathing’ and that it is not ‘irrational’. The whole attitude was, and remains, one where the arguments are only acceptable (‘rational’, ‘sensible’, etc) when they occur between the good folks of Chait land. If they think the sun shines out of Clinton’s ass circa 1992 then we lesser creatures should simply accept that. If they then change their mind s16 years later then we should accept that too – as well as their new saviour.
The point is that unless one was a ‘liberal’, as defined by Chait and co, then one did not get to take part in either discussion (or any other) in any meaningful way (in the sense of getting reasoned responses).
All of these things are the reason for the appearance of Kiwiblog and Fox and the Weekly Standard, and the degree of hatred and sneering dismissal is merely an indication of their success. Despite the diverting arguments about CNN Newsnight being bang-on with the average American voter – well the ratings success of Fox , actual eyeballs on screen, not to mention the growth of right-wing talk radio and websites like Instapundit – would suggest that something is amiss with those calculations. Similarly with the utter failure of Air America Radio.
Truly a case of theory vs. reality.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
‘Capitalists’ in favour of ‘higher taxation and wealth redistribution’??? Yeah right.
Capitalist in the sense of believing in and upholding private ownership of the means of production, wages determined by the labour market (with regulation or not), and sale price determined by the buyer market (with tax or not). Every political party currently in Parliament accepts those notions, as do almost every academic and probably every mainstream journalist. Most will consider capitalism so obvious and natural that they won’t ever have questioned those basic assumptions.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I don’t do nuances.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Nice post Tom
Jafapete – just pick your best ‘Bush lie’ and re post. Its not that hard. Remember, no more than 2 links – just give the url without making it a link and please not to liberal/left leaning blogs.
philu
Re nuance – a bit rich you accusing others of lacking nuance when you’ve made an art form of stuccatto non-nuanced commentary replete with breathless recitations (or links to your website) of talking points from your buddies at Daily Kos and fellow travellers.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“Every political party currently in Parliament accepts those notions, as do almost every academic and probably every mainstream journalist.”
A brave and wide ranginging assertion. I say it is utter rubbish. The prevailing political mood in NZ (as a result of decades of one sided political debate) is adamantly opposed to laisse faire, (look out, National is going to get together with ROGER DOUGLAS shriek horror, and sell your assets..!!!!!) and how anyone can perceive it otherwise is to me completely inexplicable.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Tom Hunter.
You said, “The far-left never once considered that conservatives and libertarians might have had very similar complaints. The far-left never gave a shit because, as shown by the likes of Ryan, we were simply lumped in with the ‘liberals’ and social democrats as all right together, in a categorisation that seemed to extend far beyond merely being ‘capitalists’.”
You must have missed it above, so I’ll repeat it for you:
The point is not to “deflect criticism of Far-Left lunacy”, but rather to point out that there is no real criticism while any opinions outside of that spectrum are unreflectively dismissed out of hand as being “far-right” or “far-left”.
Both the “extreme right” and the “extreme left” are dismissed equally, for the same reason. You are clearly incorrect when you say that the far-left (if I am representative of it, as clearly you believe) “never once considered” that conservatives and libertarians have similar complaints. Another example, just above, where I see where Redbaiter is coming from: “I certainly see your point about the tendency of academics and journalists to be “liberal” in the sense you mean.”
Apology accepted.
As for “being lumped” with social democrats and liberals, which part of “both high-tax capitalists and low-tax capitalists are capitalists” do you have a problem with? If you don’t like sharing adjectives with high-tax capitalists, you could always become a socialist. You’ll still be stuck with “human”, though. All “lumped in” with those other humans.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
A brave and wide ranginging assertion. I say it is utter rubbish. The prevailing political mood in NZ (as a result of decades of one sided political debate) is adamantly opposed to laisse faire, (look out, National is going to get together with ROGER DOUGLAS shriek horror, and sell your assets..!!!!!) and how anyone can perceive it otherwise is to me completely inexplicable.
And yet here I am trying to explick it.
Laissez faire is one particular kind of capitalism, and you’re quite right – totally unregulated and unrestricted capitalism is as unreflectively dismissed in New Zealand as socialism is. They’re both outside of the bounds of the established spectrum of opinion. So we can be clearer again about what is thinkable in New Zealand, and what is unthinkable – dismissed not for good reasons, but simply being “extreme”:
Capitalism is taken for granted by almost everyone. So is the necessity of taxes, labour regulation and redistribution to some degree or other. Therefore, both socialist views and laissez-faire views don’t get even considered. That’s why I referred above only to all political parties currently in Parliament – there is a communist part (I think?) and there are the Libertarianz, but neither have anything more than a “fringe” existence. Both are equally dismissed out of hand, to the point where there isn’t even any discussion as to why either of them are wrong.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Jafa
Just a couple more things.
…….but I do know that Bill would have done a much better job in the WH these last 7 or so years.
Hmmm – maybe not Bill but some other personage from the Democrats perhaps – say – a former Vice President?
Maybe if Chait and co had come to the realisation earlier that the conservatives were …right about Bill Clinton all along? they might have yielded in their defence and pressured him to resign. A couple of ‘fresh start’ years in the capable hands of Al Gore and maybe that would have been enough to swing the 2000 election his way.
Ah well, blind idealogy can be karmic.
Hmmmmm…. Objectivity is bullshit, which means that subjectivity is okay? Except when the subjective attacks are aimed at media who claim to be objective? Or is it unacceptable when subjectiveness is hidden underneath the “Fair and Balanced” claim – which is different than when it’s “The Newspaper of Record”, or “America’s Most Trusted Journalist” or “The Voice of The People”.
Actually, calling people subjective who claim to be objective while you yourself are subjective has been a great little racket for a long time and it would seem that the real problem is that a bunch of right-wingers have now joined in the game.
I think we should let the fur fly across the board.
And then we’ll have ice cream.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“totally unregulated and unrestricted capitalism is as unreflectively dismissed in New Zealand as socialism is.”
I give up. Anyone who can make as many unreal statements as you have made Ryan is beyond help.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Redbaiter,
I was agreeing with you. Laissez-faire capitalism is also dismissed out of hand.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Redbaiter…
But here, in response to: “The political leanings of journalistic staff mean bugger-all in comparison with those of the owners and editors. *cough*Rupert Murdoch*cough*”…
So, which is it?
March 27th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“I was agreeing with you.”
Ryan- my perception of NZ is that it is a hopeless socialist basket case, and I could give you a thousand reasons as to why I think that. For example, government expenditure represents around 50% of GDP. I also see NZ as a nation in the complete and utter thrall of leftist scaremongers who have succeeded so well in their propaganda campaigns that so many NZers turn knock kneed and trembling at the spectre of any move toward a more market based economy.
NZ is a nation in the grip of the classic leftist fantasy. They heartily embrace socialism because they are lied to by its socially and politically ascendant cheer squad, and reject capitalism for roughly the same reason. They think they are building Nirvana, when the reality is they are fast approaching a dark deep chasm.
I’m sorry, there’s no way I can see a statement saying that socialism is as equally ‘dismissed as totally unregulated and unrestricted capitalism” as agreeing with me, or even remotely correct.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
tom hunter Add karma Subtract karma +2 Says: March 27th, 2008 at 1:28 pm: “…….but I do know that Bill would have done a much better job in the WH these last 7 or so years.”
Hmmm – maybe not Bill but some other personage from the Democrats perhaps – say – a former Vice President?
No I mean Bill. I’m talking about doing the President’s job, not fooling around with interns. Let me remind you… Bill Clinton came in after a lengthy period of Republican control of the WH, and inherited one hell of an economic mess, but managed to clean it up, put the economy and the federal budget back on track, just in time for… oh no, another lengthy period of Republican control of the WH and more trillion dollar deficits and recessions. (Yes, he had some help from Greenspan, granted, but so did GWB and now look what’s happening.)
I know the Constitution won’t allow that, more’s the pity. He’d romp home too. (In the figurative sense, I mean.)
March 27th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
“Bill Clinton came in after a lengthy period of Republican control of the WH, and inherited one hell of an economic mess, but managed to clean it up, put the economy and the federal budget back on track, just in time for… oh no, another lengthy period of Republican control of the WH and more trillion dollar deficits and recessions.”
Another shameless dumbfuck lie. You just don’t know anything outside standard leftist doctrine at all do you Jafaboy.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
jafapete
More left leaning re-writing of history. Clinton came to power on the back of Ross Perot’s quixotic run for the WH. Perot’s 8% ensured Clinton’s election in ‘92 with a mere 42% of the popular vote which he could only bump up to 48% against the hapless Dole in ‘96. It was the Republican Congress of ‘94 that balanced the federal budget you ning nong. The dot com bust happened under Clinton’s watch if you want to get technical. Bush had to absorb the huge economic fallout of 9/11 AND the dotcom bust all at the beginning of his Presidency. His tax cuts ensured that 9/11 caused only a short and shallow recession and then ushered in one of the longest peacetime expansions since WW2 – 17 consecutive quarters of GDP growth. His budgets absorbed the cost of war and reconstruction in Iaq and Afganistan AND the $100billion hit of Hurricane Katrina that was an act of nature and still the budget deficit keeps coming down. Yes – needed adjustments are underway in the mortgage and housing markets but the underlying productive capacity of the US economy remains strong and will recover quickly from the write downs in the Mortgage Backed Securities portfolios.
Still waiting for you to re-post your juiciest most easily defended Bush lie.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Just as an aside – the whole “inherited one hell of an economic mess…..’ theme is yet another example of exactly what this thread is about.
I’ll see if I can find the study that showed that the volume of MSM stories with gloomy depictions of the economy were four times higher in the three months leading up to the 1992 Presidential election than in the three months after.
Funny that!
March 27th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
KIA
I’m not sure what you’re talking about “rewriting” of history. Did I say anything about how Clinton came to power? Nope, not a word. Did I say there was a Democratic Congress the whole time under Clinton? Nope, of course not. Having worked on Capitol Hill, I do know more about this than you might expect. You might recall that in winter of 1995 the government shut down for several weeks as Clinton forced his budget on that very same Congress. (And funniest thing, the voters blamed the Republicans, and Slick Willy was on the comeback trail.) For a really good run down on what happened with the budgets, Woodward’s “The Aganda” can’t be beaten, as you probably know. And before redbaited starts his usual apoplectic spasms about F****n liberal journalists, etc, etc, ad nauseum, note that Clinton doesn’t exactly come out of this account smelling of roses. The bottom line is that, thanks to the WH’s cleverness, those budgets owed a lot more to Clinton than the Republicans.
Also, ever wondered why the Clintons are so popular with white collar workers? It’s because under Clinton wage & salary earners enjoyed the first increase in their real incomes since Carter.
Anyway, I certainly don’t have time to sift through the mountains of Bush lies looking for the best. That would take days, if not weeks. Whole books have been written about Bush’s lies. But here’s a favorite, from an impeccable source. Note: NO mobile biological weapons facilities have ever been found. But, since they can’t even find Osama, who knows, maybe there is a mobile biological weapons facility somewhere parked at the side of the road…
“We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents.” June 5, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030605-1.html
Bush went on to say, “This is a man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he’s got a big country in which to hide them. We’re on the look. We’ll reveal the truth.”
ROTFLMAO!
March 27th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
“ROTFLMAO!”
Yeah I am, at your pathetic attempt to paint this as a Bush lie. I mean I don’t even need to go into the detail of what was actually found because your proposition is laughable in its failure to withstand scrutiny on even the most simple terms of logic.
Whether they were biological weapons facilities or not, matters not one jot in respect of your claim that this is the best example of a Bush lie. What is your scenario? That technical equipment was found, and Bush went out there and looked at it all on his own, and decided to come back again all on his own, and tell the world on his own again that it was a biological weapons facility, knowing full well at the time that it wasn’t any such thing, and aware that any future investigation would surely prove his claim untrue, and then give the Democrats and their media buddies a real reason to call him a liar????? Yeah right. You sad brainless infant. Gawd I try not to be too judgmental of you commies but really, its like shooting fish in a barrel.
Bush said they had found such facilities because he believed it, and so did the people who found it believe it. Its not a lie you sad propagandising fuckwit, given that a lie has to be in the first place a deliberate and dishonest deceit. What about the Democrats who said the same things as Bush? What about Bush’s non partisan military advisers and consultant engineers who were investigating the unit? ? What about the diplomats and public servants involved? They were all lying too? Fuck off you silly little predictable commie pissant. Get a life, but first of all get a brain. You’re too easy.
“NO mobile biological weapons facilities have ever been found.”
So what. Are you saying Saddam never used biological weaponry? Unless you are, that statement is worthless. Next “lie” please loser.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Hmmm.. or, perhaps, not all Conservative-leaning journalists acknowledge their lean?
Perhaps not all Conservative-leaning journalists believe they are leaning…?
I love that the NY Times is the flagship example of a “Biased” leftie rag, while the laughable Fox news is deemed gospel in these quarters!
March 27th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Jafapete
A lie is a deliberate attempt to distort the truth or utter a knowing falsehood. The presence of WMD in Iraq (of which the mobile germ lab was but one suggested) became the subject of intense analysis of all the world’s intelligence agencies. The following countries and their foreign intelligence agencies ALL reached the same conclusion about Saddam Hussein’s regime – that he was habouring WMD. This list includes obviously the US’s CIA and the UK’s MI6. But on the list were the agencies of nations who were ambivalent at best and mostly hostile to the US led invasion of Iraq and includes France’s DGSE, Germany’s BND and Russia’s SVR. Finally the world’s most efficient and most often accurate assessor of Middle Eastern Affairs (Israel’s MOSSAD) also came to the same conclusion. So – If you are to count the fact that the world’s 6 largest and oldest intelligence agencies all reached similar conclusions about the presence of WMD in Iraq then that’s a pretty big group to be co-ordinating a lie especially when three of the group are bitterly opposed to the other three’ foreign policy responses to Iraq.
As others have pointed out, Saddam Hussein’s failure to co-operate repeatedly with UN weapons inspectors over many years and on countless occasions despite several explicit UN Secuirty Council resolutions (almost all unanimous) that he comply, gave rise to further suspicion that he had something to hide. If he had no WMD capacity, as the left’s opponents of the war all claim, then why did he spend so much time evading reasonable search requests from two UN agencies and incur the massive inconvenience of such draconian sanctions. Ultimately the coalition went to war because Iraq failed to observe UNSC Resolution 1441 thus triggering the “serious consequences” it envisaged. This resolution came on the backs of Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 688, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986 and 1284 – ALL of which Iraq had fragrantly breached and all aimed at disarming Iraq of any and all WMDs and allowing UN inspectors the ability to ascertain this without impediments.
The Iraq Survey Group http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_bw-anx-d.htm commenced it’s report on the subject of mobile BW units with the following: “Several events underpin the continuing suspicion that Iraq possessed mobile facilities and laboratories.
* In the 1980s, the Technical Research Center (TRC) at Al Salman purchased a mobile laboratory for forensic purposes in support of a proposed meeting of the Arab League or Arab Games in Baghdad. The meeting did not take place in Iraq, but Al Salman retained the laboratory.
* Later, in 1987 Dr. Rihab, head of the BW bacteriological group, and Dr. ‘Amir Hamudi Hasan Al Sa’adi, MIC First Deputy and right hand man of Husayn Kamil, discussed the possibility of developing a transportable system for the production of BW agents. The idea was largely Al Sa’adi’s; Rihab rejected the proposal in favor of the more pedestrian route that, in time, led to the construction of Al Hakam, Iraq’s major BW research, development, testing, production, and storage facility”
As for the trailers found at al Kindi, the Iraq Survey Group reported a range of conflicting opinions reporting some expert opinion that they were trailers for filling hydrogen reconnaissance balloons however, after interviewing so-called High Value Detainees, again there were conflicting opinions:
“The Opinions of the High-Value Detainees (HVD)
Shortly after the discovery of the trailers, five HVDs and one senior Iraqi scientist were shown the equipment and their opinions were noted. The six individuals all had intimate involvement with Iraq’s BW program, or its concealment. All denied having seen the trailers previously or knowing anything about them. They were puzzled and offered a wide range of opinions. Those who were asked dismissed the suggestion that they were for the production of hydrogen.
* Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha Al Azzawi, head of the bacteriological BW program, was quite sure it was not a BW laboratory because of the absence of a steam generator, appropriate filters, essential instrumentation, and ports for adding reagents.
* Prof. Nasr Husayn Al Hindawi, who was an advisor to Dr. Rihab and not a detainee, was “95%, or maybe a little less” sure that they were for biological use. Prof Hindawi had also been shown photographs of the equipment.
* Dr. Mahmud Farraj Bilal Al Samarra’i, responsible for weaponization aspects of the BW program, said they were not for CW agents; he was “85% sure” they were for BW, later he dropped this to 80%.
* Dr. ‘Amir Hamudi Hasan al Sa’adi, a chemical engineer and Senior Deputy at MIC to Husayn Kamil, explained “Anyone who told you this is bio should be fired.” He pointed out that it was also unsuitable for CW agent production. Later he put forward a theory that they were designed to produce enhanced fuel for SA-2 missiles as part of the Iraqi Air Defence effort. He claimed the energetic fuel would increase the range of the weapon system.
* Minister ‘Abd-al-Tawab ‘Abdallah Al Mullah Huwaysh, former Minister of Military Industrialization and head of MIC, was sure that it was not biological; he thought it was a chemical process, but not military, although it might be for producing a payload for a UAV.
* Husam Muhammad Amin Al Yasin, Head of the National Monitoring Directorate and a missile expert, did not express an opinion about use, but stated that the vessels should have been declared to the UN, and if this had not been done it was a clear violation.
Something that was of course largely unreported by the US MSM was the report of the Director of National Intelligence to the House Intelligence Committee in June 2006 http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf This is the actual fax sent by the DNI to the House Committee Chair and contains a 1 page declassified memo on the subject. “Since 2005 coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent”.
So jafapete none of these rise to the definition of a lie. Positions were taken by politicians based on best estimates on the day from available intelligence are not lies. The intelligence estimates were made by agencies serving a large variety of governments of different ideological persuasions. To rely on this intelligence, even if portions of it turned out to be faulty down the track, does not constitute a lie. To say over and over that Bush lied is an easy left wing slogan that belies the complexity of what really went on in Iraq.
Just because few WMDs of any substance were found does not preclude there ever having been any. Apologies to David and others for what has become a threadjack.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Jafapete
A lie is a deliberate attempt to distort the truth or utter a knowing falsehood. The presence of WMD in Iraq (of which the mobile germ lab was but one offered) became the subject of intense analysis of all the world’s intelligence agencies. The following countries and their foreign intelligence agencies ALL reached the same conclusion about Saddam Hussein’s regime – that he was habouring WMD. This list includes obviously the US’s CIA and the UK’s MI6. But on the list were the agencies of nations who were ambivalent at best and mostly hostile to the US led invasion of Iraq and includes France’s DGSE, Germany’s BND and Russia’s SVR. Finally the world’s most efficient and most often accurate assessor of Middle Eastern Affairs (Israel’s MOSSAD) also came to the same conclusion. If you are to count the fact that the world’s 6 largest and oldest intelligence agencies all reached similar conclusions about the presence of WMD in Iraq then that’s a pretty big group to be co-ordinating a lie especially when three of the group are bitterly opposed to the other three’ foreign policy responses to Iraq.
As others have pointed out, Saddam Hussein’s failure to co-operate repeatedly with UN weapons inspectors over many years and on coutless occasions despite several explicit UN Secuirty Council resolutions (almost all unanimous) that he comply gave rise to further suspicion that he had something to hide. If he had no WMD capacity, as the left’s opponents of the war all claim, then why did he spend so much time evading reasonable search requests from two UN agencies and incur the massive inconvenience of such draconian sanctions. Ultimately the coalition went to war because Iraq failed to observe UNSC Resolution 1441 thus triggering the “serious consequences” it envisaged. This resolution came on the backs of Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 688, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986 and 1284 – ALL of which had been fragrantly breached and all aimed at disarming Iraq of any and all WMDs and allowing UN inspectors the ability to ascertain this without impediments.
The Iraq Survey Group (i’m not going to link due to stuff going to moderation but it is easily found on Google) commenced it’s report on the subject of mobile BW units with the following:
“Several events underpin the continuing suspicion that Iraq possessed mobile facilities and laboratories.
* In the 1980s, the Technical Research Center (TRC) at Al Salman purchased a mobile laboratory for forensic purposes in support of a proposed meeting of the Arab League or Arab Games in Baghdad. The meeting did not take place in Iraq, but Al Salman retained the laboratory.
* Later, in 1987 Dr. Rihab, head of the BW bacteriological group, and Dr. ‘Amir Hamudi Hasan Al Sa’adi, MIC First Deputy and right hand man of Husayn Kamil, discussed the possibility of developing a transportable system for the production of BW agents. The idea was largely Al Sa’adi’s; Rihab rejected the proposal in favor of the more pedestrian route that, in time, led to the construction of Al Hakam, Iraq’s major BW research, development, testing, production, and storage facility”
As for the units found at Al Kindi, the Iraq Survey Group reported a range of conflicting opinions reporting some expert opinion that they were trailers for filling hydrogen reconnaissance balloons however after interviewing so-called High Value Detainees again there were conflicting opinions:
“The Opinions of the High-Value Detainees (HVD)
Shortly after the discovery of the trailers, five HVDs and one senior Iraqi scientist were shown the equipment and their opinions were noted. The six individuals all had intimate involvement with Iraq’s BW program, or its concealment. All denied having seen the trailers previously or knowing anything about them. They were puzzled and offered a wide range of opinions. Those who were asked dismissed the suggestion that they were for the production of hydrogen.
* Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha Al Azzawi, head of the bacteriological BW program, was quite sure it was not a BW laboratory because of the absence of a steam generator, appropriate filters, essential instrumentation, and ports for adding reagents.
* Prof. Nasr Husayn Al Hindawi, who was an advisor to Dr. Rihab and not a detainee, was “95%, or maybe a little less” sure that they were for biological use. Prof Hindawi had also been shown photographs of the equipment.
* Dr. Mahmud Farraj Bilal Al Samarra’i, responsible for weaponization aspects of the BW program, said they were not for CW agents; he was “85% sure” they were for BW, later he dropped this to 80%.
* Dr. ‘Amir Hamudi Hasan al Sa’adi, a chemical engineer and Senior Deputy at MIC to Husayn Kamil, explained “Anyone who told you this is bio should be fired.” He pointed out that it was also unsuitable for CW agent production. Later he put forward a theory that they were designed to produce enhanced fuel for SA-2 missiles as part of the Iraqi Air Defence effort. He claimed the energetic fuel would increase the range of the weapon system.
* Minister ‘Abd-al-Tawab ‘Abdallah Al Mullah Huwaysh, former Minister of Military Industrialization and head of MIC, was sure that it was not biological; he thought it was a chemical process, but not military, although it might be for producing a payload for a UAV.
* Husam Muhammad Amin Al Yasin, Head of the National Monitoring Directorate and a missile expert, did not express an opinion about use, but stated that the vessels should have been declared to the UN, and if this had not been done it was a clear violation.
Something that was of course largely unreported by the US MSM was the report of the Director of National Intelligence to the House Intelligence Committee in June 2006 – the one page unclassified fax can be viewed by doing a search on the US House of Reps website and the key finding was “Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions that contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.”
So jafapete none of these rise to the definition of a lie. Positions were taken by politicians based on best estimates at the time from available intelligence. The intelligence estimates were made by agencies serving a large variety of governments of quite varying ideological persuasions. To rely on this intelligence, even if some of it turned out to be faulty down the track, does not constitute a lie. To say over and over that Bush lied is an easy left wing slogan that belies the complexity of what really went on in Iraq.
Just because few WMDs of any substance were found does not preclude there ever having been any.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
“So, which is it?”
Y’know Hemi, I enjoy beating up commies on Kiwiblog, but sometimes it gets a bit tiresome. Like when I have to put time and effort into helping leftists understand simple concepts. Like your dull brained query Hemi, where apparently you can’t see the stark difference between the fantasy suggested by the meerkat that one man can by some nefarious means control the output of every journalist in every office in every newspaper and television outlet in every city in every country in the world, even when those outlets have opposing political viewpoints, and local managers refusing to hire journalists who don’t share their liberal political worldview, then I’m sorry, I can’t help you. I’ve got a question for you Hemi. How is it Hemi, that if the dastardly Murdoch can actually do as the Meerkat suggests, that the majority of his newspapers and the journalists that work at those newspapers are liberal and their editorial viewpoints are likewise predominantly liberal?
March 27th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
HEY EVERBODY, THESE GUYS HAVE FOUND THE MISSING WMDs!!
I’ll be damned! You’d better tell the White House and the Pentagon quick, because, they have not been able to find any themselves. They’ll be delighted with this news. The CIA more than anyone else. And Tony Blair.
Do you morons actually think that if they had found anything that looked plausibly like a WMD (or something used to manufacture the same, especially a mobile biological weapons facility), that they wouldn’t have been parading it up and down Pennsylvania Ave for a whole year?? Faux News would have been running pictures of the same on a continuous loop. Etc.
No, instead you have to dredge up this drivel from some obscure fruit cake true-believin’ hardest of the hard core neocon website, and try to pass it off as proof. Sorry, but we still don’t have a “mobile biological weapons facility”, and the plain fact is that Bush lied.
I hereby nominate you clowns for “dupes of the year”!
March 27th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
“while the laughable Fox news is deemed gospel in these quarters!”
Another doctrinal brain damaged leftist who cannot accept the outcomes of objective university studies because they conflict with his infantile fantasies.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
“and the plain fact is that Bush lied.”
Its not a fact, its just another cowardly Stalinist style smear. The kind the left have used throughout history. BTW, your comprehension skills are atrocious. I think you should take a refresher course before you continue on Kiwiblog. You’re just so tiresomely stupid.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
JafaPete:
I’d say you’re coming off second-best on this thread. KIA’s 7:48 comment was substantive (and generally made the same points as Redbaiter’s 6:38 comment, though perhaps in more detail). Frankly, you’re a fuckwit if you can’t provide an equally substantive response to their arguments.
Where in KIA’s and Redbaiter’s comments do you find support for these assertions:
And then this:
Some silly imaginery award. It’s only April – to save you waiting until December, why not just call yourself fuckwit of the year now, and be done with it?
March 28th, 2008 at 3:37 am
jafapete
Your little tanty complete with ad hominem attacks, name calling and left wing sloganising are a sure fire sign you’ve lost this debate. You can believe the ‘Bush lied’ meme all you want. There is nothing in what you have posted to prove he lied. I’m assuming this was your best shot – try again big guy. Making policy decisions on faulty or incomplete intelligence is a mistake politicians the world over have made in many wars.
I would hardly classify the Iraq Survey Group as “the hardest of hard core neocon website”. As a curiosity, have you actually read it? The left leaning press cherry picked a few headlines that fitted their message. The reality was a picture of a regime that engaged in systematic obfuscation and duplicity and did everything within its power to prevent any adequate accounting of its weapons systems.
The reason why the White House didn’t parade the NDI Report down Pennsylvania Avenue is evidence that the issue of any WMD was not the only reason for toppling the regime. Various snippets of evidence from credible sources have arisen. The media’s appetite to report any such is about zilch. One thing the left have succeeded in doing is rendering debate on whether there ever were WMDs in Iraq moot. Since it has become the CW that since none appear to have been found that means that there never was any, anything that might dent that CW is ignored and passed over.
Final question jafa – did the French intel service lie? Did the Russians lie as well? The Israeli’s? I guess swathing yourself in left wing talking points is so much more comforting. You’re new to this site – its not like the Standard or KBB where left wing slogans reign supreme. Come armed with the facts and make your case or you’ll prove to everyone that you are the dick POC identified you as being.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:39 am
How does the Downing Street Memo fit into all of this?
March 28th, 2008 at 7:05 am
one for k.i.a..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/somebody-forgot-to-tell-hillary-clinton-the-democratic-presidential-race-is-over-and-barack-obama-won/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 28th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Such clowns!
If you had actually looked at the Iraq Survey Group report (there’s a copy on the CIA website), you would see that the ISG itself concluded as follows:
“The Trailers as Field Units for Hydrogen Gas Production
After re-examining the equipment found on trailers in northern Iraq and reviewing previous reporting, documents, and results of chemical and biological analysis, ISG judges that the Al Kindi General Establishment at Mosul designed and built the two trailer-borne equipment systems as hydrogen generators for Republican Guard artillery units for use with radio-sonde balloons. Although the equipment is poorly constructed, it is consistent with the hydrogen generation process detailed in documents from the Al Kindi Company.”
Fairly conclusive, no?
Further, your other evidence, that in the 1980s (!) Iraq had purchased a mobile lab that COULD have been converted, and that in 1987 (!) a couple of officials had “discussed the possibility of developing a transportable system for the production of BW agents” doesn’t prove anything about the existance of a “mobile biological weapons facility” in 2003.
The fact is, the ISG spent over $US1 billion and had hundreds of people scouring the country for WMDs and didn’t find any. Nothing that the Bush Administration, desperate to show justification for the war, could parade before the world and say, “we told you so.” In fact, one of its conclusions was that Iraq probably didn’t even spirit any out of the country into Syria just before the invasion.
I invite everyone to take a thorough look at the ISG’s report, not the twisted nonsense that you find on neocon “true believing” websites. And then ponder the truthfulness of such statements as:
““I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got a good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction…” March 6, 2003
Game, set and match!
March 28th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Jafapete, the key word is “believe”. Speaking from a position of incorrect knowledge is not the same as lying. Lying is a willful twist of the truth.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Pascal’s two line post is the nub of the issue, and its hard to believe that leftists and Jafapete in particular are so stupid as to not appreciate this vital point, and crow here as if they have won the logic battle, but apparently they are.
The failure of the mainstream media to ever expose the partisan fakery behind the ‘Bush lied’ campaign, and the whole anti Iraq war movement, a movement that has strong and acknowledged links to extreme left global organisations, is one of the main factors in the collapse of their credibility and the rise of alternative news sources.
Objective reporting would have brought the public the truth. The real liars are the mainstream media, marching in lock step with the far left, and completely corrupted by their apparently innate partisan left ideological bent.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:57 am
pigs arse..!..ratty..and pascy..!
your incoherent rambles/beliefs vs..’iraq survey group report’..
eh..?
not so much ‘game set and match’..
as..game set match..and feckin’ tournament..
abject fools..!
the pair of you..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
and ratty..’one of the main factors in the rise of alternative news sources’..
..is that the mainstream media did such a crap job calling bush on his ‘lies’..
eh..?
March 28th, 2008 at 9:47 am
“..is that the mainstream media did such a crap job calling bush on his ‘lies’..”
Fuck off Phil, you bludging time wasting smug complacent mental incompetent. You’ve been asked on numerous occasions to supply a Bush lie, but you’ve always been too cowardly to even try. There are no Bush lies, as your dumbfuck buddy Jafapete has just shown. The whole scenario is a leftist fabrication, and a clear demonstration of how ideologically and politically corrupt the mainstream media have become.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:07 am
google ‘bush lies’..you lazy bastard..
you’ll get 1.3 million links/hits/evidence..
y’know ratty..endlessly repeating a lie/pile of bullshit…dosen’t make it any less of a lie/pile of bullshit…
you could learn that from bush..and his lies..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 28th, 2008 at 10:24 am
“you’ll get 1.3 million links/hits/evidence..”
Wrong Phil. A litany of baseless smears and worthless assertions from partisan hate driven brain damaged freaks like you are never going to be accepted as ‘evidence’ by any rational person, no matter how many there are or what effort dipshits like you put into the deception.
Hitler and Stalin both failed in the end Phil, and they had the same propaganda strategies as you and your ilk- repeat the lie over and over and over, and eventually it will be accepted as the truth. You’ll fail Phil, just like Adolf and Joe did, for ultimately, the truth always wins.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:31 am
you really do march to the beat of a different drummer..eh ratty..?
there’s you..and the rest of the world..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 28th, 2008 at 11:43 am
“Jafapete, the key word is “believe”. Speaking from a position of incorrect knowledge is not the same as lying. Lying is a willful twist of the truth.”
Pascal, Where did you learn to read? You can’t read two lines without getting it wrong.
Bush said that he “believes” that Saddam is a threat to his neighbours, and he was certainly entitled to say that. But he then went on and said, “He has weapons of mass destruction”. He did not say, “I believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction…” Nosiree! He was quite unequivocal. I’ve got the entire paragraph off the WH website so that you can read what he said in context. I disagreed at the time with the belief statement that came before the unequivocal statement about WMDs (and was proven correct), and I wouldn’t disagree with the statements about Saddam’s historic use of WMDs that followed that statement. But the statement that was a lie is very clear: “He has weapons of mass destruction”. Nothing about “belief” there.
“I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got a good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction, in his neighborhood and on his own people. He’s invaded countries in his neighborhood. He tortures his own people. He’s a murderer. He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I take the threat seriously, and I’ll deal with the threat. I hope it can be done peacefully.” March 6, 2003
Okay, we could mount an argument that because the man is ignorant and not terribly bright he often “misspeaks” (which he does), or says things that he “believes” but which aren’t true (which he also does, quite a lot). But the untruths have been reigning down upon the long-suffering people of America for so long now, you have to say that some of the untruths have to be lies. I told an American friend this morning that some turkeys here were trying to argue that Bush hasn’t told any lies, and I thought my friend was going to drop the telephone he was laughing so much. Thanks for all the laughs!
March 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
“I told an American friend this morning that some turkeys here were trying to argue that Bush hasn’t told any lies, and I thought my friend was going to drop the telephone he was laughing so much.”
Yep, I’ll bet he was too. I have not the slightest problem in accepting that as true, because if there’s one thing you’ve made evident, its that you wouldn’t have any friends who weren’t like you, brain damaged leftists. Part of the neurosis club- that group of narcissists and delusional psychotics who are naturally attracted to leftist political ideology, and therefore again like you, ever ready to enthusiastically embrace the irrational propaganda that any sane person knows provides the underpinning for the ‘Bush lied’ fantasy.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
“…you wouldn’t have any friends who weren’t like you, brain damaged leftists.”
For the record, friend Bill in Colorado dropped out of his PhD in nuclear physics (no, I am not making this up), to study medicine, and is now a highly regarded surgeon. I think most people will be able to figure out who is “brain damaged”!
March 28th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Ryan- my perception of NZ is that it is a hopeless socialist basket case, and I could give you a thousand reasons as to why I think that. For example, government expenditure represents around 50% of GDP. I also see NZ as a nation in the complete and utter thrall of leftist scaremongers who have succeeded so well in their propaganda campaigns that so many NZers turn knock kneed and trembling at the spectre of any move toward a more market based economy.
NZ is a nation in the grip of the classic leftist fantasy. They heartily embrace socialism because they are lied to by its socially and politically ascendant cheer squad, and reject capitalism for roughly the same reason. They think they are building Nirvana, when the reality is they are fast approaching a dark deep chasm.
I’m sorry, there’s no way I can see a statement saying that socialism is as equally ‘dismissed as totally unregulated and unrestricted capitalism” as agreeing with me, or even remotely correct.
Redbaiter,
By the definition I gave of capitalism – believing in the notion of private ownership of means of production, a labour market, etc. And by the definition I gave of socialism – rejecting those fundamentals of capitalism…
Do you not agree that…
1. All economics taught in high schools and tertiary business schools in New Zealand are capitalist.
2. All parties who have seats in Parliament are capitalist.
3. People who are not capitalist get laughed out of the room.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“For the record, friend Bill in Colorado dropped out of his PhD in nuclear physics (no, I am not making this up), to study medicine, and is now a highly regarded surgeon.”
Being a surgeon is no barrier to insanity. I say that any person who thinks the worthless garbage you have posted above is sufficient to justify your claim that George Bush lied is an irrational fool, and telling me what they do for a living is not going to change that opinion one iota. I repeat, you need to hear a few opinions and meet a few people outside of your circle of back slapping group think pseudo liberal kool aid drinking commie mates. You’re so doctrinal leftist its supremely boring.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“Do you not agree that…”
I heartily disagree. Are you completely unaware of the Communist roots of a large number of Labour/ Green politicians?
March 28th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Redbaited: “I repeat, you need to hear a few opinions and meet a few people outside of your circle of back slapping group think…”
Gee, thanks for the advice, but why do you think I bother mixing it with the people on this blog? (Don’t answer that question — it was rhetorical.) I do get exposed to a variety of opinion here, some of it interesting and helpful — just as I hope that exposure to my thinking might be useful to some people — and some of it weird trash. You have yet to make the former category.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I heartily disagree. Are you completely unaware of the Communist roots of a large number of Labour/ Green politicians?
The Labour Party has Communist roots, and probably some of the members (more of the Greens), but that doesn’t change what their party policy is. They are economically capitalist. None of them have a policy which involves overthrowing private ownership of the means of production. And the reason for that is that if they were socialist, they would be laughed out of the room. Instead, they want a highly regulated capitalist economy and society, with a lot of government interference. But still capitalist, in that they support private ownership of the means of production.
And do you agree that economics taught in NZ high schools and tertiary institutes are capitalist in that they uphold private ownership of the means of production?
March 28th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Ryan
Both the “extreme right” and the “extreme left” are dismissed equally, for the same reason. You are clearly incorrect when you say that the far-left (if I am representative of it, as clearly you believe) “never once considered” that conservatives and libertarians have similar complaints.
I not really interested in playing a game of 20 questions. Having seen your comments on Kiwiblog I had believed that you were simply another social democrat, or defender of the working class, or high-tax capitalist.
Having seen you extol Chomsky to such a degree I shifted my belief and assumed that you are actually representative of the far-left. It might simplify matters if you just tell me whether you advocate some form of communism or anarchism – then we can take the “if” out of the equation.
However, even if you confirm my belief/assumption I will simply point out that you are the first such person who has said that in my 25 years of reading the likes of Chomsky and co. Prior to this significant event the closest I’ve ever seen any far-lefter come to this point, was one case where Noam thanked some capitalist anarchist magazine for publishing him, even as he trashed them for their ‘monstrous’ ideas.
If you have a stack of comments from Far-Left representatives where they sympathized with their “extreme right” counterparts – I will be more than ready to stand corrected.
As for “being lumped” with social democrats and liberals, which part of “both high-tax capitalists and low-tax capitalists are capitalists” do you have a problem with?
Only the part where ‘low-tax capitalists’ are demonised as the oppressors of poor people, the destroyers of society, etc, etc. That then made them worthy only of further equally emotive abuse in the hallowed halls of the MSM as a way of excluding or shutting down the debate, e.g. ”letting Sir Roger Douglas spell out his hard right agenda”. The part where they’re ‘being lumped’ by people like you with the very group conducting the abuse.
But since the “extreme-left” stand outside the whole debate with “a plague on both your houses” attitude I recognise that that would not constitute a problem for you. In fact, given that the “extreme-left” believes even more extreme versions of exactly the same attitudes I find it hard to believe that they would not watch such abuse with glee and would therefore not be in any hurry to object to it. But as I said above – I’m more than happy to be corrected on this matter.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Tom,
Fair enough. Yes, I consider myself to be socialist libertarian (anarchist). And fair enough if I’m the first person you’ve spoken to who reads Chomsky and actually agrees with him, rather than simply calling on him as a supposedly god-like authority to back up high-tax socially liberal capitalist criticism of low-tax socially conservative capitalism. Come to think of it, I haven’t met many myself.
I understand that low-tax capitalists – especially no-tax or laissez faire capitalists with whom Redbaiter apparently sympathises – are (as I just said to him) dismissed as much as actual socialism is. Mainstream debate and assumptions are within a spectrum. They do include capitalist property rights. And yes, they do involve some level of taxation, state services and wealth redistribution. The spectrum does not end at the left and shine indefinitely into the right – and “left” versus “right” is a limited enough framework as it is. There is a limit on the right as to what is acceptably thought, and any ideas further to the right are dismissed out of hand, just as socialism is.
The difference between me (as someone who disagrees with the “extreme right”) and someone who dismisses extreme-right ideas out of hand purely because they aren’t placed within the established spectrum of acceptable opinion is that I have reasons for disagreeing with minarchist capitalism, while many others don’t feel they need reasons to dismiss something they believe is absurd.
Certainly I group capitalists together by virtue of them being capitalists. But I also recognise some solidarity amongst marginalised (if almost completely opposite) views. I even see some parallels between my libertarianism and the minarchist tendencies of the extreme right. However, you are acting as if by observing that all capitalists are capitalists, I am therefore concluding that all capitalists are identical.
I don’t think that. And it seems to me that by assuming that of me, you have committed the very act you were condemning – lumping one view in with others without good reason.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“And do you agree that economics taught in NZ high schools and tertiary institutes are capitalist in that they uphold private ownership of the means of production?”
Ryan, you need to look at the long term intent. Everything that is “taught” today is designed to in the long term, undermine the capitalist system. Gramsci. The intent of those who control the education system is not to assist in the long term existence of the capitalist system.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Redbaiter,
Perhaps, I guess. They’re doing a shitty job of it, if that’s the case. And most politicians do personally pretty sweetly out of capitalist property rights. I find it pretty unlikely that our Minister of Drinks and Nibbles is trying to undermine class privilege.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
This thread was about media bias. It has ended up going into one argument over whether “Bush Lied” or not, and whether NZ is becoming “left-wing” or not.
Kiwi in America, and the others who point out that “Bush Lied” IS the lie, well done. A lot of work there on the background, but does JafaPete and Philu get it? Nah, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied. That’s their intellectual level. Childish chants. Like, Don’t wanna! Don’t wanna! Don’t wanna! Waaaaah!!!!
But more sadly, that is the tactic of the whole b. Left, and more sadly still, it works. All those hits on Google. All those Kiwis with no Fox News or National Review to tell them the truth. John pinko Campbell.
Ryan Sproull, I agree that a broad “capitalist” framework is established in most of the western world. Schumpeter called it “Capitalism in fetters”. But you haven’t commented on the “Bush Lied” issue. Do you see the point that this is typical of the Leftwing stranglehold on the media, especially in NZ, that so many people have ended up believing that simple one-line slogan? Don’t you think this is a dangerous sign, akin to the tactics of Goebbels? We THINK we’re in a nice free, balanced society, but there are straight-out lies that emanate from the Left, that end up getting established in the face of the truth that is known only to a small minority. It’s not just the media, it is teachers and universities as well. You’re an intellectual sort of guy. Do YOU hold with philu and jafapete in claiming victory for “Bush Lied”, after considering the arguments above?
March 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
PhilBest,
Those “Bush sucks!” conversations aren’t my thing. It doesn’t particularly bother me either way if Bush explicitly lied about anything. As Tom points out, it’s a luxury of being ideologically outside of the standard spectrum enough to not feel sentimentally attached to the variety of perspectives within the spectrum. Pro-Bush, anti-Bush… They’re brands of a product I don’t feel inclined to purchase, if you see what I mean.
“Capitalism in fetters”, certainly. I’ve similarly called it “being fucked in the arse with lube”. Either way, the capitalism/fucking and the fetters/lube are both so taken for granted that people don’t even realise they’ve agreed to those assumptions. And that includes your concerns about notions of Bush, yes. There is an acceptable way to think about Bush, and it’s usually with laughter.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
As for Chomsky, do you find much of his writings painfully one-sided, like for example, when relating to Cold War history? I tried to read some Chomsky and couldn’t stomach the sheer one-sidedness beyond the first few pages. It is frightening to consider the possibility that some people read HIM as gospel truth without realising that there has been a huge gap left in their knowledge. And the Chomsky-ite view that the US was the most to blame for all the nasty stuff of the Cold War is actually received wisdom in our media, schools and universities. Ask teenage schoolkids or anyone wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt if they know how many people Che, or Mao, or Stalin, murdered. Holocaust denial will get you condemned, but Gulag denial is like a default position in our institutions.
You are an interesting guy to debate. I think people tend to accept soft-mindedness on Communism because the idea that people could be made equal is a plausible one to unexercised minds. I have constantly argued that equality is impossible without force, and that people cannot sensibly take the ground that they oppose inequality but abhor the abuses of humanity committed over and over again in the name of equality. What do you say?
March 28th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Ryan
Also fair enough. Now knowing that, I can easily accept that you don’t think that all capitalists are identical. Similarly, I know very well that there are significant theoretical differences between your ideaology and that of other members of the left.
As you say, the spectrum does not end……..
However, it’s one thing to not “think that and quite another to actually step up and object, particularly when the destruction of low-tax capitalists was long seen as merely one stepping stone towards the classless society.
On the other side, while I admit that I’ve been indifferent to anarchists being excluded and isolated at the hands of communists over the years, it has not been because I rejoiced at the destruction of a group standing in the way of my dream of capitalist domination (I happen to think that we’re trucking along in the direction pretty well, Gramsci not withstanding). No, when that has happened I’ve been concerned because it’s usually a sign that things are going to turn really bad!
Classic case would be Philu’s booting from the Greens. As with you I would disagree with almost everything he puts forward – but the fact that guys like him got booted via the machinations of ex-Maoist Bradford, ex-USSR-slave Loch, and ex-whateverist Norman – that I find very scary.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
“Yes, I consider myself to be socialist libertarian (anarchist).”
Not possible to be all of those at the same time.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Ryan
Frankly I differentiate between even libertarian socialists and Noam Chomsky – so keep that in mind with the following response – which actually has the added benefit of still being on the thread topic. Also the Hurricanes have just lost to bloody Crusaders, as expected, and it’s Friday night……so….Chomsky (groans).
There are no people sitting around in dark rooms deciding what will or will not be in mainstream media.
Alice, just this once I’ll jump down the rabbit hole.
You must have missed it above, so I’ll repeat it for you:
Right back at ya!
From which you should take away the idea that I do not think the media treatment is a conspiracy. More like a case of group think, but more on that in a second……..
Chomsky’s point is that this is not the result of a conspiracy, but the natural organic development of context, bias and thought in general.
Organic? Like “countless clustered organisms respondng to a single nervous system”? Well, there could be something there in terms of what social scientists call a cascade:
But somehow I don’t think cascade theory was what Chomsky and Herman were on about in 1980, although they were certainly confident, and god knows there are any number of people who look to them for guidance.
Well, no, it doesn’t turn into a conspiracy theory – that’s precisely Chomsky and Herman’s point.
Not for nothing is Chomsky a professor of linguistics with 70 years of debating experience. He knows that to be labeled as a conspiracy theorist is toxic to any argument put forward, as one is thrown into the world of the Grassy Knoll and the more recent ‘Truthers’. And when you’re running a theory about how the media ‘manufactures’ consent it’s a knife edge debating existence.
Which is why we get all that faux (!) stuff about …..natural organic development….. It’s his standard approach; dress up in professorial language, what are actually very old, very crude theories about why one’s idealogy has failed to make headway with the masses.
But while the theory and it’s langauge steer that fine line it actually does turn into a conspiracy theory when one tries to apply it in the everyday world. I demonstrated part of the conspiracy theory aspect with my example of how it could apply to the media treatment of Obama:
And then there’s this:
It’s unconscious self-censorship ……..
Nice to see libertarian socialism still tipping its hat to classic Marxist analysis with the old ‘unconscious’ bit. I’ve lost count of the number of dreary tracts I’ve read whose main thrust is that we’re all moronic “puppets of a sinister force” – save for the heroes who write this stuff of course. Somehow, through feats of great willpower and enormous intellectual resources, they have managed to avoid becoming puppets, while the rest of us poor dumb bastards wallow in our ignorance, yada, yada, yada,
There’s even one example of it in this thread and I’d like to think that you skipped over that with as much distaste as I did. But how different is it really from Chomsky’s theory that the ‘sinister force’ actually exists inside each one of the journalists or all of us, and that we’re not conscious of it.
…….and the nature of market media…….TV One’s 6pm news doesn’t sit down and decide to dumb down New Zealand and distract them from serious issues by playing a full overseas piece on Britney Spears. It’s just that people like watching that stuff, so they’re unlikely to turn the channel to TV3 while it’s on…………They do it because their job is to give people stories they’ll expect and want to watch.
You mean that the media markets consist of people who want stuff and there are other people who try to figure out what they want and give it to them.8O Man, that is one powerful ideology – I wouldn’t like to go up against it.
Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are great theories but even they break down in the first few microseconds of the Big Bang. The theory of Manufacturing Consent does not even rise to that level – it creates a Gordian knot right at the start where we cannot disentangle the why and how of people who want stuff from the why and how of people who try to figure out what they want so that it can be delivered to them.
Tough problem – especially since people apparently don’t want to have libertarian socialist theories put up to them 24/7 – or even once a year, or once a decade. Which leaves us with two possible explanations. Perhaps some ‘ruling elite’ are manipulating it all behind the scenes? But even though Chomsky and Herman firmly believe in ruling elites that angle would be so obviously a piece of traditional conspiracy theory that it would merely result in much laughter.
So instead we get …unconscious self-censorship…. and natural organic development of context, bias and thought in general having to be applied to all the participants in the market to make sense of this horror.
The point is not to “deflect criticism of Far-Left lunacy”, but rather to point out that there is no real criticism while any opinions outside of that spectrum are unreflectively dismissed out of hand as being “far-right” or “far-left”
Is that so? Well one of the things I have enjoyed about debating with laissez-faire advocates is that, despite their ideas being usually unreflectively dismissed out of hand, their most intellectual proponents have not developed any thing like MC theory. They’ll bitch about liberal journalists not giving them the time of day and about Joe Public being sufficiently contented with socialist health care and education, with a bit of free market stuff taking care of the plasma TV, to not give a shit about their theories. But that does not even come close to the stuff pumped out by Noam and co over the years to explain why their fabulous societal proposals have also failed to take hold in the minds of the people.
MC theory arose directly out of the wreckage of the late 1970’s battles over the various media reports about the Khmer Rouge. In particular the complaints of the defenders of that particular revolution (Porter, Hildebrand, Caldwell, Summers, et al) that the media – especially the Western media, but also including those notorious right-wingers in Hanoi and Moscow, had been against it from the start and determined to endulge in a systematic process of mythmaking to destroy it.
Chomsky joined in as well, but those complaints were all ad hoc. What Chomsky and Herman tried to do later with MC was to put some Grand Unifying Theory around all the complaints. As such it most certainly was designed to “deflect criticism of Far-Left lunacy”.
Even setting aside those rather shaky roots MC theory must surely be under revision now that the Web has emerged to allow the Great Man’s thoughts to be accessed by millions of the toiling masses and thereby set the revolution in motion.
Therefore, both socialist views and laissez-faire views don’t get even considered. That’s why I referred above only to all political parties currently in Parliament – there is a communist party (I think?) and there are the Libertarianz, but neither have anything more than a “fringe” existence.
And when we apply more Chomskian theory to this what do we find…
Damn! So even the ‘socialist views’ – the communist party, that is not currently in Parliament – is right-wing. So while you have two wings that are excluded, Noam actually sees only one wing – his wing, his slice of the compass, the real socialists, the true keepers of the pure flame – that is excluded. You do see how perfectly circular this is do you not? Meantime I’m going to get in contact with Rick from The Young Ones as I’m sure he was a member of an Anarchist Party. I used to consider that just a lovely piece of humour but now I’m not so sure…….
What we have here is less a case of two competing wings of ideaology than a variation on the famous ‘blue pill’ scene in The Matrix – except here there are a bunch of guys yelling at eachother that they’ve all taken the blue pill.
And on that note I see that the 1985 version of myself has appeared in the simulcrum with a message:
“Climb out of Alice’s rabbit hole NOW. Resist urge to return and argue with Chomsky worshippers as you did for five fruitless years”
March 29th, 2008 at 7:17 am
re: chomsky, he’s even worse when it comes to linguistics (Darwin Who? Charles What?) than politics, perhaps it’s his genetic deep brain structure. Whew!
“yelling at eachother”
yeah, more like yelling at [an] echotheatre, but, i’m curious about NZ, which for me has been kind of off the map so far, 1/10th the size of say, Israel, in my imagination.
Odd place…oddly familiar…
And strangely fascinating.
Viva third parties!
March 29th, 2008 at 10:41 am
You are an interesting guy to debate. I think people tend to accept soft-mindedness on Communism because the idea that people could be made equal is a plausible one to unexercised minds. I have constantly argued that equality is impossible without force, and that people cannot sensibly take the ground that they oppose inequality but abhor the abuses of humanity committed over and over again in the name of equality. What do you say?
PhilBest,
Well, it depends on what you mean by equality. My desire is not for exact equality of wealth, and so my problem with capitalism is not that it leads to inequality per se. (That’s not to say that I’m not critical of the degree of inequality that capitalism gives rise to, globally.)
But while you say that equality is not possible without force (and I agree, assuming you mean a kind of communistic exact distribution of wealth), I would add that the degrees of inequality in the world at the moment are also not possible without force.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I would agree that ALL force that prevents people from bettering their own lot, is WRONG, regardless who it comes from. It is not for nothing that certain massive super-wealthy “foundations” (Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc) support Socialist, capitalism-fettering politics. Do you know what I mean?
March 29th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Tom,
I don’t identify with Chomsky enough to feel a need to defend anything he’s said that I disagree with. I’d have to see the “ultra-right in many respects” quote in context, and the only mention of it I can find on the Internet is Horowitz quoting it without context in a piece called “The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky”. Apparently I’d have to go buy a book called The Common Good in order to read it in context and discover in which respects he considered Leninism to be ultra-right.
One could consider the broader context of Chomsky as an MIT professor who’s not actually stupid, and assume that he could explain the statement if asked, rather than assuming he’s said something patently contradictory.
Your references to “sinister forces” and the like suggest to me that you read Chomsky and Herman very differently to how I read them, and certainly your interpretation of their ideas is very different to what I am saying. Calling the inevitable subjectivity and bias of journalists “sinister” is like calling a widespread urban legend “sinister”. It’s not evil; it’s just a social phenomenon.
It’s a useful tool for explaining why, for example, the upcoming MMP general election in New Zealand is treated by the media as being a competition between Labour and National. No one plans that in dimly lit back rooms. Nor is there an evil Two Party Spirit floating around New Zealand. It’s just the interplay of journalists who work for editors who need to sell advertising and so need readers whose attitudes inform journalists.
Certainly there are some conscious manipulations of the public by spin doctors and the like. Orwellian events like renaming the War Department to the Department of Defence are obviously done with the public perception of the Government in mind. But even then it’s not sinister. It’s just people doing their jobs, responding to focus groups and polling, someone comes up with an idea, it goes through channels and is implemented, and everyone gets paid and goes home to their families and has dinner.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I would agree that ALL force that prevents people from bettering their own lot, is WRONG, regardless who it comes from. It is not for nothing that certain massive super-wealthy “foundations” (Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc) support Socialist, capitalism-fettering politics. Do you know what I mean?
You’re referring to “corporate welfare”? Yes, that does occur.
You say that all force that prevents people from bettering their own lot is wrong. I suspect most Western liberals (in the technical sense) would agree with you. However, if I try to better my own lot by taking your car, presumably force that prevents me from doing that is right. What if it’s a car you haven’t used in years, and it’s one of 20 you own? Presumably force that prevents me from doing that is still right. Why? Because what counts as right and wrong is intimately tied up in what counts as “yours” and “mine” – notions that are not physical laws of nature, but are treated as such because we seldom imagine any alternatives.
So while everyone likely agrees that “all force that prevents people from bettering their own lot is wrong”, they do not necessarily agree on what is an acceptable form of bettering your own lot.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:21 am
JafaPete: He was quite unequivocal.
Do you realize on what a flimsy hinge you are hanging your argument? If you are going to be so anal about it, he only needs ONE missile for that statement to be accurate and not a lie.
And whoops … as Democratic Talk Radio (And a number of other sites indicate) yes, he did have them. Including Sarin and Mustard gas. Go do a bit of research.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Pascal,
Could you give a reference for that? I’m interested.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Google it Ryan, there is a fair number of results ranging from Fox News, Washington Post, Democratic Talk Radio (Referencing missiles, their point being the US sold them to Iraq
) and others. I’d not want to provide one reference and then be called on it for it being “partisan” or “biased”. Better to read all the opinions out there.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Pascal
(1) I was responding to your misreading — you said “Jafapete, the key word is “believe”, when the lie did not say anything about “believing”.
(2) The lying statement (once again, sigh) is “He has weapons of mass destruction”. In addition to not being able to read two lines (see (1) above), you cannot tell the difference between the plural and the singular form of the word “weapons”
No wonder you are so easily duped.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Well, intrigued that lefties might be disseminating Bushie falsehoods I did google Democratic Talk Radio, and it seems that the host and founder of the same has this to say…
“All aspects of corruption and abuse of office connected to the Bush-Cheney White House needs to be investigated including the Cheney Energy Task Force, White House involvement in the California electric price-gouging scandal, lying about WMD’s in Iraq, torture, secret prisons, wiretapping of American citizens without court orders, election manipulation, gutting civil rights enforcement, no-bid contracting and more. If needed, we should impeach federal judges whose rulings condone illegal behaviors or grant un-Constitutional powers to officeholders. America cannot tolerate corruption on steroids by any public officials!”
Can’t find anything there that I’d disagree with myself!
March 30th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Pascal,
Are you under the impression these discoveries were the results of the reconstituted weapons programmes Saddam allegedly had? Or were they leftovers from UNSCOM’s clean-up in the ’90s?
March 31st, 2008 at 11:42 am
Sorry, Ryan Sproull, I set myself up for that, didn’t I? I MEANT “people” in the PLURAL, like “The North Korean People”, for example.
What I refer to in the example of super-wealthy foundations supporting leftwing causes, I mean that this illustrates how the MOST wealthy actually LIKE to support political trends that reinforce the status quo and lock potential future competitors out of their markets. Hernando Desoto coined the term, “The Glass Bell Jar”, to refer to the phenomenon of less-well-off people being unable to break through expensive regulatory regimes to start or to expand a business, for example. I doubt that James Wattie and many of our pioneering “rags-to-riches” businessmen could have even got off the ground had today’s regulatory environment applied in THEIR day.
But do you agree with the principle that the State actually has a monopoly on force, and that wealthy interests that collude with this are parasites on the fabric of Statism, rather than true “Capitalists”?
March 31st, 2008 at 11:47 am
Another reason that super wealthy foundations support Leftwing causes was predicted by Schumpeter 60 years ago. He predicted that the DESCENDANTS of successful businessmen will not necessarily appreciate the conditions that allowed the success, and that they may well be anxious to ingratiate themselves with completely different social circles.