NEWSWEEK Still Doesn't Get It
Daeron
the CIA has had a long affiliation with the American media, including
the Washington Post-Newsweek. This renders their tiresome fulminations
against the conspiracy position dubious to say the least. As I pointed
out:
---Quote from previous post on:
the mainstream media has always had very close liaisons with the CIA. As
Kathryn S. Olmstead notes ('Challenging the Secret Government', 1996,
The University of North Carolina Press), pp.21-22:
"At the height of the Cold War, some journalists not only shared common
assumptions with the CIA, but also worked actively to further its
objectives around the world. The number of journalists and news
organizations that helped the CIA is hotly contested, partly because of
the secrecy of the records, and partly because of definitional battles
over what it meant to 'work' for the agency. Some media organizations
provided 'cover' for CIA personnel overseas by allowing CIA officers to
pose as reporters, while others used stringers or freelancers who also
worked part-time for the CIA."
"According to the Church Committee's final report, approximately fifty
U.S. journalists had covert relationships with the CIA, about half of
which involved money. Watergate investigative reporter Carl Bernstein
charged that the total number of U.S. journalists who worked for the CIA
was actually much higher." (More than 400)
Even when a newspaper or network did not have a formal relationship with
the CIA, the agency could still have close ties and mutual interests
with its reporters and editors. .....Top agency officials often had
attended Princeton or Yale with the publishers or editors of eastern
newspapers - and with their reporters as well."
"Prominent journalists were sometimes friends with CIA officials. For
example, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee's brother -in-law was covert
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
operations chief Cord Meyer; Post publisher Phil Graham was a close
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
friend of another covert operations chief, Frank Wisner; and the New
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
York Times publishing family, the Sulzbegers, socialized with CIA
directors Allen Dulles, John McCone and Richard Helms."
As we can see from the above, bragging that the major mainstream media
never favored the conspiracy outlook, is not saying much. Since they are
so innately compromised, bastardized, and co-opted (by relations with
the 'company') they'd have no reason whatever to go looking for anyone
else but Oswald to take the fall...
QUote from post off-------------------->
And to reinforce that, we have this gem from NEWSWEEK'S 'Extra' of Aug.
10th, 1998, 100 Best Movies on Screen.
From 'Doing the Right Thing', p. 70, these compromised imbeciles have
the nerve to write:
"Oliver Stone's 'JFK" - departing wildly from demonstrable historical
fact - provides its own norm of reactive history. Stone claims he's
simply engaged in creative 'countermyth' but...he is actually pandering
to conspiracy mongers who dominate public perception of the Kennedy
assassination. The truly brave film would be about Lee Harvey Oswald
acting alone."
Which, of course, coming from a publishing establishment that has had
past strong CIA links (as noted by Olmstead) sounds about as heartfelt
and genuine as an Inquisitor telling a heretic 'The tuly brave thing is
fo ryou to renounce your heresy before I burn you at the stake'.
The fact is, these arrant, arrogant bozos - these nattering nabobs of
the pen, still don't get it. Don't get the fact that we (the public -
who *don't* control a huge media empire) are on to them. On to their
past compromised associations (which makes all their whining vacuous)
and on to the fact that they never were invested in truth. They are
still determined to tow the 'party line' even though the public is now
much older and wiser than 34 years ago, when their perceptions could be
so easily controlled by manipulative journalism, and selective bias.
Because, the *truly brave* and independent minded media vehicle would by
now be loudly declaring for the conspiracy side- instead of hiding
behind the thoroughly discredited Warren Commission Report - and the
anti-conspiracy squawkings of its co-opted peers.
It's nice to know that in the universe of the JFK assassination's
disinformationists, it's still easy to tell which 'leopards' will never
change their spots.
--
*DAERON*
"We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
- Justice Louis Brandeis.
Vern Pascal
assholes- Evan Thomas, George Will,- human sewage- you looking for a
Govt. man's ass to lick- these guys will do it in a New York minute.
They have no honesty or curiosity, Chris Mathews is right behind them,
and one could bet the farm on it - that when Brother Vince BUGS puts
out his lone nut epic we'l see a glowing review.
George Lardner of the Washington Post- had 2 fine articles on Ford
moving the wound up to the neck. And on the missing Autopsy notes,
Photos, and alluding to the altered photos- their is more confirmation
in the new Medical depositions of altered photos, and missing photos
from several sources by the way. You would never see that in
Newseek.............Jeff
Thpa2d
>the mainstream media has always had very close liaisons with the CIA. As
>Kathryn S. Olmstead notes ('Challenging the Secret Government', 1996,
>The University of North Carolina Press), pp.21-22:
>
As it stands today there is no known family connection between Kathryn
S. Olmstead and myself.......but it is funny how the name pops up.
Capt Olmstead was the topic of JFK's first news confrences. LHO lived
near a street named Olmstead in NYC. The father of modern radar
schooling and the military signal corps in general was Gen. Olmstead.
There was a famous wiretap case involving an Olmstead in Ohio.
It just funny imo......sorry about the off topic comment....its not a
common name.
James K. Olmstead.......aka jko
JS707FL
believe everything they're spoon-fed by the supposed "liberal media". I'm
writing a college research paper on the assassination and the Newsweek "30th
Anniversary Issue" explores many CTs and cites overwhelming public opinion that
there was some sort of conspiracy. The botton line, however, is the
lone-gunman theory is presented as being the only truly "logical conclusion".
Great points well presented in the your posting, too.
John
Pearl Gladstone
>
> Thanks, Daeron. I'm glad there are still some people out there who don't
> believe everything they're spoon-fed by the supposed "liberal media".
subscribe. DO NOT buy it. Read it at the library, or in the supermarket
line, just to get a critique like Daeron's excellent, as usual, reply.
Otherwise, the cycle rolls on.
Boycotts are valuable tools. They've worked in the past. Who needs lies?
Let's get some independent journals on the National newsstands.
It is possible.
See http://www.webcom.com/ctka for a possible candidate
I understand Robert Parry's Consortium is good too. Sorry I haven't
gotten around to it yet.
Pearl Gladstone
Referring to your title, Daeron:
It never will. But we get it where Newsweek is concerned.
Daeron
>
> JS707FL wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Daeron. I'm glad there are still some people out there who don't
> > believe everything they're spoon-fed by the supposed "liberal media".
> Posts are only posts. I say hit Newsweek where it hurts. DO NOT
> subscribe. DO NOT buy it. Read it at the library, or in the supermarket
> line, just to get a critique like Daeron's excellent, as usual, reply.
This, of course, goes without saying - and why I do not subscribe to
Newsweek (I shred all their 'economy' professional offers), or to TIME,
or to The Washington Post (The Washington Post Company runs Newsweek.)
For those who want to get a more in depth perspective, on how the
Washington Post group censors conspiracy-points of view, please point
your browsers to:
http://www.copi.com/articles/Holmes1.htm
(By the way, the Newsweek issue I referenced my post from was given to
my wife, as a complimentary copy, while on holiday in Barbados)
> Otherwise, the cycle rolls on.
Exactly, which is why all must be hit where it hurts, in their
pocketbooks. Granted - this may be a small gesture compared to the vast
numbers that do subscribe, but it is the principle that counts.
> Boycotts are valuable tools. They've worked in the past. Who needs lies?
Exactly. And hopefully, we can spread the word about this sort of thing,
and encourage people to participate.
> Let's get some independent journals on the National newsstands.
We need them desperately. What we have currently are largely co-opted,
commercially dominated 'hyenas'(to use the work of the new Guyanese
Prime Minister, Mrs. Jagan, in referring to how the U.S. media has
hounded Clinton, and virtually destroyed the office of the Presidency by
rolling in the pigpen - despite the public's protestations that the
issue is a *private* affair.)
Of course, the Entity (my Architects)may have been looking for such an
excuse - to manipulate the media to theirends, for some time. Notice how
they have leaked materials at every step of this perfidy.
When the media's standards become those of the gutter, and
disinformation-lies, then we no longer need them. They are the true
whores in this country.
rickg...@my-dejanews.com
It's nice to see you don't consider the Washington Post part of the media
conspiracy to protect the *other* conspiracy.
Rick Gibson
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
BeWelKel
about the JFK murder. He is their go-to guy. He also writes about the CIA a
lot and wrote an disparaging article or two about Gary Webb's expose in the San
Jose Mercury-News.
But his real feat was to write a long review of Oliver Stone's "JFK"
several months before it was finished. He lambasted the accuracy of the as-yet
unmade movie based on the first draft of its script.
Isn't it funny how the CIA journalist for the Washington Post is also the
JFK expert? What connection could there possibly be between the CIA and LHO if
LHO acted alone?
P.S. The reporter that the now-defunct Washington Star sent to cover the
JFK murder was none other than the late Jeramiah O'Leary, whose previous
credentials included his career at the National Security Agency. (I believe he
was also a Lt .Col. in the reserves, although I could be mistaken about that.)
While O'Leary was in Dallas, an FBI agent handed over the
Manlicher-Carcano to him and left him with it alone for 20 or 30 minutes. Ask
yourself, would an FBI agent give the rifle over to a reporter unless that
reporter was known to be "safe?" O'Leary wrote about the event in his column
for the Washington Times (around1991-3 as I recall, on or near Nov. 22)
- Kelley
--------------------
William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer" To order, call
1-800-717-2669 (1-800-717-BOOX)
Vern Pascal
Newsweek is.- They have went out of there way, in not being, by any
stretch of the imagination, within the ballpark of objectivity on the
subjects at hand. Tell them about
it.....................................................Jeff
BeWelKel
My favorite Newsweek was the one where Case Closed was their cover story.
Can anyone tell me with a straight face that it was such a slow news week that
Posner's book earned the privilege of being promoted like that?
Pearl Gladstone
>
> George Lardner of the Washington Post seems to write most of the articles
> about the JFK murder. He is their go-to guy. He also writes about the CIA a
> lot and wrote an disparaging article or two about Gary Webb's expose in the San
> Jose Mercury-News.
> But his real feat was to write a long review of Oliver Stone's "JFK"
> several months before it was finished. He lambasted the accuracy of the as-yet
> unmade movie based on the first draft of its script.
> Isn't it funny how the CIA journalist for the Washington Post is also the
Reply:
As we unfortunately know, Harold Weisberg sent the script of "JFK" to
Lardner, he says, out of anger over the script. This is more than
unsettling, just as Lardner's departure from all that his great father
stood for is unsettling.
Weisberg worked for Donovan and the OSS, and he brags about supplying
poultry to Dulles. He let Posner and his wife use his files for three
days. (By the way, from the size of Weisberg's files, Posner would have
needed three years to go through them, let alone make out the illegible
print)
I know everybody is going to be outraged, but I have always had the
extreme chutzpah to have some doubts about Weisberg. Is it a sometime
spy tactic to send someone out to find out as much as can be ferreted
out about an operation in order to insure final security from the
smoking gun?
Please, everybody, don't get angry.
I know that Weisberg is heavy with age and infirmity. I cannot help
wondering, and I expect to be corrected. It's just that I cannot accept
that he sent the script to Lardner, of all people. It's so strange.
As for Newsweek, the original topic of this thread, it's another House
of Entity Propaganda.
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>
>Forgive me, as I am a relative newcomer to the discussion, but:
>
>A) It is not the "sex life" of the president that the
>normally-left-liberal media are concerned with, but if, in fact, the
>president lied UNDER OATH in a court proceeding (REGARDLESS of WHAT it
>is about). Anyone who TRULY believes in the same bar of justice for
>all will not allow the nation's top lawmaker to set a different (and
>convieniently lower) bar of justice for him than for the people he
>represents, for if he does, then there are going to be one hell of a
>lot of new appeals raised in the courts over just this same issue ...
>consentual sex and lying under oath in a trial.
Yes, but how many people are questioned extensively about their sex
lives under oath? And how realistic is it to expect anyone to be
completely honest about their sex life?
>B) If I recall correctly ... and I am old enough to have lived through
>it ... Martin Luther King was (especially in his great "I have a dream
>speech") concerned with not the color of a man's skin but the CONTENT
>OF THEIR CHARACTER (capitals mine).
>
>That being the case, I find it rather amusing that the same people who
>(rightfully so IMHO) defend MLK, should also just as adamantly defend
>Bill Clinton. The two men's "moral character's" couldn't possibly be
>more different.
Are you completely unaware of the extensive womanizing MLK engaged in?
Or that Hoover called him the most notorious liar in the country? If
King was active today, the media and the government would be tearing
him apart over the "character issue." But that doesn't change the
great things he did in his public life.
Hoover and JFK, Eisenhower and FDR also would have been raked over the
coals if the truth about their private lives had come out while they
were alive. I don't expect any of them would have told the truth under
oath.
>I say that we (respectfully) exume Mr. King and give him a double-dose
>of valium, because if he were alive today, he would be on the
>forefront of condemning this president instead of excusing him in the
>age-old name of "the end justifies the means" argument ... which is (I
>submit) the most dangerous argument to have ever been raised, as it
>could concievably overlook the actions of some of the most notorious
>and evil men in our history.
Including many of our former presidents, senators, intelligence and
military leaders, etc.
>That is exactly WHY the American system specifically includes
>proceedures to halt the actions of any one man, regardless (or maybe
>because of) how powerful he is.
Too bad it couldn't halt Ken Starr before he spent $40 million of our
money to write a porno novel.
hi...@webtv.net
not about sex, it's about lying under oath. Yeah, it's about lying
under oath about sex. Hello.
Is anyone home? How many of you have ever spent any time in a
courtroom. Cops lie all day long every day, and the judges know it.
Drug case one never got made without an illegal wiretap, and cops who
lie and say there was none.
Ever heard about the "hand-off" technique controversy in LA County,
where the criminal defense bar just learned that law enforcement has
been carrying on a secret campaign of wiretapping hundreds of thousands
of telepohone conversations, not informing even ANY of the parties to
the conversations, handing off the information gleaned from those taps
to other officers who then testify in court that they did not get their
info from wiretaps.
Just one example, but a very serious one involving the civil rights of
whole communities, and a conspiracy wider than the one behind the jfk
assassination covering it up.
More mundane examples. C'mon, people lie in court all the time and the
jury and everybody else knows it. No one ever gets prosecuted for
perjury for lying on the witness stand. But some people think the
President should be impeached, convicted and thrown out of office for
trying to conceal an embarrassing affair?
You should be ashamed of yourselves for such pettiness. If you're going
to go after the President, go after some serious matter. You demean
yourselves by even considering this nonsense as grounds for impeachment.
Ken Starr, get a life, and quit robbing us of millions of dollars.
If anything ever ruins the reputation of lawyers, this notion that 445
pages of bullshit constitutes a prosecutable offense - to say nothing of
impeachable - will do it.
If anyone has brought America to its knees, it's this Starr man.
hiro1
Vern Pascal
arrogance. The only way to get a fresh start is to come to grips with
the past. If Reno can help do that- that's something we haven't seen.
(JFK-MLK are on the table at the Justice Dept. I may be dreaming, but I
don't think she's gonna sit on her ass again, she now knows what kind
of Hardball they play).....Jeff
Daeron
> Lastly, if Clinton hadn't used every privilege and stone-walled the
> investigation in every way he and his lawyer buddies could possibly
> think of, this thing would have been over a lot sooner and for a lot
> less money.
What a load of merde! What 'thing'? You mean Whitewater - as in the
'Whitewater Investigation'? It NEVER came out! Forty million of taxpayer
dollars was squandered for six years and in three jurisdictions only to
end up with two passing mentions of it in Starr's Inquisitiorial and
salacious 'report'.
Fact is, he had NOTHING whatever about Whitewater, and the only other
place he had to go was to barge into the man's personal sex life,
digging up all manner of dirt - based on an ILLEGAL ( in the state of
MD) taping by another bimbo and Repub lackey named Linda Tripp.
What he ends up with is a pile of reeking gnat shit, which shows more
about his own inner sanctum and dubious mind (and morals) than the
president's. For - in effect, what has happened it that a torrent of web
pornography has been unleashed on the world.
As for 'stonewalling' - the president had absolutely no obligation to
screw himself by helping or assisting this Grand Inquisitor in any way.
He was using the tools available to him, pure and simple. The very
conflation of this 'bjs by bimbettes and lying about it' with the much
more serious (by a million times) Watergate crimes (using the FBI and
CIA against the people via illegal wiretaps etc) shows how bereft of
proportion and anaytical capability you all are.
> Just ask the democrats! Clinton stalled this thing as
> long as he legally could just to save his own ass, and at the same
> time putting the issue in the news right before the congressional
> elections.
He had every obligation - for his own self defense, to employ whatever
tactics, methods available to him, to stem the hyenas and perverts that
were hell bent on digging out the details of what amounts to personal,
CONSENSUAL sex. Hellooooo, earth to Johnson....anyone home? And I notice
you say nothing of the illegal leaks by Starr, or of the media's own
inetnt on dredging up every piece of irrelevant crap to use as fodder
though two thirds of the American people say ENOUGH ALREADY!!
As Fr. Robt. Drinan (who was on the Watergate COmmittee in '73) said on
'60 Minutes' last night, it is one thing to lie or cover up or misdirect
about a PERSONAL sexual behavior, quite another to lie about the misuse
of power in the government to direct it against the citizens and
undermine the Constitution.
Those who can't tell the difference, have no business in this
discussion. They lack any sense or semblance of ethical proportion.
> He would rather sacrifice his own party than own up to
> what is now becoming apparent was true all along. What a man! With
> friends like that ... the democrats are in a lot of trouble.
No - I believe, certainly from the latest polls, that the Repubs are in
a world of trouble. I believe the people will tell this mob of
inquisitors and Nazis (see my FAQ Addendum) that tries to pass itself
off as a respectable party, that they are out the door Nov. 3rd. Instead
of sending out files on Clinton's sex life, the Repubs should have done
their damned jobs and released the files disclosing victims of U.S.
violence in Guatemala and Honduras. (See eg 'The Baltimore Sun',
REPUBLICANS KILL BILL TO OPEN FILES ON RIGHTS ABUSES, Sept. 3,p. 21A)
As the article notes:
"Senate Republicans, aligned with U.S. intelligence agencies, beat back
efforts yesterday to force disclosure of information held by U.S.
agencies on cases of kidnaping, torture and murder by U.S.-backed
security forces in Honduras and Guatemala suring the Cold War."
Yep some champions of morals these Repubs are. In fact, a prime reason
they are going after Clinton is to cooperate with those same agancies
who don't want to release all the JFK (and other files) he ordered them
to, through his 1995 Executive Order (ordering release of all files
older than 25 years by 2000).
It all fits together, those of us in deep politics see it - the rest of
you buffered on the surface of pseudo-scandals, designed as political
executions, don't.
> Blame the investigator for having the AUDACITY to reveal
> what he found. How dare he. Oh the unfairness of it all (sniff,
> sniff).
He DIDN'T reveal what he found re; the ORIGINAL purpose of his
Inquisition" Whitewater. Because frankly, he had squat. He had to dig
into the president's sexual life and behavior to come up with anything,
and even there - wouldn't have anything had he not used an illegal tape
made by Linda Tripp. Sounds like breaking the law to accuse someone of
breaking the law to me. Doncha' think? HUH? EH? What's that????
Daeron
> The disturbing thing about you guys is that even if they had NAILED
> him on Whitewater (which they still may), you would still be defending
> him.
F*ckin' A right, we would. Because even a lobotomized Repub should be
able to tell this is a conspiratorial political hatchet job from a mile
away. But then, only a few look closely enough to see through the media
hyperbole and hysterics. One such, is conservative columnist Gregory
Kane (of the Baltimore Sun) who observed (Sunday, Sept. 12, p. 1B):
"Even the most fervent anti-Clintonite has to admit that something
smells about the Lewinsky investigation being initiated eight months
ago. Lewinsky not testifying until august, and Starr's file not being
sent to Congress until five days before the primary election."
"The issue here isn't Clinton or his private life. It isn't Lewinsky.
It's not even about perjury and obstruction of justice. It's about
Tuesday's primary election and the general one to be held in November.
It's about whether Republicans will retain control of Congress or ceded
it to the Democrats. It looks as if, in this particular political chess
game, Clinton and Lewinsky are mere pawns."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now, if Kane can get it - why can't you? Obviously because - like Starr,
you've your own agenda.
> Nothing except for the scores of top Clinton business associates and
> more importantly PERSONAL friends of Billy like the Hubbles who went
> to jail.
Many innocent folk end up in jail, as do many *political lambs for the
sacrifice* - i.e. Susan McDougald.
> But, hey! That had NOTHING to do with our boy. He just
> happened to be standing there at the time, reading his bible, no
> doubt.
If it had anything to do with him - apart from a political witch hunt,
paid for to the tune of $40 million tax dollars, it would have appeared
in Starr's illustrious report.
> BTW, althought he may not be able to nail Clinton on Whitewater, the
> investigation is still ongoing, so don't go buying that "Clinton For
> Pope" tee-shirt just yet.
Funny, the Barbados NATION Editorial asked the other day:
Exactly what is it Americans, and especially Ken Starr want, a Pope or a
President"
They also noted, quite pointedly (take note all media hyenas and their
fellow travelers):
"This is the largest part of the Clinton saga. An intrusive press
providing a place of refuge for busybodies, preachy and self-righteous
types, every breed of hypocrite and perhaps voyeurs and the impotent."
They nailed it.
> Yup. If all else fails, attack the cop who caught you robbing the
> bank.
A huge difference between 'cop' and Grand Inquisitor. As the Paris
LeMonde noted:
"The Starr Report is a monster, worthy of the Inquisition."
And they further take this 'cop' of yours to task for:
"trying to impose a terrifying moral order where sex isnever far from
sin, where even sexual relations between consenting adults is always
something terrible."
And as the earlier Barbados NATION Editorial observes:
"A proper line must be drawn between the private lives of public people
and the public lives of public people. Life for them could otherwise be
unbearable. Nothing is going to remove the aura of sex that accompanies
power, including, if not especially, political power."
Again, dead on - leaving most U.S. papers, Editorials in the friggin'
dust. But, what' new?
> The big difference here is that I don't have one standard for our guys
> and another for yours.
What 'standard' ? They're totally different! In Nixon's case it was
using the power of the federal government to usurp citizen's rights by
the use of FBI, CIA etc. In the current case, it's a few 'bj's' from a
bimbo, or rather 'lying' about it (Starr's words, the allegations have
not been proved).
From 'Accusations Lack Stength for Impeachment of Clinton', by
Lyle Denniston, The Baltimore Sun, Sept. 12, 1998, p. 12A:
Writing of Starr's 'Report' Denniston observes:
"He builds a *suggested* case for impeachment out of a pile of
sometimes very specific testimony, a host of inferences about
what opaque statements really mean, a few damaging pieces of
physical evidence, and a wide array of debatable conclusions.
<snip>
"The most specific lie Starr alleges about the President's grand jury
testimony was that Clinton had falsely denied ever touching
Lewinsky intimately. He offers excerpts from Clinton's testimony on
that point, but at no poin tin that recital is there an indication that
the President was ever asked explicitly 'Did you?', or that he ever
answered an explicit 'No'.
Those who cannot distinguish the gravity of acts on the 'Morality
Richter scale', have no ethical proportion, and hence morality,
themselves
> Prove the leaks in a court of law (which I think you have a case for)
> and I will be the FIRST one to call for his scalp.
After you prove Clinton is guilty of 'impeachable offenses' in the same
court (see Denniston's quotes above).
> A leftie preaching ethics??!! Oh please. You guys have been the
> champions of lowering the ethical and moral bar for 30 years
Oh, oh....you mean as in:
1) Supporting Big Tobacco in their conspiracy to squelch development of
safer cigarettes, and market them to kids, teens?
2) Impeding passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act, to prevent
spouses from caring for ill spouses and home, and parents from caring
for children
3) Looking the other way while Environmental Protections Laws are gutted
and eviscerated (because Repubs are mainly in the pockets of the large
chemical corporations, like Dow)
4) Participating in the Iran-Contra conspiracy in which a Congressional
law barring such deals was flouted, and drugs were used (by various
agencies) to generate income to support this misbegotten venture.
I gotcha.
> (See eg 'The Baltimore Sun',
> >REPUBLICANS KILL BILL TO OPEN FILES ON RIGHTS ABUSES, Sept. 3,p. 21A)
> >
>
> Yup, typical left-wing wacko argument. If you can't win on the facts,
> call the opposition Nazi's. Grow up.
No, you grow up. I made the point that the same Repubs now ready to hang
Clinton out to try for getting a bj from a bimbo and withholding info on
it, committed vastly worse atrocity by preventing release of the above
indicated war crimes in Honduras and Guatemala. A far more serious
matter.
As the same article notes, quoting Ramon Custodio, President of the
independent Honduran Committee for the Defense of Human Rights:
"Youhave the truth and your country (the Republicans) hide it. That
leads to impunity [for human rights violations] in Honduras. The system
in your country has two standards. One where people respect the law and
another where people don't even have the smallest respect for the law."
And in the last, of course, he was referring to your beloved maggot
Republicans - who killed the bill to open these (classified) files. Now,
why should Bill Clinton, or anyone for that matter, respect such a
lawless bunch of vagabonds in their ill-conceived and misguided attempts
to use the law to their advantages?
> Like they say, the definition of a Nazi (or racist or bigot or
> mean-spirited) is someone who is winning an argument with a socialist.
No - it's someone who has no respect for the law - and is prepared to
exploit and flout it to their own fascist ends. The Repubs did it by
killing a bill that would have provided disclosure for hundreds,
thousands of crimes against humanity in war-torn Guatemala and Honduras.
This shows - at the very least - they are on the side of the devils, not
the angels.
And now they want us to believe they're all 'holy rollers' as they
viciously pursue Bill Clinton.
>That is what lefties do ...
> blame everyone but themselves for their own trouble. And why not?
> You've had years of practice.
You haven't seen the likes of trouble yet. Not what will befall this
country and rend it asunder if the dog-hyena Repub hounds and moraly
bereft lackeys continue and try to impeach a man that 66% (according to
current polls) insist should be allowed to remain and finish his term.
This country will be as polarized as it was during Vietnam. And that
ain't whistlin' Dixie.
Oh - and look for the Clinton allies to release their 'doomsday weapons'
very soon, on all those now in glass houses trying to throw stones.
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 23:53:25 GMT, tri...@tfb.com (Tracy Riddle)
>wrote:
>>Yes, but how many people are questioned extensively about their sex
>>lives under oath? And how realistic is it to expect anyone to be
>>completely honest about their sex life?
>
>When he started pissing them off by playing his adolescent little word
>games (oral sex is not really sex; she was doing it to me so I wasn't
>actually having sex, etc) he INVITED them to play hardball. Rule #1
>when you are being investigated is "try not to piss off the prosecutor
>if you can help it." He didn't just piss them off, he virtually
>taunted them.
>As far as your last line ... if someone is under a sworn oath, I would
>expect them to be just as honest as if it were any other subject.
>Embarrassment should not be an excuse to lie in court regardless of
>the subject.
Did you read my perjury post on Gerald Ford? Why didn't he have to
resign? I'm against the hypocrisy of how selectively laws and morality
are applied in politics.
> Talking to your friends ... sure, lie all you want, but
>this is in a court of law after swearing to "tell the truth, the whole
>truth, and nothing but the truth". BIG difference. People go to jail
>for that kind of thing.
Some people do, some people don't; if you're in law enforcement, you
pretty much have carte blanche to lie all you want.
>>
>>>B) If I recall correctly ... and I am old enough to have lived through
>>>it ... Martin Luther King was (especially in his great "I have a dream
>>>speech") concerned with not the color of a man's skin but the CONTENT
>>>OF THEIR CHARACTER (capitals mine).
>>>
>>>That being the case, I find it rather amusing that the same people who
>>>(rightfully so IMHO) defend MLK, should also just as adamantly defend
>>>Bill Clinton. The two men's "moral character's" couldn't possibly be
>>>more different.
>>
>>Are you completely unaware of the extensive womanizing MLK engaged in?
>>Or that Hoover called him the most notorious liar in the country? If
>>King was active today, the media and the government would be tearing
>>him apart over the "character issue." But that doesn't change the
>>great things he did in his public life.
>>
>I was being gracious <g>
And you've avoided my point completely.
>>Hoover and JFK, Eisenhower and FDR also would have been raked over the
>>coals if the truth about their private lives had come out while they
>>were alive. I don't expect any of them would have told the truth under
>>oath.
>>
>Great! Why don't we just ALL lie under oath then?
Nearly everyone would lie under oath about their sex lives, but in
most cases, how would you prove they were lying? Clinton is
unfortunate enough to be a prominent figure with a lot of enemies who
busily interrogate everyone who ever knew him. People like Lucianne
Goldberg and Linda Tripp "volunteered" their services to Starr's
investigation, something that would not happen to most people.
>Hey, Bill does it,
>and since we don't want to make him sound like the moral midget he is,
>let's just say that "hey, everyone else would have done the same in
>his place, so, you see, it really isn't that bad". Faulty (and
>suspicious) logic at best. Would you be so forgiving if it was a
>republican?
Yes, when it comes to people's private lives. Hoover and Ike were
Republicans, in case you didn't know. I happen to be a libertarian
(small "l") and I have a real problem with people being persecuted for
what they do in their sex life. I hope you're prepared to see this
kind of thing continue with future presidents and candidates.
>>>I say that we (respectfully) exume Mr. King and give him a double-dose
>>>of valium, because if he were alive today, he would be on the
>>>forefront of condemning this president instead of excusing him in the
>>>age-old name of "the end justifies the means" argument ... which is (I
>>>submit) the most dangerous argument to have ever been raised, as it
>>>could concievably overlook the actions of some of the most notorious
>>>and evil men in our history.
>>
>>Including many of our former presidents, senators, intelligence and
>>military leaders, etc.
>
>Absolutely there have been cases of other officials lying under oath,
>but my God look at this man's record! It is hardly an isolated
>incident. He has shown a pattern of lying and covering up all his
>life. It is not a state secret.
Yeah, I know, he's a Warren Commission supporter. It doesn't get any
worse than that.
> This guy is in a league of his own
>and should not be compared to others merely as an attempt to excuse or
>overlook his actions just because one "likes" him or his policies.
I don't agree with a lot of Clinton's policies, and I have criticized
him in the past about Waco, Filegate and other *public* matters. Starr
must really be an idiot if he couldn't find any evidence of wrongdoing
in Whitewater-related matters.
>>
>>>That is exactly WHY the American system specifically includes
>>>proceedures to halt the actions of any one man, regardless (or maybe
>>>because of) how powerful he is.
>>
>>Too bad it couldn't halt Ken Starr before he spent $40 million of our
>>money to write a porno novel.
>>
>You haven't actually READ the report, have you? Because if you had
>you would not be so eager to buy the whitehouse spin that "it's all
>about sex". Starr doesn't make a single charge over sex (there aren't
>any to make since it was consensual). The charges deal with perjury,
>witness tampering, obstruction of justice, etc, etc. This is NOT
>stealing a candy bar! These are felonies.
They're all related to Clinton's sex life, though; none of them are
related to any of the scandals Starr was originally assigned to
investigate.
>It doesn't matter WHAT they are ABOUT! As one reporter said today
>"the law doesn't say that lying under oath is a crime UNLESS you are
>lying about sex". And yet that is the argument that the Clinton
>supporters are laughingly trying to make.
Fine; if you're happy about running a president out of office because
he lied about his sex life, then you'd better hope that all future
presidents are choir boys who've never even *thought* of looking at
another woman.
Howard J. Rogers
Dan Johnson wrote in message
<7F6FB4D59C9B5C42.11B681AB...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:30:51 -0400, Daeron <sta...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Dan Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> The disturbing thing about you guys is that even if they had NAILED
>>> him on Whitewater (which they still may), you would still be defending
>>> him.
>>
>>F*ckin' A right, we would.
Off topic, but I'll bite. Since I am not a US Citizen, I have nothing to
lose. Had the Starr report nailed him on Whitewater, he should properly
have resigned (or been impeached, but the Nixon precedent suggests
resignation would happen first). But Starr *didn't* nail him on a matter of
abuse of public office, public funds, and gross illegality. He nailed him
on a sexual pecadillo, and on telling lies about that when caught out.
Name me one man that wouldn't have lied his rocks off (as it were) if caught
in a similar predicament.
To me, this is *not* perjury in the sense in which that is meant when we
talk about the proper execution of justice. It is not a high crime or
misdemeanour. It is the actions of a human being, with human flaws, caught
in extraordinary circumstances.
I might add, that that report cost $40 million, and took four years to
investigate -and it deals exclusively with the events of the past nine
months. That is, objectively, not justice.
The sad thing is.. it is an amazing spectacle to see the old puritan ethic
erupt to the American surface from time to time, regardless of more pressing
global issues. The good news is, it seems a majority of the American public
is not quite so loopily puritan this time round as the politicians in the
hot house of DC might have thought.
Regards
HJR
>
>I rest my case. I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post,
>since this one statement proves better than I ever could have dreamed
>to have how irrational and one-sided you people are.
>
>THANK YOU!
>
>I now retire from this thread, since for a debate to take place, one
>needs both parties to at least ENTERTAIN the idea that each may be
>wrong. You have proved beyond my wildest dreams the true mind of a
>left-wing wacko.
>
>In your mind, it is simple ... you are NEVER wrong - period.
>
>It must be nice to be as sure of yourself as God.
>
>Now exactly WHO are the fanatics again?
Daeron
> Had the Starr report nailed him on Whitewater, he should properly
> have resigned (or been impeached, but the Nixon precedent suggests
> resignation would happen first).
But the fact they *couldn't* nail him on Whitewater discloses
irrefutably that they had nothing there. Nothing to prove their case in
a court of law, only smoke and mirrors. Something our Repub moral
absolutists can't quite grasp.
> But Starr *didn't* nail him on a matter of
> abuse of public office, public funds, and gross illegality. He nailed him
> on a sexual pecadillo, and on telling lies about that when caught out.
>
> Name me one man that wouldn't have lied his rocks off (as it were) if caught
> in a similar predicament.
Exactly and irrefutably so. And a point I've made time and time again.
Those (males) that dispute this point and refer to some airy-fairy
'morality' being absolute (no compromise even when caught in a sexual
pecadillo) are balless wonders, liars or 'impotent voyeurs'- as the
Barbados NATION Editorial observes.
> To me, this is *not* perjury in the sense in which that is meant when we
> talk about the proper execution of justice.
True - and a point made by none other than FATHER Robert Drinan, an RC
priest, on a '60 Minutes' segment Sunday night. The Repubs and their
lackeys are conflating 'chalk' and 'cheese' here.
> It is not a high crime or
> misdemeanour. It is the actions of a human being, with human flaws, caught
> in extraordinary circumstances.
I couldn't have put it better myself, Howard. And, as you said, any
manjack with a set of balls would have withheld details, or misdirected
some Inquisitor (and his Inquisition) to spare his family shame and
pain, if he thought it would have half a chance of working.
> I might add, that that report cost $40 million, and took four years to
> investigate -and it deals exclusively with the events of the past nine
> months. That is, objectively, not justice.
You have it correct, and it is precisely the assessment of conservative
Baltimore Sun columnist Greg Kane - who came to just that conclusion.
And then we have these Repubs - I won't name names but they know who
they are - who pontificate on 'truth, justice and the American way'.
They talk good, but wouldn't recognize their 'principles' if they were
bitten on the ass.
> The sad thing is.. it is an amazing spectacle to see the old puritan ethic
> erupt to the American surface from time to time, regardless of more pressing
> global issues.
It is sad, and I thought we had outgrown this sort of lamentable and
juvenile attitude after the Gary Hart thing. But, it still resides deep
in the anti-sexual puritans among us. Those who want to destroy a man's
career and rout him from office for getting a few bjs from a bimbette.
To Europeans I've talked to - like my Dutch friend Frans Gerrits, it
would be amusing if it ween't so appalling. They can't get over how
sexually retarded we are for the most part. Ditto from my friends in
Barbados. All are appalled at the juvenile obsession with this sex deal,
while the 'real burglars are making off with the jewelry'. (I.e. the
corporations, like big Tobacco etc.)
And while major global issues (i.e. Russia, terrorism, etc. go begging
for an ounce of attention.
> The good news is, it seems a majority of the American public
> is not quite so loopily puritan this time round as the politicians in the
> hot house of DC might have thought.
Right, as I pointed out. And this majority also has sense to let Mr.
Clinton finish his term. The people have spoken - in these polls. Now,
the question the Repubs have to answer is: Is this still a nation by the
people, and *for* the people? Or, are they going to dismiss the people
(again) and steamroll this thing through a divisive impeachment
proceedings, thereby further polarizing the country?
We shall wait and see.
Howard J. Rogers
Daeron wrote in message <35FE43...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Howard J. Rogers wrote:
[Snip the lot]
>We shall wait and see.
It's nice that we agree on this, Daeron. And I hope we won't have to wait
too long for the whole thing to be recognised for the utter injustice and
farce it has become.
You do realise that the media are turning the Presidency into a job that
no-one in their right mind would want to apply for, don't you? God help all
of us.
Regards
HJR
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:21:35 GMT, tri...@tfb.com (Tracy Riddle)
>wrote:
>
>After reading some of the postings in this group, I am concluding that
>there is no argument that could be made that would make the lefties
>(not you ... good for you for being a libertarian) understand the
>basics of the word "principle".
One of the reasons I consider myself a libertarian is because I became
so tired of watching both parties play the old game of "We're always
right, you're always wrong." Rush Limbaugh and James Carville are flip
sides of the same coin. But most people find it too lonely to be an
individualist, so they need to belong to a "team."
>Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of who does what, but
>the left seems to have no concept of this.
You never did address my point about whether it's OK to investigate
people's private lives, or to grill them under oath about their sexual
behavior. As a libertarian, it really infuriates me. It reminds me of
that Woody Allen movie 'The Front,' where he tells the HUAC, "You
don't have the right to ask me these questions."
>They will throw a rope
>around a tree if a republican spits on the sidewalk, but will look at
>someone like Clinton (who, I would bet you will be looked on by
>historians as the most thoroughly corrupt president in American
>history) and look the other way.
Clinton still has a long way to go to catch up with Nixon, who was
downright frightening in many ways. Need a reminder?
4/10/1973 Attorney Kleindienst shocked Congress by stating that
military force could implement the exercise of executive privilege. He
claimed this power could be invoked even during an impeachment
hearing, and implied that the military might at the disposal of the
President dwarfed the Capitol police and US marshals.
Clinton is more like an Elmer Gantry than a Caligula.
>As I said earlier, if one of "my guys" screws up, I am the first one
>to criticize them because I believe in principle and ethics above any
>man. If a republican does wrong, I am extremely critical, even to the
>point of wanting him out of office, since there are many more waiting
>in the wings that can promote my agenda who are decent, honorable
>people.
Unfortunately, few people on the right or the left think that way.
Most of them are concerned only with pushing their agenda, no matter
who they have to support to do it. I personally admire honest people,
no matter where they come from, whether it's Barry Goldwater or Ralph
Nader.
>The left, on the other hand, seems to think that they are on some
>socially-divine journey, sent straight from "their God" as good ol'
>Bill would say. One that is so important that basic morality and
>ethics are nothing but disposable ideas if they happen to get in the
>way.
Like Ollie North? Don't worry if that cash is coming from cocaine
sales, just as long as it's helping the Contras. See what I mean -
both sides play the same sick game. But that's human nature, I guess.
>With thinking like that, is it any real wonder why 90% of the world's
>dictators were (and are) left-wing? And that left-wing governments
>have killed so many people over the ages that it makes Hitler look
>like a choirboy?
You need to remove the political blinders. Most modern dictators are
really non-ideological; they're only interested in holding on to
power. "Left-wing" as a term is only a couple hundred years old. For
five thousand years before that all dictators relied on "tradition" to
rule: religion, racism, nationalism, patriotism, militarism, nativism,
censorship, ignorance and fear, etc.
Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, people who believed in individual
rights over state power were called "liberals" or even radicals.
Today, conservatives claim to support individual rights, but when they
take power they usually busy themselves coming up with new ways to
repress people.
Both the right and left seem to have accepted the existence of big
government; they just differ over how they want to use it. The Left
wants us all to carry national ID cards so they can "take care of us";
the Right wants us to carry ID cards so they can keep an eye on us.
Either way, we're in somebody's database.
>If someone is totally incapable of being convinced he is wrong,
>despite the evidence, that is a man I do NOT want in power.
>
>So feel free to respond, as I admire libertarians, and I will read
>your (and anybody else's) response for about 3 days, but after that,
>I'm outta here. Nobody enjoys healthy debate more than I, but I also
>realize that there is no sense arguing with people who think like
>Daeron ... and I suspect, from reading many, many other posters in
>this group, that he is not the exception, but, unfortunately, the rule
>here.
As far as the JFK assassination goes, you find people all across the
spectrum who doubt the official story. Personally, I like that.
I don't see leftists or rightists as threats (unless they turn into
violent extremists - most of them don't). I have friends who are
socialists and friends who are fundamentalist Christians. They're just
different people with different perspectives on life, but when you
strip away all the bullshit, we're all human beings.
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>
>A leftie preaching ethics??!! Oh please. You guys have been the
>you want to use it against those who (generally) have been fighting
>against it?
Couldn't help but notice this. Are you one of those conservatives who
think that immorality began with the Dreaded Sixties? Sorry, but I
think this is one of the most pathetic reactionary wet dreams. Here's
one of my favorite quotes from Professor Newt:
"From 1607 to 1965, America had one continuous civilization built
around a set of commonly accepted legal and cultural principles. From
the Jamestown colony and the Pilgrims, through Tocqueville's
'Democracy in America,' up to the Norman Rockwell paintings of the
1940s and 1950s, there was a clear sense of what it meant to be an
American. Since 1965, however, there has been a calculated effort by
cultural elites to discredit this civilization and replace it with a
culture of irresponsibility that is incompatible with American
freedoms as we have known them....Until we re-establish a legitimate
moral and cultural standard, our civilization is at risk."
One common culture? And this guy was a history professor? Has he ever
heard of the Civil War? Or the epidemic of racial/religious/class
violence we've had since colonial times? This has got to be one of the
most ridiculous interpretations of American history I've ever heard.
What exactly happened in 1965 to destroy American civilization,
anyway? The Voting Rights Act? Gilligan's Island?
And coming from a guy who cheated on his first wife and dumped her
while she was in the hospital ("she's not young enough or pretty
enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer"),
I look forward to Newt setting the new moral standard for us all.
Howard J. Rogers
You know one of my all-time favourite quotes? From memory, it runs
something like, "The parents of today look at their children with horror:
the unprecedented freedoms, the irresponsible exercise of rampant
individuality, the increase in crime -to unprecedented levels. Unless we do
something soon, this society of ours will rot and crumble to ashes..."
The writer? Sir Thomas Moore, around about 1529.
Seems somethings never change, unless you are an inventive -er, sorry,
'revisionist', historian!
Regards
HJR
Tracy Riddle wrote in message <35ff34b2...@news.tfb.com>...
Daeron
> It's nice that we agree on this, Daeron. And I hope we won't have to wait
> too long for the whole thing to be recognised for the utter injustice and
> farce it has become.
I am hoping that the voters (those who have 'eyes' and 'ears' and their
heads screwed on straight, will dispatch an unmistakable message on Nov.
3rd, to the Repub fanatics, that they have overreached themselves here.
I hope, in other words, they will suffer a political backlash the likes
of which hasn't been seen in years.
> You do realise that the media are turning the Presidency into a job that
> no-one in their right mind would want to apply for, don't you?
Sure do. And it is deliberate and planned, imho. They will, in the end,
create an office so dilute, so transparent and bereft of power - that
only the most two-dimensional, cardboard 'yes men' need apply. In other
words, the separation of powers that has so far protected this nation -
and at least kept some semblance of liberty within it, will have been
breached. Perhaps for all time.
A sad end, but many of us could have predicted as much from that dark
day nearly 35 years ago.
Daeron
> >Couldn't help but notice this. Are you one of those conservatives who
> >think that immorality began with the Dreaded Sixties? Sorry, but I
> >think this is one of the most pathetic reactionary wet dreams. Here's
> >one of my favorite quotes from Professor Newt:
>
> No, it didn't start in the 60's. One early case (since we are now
> talking history) is the Roman empire. There wasn't a force in the
> world that could even dent their armor. They got complacent. They got
> immoral. They fell. That is history. The Roman empire was brought
> down by moral decay from within. No, it didn't start in the 60's, but
> one would think that we could learn from history. Instead, you guys
> go stumbling forward into the very same trap.
This is from The National Geographic (Vol. 192, No. 1, July 1997)
special issue on the Roman Empire and its history, p. 36:
"The historian Paul Kennedy coined the term 'imperial overstretch' to
explain why great powers topple. Rome could be the paradigm. Defending
the borders of its giant empire and keeping the peace within required a
giant military budget.
"As modern Americans know-after all, 'their story is our story'-itwasa
difficult budget tocut, because the provinces were loathe to lose the
protection and the economic benefits that come from a local army post."
----
Sounds to me remarkably similar to the Repubs' frenetic penchant
forover-spending on military 'defense' (like that cocklemamie
'anti-missile' system they're trying to get hundreds of billions
budgeted for in new legislation).
continuing (ibid.):
"Meanwhile, tax evasion became such an art form among the rich that
farmers and peasants, partcularly in Italy, were bled white to maintain
the revenue flow."
----
Sounds to me remarkably like the plight of current farmers in the USA,
who are having their farms and properties seized by banks because the
latter will not give loans- and meanwhile huge taxpayer subsidies are
reserved for the mega-corporate farm outfits.
Also sounds remarkably like the fatcat, rich corporate CEOs and their
manager ilk who earn 173 times (on average)the wages of their workers,
and escape taxation via such loopholes (inserted by the Repubs into the
tax code) as 'deferred benefits packages' and special charitable
write-offs.
Yep - we're going down the same path to perdition all right, but it
isn't for any of the (superficial - i.e. 'libertine') reasons that
conservatives think. As usual, they miss sight of the forest, for the
trees.
So what's new.
They (Repubs) charge after sexual infractions, and 'loose musical
lyrics', 'licentious books' - while corporations and their fascist
imperialist money grabbing leader pigs rob the public till blind.(Via
their corporate welfare - which is now costing each American hard
working taxpayer $1,186 per year). And we the public, blinded by media
propaganda (that would make Leni Reifenstahl proud) bend over and smile.
Bill Parker
STORM THOSE RAMPARTS!
BREAK DOWN THE WALLS OF THE BASTILLE!
LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY!
Oops, wrong revolution.... Never mind.
Bill Parker
K.B.
wrote:
____MAJOR SNIPPAGE___________________
Just gotta say Dan, I have been amazed at the defense of Clinton.,
here in this group and elsewhere. Seems to me that the Clinton
apologists are not looking beyond the politics of the "whole affair"
and looking at the MAN. I really do not care what Europeans or Asians
think of the "backwards" sexuality of North Americans. Maybe Clinton
and his wife have an agreement that they can do whatever they want to
do sexually, I do not know and I do not care. If it was an o.k. thing
to do, have these fleeting little acts of fellatio committed on his
person in the halls or wherever, WHY DID HE LIE WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT?
I have never ever heard anyone lie about an activity if they thought
the activity was right. He got caught and by the very fact that he
lied, he admitted that HE thought he was wrong. Why is it O.K. for
Billy to lie but some of the guys on this list get upset if Posner
lies to Congress?? Come on guys, a lie is a lie. If Clinton can lie to
his employers, then Posner can lie to his employees. Its no bloody
wonder that our North American cultures can spawn such corruption as
the CIA apparently is based on posts made to this very group. If we
accept the *little* lie then we *have* to accept the big lie.
Keith Bruner
Just another memory free humanoid.
Howard J. Rogers
K.B. wrote in message <360197af....@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 06:56:04 GMT, unk...@uhnknown.com (Dan Johnson)
>wrote:
>
This is a little naiive, Keith... In the first place, much of government
*depends* on lying -or at least not telling the whole truth. Currency
speculators and the like would love 'open and honest' talk from Clinton or
Greenspan -but they don't get it because total honesty in those areas would
wreak havoc on the economy. Likewise, much of diplomacy is, by its very
nature, secret -and therefore not totally honest and upfront. Just two
examples.
In the second place, you will not find a single human being who has never
lied -so presumably, you'd like the office of the President of the United
States kept vacant until St. Francis comes back to visit us? It is not the
*fact* of the lie that is terribly important in this case, it is the *degree
of seriousness* of the lie.
Nixon lied about using the White House as a *source* of criminal activity
and conspiracy. That was a *big* lie. Clinton lied about not having had
sexual relations with that woman... a pretty small lie, that impinges hardly
at all on the actual conduct of government or the formation of government
policy.
And in the third place, Clinton's lie is pretty much precisely what any man
potentially caught in an extra-marital affair would have said, no more and
no less.
Now, none of the above means that what he did was "right". Cheating on your
wife, or lying to the American public, must of course be "wrong" -and I
think most polls I've seen recognise that fact. But, by your standards as
enunciated here, you'd have to have impeached FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK at
the very least: and I think their many virtues surely outweighed their very
human flaws.
The office of President should not require the incumbant to behave
holier-than-anyone else, or indeed to be morally better than most people. I
want good policies, put into practical effect in an efficient and equitable
manner. What the man then does with his penis is his affair, and I don't
want to know about it. And I'd rather the press and the various media
didn't ask about it, allegedly on my behalf, either.
Regards
HJR
Daeron
> The office of President should not require the incumbant to behave
> holier-than-anyone else, or indeed to be morally better than most people. I
> want good policies, put into practical effect in an efficient and equitable
> manner. What the man then does with his penis is his affair, and I don't
> want to know about it.
Excellent points Howard, and as we are seeing now, the skeletons are
starting to come out of the Repubs' own closets (like Henry Hyde's) and
they're all balling about it and crying 'Foul!" They like to throw dirt
but can't take it when anyone digs it up on them. The archetypal
sanctimonious hypocrites.
As the Barbados NATION Editorial aptly noted (Aug. 23) we must
distinguish the personal behavior of public people from the public
behavior of public people - else we descend to an endless morass of such
mud-slinging. No human - certainly in politics is 'perfect', but if
there are imperfections, I'd sure as hell rather a pol have them in his
private sexual habits, than in his collusions with corporations (as the
Repubs are wont to do) to undermine my liberties as a citizen, and make
of democracy a mockery.
Those who cannot distinguish the scope and purview of these separate
arenas are immature politically, as well as naive (hopelessly) about
human nature, and especially how politics (as a realm of power) will
always lure into its orbit various sexual predators like Monica
Lewinsky. (And let's make no mistake that she was a predator, though
disguised in the garb of 'fresh, young bimbo' with bright eyes and
eagerness).
And I'd rather the press and the various media
> didn't ask about it, allegedly on my behalf, either.
The press and media - for the most part - are all gutter whores
themselves. They are quite willing to drag this country through six more
months of agony - to try to assuage their bottom lines, than to pay
attention to the real vital issues confronting us, like the Patient's
Bill of Rights (vs. HMOs), Social Security's solvency, the growth of
terrorism - inside and outside the country, and the seriousness of the
global financial crisis.
The people - if they've had enough of this bullshit, will have to send a
distinct message to these Repub fanatics on Nov. 3rd. Only by voting
most of them out (especially Hyde - who once in IL, wanted a law
prevennt a woman that had been impregnated by rape from having an
abortion) will this demoralizing and heart-rending abomination end.
The power will be in the voter's hands, and hopefully, they will take
the opportunity to use it and send a clear message to the sanctimonious
Repub thugs, trying their best to use a 'tire iron' on the nation (in
the words of Salon magazine's Editorial) and repeal the results of the
1996 election.
They deserve no quarter.
Any 'crimes' or 'misdemeanors' Clinton may have done pale by comparison
with the Repubs' attempts to hurl this nation into a mass crapper and
strangle the few personal liberties remaining - now with the help of a
re-invigorated Christian Coalition (as disclosed in the recent
Newsletter from 'People for the American Way')
--
Thomas Noller
Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> <snip: read previous post>
Howard,
I usually agree with any of your posts, but here I just can't follow.
The guy lied. Period. Under oath and in public. That's the bottom line.
Daeron pointed out that nobody here in Europe would care about the
sexual thing. True. As a matter of fact our Chancellor Kohl (the fat one)
is known to have an affair with his secretary for some 15 years.
Does that raise eyebrows? No. But him denying it publicly and under
oath WOULD make a difference. In any democracy. The latter -- not the
cigar and the oval office encounters -- is the central point of the
controversy.
You can look in most of the papers here, liberal one's included, and you'll
find the same tenor: Who tells us where Clinton's lies begin and where they
end?
Who tells us that he hasn't lied or is going to lie about more pressing issues
than bj's?
And as far as this "every man does it" thing is concerned:
First, this would imply that cheating on your wife and family and denying it
has become a commonplace on the same level with cheating on the IRS (You
know, it's "OK") An argumentation that can only come from a man.
Secondly, Clinton is NOT John Doe. He is the President of the United States and
arguably the most powerful man in the world (not taking those *Entities* into
consideration for a moment). Unlike most of us he makes decisions which can
have
enourmous consequences for the bigger part of this planet. And he DID NOT just
stumble in there like, hoopla!, now I am president of the greatest country on
this planet. He wanted to be there and he kicked quite some butt to get there.
He SHOULD know about the
consequences this carries along. One of them is, imo, you better not lie under
oath,
or you might be toast.
He can have the sex life he wishes. I could not care less. I even
don't care if he is going to be impeached or not. But to hold
a man of that importance to a higher moral standard (not necessarily a sexual
one)
is, imho, NOT naiv at all. I wouldn't be surprised if any foreign politician
who will
have to deal with him in the future will no longer feel comfortable about what
Mr. Clinton is going to tell or offer him. Not a very strong position for the
leader of a country that claims to be the model society for this planet.
Regards.
Thomas
K.B.
<howa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>K.B. wrote in message <360197af....@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>>On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 06:56:04 GMT, unk...@uhnknown.com (Dan Johnson)
>>wrote:
>>
Its interesting, this newsgroup is devoted or supposedly devoted to
finding out the "truth" about JFK's murder. I wonder why in the world
any one bothers when so much lying is O.K.. I am naiive because I
expect everyone to tell the truth. I expect everyone to tell the truth
because I tell the truth. How can I beleive any single shred of
evidence posted to this group by anyone who thinks lying in certain
instances is alright??? In your above stated examples, there would be
no problems arising from any truth in these areas if the truth was
always told. Once we paractise to deceive etc.
>
>In the second place, you will not find a single human being who has never
>lied -so presumably, you'd like the office of the President of the United
>States kept vacant until St. Francis comes back to visit us? It is not the
>*fact* of the lie that is terribly important in this case, it is the *degree
>of seriousness* of the lie.
>
My God, and you say I am naiive! Do you seriously beleive that a man
who lies in the "little things" can be trusted in anything?? And
where do you get your facts about "never lied"? Mistaken, wrong,
repeating erroneous information inadvertently I will go along with,
but .
>Nixon lied about using the White House as a *source* of criminal activity
>and conspiracy. That was a *big* lie. Clinton lied about not having had
>sexual relations with that woman... a pretty small lie, that impinges hardly
>at all on the actual conduct of government or the formation of government
>policy.
>
Clinton lied under oath, to the world. Under oath even. He lied twice
because he said he would tell the truth. The underlying investigation
may be politically motivated but so what? The man is a liar, in a
position that should be a position of trust.
>
>And in the third place, Clinton's lie is pretty much precisely what any man
>potentially caught in an extra-marital affair would have said, no more and
>no less.
>
An extra-marital affair is also a lie. Any person in an extra-marital
affair outside of the bounds of his marriage is lying. So gee another
lie, starting to add up here.
>
>Now, none of the above means that what he did was "right". Cheating on your
>wife, or lying to the American public, must of course be "wrong" -and I
>think most polls I've seen recognise that fact. But, by your standards as
>enunciated here, you'd have to have impeached FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK at
>the very least: and I think their many virtues surely outweighed their very
>human flaws.
>
Absolutely, By my standards, it should be taken further....these guys
get caught lying, impeachment is too good for them. Jail terms should
be added to the impeachment, automatically.
>
>The office of President should not require the incumbant to behave
>holier-than-anyone else, or indeed to be morally better than most people. I
>want good policies, put into practical effect in an efficient and equitable
>manner. What the man then does with his penis is his affair, and I don't
>want to know about it. And I'd rather the press and the various media
>didn't ask about it, allegedly on my behalf, either.
>
So a person who does NOT lie is holier then thou?? I do not follow the
line of thought here. I have only ever met one person in my life who
said lying was an alright thing to do and actually taught his kids
that. Basically by your line of reasoning, I could agree to pay you a
sum for a service, receive the service, and then not pay you, and that
would be o.k. by you.
I agree, I do not want to know what my neighbours do with their
penises.....but I sure want to know that they are liars or theives or
whatever. I run a small business, any employee that lies gets sent
down the road. Because of our beleifs and holier then thou attitude,
we have gained a position of respect and trust in our community.
>Regards
>HJR
>
>
Take care
K.B.
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:28:13 GMT, root@*webquay.com (K.B.) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 06:56:04 GMT, unk...@uhnknown.com (Dan Johnson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>____MAJOR SNIPPAGE___________________
>>
>>Just gotta say Dan, I have been amazed at the defense of Clinton.,
>>here in this group and elsewhere. Seems to me that the Clinton
>>apologists are not looking beyond the politics of the "whole affair"
>>and looking at the MAN. I really do not care what Europeans or Asians
>>think of the "backwards" sexuality of North Americans. Maybe Clinton
>>and his wife have an agreement that they can do whatever they want to
>>do sexually, I do not know and I do not care. If it was an o.k. thing
>>to do, have these fleeting little acts of fellatio committed on his
>>person in the halls or wherever, WHY DID HE LIE WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT?
>>I have never ever heard anyone lie about an activity if they thought
>>the activity was right. He got caught and by the very fact that he
>>lied, he admitted that HE thought he was wrong. Why is it O.K. for
>>Billy to lie but some of the guys on this list get upset if Posner
>>lies to Congress?? Come on guys, a lie is a lie. If Clinton can lie to
>>his employers, then Posner can lie to his employees. Its no bloody
>>wonder that our North American cultures can spawn such corruption as
>>the CIA apparently is based on posts made to this very group. If we
>>accept the *little* lie then we *have* to accept the big lie.
>>Keith Bruner
>>Just another memory free humanoid.
>
Dan replied:
>Be careful! You are getting very close to the "P" word that a lot of
>people in this group seem to find so suspicious, that being
>"Principle".
>
Yeah scary ain't it.
>
>For some reason, if someone mentions that, they are attacked as some
>kind of puritan. It makes me wonder just how far down the moral slope
>this society has fallen. At the same time, one also has to wonder who
>raised these people, that even the concept of being a (basically)
>moral individual seems so unattainable to them.
>
The changes in standards of moralty in the last few years have been
pretty phenomenal from my perspective. The next couple of generations
could be pretty wild. I can envision a time when telling the truth
will get you stoned, by rocks, literally.
>Pretty sad, when you think about it.
I have grandchildren. Makes me want to cry.
Howard J. Rogers
K.B. wrote in message <3602c471....@cnews.newsguy.com>...[Snip]
>Its interesting, this newsgroup is devoted or supposedly devoted to
>finding out the "truth" about JFK's murder. I wonder why in the world
>any one bothers when so much lying is O.K.. I am naiive because I
>expect everyone to tell the truth. I expect everyone to tell the truth
>because I tell the truth.
I'm going to be presumptious here, and state with 100% certainty that you
have lied at some point in your life. Toleration of a "little" lie is not
condoning lying, but acknowledging reality, and being adult enough to weigh
things up, consequence versus consequence.
>How can I beleive any single shred of
>evidence posted to this group by anyone who thinks lying in certain
>instances is alright??? In your above stated examples, there would be
>no problems arising from any truth in these areas if the truth was
>always told. Once we paractise to deceive etc.
That is simply just not true, even in the examples I mention. One little
example: you think Nixon would have opened up China without one hell of a
row, if he'd "truthfully" let the press know where Kissinger had flown to.
It just isn't so.
>>
>>In the second place, you will not find a single human being who has never
>>lied -so presumably, you'd like the office of the President of the United
>>States kept vacant until St. Francis comes back to visit us? It is not
the
>>*fact* of the lie that is terribly important in this case, it is the
*degree
>>of seriousness* of the lie.
>>
>My God, and you say I am naiive! Do you seriously beleive that a man
>who lies in the "little things" can be trusted in anything??
Yes. I trust you to be a decent human being, and I hardly know you. But
you *have* lied, despite protestation to the contrary.
>And
>where do you get your facts about "never lied"? Mistaken, wrong,
>repeating erroneous information inadvertently I will go along with,
>but .
Now, I can't quote you chapter and verse on this, so maybe someone else will
be able to supply the exact cite. But there is plenty of sociological and
anthropological research to state that lying is an innate "skill" of humans,
just like the ability to speak language. From memory, the research state
that the knack of lying is well-developed in practically every kid at the
age of two, to two-and-a-half.
I know you won't like that, or maybe you'll just try and dismiss it as
nonsense. But it is the case that lying is a fairly innate human activity.
The research suggests it is one of the major evolutionary 'lubricants' for
society.
I part company with you here. May you have a happy term or two in the White
House, Mr President. Because you're not going to find anyone else on the
entire planet that lives up to the standards you seem to think you can
manage.
>>
>>The office of President should not require the incumbant to behave
>>holier-than-anyone else, or indeed to be morally better than most people.
I
>>want good policies, put into practical effect in an efficient and
equitable
>>manner. What the man then does with his penis is his affair, and I don't
>>want to know about it. And I'd rather the press and the various media
>>didn't ask about it, allegedly on my behalf, either.
>>
>So a person who does NOT lie is holier then thou?? I do not follow the
>line of thought here. I have only ever met one person in my life who
>said lying was an alright thing to do and actually taught his kids
>that. Basically by your line of reasoning, I could agree to pay you a
>sum for a service, receive the service, and then not pay you, and that
>would be o.k. by you.
No, not at all. If I paid you money to kill somebody, and you failed to
deliver the service, do you think I have recourse to the the law to secure a
refund, or the performance of the service? Of course not. The law doesn't
enforce illegal contracts.
And in precisely the same way, if you insist on asking me intrusive
questions that have absolutely nothing to do with you, be prepared for me to
lie about them, under oath if necessary. You can't then invoke morality to
say that what I've done is wrong, just as you can't invoke the law to
enforce an illegal contract: the point is, you shouldn't have been prying
into things that don't concern you in the first place.
>I agree, I do not want to know what my neighbours do with their
>penises.....but I sure want to know that they are liars or theives or
>whatever. I run a small business, any employee that lies gets sent
>down the road. Because of our beleifs and holier then thou attitude,
>we have gained a position of respect and trust in our community.
Clinton lied because Starr, acting on your behlaf, asked him what he'd done
with his penis. He found no evidence of material wrongdoing on Whitewater,
or anything else he'd spent four years investigating him for. He passes, on
the score, your 'employee test'. Had he not asked about his penis, Clinton
would not have lied. I think the proof of his lying in that instance is of
no consequence: since Starr had no business probing that side of his
behaviour in the first place.
Regards
HJR
Daeron
> Clinton lied because Starr, acting on your behlaf, asked him what he'd done
> with his penis. He found no evidence of material wrongdoing on Whitewater,
> or anything else he'd spent four years investigating him for.
Good points as usual, Howard. Let's also not forget that we would never
even be at this point had not Starr used an illegal audio-tape made by
one Linda Tripp (alleged 'nobody' working at the Pentagon). Recent
testimony from Radio Shack employees here in Howard Co. confirms they
informed her that *any* taping of phone conversations would be against
Maryland Law. So, what does that bimbo #1 do? She goes ahead and, wiht
knowledge aforethought, tapes Lewsinsky blubbering away about her sexual
escapades.
Now, what does Starr do? He knowingly comounds this by making use of
this illegally obtained wiretap to 'make' his case.
All the moralist, preachy lot who spew on about Clinton's lies - or
whatnot, appear to have conveniently allowed this to escape their
attention. (Not that they had much to begin with.) Evidently, an illegal
act is okay to catch another - or try to - in another illegal act. Let
us also note that - without Tripp's illegal wiretap, Starr wouldn't even
have this - and all his $40 million squandered from the taxpayers would
have been for naught.
Finally, since these preachy moralists have such easily outraged
sensibilities, where are their voices when it came to Starr ilegally
leaking Grandy Jry testimony? The fact is - this whole thing is a
bloodless Repub coup being disguised in the window dressing of moral
armament and 'justice'.
>He passes, on
> the score, your 'employee test'. Had he not asked about his penis, Clinton
> would not have lied.
And - he would not have been asked that, could not have been - had not
Starr utilized the illegal Tripp tapes to cobble his 'case' together. It
took that first illegal act, to disclose the second. What every moralist
genius seems to have missed, is that the first ought never to have been
allowed. (If their beloved persecutors.....er...prosecutors, are garbed
in their own moral armamentarium that is)
Now - we have the ignominous spectacle, that the illegal tapes were not
only *used* to build the Spec. Prosecutor's case, but will be released
on Monday - to the PUBLIC! Again, compounding the original illegality to
an even vaster magnitude. Not only that - the Repubs are in such a hurry
to do this perdidy, that they've elected to do so on Rosh Hashanah, the
holiest Jewish day of the year (and six of the Democrat members of the
Judicicary committee are Jewish).
The point? If we are going to grow huge moral 'tentacles' here, we need
to do it and use them for ALL concerned. Not pick and choose.
>I think the proof of his lying in that instance is of
> no consequence: since Starr had no business probing that side of his
> behaviour in the first place.
And - he had NO business using an illegaly obtained wiretap to do so.
Knock that wiretap (of Tripp's) out, and he has nothing. Zippo. El
squato.
What we should be bothered about here, but seemingly aren't, is the use
of illegal wiretaps to effect bloodless political coups. Evidently,
since 11/22/63, a new way to 'assassinate' Presidents has arrived via
the indignant Repubs. Kill the target with one thousand ignominous cuts
from illegal tapes - rather than one head shot.
--
*DAERON*
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>Let me say it one ... more ... time ... for the cheap seats ... lying
>UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW is why he is in trouble. Ya know the
>place? It's a place where WHAT you lie about doesn't matter. Anyone
>who is a salesman would know that "little" lies are part of the job,
>just as is telling your wife she looks pretty when she first wakes up
>in the morning. That is NOT why he is in trouble. When are you
>people going to stop sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la
>la la la la la, I can't HEAR you"? My god, man, that is something a 6
>year old does.
I thought you were "outta here," Dan. But since you're still here, how
about responding to my previous post on Gerald Ford:
11/5/1973 During his confirmation hearings for Vice President, Gerald
Ford was asked about using excerpts from the top secret 1/27/1964
Warren Commission meeting in his book, PORTRAIT OF THE ASSASSIN. At
the time PORTRAIT was released, the transcript was still classified.
Ford's reply under oath was an utter falsehood.
Chairman: Now, Mr. Ford, it has been stated that as a member of the
Warren Commission you voluntarily accepted the constraints which all
the members of the commission accepted, providing that you would not
publish or release any of the proceedings of the Commission. You did,
however, in association with another, publish a book and provide
material for a Life magazine article on the proceedings of the
Commission. Do you feel this was a violation of your agreement?
Ford: To the best of my recollection, Mr. Chairman, there was no such
agreement, but, even if there was, the book I published in conjunction
with a member of my staff...we wrote the book, but we did not use in
that book any material other than the material that was in the 26
volumes of testimony and exhibits that were subsequently made
public...
A comparison of his account of that WC meeting (from PORTRAIT) with
the official transcript can be found in Weisberg's WHITEWASH IV p124.
It clearly shows that Ford used the secret transcript for his book.
Later a member of a House committee suggested to Ford that he might
have committed perjury during his Senate testimony; Ford said that he
hadn't understood the meaning of the chairman's question. (Rolling
Stone 4/24/1975, New York Times 11/6/1973)
Do you think Ford (a good, honorable man according to our official
history) should have been charged with perjury? And if so, why do you
think he wasn't?
Dave Dix
Daeron wrote:
> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
> > Clinton lied because Starr, acting on your behlaf, asked him what he'd done
> > with his penis. He found no evidence of material wrongdoing on Whitewater,
> > or anything else he'd spent four years investigating him for.
>
> Good points as usual, Howard. Let's also not forget that we would never
> even be at this point had not Starr used an illegal audio-tape made by
> one Linda Tripp (alleged 'nobody' working at the Pentagon). Recent
> testimony from Radio Shack employees here in Howard Co. confirms they
> informed her that *any* taping of phone conversations would be against
> Maryland Law. So, what does that bimbo #1 do? She goes ahead and, wiht
> knowledge aforethought, tapes Lewsinsky blubbering away about her sexual
> escapades.
>
> Now, what does Starr do? He knowingly comounds this by making use of
> this illegally obtained wiretap to 'make' his case.
>
> All the moralist, preachy lot who spew on about Clinton's lies - or
> whatnot, appear to have conveniently allowed this to escape their
> attention. (Not that they had much to begin with.) Evidently, an illegal
> act is okay to catch another - or try to - in another illegal act. Let
> us also note that - without Tripp's illegal wiretap, Starr wouldn't even
> have this - and all his $40 million squandered from the taxpayers would
> have been for naught.
>
> Finally, since these preachy moralists have such easily outraged
> sensibilities, where are their voices when it came to Starr ilegally
> leaking Grandy Jry testimony? The fact is - this whole thing is a
> bloodless Repub coup being disguised in the window dressing of moral
> armament and 'justice'.
>
> >He passes, on
> > the score, your 'employee test'. Had he not asked about his penis, Clinton
> > would not have lied.
>
> And - he would not have been asked that, could not have been - had not
> Starr utilized the illegal Tripp tapes to cobble his 'case' together. It
> took that first illegal act, to disclose the second. What every moralist
> genius seems to have missed, is that the first ought never to have been
> allowed. (If their beloved persecutors.....er...prosecutors, are garbed
> in their own moral armamentarium that is)
>
> Now - we have the ignominous spectacle, that the illegal tapes were not
> only *used* to build the Spec. Prosecutor's case, but will be released
> on Monday - to the PUBLIC! Again, compounding the original illegality to
> an even vaster magnitude. Not only that - the Repubs are in such a hurry
> to do this perdidy, that they've elected to do so on Rosh Hashanah, the
> holiest Jewish day of the year (and six of the Democrat members of the
> Judicicary committee are Jewish).
>
> The point? If we are going to grow huge moral 'tentacles' here, we need
> to do it and use them for ALL concerned. Not pick and choose.
>
> >I think the proof of his lying in that instance is of
> > no consequence: since Starr had no business probing that side of his
> > behaviour in the first place.
>
> And - he had NO business using an illegaly obtained wiretap to do so.
> Knock that wiretap (of Tripp's) out, and he has nothing. Zippo. El
> squato.
>
> What we should be bothered about here, but seemingly aren't, is the use
> of illegal wiretaps to effect bloodless political coups. Evidently,
> since 11/22/63, a new way to 'assassinate' Presidents has arrived via
> the indignant Repubs. Kill the target with one thousand ignominous cuts
> from illegal tapes - rather than one head shot.
> --
> *DAERON*
> "We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated
> in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
> - Justice Louis Brandeis.
Good post Daeron.
I don't think Clinton is the target of this attack. I think the Office of the
Presidency is. The goal is to place as much power as possible in the House of
Representatives where the New Right ( read Neo-Nazis) can establish and maintain
power.
The destruction of the Executive branch and the Judicial Branch ( Several
HUNDRED of Clinton judgeships are still waiting approval by Congress) is
intentional, not a by-product of partisan battling. Obstructionism by the Neo
Nazis has bright the Executive Branch to a virtual standstill. Clinton is simply
the means; the end is the establishment of a "Christian" corporate fascist
state. Christianity will be used as the philosophical excuse for social
control; the end is give full power to corporate entities as a loose coalition
and reduce citizen input and dissent. Much of the structure is already in pace;
the current efforts are to secure the structure and completely invalidate
democratic process by destroying the tenuous "checks and balances" system the
Constitution demands.
I think Lewinsky is the Oswald of this operation -- a manipulative, intelligent
but very mentally ill seductress dangled in front of Bill. He is culpable for
biting, but that has been his weakness for decades and everyone in DC knew that.
As my friend in NYC said "Why the hell would any woman in her right mind wear a
dress bought from the Gap to seduce anyone! Cheap!" And then saving the dress;
giving it to her mother? Yeh, very natural behavior... Just another CIA whore, I
think. Another Kopeckne.
Sex and power are a deadly mix and intelligence services have used that fact for
centuries. Thus whole thing was a setup from the beginning, IMHO. A coup in the
world's most powerful state for just $43MM? A bargain!
All you need is a True Believer (Starr) a few of whores (Tripp, Goldberg and
Lewinsky), a totally screwed up culture and a cowardly, lazy press fed by press
releases from propanganda mills like the Heartland Institute (and a brilliant
egomaniac - Drudge) and pow! you got yourself a country.
May as well use the Constitution for wall paper, folks. Meet the new boss-- ten
times more vicious than the old boss. You think the Middle Class is under
pressure now. Wait 'til 2000!!
(Daeron:
When I did a spellcheck, your name produced this ironic trio:
"Daeron
Deacon
Reagan" ...
:-]
BTW: Ever noticed how much Howie knows about US politics and also seems to act as
if the US was his country rather than Australia? Maybe its because he works for
the US Govt? Dunno. How's your scuba diving ability, Howie? Ever pulled a
Prime Minister INTO the surf...? Are you a TRW employee? Read any elint
transcripts lately?
Daeron
> Good post Daeron.
>
> I don't think Clinton is the target of this attack. I think the Office of the
> Presidency is.
I tend to agree with you, particularly in light of the points made in my
FAQ Addendum ('The Fascist Connection')
>The goal is to place as much power as possible in the House of
> Representatives where the New Right ( read Neo-Nazis) can establish and maintain
> power.
I hear you, and it frightens me no end. What is terrifying is how many
otherwise thoughtful people are being hookdwinked and duped - blinded by
the 'moral outrage' window dressing, to the exclusion of the nefarious
plot to undermine an office, that underlies it. My wife mentioned this
to me after watching the 'Oprah Winfrey' show the other day - which
featured her moralizing and sermonising about Clinton - and what she
would and wouldn't do if he were a VP in her Co. Well, she misses the
point. So do millions of others who can't see this is the vehicle to
bring about a fascist, corporate oligarchy and Christian Theocracy.
In the end, the people - driven by the extremes and irresponsibilities
of the whore corporate media, will be f*cked. As one commentator, Dan
Gomery has noted (Professor at Univ. of Maryland College of Journalism):
"Ultimately, it is prestige and money propelling the coverage. CNN is
the big cheese and for MSNBC and FOX, this is their OJ story.. All you
have to do is to look at the coverage to see it's not about journalism.
Look at how they deal with the polls that tell them people don't want
more coverage."
> The destruction of the Executive branch and the Judicial Branch ( Several
> HUNDRED of Clinton judgeships are still waiting approval by Congress) is
> intentional, not a by-product of partisan battling.
I agree with you. And who is the culprit holding up the Clinton
judgships? Why none other than Sen. Orrin Hatch. And who is Mr. Hatch?
According to one of the censored press stories appearing in 'Censored:
The News That Didn't Make the News and Why' - Ed. Carl Jensen, Four
Walls and Eight Windows Press, 1995, p. 48, he is one of the "elite
group" - the CNP or COuncil for National Policy, "that launched a
political federation to coordinate their own political agenda."
In effect, the investigation by Starr, the withholding of judgeships,
and other obstructions - are all of a piece. A piece of the ratwork maze
put together by the fascists in our midst, whether they are hired guns
for the American Heritage Foundation, The Liberty Lobby, The Christian
Coalition, or Hatch's Council for National Policy. People are having
democracy stolen right out from under them - with the cooperation of the
profteering media whores and their fellow travelers, and they are
abysmally ignorant for the most part.
> Obstructionism by the Neo
> Nazis has bright the Executive Branch to a virtual standstill. Clinton is simply
> the means; the end is the establishment of a "Christian" corporate fascist
> state. Christianity will be used as the philosophical excuse for social
> control; the end is give full power to corporate entities as a loose coalition
> and reduce citizen input and dissent.
Exactly, and we've recently also had extensive discussions on this in
alt.atheism.moderated. I noted in threads therein (Atheist Republicans?)
as here, that fascist groups like the COuncil for National Policy are
stealthily conspiring to take this country and what is left of democracy
from us. As Joel Belifuss notes, p. 50, ibid.):
"No mass media has ever investigated the doings of the COuncil for
National Policy. (This) is a major oversight, given the ascendancy of
the Christian Right, particularly the Christian Coalition..."
"The CNP is not powerful in and of itself", Bleifuss added, "its
improtance comes from the role it plays as the ideological tent
under which far right activists confer with the wealthy men and women
who fund their activities. Policy discussions and brain storming both
take place at the secretive CNP gatherings."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"The general public would benefit from a greater understanding of how
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the far right functions in the U.S. and what plans it has for our
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
future."
^^^^^^
But will this understanding be imparted by those who are ultimately
responsible - by an honored calling to truth - i.e. the media, press?
Doubtful. These have all become whores (for the most part - there are a
few relative exceptions, like The Baltimore Sun) to profits and
corporate advertisers - many fascists themselves, whom they (the
press-media) dare not offend.
Hence - the press makes much ado about this licentious story concerning
CLinton-Lewinsky, all the while a veritable 3-alarm 'fire' is running
rampant in the nation at large, insidiously destroying our most revered
institutions. And even while those who would otherwise be spokespersons
for the truth - like Oprah Winfrey - are themselves woefully blinded by
the din. Unable to separate wheat from chaff and the genuinely critical
issues that affect us all.
>Much of the structure is already in pace;
> the current efforts are to secure the structure and completely invalidate
> democratic process by destroying the tenuous "checks and balances" system the
> Constitution demands.
I agree - and I already referred to the disruption of the separation of
powers, the weakening of the balance between them, in a prior post.
Somehow, someway, people have got to wake up to the fact their country
is being stolen out from under them. And all in the name of 'justice'.
> I think Lewinsky is the Oswald of this operation -- a manipulative, intelligent
> but very mentally ill seductress dangled in front of Bill. He is culpable for
> biting, but that has been his weakness for decades and everyone in DC knew that.
Agreed. I knew that when I voted for him (twice) but I sure as hell
didn't see anyone else that could remotely fulfill the agenda I have,
the political axis I'm on, which includes: affordable health care for
all - inlcuding the unemployed and working poor, pro-abortion and
contraceptive methods- information, pro-Ecological - especially
containing Greenhouse gas emissions, anti-Tobacco.
> As my friend in NYC said "Why the hell would any woman in her right mind wear a
> dress bought from the Gap to seduce anyone! Cheap!" And then saving the dress;
> giving it to her mother? Yeh, very natural behavior... Just another CIA whore, I
> think. Another Kopeckne.
Plausible.
> Sex and power are a deadly mix and intelligence services have used that fact for
> centuries. Thus whole thing was a setup from the beginning, IMHO. A coup in the
> world's most powerful state for just $43MM? A bargain!
You have that right. Doubtless they also feel that this is the last time
it will ever be needed. From now on, the office will be so weakened, so
bereft of any real power or influence - that the only 'takers' will be
balless yes-men - probably fundamentalist Xian to boot.
> All you need is a True Believer (Starr) a few of whores (Tripp, Goldberg and
> Lewinsky), a totally screwed up culture and a cowardly, lazy press fed by press
> releases from propanganda mills like the Heartland Institute (and a brilliant
> egomaniac - Drudge) and pow! you got yourself a country.
>
Right - and not even a shot had to be fired, as they did with JFK 35
years ago. Guess they figured they'd pay a bit more and save the ammo
this time round.
> May as well use the Constitution for wall paper, folks. Meet the new boss-- ten
> times more vicious than the old boss. You think the Middle Class is under
> pressure now. Wait 'til 2000!!
Right: Medicare - Gone (with people probably paying 80% or more of its
costs)
Social Security - nearly gone (in the casino known as the Stock Market,
where the only ones that come out ahead will be the brokers)
No more social welfare.
98% of all jobs either 'temp', or outsourced - with NO benefits or
health insurance, and no way to afford it on the pay ($7/hr) either.
Ten times more corporate welfare - all of which will need to be funded
by the poor taxpayers (already paying $1,186 per annum of their taxes to
corporate welfare)
Our direction toward a new (FASCIST) 'World Dis-Order'.
Daeron
>
> Well, I *do* take your points, and of course I agree with your view of the
> facts of the matter. But I won't buy the line that this is some form of
> "coup". The Republicans would have to be *monumentally* stupid to think
> that these tactics will not be used against them in the future.
The point is, as the political spectrum is shifted ever more rightward -
this becomes ever less likely. The Repubs already own COngress. If the
fears of many of us our realized - they will consolidate these gains,
control in the Nov. 3rd election. (Though I hope against hope for a
'backlash' - despite the fact my wife tells me I'm living in
fantasyland).
The next thing is - if Clinton is forced out BEFORE Jan. 20, 1999, then
Al Gore CANNOT run in 2000. This means the Democrats will have to look
for a less well known person, probably nowhere near the electability of
Gore. (And Gore's is not thatgreat to begin with).
So - we face the daunting prospect of a Repub President (possibly Geo.
Bush, Jr.) PLUS a Repub Congress in 2000. This is as bad as it gets, and
there is virtually NO probability that anything negative can happen to
the Repubs - by virtue of their strangehold on power at that point. (And
I won't even get into what happens when they begin appointing their own
federal judges, having withheld approval of Clinton's choices).
> It's a real worry this: the US is becoming virtually ungovernable, and I see
> a totally irresponsible media, who have always felt more comfortable
> destroying things than creating them, fully responsible.
Precisely. You see, if they were responsible, in any remote form or
fashion, they'd get off their fat corporatized asses and begin an
intensive investigation of the Council for National Policy. But no -
that's too hard for them (and besides they're mostly little balless
wonder pricks). It's oh so much easier to whine and bitch about Clinton,
and then - also take the public to task because they're turned off by
the disgusting overkill coverage.
DUH! Anyone home? At MSNBC, NBC,. CNBC, FOX, CNN....etc/.
> They seem to have
> no regard to the fact that without strong US leadership, this world is
> stuffed. Big time.
They don't care Howard. These (media) imps don't give a rat's rotten
ass. They abdicated their journalistic responsibilities and the high
road nearly a quarter century ago, and sold out to the highest bidders
(usually in one merger or another).
They, have - by their worship of profit over truth - also abdicated any
claim to moral high ground. Or justification as 'judges' of Mr. Clinton,
or anyone else.
>
> It's the revenge (also big time) of the chattering classes.
The chattering 'classes' all need to be kicked out of their air
conditioned offices for a day each week, and put to work where many of
their brethren must toil - in dangerous, thankless jobs, for one tenth
the wages. They are spoiled, arrogant, and for that reason do not listen
to the will of the people. A different perspective, on the assembly
lines, or in the orange groves, or the sugar cane fields of South Bay,
FL, might render them somewhat more humble - and amenable to listening
to their presumed customers for once, instead of trying to ram unwanted
'news' down their throats.
Dave Dix
Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> Dave Dix wrote in message <3603BDA7...@earthlink.net>...
> [Snip all but this]
> >
> >BTW: Ever noticed how much Howie knows about US politics and also seems to
> act as
> >if the US was his country rather than Australia? Maybe its because he
> works for
> >the US Govt? Dunno. How's your scuba diving ability, Howie? Ever pulled
> a
> >Prime Minister INTO the surf...? Are you a TRW employee? Read any elint
> >transcripts lately?
> >
>
> Aw, Dave -and I was agreeing with so much of your post, and then you had to
> throw this in. (BTW, what's an "elint transcript"?).
>
> You could always ask Jack Ziegler the answer to this, but once more for the
> record... no I'm not a US government employee, and yes, I never have been.
> I'm not allowed to scuba dive, on the grounds that I have asthma, so don't
> blame me for Harold Holt's disappearance in 1968 (when I would only have
> been 4 anyway). I do have a private pilot's licence, but it practically
> bankrupted me getting it (it ain't cheap in England!).
>
> And I'm flattered you think I'm knowledgeable about US politics, but that's
> probably just a hangover from my doctorate in 20th century American
> political history. And it also explains my fascination with Nixon (and with
> JFK, of course).
>
> As for acting as if the US was my own country, I think its called
> "empathy" -most of the people who post here are US citizens, after all. In
> any event, before I opted for Australia, I was thinking of moving to the
> States. Slight problem with obtaining a green card, however.
>
> Have a nice day!
> Howard
You didn't answer my Howard The Spook probe some months ago, so I decided to
try , again. It's been a boring Saturday...
G'day yourself.
(BTW, what was the subject of your dissertation? Is it available through
University Microfilms?)
Dave Dix
Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> Dave Dix wrote in message <36043132...@earthlink.net>...
> >
> >
> >Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> >
> > You didn't answer my Howard The Spook probe some months ago, so I decided
> to
> >try , again. It's been a boring Saturday...
> >
>
> Must have missed it. I have no problem with saying "I am not a spook" to
> people who actually take "no" for an answer! (Mr Ziegler doesn't).
>
> >G'day yourself.
> >
>
> Strewth! You'd almost make a fair dinkum Aussie!
Hey! I'm another product of another Brit colonial Experiment --two as a matter
of fact Scot and Irish! We're all outlaws and ex subjects of that damned
Teutonic crown!!
>
>
> >(BTW, what was the subject of your dissertation? Is it available through
> >University Microfilms?)
> >
>
> I've never heard of University Microfilms (and wouldn't want to -sounds a
> bit "spooky"!) But I seriously doubt they'd have my effort on -would you
> believe?- the origins of the Vietnam War. It was an eighties production.
>
> Regards
> HJR
University Microfilms in Ann Arbor Michigan is (perhaps was -- things change)
THE repository for all Masters and PhD theses inthe US. Part of a candidate's
tuition went to publishing theses. As far as I know that's still the case. If
you got your PhD in the US, you very likely have been published there.
Are you teaching currently?
Dix
Howard J. Rogers
facts of the matter. But I won't buy the line that this is some form of
"coup". The Republicans would have to be *monumentally* stupid to think
that these tactics will not be used against them in the future.
It's a real worry this: the US is becoming virtually ungovernable, and I see
a totally irresponsible media, who have always felt more comfortable
destroying things than creating them, fully responsible. They seem to have
no regard to the fact that without strong US leadership, this world is
stuffed. Big time.
It's the revenge (also big time) of the chattering classes.
Regards as ever
HJR
Daeron wrote in message <3603B0...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
>> Clinton lied because Starr, acting on your behlaf, asked him what he'd
done
>> with his penis. He found no evidence of material wrongdoing on
Whitewater,
>> or anything else he'd spent four years investigating him for.
>
>
>Good points as usual, Howard. Let's also not forget that we would never
>even be at this point had not Starr used an illegal audio-tape made by
>one Linda Tripp (alleged 'nobody' working at the Pentagon). Recent
>testimony from Radio Shack employees here in Howard Co. confirms they
>informed her that *any* taping of phone conversations would be against
>Maryland Law. So, what does that bimbo #1 do? She goes ahead and, wiht
>knowledge aforethought, tapes Lewsinsky blubbering away about her sexual
>escapades.
>
>Now, what does Starr do? He knowingly comounds this by making use of
>this illegally obtained wiretap to 'make' his case.
>
>All the moralist, preachy lot who spew on about Clinton's lies - or
>whatnot, appear to have conveniently allowed this to escape their
>attention. (Not that they had much to begin with.) Evidently, an illegal
>act is okay to catch another - or try to - in another illegal act. Let
>us also note that - without Tripp's illegal wiretap, Starr wouldn't even
>have this - and all his $40 million squandered from the taxpayers would
>have been for naught.
>
>Finally, since these preachy moralists have such easily outraged
>sensibilities, where are their voices when it came to Starr ilegally
>leaking Grandy Jry testimony? The fact is - this whole thing is a
>bloodless Repub coup being disguised in the window dressing of moral
>armament and 'justice'.
>
>
> >He passes, on
>> the score, your 'employee test'. Had he not asked about his penis,
Clinton
>> would not have lied.
>
>And - he would not have been asked that, could not have been - had not
>Starr utilized the illegal Tripp tapes to cobble his 'case' together. It
>took that first illegal act, to disclose the second. What every moralist
>genius seems to have missed, is that the first ought never to have been
>allowed. (If their beloved persecutors.....er...prosecutors, are garbed
>in their own moral armamentarium that is)
>
>Now - we have the ignominous spectacle, that the illegal tapes were not
>only *used* to build the Spec. Prosecutor's case, but will be released
>on Monday - to the PUBLIC! Again, compounding the original illegality to
>an even vaster magnitude. Not only that - the Repubs are in such a hurry
>to do this perdidy, that they've elected to do so on Rosh Hashanah, the
>holiest Jewish day of the year (and six of the Democrat members of the
>Judicicary committee are Jewish).
>
>The point? If we are going to grow huge moral 'tentacles' here, we need
>to do it and use them for ALL concerned. Not pick and choose.
>
>>I think the proof of his lying in that instance is of
>> no consequence: since Starr had no business probing that side of his
>> behaviour in the first place.
>
>And - he had NO business using an illegaly obtained wiretap to do so.
>Knock that wiretap (of Tripp's) out, and he has nothing. Zippo. El
>squato.
>
>What we should be bothered about here, but seemingly aren't, is the use
>of illegal wiretaps to effect bloodless political coups. Evidently,
>since 11/22/63, a new way to 'assassinate' Presidents has arrived via
>the indignant Repubs. Kill the target with one thousand ignominous cuts
>from illegal tapes - rather than one head shot.
Howard J. Rogers
act as
>if the US was his country rather than Australia? Maybe its because he
works for
>the US Govt? Dunno. How's your scuba diving ability, Howie? Ever pulled
a
>Prime Minister INTO the surf...? Are you a TRW employee? Read any elint
>transcripts lately?
>
Aw, Dave -and I was agreeing with so much of your post, and then you had to
Howard J. Rogers
Daeron wrote in message <360405...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>>
>> Well, I *do* take your points, and of course I agree with your view of
the
>> facts of the matter. But I won't buy the line that this is some form of
>> "coup". The Republicans would have to be *monumentally* stupid to think
>> that these tactics will not be used against them in the future.
>
>
>this becomes ever less likely. The Repubs already own COngress. If the
>fears of many of us our realized - they will consolidate these gains,
>control in the Nov. 3rd election. (Though I hope against hope for a
>'backlash' - despite the fact my wife tells me I'm living in
>fantasyland).
>
>The next thing is - if Clinton is forced out BEFORE Jan. 20, 1999, then
>Al Gore CANNOT run in 2000. This means the Democrats will have to look
>for a less well known person, probably nowhere near the electability of
>Gore. (And Gore's is not thatgreat to begin with).
I think this is incorrect, Daeron. My understanding of the constitution is
that if Clinton goes before that date, Al Gore is permitted to run in 2000,
but not in 2004 -it will be deemed at that point that he has served two
consecutive terms, and therefore is not elligible to run for a third.
>
>So - we face the daunting prospect of a Repub President (possibly Geo.
>Bush, Jr.) PLUS a Repub Congress in 2000. This is as bad as it gets, and
>there is virtually NO probability that anything negative can happen to
>the Repubs - by virtue of their strangehold on power at that point. (And
>I won't even get into what happens when they begin appointing their own
>federal judges, having withheld approval of Clinton's choices).
>
>> It's a real worry this: the US is becoming virtually ungovernable, and I
see
>> a totally irresponsible media, who have always felt more comfortable
>> destroying things than creating them, fully responsible.
>
>Precisely. You see, if they were responsible, in any remote form or
>fashion, they'd get off their fat corporatized asses and begin an
>intensive investigation of the Council for National Policy. But no -
>that's too hard for them (and besides they're mostly little balless
>wonder pricks). It's oh so much easier to whine and bitch about Clinton,
>and then - also take the public to task because they're turned off by
>the disgusting overkill coverage.
>
>DUH! Anyone home? At MSNBC, NBC,. CNBC, FOX, CNN....etc/.
>
>> They seem to have
>> no regard to the fact that without strong US leadership, this world is
>> stuffed. Big time.
>
>They don't care Howard. These (media) imps don't give a rat's rotten
>ass. They abdicated their journalistic responsibilities and the high
>road nearly a quarter century ago, and sold out to the highest bidders
>(usually in one merger or another).
>
>They, have - by their worship of profit over truth - also abdicated any
>claim to moral high ground. Or justification as 'judges' of Mr. Clinton,
>or anyone else.
>>
>> It's the revenge (also big time) of the chattering classes.
>
>The chattering 'classes' all need to be kicked out of their air
>conditioned offices for a day each week, and put to work where many of
>their brethren must toil - in dangerous, thankless jobs, for one tenth
>the wages. They are spoiled, arrogant, and for that reason do not listen
>to the will of the people. A different perspective, on the assembly
>lines, or in the orange groves, or the sugar cane fields of South Bay,
>FL, might render them somewhat more humble - and amenable to listening
>to their presumed customers for once, instead of trying to ram unwanted
>'news' down their throats.
>
>--
>*DAERON*
>"We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated
>in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
> - Justice Louis Brandeis.
Otherwise, I think I'm with you on all of the above.
Regards
Howard
Howard J. Rogers
Dave Dix wrote in message <36043132...@earthlink.net>...
>
>
>Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
> You didn't answer my Howard The Spook probe some months ago, so I decided
to
>try , again. It's been a boring Saturday...
>
Must have missed it. I have no problem with saying "I am not a spook" to
people who actually take "no" for an answer! (Mr Ziegler doesn't).
>G'day yourself.
>
Strewth! You'd almost make a fair dinkum Aussie!
K.B.
<howa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>K.B. wrote in message <3602c471....@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>>On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:51:56 GMT, "Howard J. Rogers"
>><howa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>[Snip]
>>Its interesting, this newsgroup is devoted or supposedly devoted to
>>finding out the "truth" about JFK's murder. I wonder why in the world
>>any one bothers when so much lying is O.K.. I am naiive because I
>>expect everyone to tell the truth. I expect everyone to tell the truth
>>because I tell the truth.
>
>I'm going to be presumptious here, and state with 100% certainty that you
>have lied at some point in your life. Toleration of a "little" lie is not
>condoning lying, but acknowledging reality, and being adult enough to weigh
>things up, consequence versus consequence.
I will give you that Howard, I have stolen, lied and a host of other
things in my past......but not since I grew up.
>
>>How can I beleive any single shred of
>>evidence posted to this group by anyone who thinks lying in certain
>>instances is alright??? In your above stated examples, there would be
>>no problems arising from any truth in these areas if the truth was
>>always told. Once we paractise to deceive etc.
>
>That is simply just not true, even in the examples I mention. One little
>example: you think Nixon would have opened up China without one hell of a
>row, if he'd "truthfully" let the press know where Kissinger had flown to.
>It just isn't so.
>
>>>
>>>In the second place, you will not find a single human being who has never
>>>lied -so presumably, you'd like the office of the President of the United
>>>States kept vacant until St. Francis comes back to visit us? It is not
>the
>>>*fact* of the lie that is terribly important in this case, it is the
>*degree
>>>of seriousness* of the lie.
>>>
>>My God, and you say I am naiive! Do you seriously beleive that a man
>>who lies in the "little things" can be trusted in anything??
>
>Yes. I trust you to be a decent human being, and I hardly know you. But
>you *have* lied, despite protestation to the contrary.
>
I suppose I should have qualified my protestaion. But I did assume we
were talking about adults, not children.
Well thanks for your thoughts on this Howard. I feel sad that you have
this beleif, but you are probably right to a degree inasmuch that
probably no honest man would be interested in politics.
I wonder if maybe because of all the lying and dirty politics going on
that Starr, because he could not get the *proof* he needed to take
Clinton down, even though he knew the man was *guilty*, just as many
people on this NG know there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, but can
not get the *proof*, decided to play dirty and get Clinton any way he
could. Kind of like all the drug dealers that get busted for tax
evasion because they can't be busted for drug dealing. I am not saying
Starr is right or wrong....I am saying Clinton is untrustworthy. By
the way, I am a Colonial. Canuck "eh".
Take care
>Regards
>HJR
Howard J. Rogers
Dave Dix wrote in message <36046906...@earthlink.net>...
>
>
>Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
>> Dave Dix wrote in message <36043132...@earthlink.net>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>> >
>> > You didn't answer my Howard The Spook probe some months ago, so I
decided
>> to
>> >try , again. It's been a boring Saturday...
>> >
>>
>> Must have missed it. I have no problem with saying "I am not a spook" to
>> people who actually take "no" for an answer! (Mr Ziegler doesn't).
>>
>> >G'day yourself.
>> >
>>
>> Strewth! You'd almost make a fair dinkum Aussie!
>
matter
>of fact Scot and Irish! We're all outlaws and ex subjects of that damned
>Teutonic crown!!
>
>>
>>
>> >University Microfilms?)
>> >
>>
>> I've never heard of University Microfilms (and wouldn't want to -sounds a
>> bit "spooky"!) But I seriously doubt they'd have my effort on -would you
>> believe?- the origins of the Vietnam War. It was an eighties production.
>>
>> Regards
>> HJR
>
change)
>THE repository for all Masters and PhD theses inthe US. Part of a
candidate's
>tuition went to publishing theses. As far as I know that's still the case.
If
>you got your PhD in the US, you very likely have been published there.
>
>Are you teaching currently?
>
>Dix
>
Studied in the UK, Dave -so I guess it wouldn't be there. And no, I don't
(and never have) teached. Money is in IT, I'm afraid, and I felt all burnt
out after God knows how many years of history -which doesn't pay well unless
you score a junior fellowship somewhere. And then it's sherry every
evening!
Regards
HJR
Dave Dix
Howard J. Rogers wrote:
Being a historian, you might be able to help me. I'm very arware of
individual historians and their work; what I have not been able to find is a
good comprehemsive text on the ways historians process information. I'm sure
there are many different approaches to the gathering and analysis of facts. Is
there a text which covers the epistemologies of history and/or the cognitive
processes involved in the production of history? WHat makes a historian a
historian cognatively? Why is a historian different than a political scientist
or an antropologist or an archivist?
Vern Pascal
They must be masochists........................Jeff
BeWelKel
>On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:40:47 GMT, unk...@uhnknown.com (Dan Johnson)
>wrote:
>
>>Let me say it one ... more ... time ... for the cheap seats ... lying
>>UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW is why he is in trouble.
So when can we expect all of the congressional inquisitors to swear under
oath that they've never had an affair?
If it's not about the sex, then those who want to see him impeached would
have refused to call for it if Clinton had just fessed up during the
interrogation and said, "Yes, Monica provided me with oral sex on numerous
occasions, plus we did a few things like playing with a cigar in her vagina and
some other stuff."
Yeah, right! (It's about the sex.)
- Kelley
--------------------
William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer" To order, go to
w...@amazon.com
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>
>Do you even know what a libertarian is?
>
>A libertarian, on the political scale, is to the right, even, of me.
>Meaning, that you believe in the MINIMUM amount of government possible
>and still have a viable society. It means one step to the left of
>political anarchy (meaning, in political science terms, no government
>at all).
>Now how, as a libertarian, can you defend a man who, putting his
>"sewer-rat" morals aside for the second, believes in implementing a
>big, nanny-state government that is completely contrary to libertarian
>principles?
First, I'm not defending Clinton (who I am not a fan of), I'm trying
to make two points:
I'm totally opposed to investigating people's private lives, no matter
who they are. If Newt Gingrich was being dragged into court and asked
intimate details about his private life, and then threatened with
perjury if he didn't tell all, I would still be totally opposed to it.
It should be an affront to anyone who believes in the right to
privacy.
Second, I'm against hypocrisy in politics. I know, that's like being
opposed to prostitutes in brothels, but still it makes me sick
watching some politicians held to certain standards while others are
exempt. Then the media jumps in and plays the same selective-morality
game.
Libertarians are not right-wing or left-wing. They are completely off
the political scale (which has become useless anyway). As I've said
before, conservatives and liberals just disagree about HOW to use
government and for what reasons. They may attack government whenever
it's convienent, but basically they're always using to it remake
society in their own image. The Left wants a nanny state, and the
Right wants a police state.
I'm not one of those extreme libertarians who believes the government
should do nothing at all; it should only perform those functions that
no other part of society is capable of doing (public libraries are a
good example). I guess you could call me a moderate- or independent-
libertarian.
A true libertarian is not just concerned about the freedom to make
money, but mainly cares about individual liberty vs. the institutions
of society. They worry about being pressured to conform - whether by
politically-correct liberals or rightists who want to shove patriotism
and Christian "values" down their throats.
I watch politicians in both parties vote to censor the Internet, or
force national ID cards on us; Ollie North busied himself drawing up
plans for martial law while liberals come up with more words we're not
allowed to use anymore. How anyone can chose to support either side is
a mystery to me.
Vern Pascal
All those Nazis, Fascists military dictators, and other reprehensible
folks we've been calling right wingers for the past century or so, are
really demonical left wingers, i.e. Communists. So us liberals are the
same as Hitler! Who'd a thunk it? That the left wing is the real root of
all mankind's woes. Maybe it follows then that Liberalism is the true
opiate of the people.
And what about the extreme right wingers? Why, they're just a bunch of
anarchists, with no leaders, and no power. Nothing to fear from them.
And then there's the real right wingers, afraid of the stigma of
labelling themselves extremists, who pose under the banner of
Libertarianism, but instead give true Libertarians a bad name.
Thank God, I'm an atheist.-------------------------
Vern
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>
>Great! Then you wouldn't mind if he was a child molester? That would
>be part of his "personal life", too, but I don't want that person
>running the country or passing laws that I am going to have to live by
>in the future.
If he was a child molester, then he would be breaking the law and
violating the child's rights. His relationship with Lewinsky was
totally consensual and within the law. You do understand the
difference, don't you?
>>Second, I'm against hypocrisy in politics. I know, that's like being
>>opposed to prostitutes in brothels, but still it makes me sick
>>watching some politicians held to certain standards while others are
>>exempt. Then the media jumps in and plays the same selective-morality
>>game.
>>
>>Libertarians are not right-wing or left-wing. They are completely off
>>the political scale (which has become useless anyway). As I've said
>>before, conservatives and liberals just disagree about HOW to use
>>government and for what reasons. They may attack government whenever
>>it's convienent, but basically they're always using to it remake
>>society in their own image. The Left wants a nanny state, and the
>>Right wants a police state.
>>
>
>That is simply factually untrue. You can't HAVE a political stand
>without being SOMEWHERE on the "left-right" scale, and to exempt
>libertarians is ridiculous.
Really? Who says? Where is it written that someone must fall within
this left-right spectrum? They're just meaningless words; I could just
as easily invent a spectrum with "free" and "not free" at either end,
and it would make more sense.
> That is like saying "you are from the
>east, he is from the west, but me, well directions don't apply to me".
>And to say that the right wants a police state is just re-stating one
>of the most oft-stated bits of left-wing rubish that they have come
>out with (and there is a lot of it). It is the statement of people
>who either are trying to intentionally mis-inform and mislead for
>their own purposes (like the left), or of people who truly do not
>understand political science or history.
Here we go again with this idea that there's a leftist conspiracy to
destroy America. What a reactionary fantasy. Republicans have
dominated this country for the last few decades, and they're
constantly telling us that the Left is dead - yet somehow the big bad
liberals are secretly controlling everything.
>I strongly suggest that you go to the library and read a few books
>from the poly-sci section, preferably those that deal with the origins
>and philosophical differences between "the left" and "the right". The
>philosophy goes back thousands of years, right to the days of
>Socrates. This is not a new thing.
Oh please. Socrates was tried and sentenced to death for corrupting
the morals of Athenian youth and for religious heresies. Socrates was
threatening to the CONSERVATIVES of Greek society.
Have you ever stopped to think that "conservatives" have changed
dramatically over the centuries? If you had been a conservative in the
middle ages, you would have argued that the world was flat; in the
Renaissance, you would have been defending the divine right of kings;
in the 1800s, you'd have said slavery was OK and women shouldn't be
allowed to vote.
Today, no conservative can possibly hold such views. Right-wingers of
today would be considered hopelessly liberal if you were to send them
back in time.
>Although most people are a mix of left and right depending on the
>issue (fiscal conservative/social liberal for example), in very
>GENERAL terms, the further left one is, the more they believe in the
>government playing a prominent role in the lives of the public at
>large. The further right one goes, the less they believe in
>government and the more they believe in the individual being
>responsible for himself.
>That being said, here are the MAIN political-science classes going
>from left to right and the general amount of sharing of control.
>Please note that WITHIN each class, the numbers may vary 1 or 2
>depending on the individual system:
First thing you gotta learn is that politics is not a science. You
can't figure it out with formulas, equations and calculations. It's
all about people - irrational, unpredictable people.
>You can confirm this with any political science book that deals
>objectively with the origins of the philosophies, not by the ones that
>are *promoting* one style over the other (which, unfortunately
>nowadays, most are).
>
>
>Extreme Left:
>Marxism/Fascism - Govt 10, People 0 - Usually an absolute
>dictatorship, or totalitarianism. People have NO say or elections (or
>if there are elections, there is usually only one party on the
>ballot). Government takes FULL control of country. Closest examples:
>Old Soviet Union, Hitler's Nazis, etc.
Talk about revisionism! Hitler was an ANTI-communist, and he was
supported by big business, rich landholders, the military,
nationalists and religious reactionaries. Those are facts. If they
don't fit your preconceptions, then I suggest your remove the
political blinders.
>You may be a SOCIAL libertarian, but to say that you don't fall within
>the basic political spectrum is just not true. And if you notice, the
>further right you go, the LESS government one has, so to blurt out
>that the republicans want a "police state" is patently false, and even
>contradictory. If you feel that some *members* of the republican
>party *lean* in that direction, it would be a leaning to the LEFT on
>that issue, not the right.
By that contorted reasoning, Pat Buchanan, David Duke, Bob Dornan,
Ollie North, Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms, Phyllis Schlafly, etc. are
all leaning to the left because they have all advocated repressive
measures of one kind or another. Not to mention Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar
Hoover, etc. etc.
>That is why it always makes me grin when the left (not you) holds up
>the "Nazis" or "Fascists" as a "typical extreme right-wing
>government". In truth, what exactly made them "right wing" at all?
>They allowed *some* industry to basically remain private, so that was
>rather "right" of them, but as far as the basic government structure,
>they were very much a dictatorship. That, by definition is extreme
>LEFT wing. In fact a "right-wing dictatorship" is a contradiction in
>terms, since the further right you are, the LESS power the government
>has over its people. The biggest threat of a TRUE extreme right-wing
>government is that it would be nowhere in sight.
Try telling that to the people who lived under Franco in Spain, or the
generals in Greece, or the Ustasha regime in Croatia, or the
military-backed government in El Salvador. Or the the great state of
Mississippi back in the "good old days."
Your definitions of Right and Left are part of this new-right
revisionism (Nazis were leftists, and leftists are responsible for
everything that's wrong with the world, etc). If you want to invent a
new political spectrum, fine, but you were the one criticizing me
earlier from deviating from it.
>>I'm not one of those extreme libertarians who believes the government
>>should do nothing at all; it should only perform those functions that
>>no other part of society is capable of doing (public libraries are a
>>good example). I guess you could call me a moderate- or independent-
>>libertarian.
>>
>
>I agree, but to say that the one in power should have a "get out of
>jail free" card where his personal life is concerned is an open
>invitation to every moral and ethical midget out there, and since what
>the person believes is morally right or wrong can have a GREAT impact
>on his other policies and initiatives, they MUST be held to basic
>moral standards.
So, are we going to start grilling all candidates in the future about
their personal lives? Are we going to have to put them all under oath
and charge them with perjury if they don't tell the truth? Maybe you'd
like to go down that road, Dan, but I don't.
How would you like to have Newt Gingrich forced to go into detail
about his private life and his first marriage? That's only relevant to
the extent that Gingrich likes to preach at other people; hypocrites
ought to be exposed. Clinton sometimes preaches, but at least not
about "family values." Most of the Republicans out there these days
have just as many skeletons in their closets as Clinton does.
I can't wait to have some future Republican president put on the hot
seat, and then listen to people like you screaming about privacy
rights. But by then it will be too late.
>>A true libertarian is not just concerned about the freedom to make
>>money, but mainly cares about individual liberty vs. the institutions
>>of society. They worry about being pressured to conform - whether by
>>politically-correct liberals or rightists who want to shove patriotism
>>and Christian "values" down their throats.
>>
>
>When you say "Christian", one must also read "religious", since 95% of
>the world's religions are in basic agreement over what is
>fundamentally "right and wrong".
Sure they are; that's why many of the wars throughout history have
been caused by religious disagreements.
> Now I don't agree with having
>everybody say the "Our Father" in the morning, but without a basic
>agreement on fundamental morality is to invite social chaos and
>societal destruction, because a "society" is *defined* as a group of
>people who hold a *basic* common belief system and common values. In
>fact, common values are the very bedrock OF society. It is what a
>society is built upon. One doesn't *have* to "conform", as you put
>it, on an individual basis in any free society, but to say that these
>basic moral and ethical values either shouldn't be there or shouldn't
>be enforced in the law would be to virtually RIP the foundation out
>from under the building and still expect the building to stand.
Did I say that? No. I consider myself a very spiritual person, and I
believe in public morality (don't hurt other people, clean up your
mess, etc.); what people do in their sex lives is nobody's damn
business.
>As I said, no one individual is forced to conform to the basic values
>of any free society, but also know that this individual is not
>*contributing* to the health of the society, but rather *detracting*
>from it. By nature it is a very destructive thing. As long as only a
>small minority hold that belief, the society stands and remains
>strong. But if that minority grows into a substantial majority,
>(which we are, for the first time in North American history, now in
>danger of, thanks to the modern left) the fabric of society itself
>comes completely unraveled and the society disintegrates.
>That is the
>danger that we are merrily and so ignorantly approaching. We very
>much are 'whistling past the graveyard' in the name of "not wanting to
>conform" to the most basic moral values of any civilized society.
I recommend that you study American history in a LOT more detail if
you think that we (or any other country) have ever been a moral,
civilized society. This idea that American became an immoral nation in
the '60s is just lunacy.
Were we a more moral nation when Indians were lied to and murdered for
centuries? When blacks were enslaved and treated like animals? When
striking workers and their families were shot down by thugs? When
Catholics and Jews were discriminated against? When women were
second-class citizens? When families had blood feuds with each other?
When children had to work in factories and mines? When millions of
Americans killed each other in the Civil War? When people were turning
in their neighbors during the Red Scares of the '20s and '50s?
You can fantasize about a Golden Age that never existed if you want
to, or you can choose to live in the real world.
>This is not "preaching" as I am going to surely be accused of, since I
>am not talking about promoting one religion or another, or in fact,
>religion at all. Personally, I haven't been to church for over 15
>years. We are talking now of the very BASICS of values that
>differentiates us from the animals. Read some history. *No society
>has ever abandoned the BASICS of morality and survived*.
Sounds dangerously like humanism to me. Your friends on the right will
tell you that we MUST be Christians or we are basically evil.
>I saw a post earlier by Daeron where he said he was an atheist (or to
>be accurate, he said that he regularly contributes to alt.atheism).
>Fine. I listened to the head of the largest atheist organization in
>North America for over 4 hours on a radio show a while back. Contrary
>to public opinion, atheists are not "amoral", they just don't believe
>in any God. He was very clear in stating that the vast majority of
>atheists believe in all the same ideas of morality and right and wrong
>that the world's religions do, they just don't feel that those ideas
>came from a divine source. In fact I was thinking while I was reading
>Daeron's post that he gives atheists a bad name.
>
>>I watch politicians in both parties vote to censor the Internet, or
>>force national ID cards on us; Ollie North busied himself drawing up
>>plans for martial law while liberals come up with more words we're not
>>allowed to use anymore. How anyone can chose to support either side is
>>a mystery to me.
>>
>
>More and more lately, I agree, but abandoning basic, human morality is
>not the answer.
When have I said it was? I just happen to believe in privacy rights -
is that asking too much? We've all done things in our sex lives that
we wouldn't want plastered all over the newspapers.
> And a good example of just how far we've gone is the
>fact that today, simply critisizing someone for something that any
>society in history has considered wrong (like lying, cheating, etc) is
>now considered the "ranting of the Christian right", or "right-wing
>extremism". I guess ANY morals are too many for these people. It is
>very sad.
Funny how I don't see many of these moral guardians actually
practicing these values in their own lives. Lying and cheating and
taking people's money are everyday tools of the trade for these people
who claim to be the guardians of our morality.
m...@earthlink.net
>
> Dave Dix wrote in message <3603BDA7...@earthlink.net>...
> [Snip all but this]
> >
> act as
> >if the US was his country rather than Australia? Maybe its because he
> works for
> >the US Govt? Dunno. How's your scuba diving ability, Howie? Ever pulled
> a
> >Prime Minister INTO the surf...? Are you a TRW employee? Read any elint
> >transcripts lately?
> >
>
> throw this in. (BTW, what's an "elint transcript"?).
>
> You could always ask Jack Ziegler the answer to this, but once more for the
> record... no I'm not a US government employee, and yes, I never have been.
> I'm not allowed to scuba dive, on the grounds that I have asthma, so don't
> blame me for Harold Holt's disappearance in 1968 (when I would only have
> been 4 anyway). I do have a private pilot's licence, but it practically
> bankrupted me getting it (it ain't cheap in England!).
>
> And I'm flattered you think I'm knowledgeable about US politics, but that's
> probably just a hangover from my doctorate in 20th century American
> political history. And it also explains my fascination with Nixon (and with
> JFK, of course).
>
> As for acting as if the US was my own country, I think its called
> "empathy" -most of the people who post here are US citizens, after all. In
> any event, before I opted for Australia, I was thinking of moving to the
> States. Slight problem with obtaining a green card, however.
>
> Have a nice day!
> Howard
I guess I have to put my two cents worth in here...it never ceases to
amaze me that when someone sets out to criticize Howard, they seldom
attack the substance of his posts. First, the attack his erudition, as
if anyone who writes above the level of a seventh grader is somehow
suspect. Next, they accuse him of being a CIA operative. Finally, the
attack relies on good old xenophobia -- no damn furrener knows as much
about 'merican politics as a native born. Well, Howard certainly does
not need me defending him, and that is not the entire purpose of this
post. However, I just want to point out that these attacks that seem to
center on Howard's nation of birth are to me just as objectionable as
the venomous attacks that get hurled at others here, and for what it's
worth (not much, I know), I protest.
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>
>Like I said in the post (for those who read with their hands over
>their eyes), don't believe me ... read a few political science books.
>I didn't just make this up, and you (or anyone) can EASILY verify it
>for yourself just by stumbling down to that big, flat building in your
>community, actually OBTAINING a library card, and checking for
>yourself.
Can you actually name a title - not one written in the last several
years by some new-right revisionist - by any mainstream author in
decades past who views the political spectrum the way you do?
(Fascists are all leftists, etc.)
Daeron
Hi Tracy,
I have to admit that I had to do a hearty ROTFL! when I read that one -
about 'fascists = leftists" - talk about carrying Orwellian doublethink
('black is white' -'white is black', to new levels. Just shows how far
people like Johnson will go to contort and deform reality to their own
ends. The surest way to see how fascists link up with the RIGHT wing is
to see the many links that the extreme right of the Republican Party has
had with past Nazis. See, for example, the REAL FAQ Addendum and the
background of Philip Guarino (in Mussolini's Italy, the major fascist
ally with Nazi Germany) who later would form the ethnic division of the
GOP and be vice-chair of the Republican Heritage Groups Council from
1971-75. Or Licio Gelli, who had been "an ardent Blackshirt" in
Mussolini's Italy, and later would write to Guarino (before the 1980
election):
'If you think it might be useful for something favorable to your
Presidential candidate to be published in Italy, send me some material
and I'll get it published in one of the papers here."
And he proceeded to inundate the Italian media, including newspapers
like 'Corriere Della Sera' with propaganda about Reagan and what a
'boon' he'd be to Italian and European interests. Guarino, who was also
involved in John Connally's 'Committee for the Defense of the
Mediterranean', also hosted Gelli at Reagan's 1981 inauguration.
The proto-fascist and fascist links to the right wing in the USA, and
the Republican Party in particular, are now so well documented, that
only a person who is in severe denial would miss it.
This misshapen conflation of fascists and leftists reminds me of
comments made in an article recently sent me by my Dutch friend, Frans.
It is entitled 'Belief vs. Mind' and documents the retarded nature of
the U.S. socio-economic mindset and programs relative to those in
Holland. As that article notes:
"The U.S., like Rwanda or Iran, is a land of believers. We have
fundamentalist believers, mainstream believers...politics is also
dominated by belief.
"We see nothing wrong with spending tens of billions on weapons that
destroy human life, but we are outraged when the government spends money
on projects that benefit our citizens: the latter is seen as 'Socialism'
or 'Pork'. 'Socialism' takes the place of the Arch Fiend!"
<snip>
"America has always bee anti -intellectual, but in recent decades the
mind has become especially despised. We seem to be in the grip of a
self-destructive force or urge- a desire to lose ourselves, a search for
oblivion, a puritanical revulsion toward genuine freedom. The
destruction of the mind results in enslavement, but we don't seem to
care."
And I might add, when words like 'fascist' are conveninently altered to
mean 'leftist' - the road to destruction of the mind has commenced.
Since it is words that form thoughts - the life of the mind.
--
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:12:52 GMT, tri...@tfb.com (Tracy Riddle)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 01:58:04 GMT, unk...@uhnknown.com (Dan Johnson)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Like I said in the post (for those who read with their hands over
>>>their eyes), don't believe me ... read a few political science books.
>>>I didn't just make this up, and you (or anyone) can EASILY verify it
>>>for yourself just by stumbling down to that big, flat building in your
>>>community, actually OBTAINING a library card, and checking for
>>>yourself.
>>
>>Can you actually name a title - not one written in the last several
>>years by some new-right revisionist - by any mainstream author in
>>decades past who views the political spectrum the way you do?
>>(Fascists are all leftists, etc.)
>>
>>
>>
>I'll find you one ... and it won't be one written by a "new-right
>revisionist". But when it comes to historical revisionism, the left
>is FAR more active than the right by far.
>
>Since they all came from the library years ago, give me a couple days
>to get my butt down there and I'll find you a good non-partisan title.
>After all, I do work for a living <g>.
So do I, though I don't use it as an excuse for not being able to back
up what I say.
Daeron
>
> <snip>
>
> Until I get you a title that will prove what I say:
>
> a) how do you have a dictatorship of any kind if the further right you
> go, the LESS government there is, and
This is a myth. The myth that 'right' necessarily means less goverment.
In fact, while it (often) means less government in terms of social
support, it generally means much *more* in terms of social control,
intrusiveness, violations of privacy rights, and growth of military
budgets - such as we're seeing now. In this sense, Hitler's tactics -
especially sacrificing Germany's fiscal liquidity to grow the Nazi
military budget was little different from Reagan's ($2.1 trillion
massive credit binge ober 6 years which converted this nation from a
major creditor to one of the most abject debtors. A price we have still
not recovered from)
We also see social intrusiveness throughout the radical right's agenda,
as in:
1) Their push to outlaw women's free use, choice of RU-486, or partial
birth abortions, or any abortions - even from rape. (Henry Hyde once
opined he'd never allow an abortion in his state (IL) even for rape,
prompting my wife to ask 'What if he was the one pregnant from rape?)
2) Their push to re-activate the CDA (COmmunications and Decency Act)
under a new mutation, which they're calling CD II, which will (if
enacted) once again reduce the net to the status of a Sunday School.
3) Their push to criminalize ever more personal behavior in spurious
ways, meanwhile letting corporation bandits off the hook bigtime
4) Their major financing of *corporate welfare*, to pay for things like
overseas advertising for McDonalds, and subsidies for U.S. Sugar
producers, while letting any beneficial social assistance go into the
crapper. (and corporate welfare, all told, is now costing each taxpayer
an average of $1,186 per year!)
5) And I won't even get into all the other special 'perks' set up within
the tax code for the benefit of corporations, as well as their CEOs
(like 'deferred benfits packages', and special tax write-offs for
lobbies)
The essence of it is that the Right's choice of meddling is very
selective indeed. Also, it is interesting that whenever Right wingers
are in control of the Presidency we see more support for totalitarian
right wing regimes. Like Somoza's - by Reagan, or the Shah of Iran, by
Ike. I mean, DUH!
> b) what sense is there in me going to the trouble if you will just
> deny whatever titles I find, regardless of how historically correct or
> unbiased?
That remains to be seen, as we haven't seen 'word one' yet. You post
them and then we'll assess them. (Hint: Do not post any titles from the
Regnery Press, since as Russ Bellant notes, they are among the leading
Right Wing, fascist houses, including publishers of wholesale Holocaust
revisionism).
If you want to be taken seriously, and not just dismissed as another
right wing whacko freak, like Beck, then post something credible and
truly unbiased - from a Press, Publisher that is not co-opted.
> I mean, what's the point? You think you are right and it would be
> devastating to your ego to ever admit that you don't have a clue what
> you are talking about, despite the evidence.
No - not at all. You just provide the 'evidence' and we'll judge it
where it stands, on its merits. When I'm shown I am wrong, and the facts
are there, I have admitted past mistakes, errors.
That is, assuming you have any and are not merely confabulating a
convenient excuse.
--
*DAERON*
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:49:11 GMT, tri...@tfb.com (Tracy Riddle)
>OK, now you showed your true colors. I AGREED to what you asked, and
>you still found it in your "libertarian" heart to put in a truly cheap
>shot. You people are pathetic. Faced with even the POSSIBILITY that
>you may be wrong, you resort to insults.
>
>Why am I not surprised.
I didn't particularly care for *your* snide comment implying that the
rest of us here don't work for a living. You can dish it out but you
can't take it.
>Libertarian my ass. Except for a very few things, you are as left as
>the rest of them, and your snide comment fits the profile perfectly.
Because I'm challenging you to put up or shut up, I'm no longer a
libertarian? Well, that makes good nonsense. That's the kind of
reasoning I would expect from such a blindly partisan person.
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 05:07:14 -0400, Daeron <sta...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Tracy,
>>
>>I have to admit that I had to do a hearty ROTFL! when I read that one -
>>about 'fascists = leftists" -
>
><snip>
>
>Until I get you a title that will prove what I say:
>
>a) how do you have a dictatorship of any kind if the further right you
>go, the LESS government there is, and
This is a very recent concept, NOT the way the political spectrum has
traditionally been described. 99% of the poli-sci books out there will
place Communism on the extreme Left, Fascism on the extreme Right, and
Democracy somewhere in the middle.
I'm not saying that spectrum makes a lot of sense, I'm just saying
that's the way it's been for a very long time. This is basic stuff,
Dan.
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>In the mean time (until I can get down to the library, here is someone
>who completely agrees with you. This is a direct "copy/paste" from
>one of his articles on the web. You are in good company, at least.
>
>"The Right, which in modern history is known as fascism, advocates a
>system in which those with wealth are free to
>do as they please and the functions of government are limited to
>policing and war. Some self-described
>conservatives reject the term fascism, claiming that the fascists were
>actually statists who believed in retaining the
>power of government. But that just suggests an ignorance of history."
Sure; just like I said. Some right-wingers ignore the traditional
political spectrum because they don't like being associated with
fascism.
>And who is this? Another "copy/paste", from the end of the article:
>
>"Richard Curtis, a freelance writer and radio producer, chairs the
>Colorado district of the Communist Party USA."
Let's see; by this logic, since I opposed Hitler, and the Communists
opposed Hitler, that must mean I'm a Communist.
Daniel Yarhi
Daeron wrote:
> Dan Johnson wrote:
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Until I get you a title that will prove what I say:
> >
> > a) how do you have a dictatorship of any kind if the further right you
> > go, the LESS government there is, and
>
> This is a myth. The myth that 'right' necessarily means less goverment.
> In fact, while it (often) means less government in terms of social
> support, it generally means much *more* in terms of social control,
> intrusiveness, violations of privacy rights, and growth of military
> budgets - such as we're seeing now. In this sense, Hitler's tactics -
> especially sacrificing Germany's fiscal liquidity to grow the Nazi
> military budget was little different from Reagan's ($2.1 trillion
> massive credit binge ober 6 years which converted this nation from a
> major creditor to one of the most abject debtors. A price we have still
> not recovered from)
>
Sorry. Right wing does not necessarily mean fascism.
But obviously you have a problem with President Reagan. Fortunately for us
all, history shows congress approved his spending budgets overwhelmingly.
Now that there is no cold war, it is easy to second guess them all.
However, I do believe you are way out of line saying that "hitler's tactics
- especially sacrificing Germany's fiscal liquidity....bla,bla,bla". Germany
was in the depths of a depression such as had never been seen there. Hitler
pulled Germany out of it, and made Germany militarily strong again, this is
how he was able to get so much popular support. Germany was broke at the
time Hitler assumed power. The US was far from broke when Reagan came to
power, and the US is still far from being broke now - irrespective of your
"abject debtor" comment.
> We also see social intrusiveness throughout the radical right's agenda,
> as in:
We? As in... And anyway, you started out with the right, and now moved on to
radical right. Is this like the Marijuana leads to Heroin argument?
> 1) Their push to outlaw women's free use, choice of RU-486, or partial
> birth abortions, or any abortions - even from rape. (Henry Hyde once
> opined he'd never allow an abortion in his state (IL) even for rape,
> prompting my wife to ask 'What if he was the one pregnant from rape?)
More a religion thing than anything else. (Moral majority)
> 2) Their push to re-activate the CDA (COmmunications and Decency Act)
> under a new mutation, which they're calling CD II, which will (if
> enacted) once again reduce the net to the status of a Sunday School.
Our constitutiuon guarantees free speech. No need to be an alarmist.
> 3) Their push to criminalize ever more personal behavior in spurious
> ways, meanwhile letting corporation bandits off the hook bigtime
Very specific and detailed. Intro to corporations in this rambling response.
> 4) Their major financing of *corporate welfare*, to pay for things like
> overseas advertising for McDonalds, and subsidies for U.S. Sugar
> producers, while letting any beneficial social assistance go into the
> crapper. (and corporate welfare, all told, is now costing each taxpayer
> an average of $1,186 per year!)
Are you saying our present Democratic administration is funding corporate
fringe benefits, and therefor is radical right wing? Hillary would be
amused...
> 5) And I won't even get into all the other special 'perks' set up within
> the tax code for the benefit of corporations, as well as their CEOs
> (like 'deferred benfits packages', and special tax write-offs for
> lobbies)
Boy you are really going after all those people you don't like. Anyway, at
this point in our financial history, Education, Welfare, Medicaid & Medicare
are the largest recipients of govt funds.
> The essence of it is that the Right's choice of meddling is very
> selective indeed. Also, it is interesting that whenever Right wingers
> are in control of the Presidency we see more support for totalitarian
> right wing regimes. Like Somoza's - by Reagan, or the Shah of Iran, by
> Ike. I mean, DUH!
Very articulate. Although I think many people would argue the point about
whether Iran was better off with the Shah or the present Iranian govt..
Somoza was killed, the communists took over Nicaragua, and the people and
the country are still mired in deep deep troubles. Meanwhile their glorious
communist revolutionary leaders have taken Somoza's place as the richest men
in the country and Ortega is the wealthiest man in South America with some
14 billion US Dollars in international aid missing from the Nicaraguan
treasury.
> > b) what sense is there in me going to the trouble if you will just
> > deny whatever titles I find, regardless of how historically correct or
> > unbiased?
>
> That remains to be seen, as we haven't seen 'word one' yet. You post
> them and then we'll assess them. (Hint: Do not post any titles from the
> Regnery Press, since as Russ Bellant notes, they are among the leading
> Right Wing, fascist houses, including publishers of wholesale Holocaust
> revisionism).
>
Obviously, we can judge any book by its cover (and/or publisher).
>
> If you want to be taken seriously, and not just dismissed as another
> right wing whacko freak, like Beck, then post something credible and
> truly unbiased - from a Press, Publisher that is not co-opted.
>
> > I mean, what's the point? You think you are right and it would be
> > devastating to your ego to ever admit that you don't have a clue what
> > you are talking about, despite the evidence.
>
> No - not at all. You just provide the 'evidence' and we'll judge it
> where it stands, on its merits. When I'm shown I am wrong, and the facts
> are there, I have admitted past mistakes, errors.
>
> That is, assuming you have any and are not merely confabulating a
> convenient excuse.
> --
> *DAERON*
> "We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated
> in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
> - Justice Louis Brandeis.
I love it when people take quotes from celebrities and use them out of
context for their own purposes and to justify their actions.
Speaking about being taken seriously, I do believe you have to tone down a
little, be more specific, and stick to the theme at hand.
dya...@scc.sparks.nv
Daeron
> The US was far from broke when Reagan came to
> power, and the US is still far from being broke now - irrespective of your
> "abject debtor" comment.
Of course, the U.S. was 'far from broke' when Ronnie came to power. We
were the foremost creditor nation in the world, i.e. many more nations
owed us than we owed them in turn. But - after Ronnie's $2.1 trillion,
six year credit binge on all manner of military hardware (including $75
hammers, and $6 nails - to pad the defense contractors profits) the U.S.
became the world's numero uno debtor nation. Exactly like a manic
consumer armed with a charge card that has to hock his house to pay his
bills. Hence, the exponential increase in the deficit - which will be
paid (via tazes) by our children and their children for many decades to
come.
> We? As in... And anyway, you started out with the right, and now moved on to
> radical right. Is this like the Marijuana leads to Heroin argument?
You could say that. The fact it the radical right is trying to entrain
the GOP - and make them hostage to its policies. We see it in the work
of their various think tanks and secret groups - from the 'Liberty Lobby
(what a misnomer) to the Council for National Policy, to the American
Heritage Foundation. Oh, and let's not forget the radical right agenda
of the Christian Coalition which, if it can get the GOP to do its
bidding, would instantly convert his nation to a Christian Theocracy.
> More a religion thing than anything else. (Moral majority)
But, at the grass roots level, they are now encompassing the GOP. Check
out the May 4, 1998 issue of U.S. News & World Report for example (on
the power of James Dobson). The fact is that the Relgious Right
provides crucial grassroots support forthe Republican Party at
elections. Arguably - half the seats the GOPnow holds in COngress would
not exist were it not for that very active support.
> Our constitutiuon guarantees free speech. No need to be an alarmist.
I have to be when I see encroachments on all sides - the gradual eating
away, gnoawing away of personal rights and liberties, one bit at a time.
(And in the new search and seizure laws enabled by the Supreme Court
barely three years ago.) As one genuine once opined: "The price of
liberty is eternal vigilance."
> Very specific and detailed. Intro to corporations in this rambling response.
Those who are interested in the details, can find them in my various
posts in a number of newsgroups (e.g. alt.atheism.moderated) on deja
news.
> Are you saying our present Democratic administration is funding corporate
> fringe benefits, and therefor is radical right wing? Hillary would be
> amused...
Not at all. I'm saying that the (predominant) Repub Congress is, has
been enabling it for some time. They are totally in the pockets of the
large corporations. Look at the Repubs cozy relations with Big Tobacco
for example. Look how all this Starr crap began to heat up after Clinton
went after the Tobacco companies. Coincidence? I don't think so. These
are some of the biggest recipients of corporate welfare there are. Many
of the corporate welfare embodiments (in the tax code) date back to the
Reagan Administration. Whodda thunk??
> Boy you are really going after all those people you don't like. Anyway, at
> this point in our financial history, Education, Welfare, Medicaid & Medicare
> are the largest recipients of govt funds.
They may be - but not for long. Anyone with two eyes, two ears and a
brain can read and see in the news how Medicaid and Medicare are in for
increasing public 'ownership' - if the GOP has its way. Medicare alone
is projected to go up from beneficiaries paying 35% or so of their
benefits, to well over 80% by 2010. It is not beyond the pale
beneficiaries could be given virtually full responsibility in another
thirty years.
Welfare - now being converted to workfare- hardly. That too goes mainly
into explotiative corporations pickets. (i.e. here in Baltimore the
corporations can get a low grade service worker, i.e. janitor, for about
$1.70 an hour, with welfare paying the rest. And, with the massive shift
to work, there is a dwindling amount of social resources at work here.
Not so with corporate welfare.
As for Education, it is estimated now that over $13 billion a year is
going into the pockets of corporations - by virtue of time lost (which
would have been used to pay the teacher to *teach*) for nonsense like
'Channel One' - wherein students at thousands of schools nationwide have
to be captive audiences for corporate advertising. (The teachers demoted
to mere corporate shills). Time in corporate brainwashing that is
irretrievably lost for learning.
>
> Very articulate. Although I think many people would argue the point about
> whether Iran was better off with the Shah or the present Iranian govt..
> Somoza was killed, the communists took over Nicaragua, and the people and
> the country are still mired in deep deep troubles. Meanwhile their glorious
> communist revolutionary leaders have taken Somoza's place as the richest men
> in the country and Ortega is the wealthiest man in South America with some
> 14 billion US Dollars in international aid missing from the Nicaraguan
> treasury.
It figures that you would defend the 'principle' that 'the ends
justifies the means'.
While we're at it, what about all those nuns and others, killed by
rightist reactionaries in Central American countries - for which there
exist documented records (in the various intelligence agencies)_ but
which the Repub Congress has voted not to release?
> Obviously, we can judge any book by its cover (and/or publisher).
Not always. And those unfamimiliar with the Regnery Press may not be
able to do so.
> I love it when people take quotes from celebrities and use them out of
> context for their own purposes and to justify their actions.
It wasn't out of context at all. What he said is exactly what he means.
There are not two interpretations.
> Speaking about being taken seriously, I do believe you have to tone down a
> little, be more specific, and stick to the theme at hand.
And what exactly might that be? My response addressed specious issues,
questions raised by Dan Johnson. Why not let him fight his own battles -
especially since he was the one that initiated them. And, by 'theme at
hand' - if you mean to do with the JFK assassination, well - these have
everything to do with it, as my REAL FAQ Addendum makes clear.
--
Daeron
>
> {Remember that weird uncle? Well he comes from YOUR side of the
> family, not mine. Mussolini AND Hitler. Huh.}
>
> {God I love libraries}
A very interesting dissertation in philosophy and the backgrounds of
various personae.
Unfortunately, I was looking for a more current, contemporary synopsis
which showed clearly:
a) That *current* GOP-Repub right wing think tanks (like the American
Heritage FOundation) do not espouse Nazi thinking and support
b) That the current policies and ideology of the American right are in
fact radically different from what Hitler espoused.
While you've provided a splendid philosophical treatise - that might be
permuted in meaning to what you desire - you've not whon squato on the
preceding two issues. On current realpolitik of the past fifty years.
(All apologies to Rousseau, Schopenhauer and other past icons)
Still waiting.
Daeron
>
> On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:24:23 -0400, Daeron <sta...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dan Johnson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> {Remember that weird uncle? Well he comes from YOUR side of the
> >> family, not mine. Mussolini AND Hitler. Huh.}
> >>
> >> {God I love libraries}
> >
> >
> >A very interesting dissertation in philosophy and the backgrounds of
> >various personae.
> >
> >Unfortunately, I was looking for a more current, contemporary synopsis
> >which showed clearly:
> >
> >a) That *current* GOP-Repub right wing think tanks (like the American
> >Heritage FOundation) do not espouse Nazi thinking and support
> >
> >b) That the current policies and ideology of the American right are in
> >fact radically different from what Hitler espoused.
> >
> >While you've provided a splendid philosophical treatise - that might be
> >permuted in meaning to what you desire - you've not whon squato on the
> >preceding two issues. On current realpolitik of the past fifty years.
> >(All apologies to Rousseau, Schopenhauer and other past icons)
> >
> >Still waiting.
>
> "GOP" statements, this is exactly what you said and what, in turn, I
> was responding to:
>
> >Hi Tracy,
> >
> >I have to admit that I had to do a hearty ROTFL! when I read that one -
> >('black is white' -'white is black', to new levels. Just shows how far
> >people like Johnson will go to contort and deform reality to their own
> >ends.
>
> exactly is carrying out the "Orwellian doublethink" again?
Fascism existed long before there was any 'liberal revolt'. Look at
Franco's Spain, Hitler's Germany, and Mussolini's Italy - *AND* look at
any *standard* texts in history, which clearly reference these regimes
as fascist, as well as radically 'rightist'.
If anyone is guilty of 'doublethink' therefore, it is you. As for your
insinuation that Repubs are not really 'right' - and that only genuine
libertarians are, that is patent nonsense, which I am 100% convinced any
university history dept. worth its salt would validate. Try publishing
any paper like that, and sumbitting it to a refereed historical journal.
They'd laugh you out of the place.
> And just who is contorting and deforming reality to their own ends?
Er......I believe that I already answered that. Sometimes, it's very
hard to get a grip on reality, as you yourself demonstrate. A little
more critical thinking, analysis to go along with your reading
adventures would serve you in no small stead. Knowledge is a good thing,
for sure - but when it is uncritically imbibed wholesale, as you
demonstrate, it shows very little other that you can read, and learn a
few things. Coming from a former academic researcher, in solar physics,
it requires much more to see the overarching patterns and relate these
to 'cause-effect').
Try again. We are a patient lot.
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>
>"A History Of Western Philosophy"
>
>Author:
>Bertrand Russell
<snipping>
Bertrand Russell was hardly an example of mainstream political
thinking, and this book simply reflects his own analysis. In the late
'40s Russell had urged that Russia be atomized, "Communism must be
wiped out, and world government must be established."
As I said before, *most* of the poli-sci books out there (at least the
ones most people read while going through school) follow the
traditional left-right spectrum. If this wasn't the case, then most
people wouldn't believe that Fascism and Communism are diametrically
opposed to each other. And the Fascists and Communists wouldn't have
fought each other so viciously in Spain, Germany, France, Greece and
elsewhere.
Tracy Riddle
wrote:
>
>The following is not just from a "book on political science" by yet
>another one of those "blindly partisan" enemies conspiring against
>you, but is actually straight out of a political science TEXTBOOK,
>complete with the standard "In this chapter you will learn ..." stuff
>before the chapters start, and "Applying Your Knowledge" and "Further
>Research" sections after each chapter.
>
>So I think it is safe to say that it was HARDLY written by a band of
>"radical right-wing zealots" ("Radical", also being misused by the
>left. In political science terms, an extreme right-winger is a
>"reactionary", an extreme LEFT-WINGER is a "radical". Just another
>way the left either knowingly or unknowingly misuses political-science
>terms for their own ends. So please, next time you want to insult me,
>at least have the courtesy to do it right ... sorry ... properly. In
>your view, I would (amongst other things, I'm sure) be a "REACTIONARY
>right-wing zealot". Gee, doesn't have the same "ring" to it, does it.
>BTW, do you want proof of that, too? It's not a problem ... really
>... oh well, let me know).
>
<snipping>
>{The book also says on the next page} "These terms - radical,
>moderate, liberal, reactionary, and conservative - are among the most
>commonly used words in politics. Unfortunately, THEY ARE ALSO THE
>MOST MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISUSED TERMS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE."
Why *are* they the most misunderstood and misused terms? If most of
the political science texts out there describe the spectrum the way
you say they do, there shouldn't be this confusion.
The last time I read any poli-sci textbooks was about 10-15 years ago
in high school and college, and they all gave us the "traditional"
right-left division. After that I stopped reading books about "theory"
- I'm more interested in the real world. And in the real world, most
people in politics still think along left-right divisions. Look at Pat
Buchanan, who has been "right from the beginning," but is hardly an
advocate of less government.
As I said in a previous post, I think the "traditional" left-right
scale is meaningless anyway, and this whole debate is pretty
pointless.
Daeron
> even know what the "revolt" or "enlightenment" is, do you? Fascism
> was a 20th century event ... at least the solidification of Fascist
> thought into actual public policy was.
>
> The "Enlightenment", where all this came from, began in the mid 18th
> century, which preceded the above events by almost 200 years.
<snip>
Well, it became clear from me from your first 'effort' that you were, in
fact, conflating the fundamental (i.e. base) philosophical
underpinnings- inputs (i.e. Romanticism (Rousseau et al); Empiricism
(Locke et al) with the derivative manifestations in the 20th century
(Liberalism, Fascism).
In fact, Sir Bertrand Russell, in his definitive work 'A History of
Western Philosopy', Toucstone, 1945, 1972 provides excellent insights
into their distcintions (i.e. between Liberalism in the American
tradition, and Fascicm, a la Hitler), p. 790.
Read it and see.
Daeron
>
> Boy, I'll tell you. It's real hard trying to debate you two when one
> says to reference a book that I've been quoting from all along
BUT - you did not cite the key points of difference. Since you haven't
(at least I've not seen them) then I must do so here. From Russell's
book, p. 790:
On Liberalism, Marxism:
"These two sections of opinion are philosphically not very widely
separated. Both are rationalist, and both, *in intention*, are
scientific and empirical. But, from the point of view of practical
politics the division is sharp."
On Nazism-Fascism:
"The third section of modern opinion, represented politically by Nazis
and Fascists, differs philosophically from the other two far more
profoundly than they differ from each other.. It is anti-rational and
anti-scientific. Its philosophical progenitors are Rousseau, Fichte and
Nietsche. It emphasizes will, especially will to power..."
The differences here are clear. Neither Marxism or Liberalism can be
confused with Fascism. They have distinct philosphical roots, with
Liberalism more grounded in Locke's (empricism) philosophy and the
Enlightenment, and Nazism-Fascism more in Rousseau's Romanticism, Mystic
nonsense, and Nietsche's nihilism.
I suspect, a large segment of the problem is because the right-wing
press (in the U.S.) has often portrayed liberals, and by extension
Liberalism egregiously as 'nihilists' and 'Romantics' - thereby paving
the way for utter confusion. Russell's distinctions are therefore a
perfect remedy for this media bastardization and misuse.
>, and
> the other says to dismiss that book because the author is not an
> example of "mainstream political thinking".
Tracy is perfectly entitled to his own views, opinions and to express
them. Because we may think alike on many issues, doesn't imply (nor
shold it be automatically assumed) our brains will move in lockstep on
everything.
> You guys are hard to please. If that isn't an example of unreasonable
> bias on a grand scale, I don't know what is.
No, unreasonable bias was citing large tracts only to support your own
specious conflation - when a simple, direct reference to p. 790 would
have eliminated a lot of the problems.
Anyway, I believe we can finally see - after Russell - that neither
Liberalism, nor Marxism is equal to fascism.
Daeron
>
> Again, I am not saying that Fascism and Liberalism ENDED UP being one
> in the same. I am saying that out of the "Liberal Revolt", or
> "Enlightenment", 2 schools of thought emerged; one Marxism, the other
> Fascism.
OK- I just wanted you to concede to this bifurcation. As I earlier
indicated, it does us no use to conflate the *initial* philosophical
inputs with the currently existing socio-political frameworks. That a
'liberal revolt' (or whatever you choose to call it) could have
engendered some base 'roots' is perhaps a useful conjecture, perhaps
not. But, it sheds no useful light on the socio-political systems as
they *currently* exist.
This is what I am getting at. I would further add that to give
unwarranted weight to the early inputs, over and above the evolved,
recent ones, is to again risk cluttering and obscuring crucial issues.
Let's also be clear that if we pursue that route, there are endless
philosophical permutations that can be invoked. For example, the role of
Idealists, the role of Realists, etc. Let's also not forget the
significant role of Existentialists, such as John-Paul Sartre (who I was
fortunate to hear at a lecture at Loyola Univ., New Orleans, in 1964 -
while attending Loyola).
My point is that it is arguably far more productive to examine the
current inputs and dynamics than to go back three or four hundred years
- which can drag in a host of other, ancillary philosophical systems as
well - to the point you have somehting akin to a ball of tangled threads
that can't be untangled.
>
> You have to be the only person on the face of the earth that think
> that the media are "right-wing".
No, not at all.
Some recent statistical studies, cf. 'Unfit to Print', The Nation,
July 28/ Aug. 4, 1997, disclose he U.S. press is heavily weighted in
the slant of its opinions toward the right. Citing a 1997 text by Norman
Solomon and Jeff Cohen ('Wizards of Media Oz: Behind the Curtain of
Mainstream News') the Nation authors point out that Solomon and Cohen's
research "turned up the fact that the misleading phrase 'welfare reform'
was used in 22,013 print news pieces about aid programs for the poor ...
while 'corporate welfare' showed up only 2,351 times, and 'corporate
welfare reform' only 17 times."
The end result is, of course, that readers' perceptions will be deformed
and skewed by such unbalanced reporting, naturally leading them to think
that 'welfare reform' for the poor is necessary but 'corporate welfare
reform' isn't.
As to the myth the press is 'leftist' or 'left wing' or 'liberal', the
Nation authors dispatch that in no uncertain terms (ibid., p. 33):
"The truth is that genuinely left-wing views rarely get a hearing.
Solomon had this confirmed while trying to peddle his column, when
editors told him 'We've got progressive views covered - we run Anthony
Lewis'. The same Anthony Lewis who has described himself as a
'pro-capitalist, middle of the road tepid centrist', who supported
George Bush's Gulf War and who penned a column denouncing unions for
having the temerity to lobby against NAFTA."
Corroborating this, a recent Baltimore Sun article ('Liberal' Media
Isn't Really That Liberal', July, 19, 1998, p. 5C) notes that the
general public, in a survey, favored guaranteed medical care for the
uninsured by a 2:1 margin (64%, to 29%) while only 32% of journalists
surveyed chose that as a priority.
As the author further notes.
"To the extent that such findings are surprising, maybe it's because
we've been dazed by the daily howls of 'liberal' media that come - it's
worth noting - from *right wing pundits*, talk show hosts and columnists
whose voices dominate the self same media. After all many national
journalists have prospered while hitched to giant corporations."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In effect, with such a predominance of viewpoint in the media, it is not
at all surpising or astounding that most people would be unaware of the
fact that the press is in fact very much to the right (since the views
of the left rarely if ever get a proper hearing - certainly to the same
frequency and emphasis).
> Lockstep I can understand, but there seem to be some MAJOR differences
> of opinion here.
Well, I really don't see the choice or designation of a particular text
as a 'major' difference. Perhaps Tracy has had a different background
in his reading and emphasis frmo me. I can understand that and
appreciate it. The point is that we concur on many other substantive
matters - that differing on the signifance of a book is like
'tweedledum' and 'tweedledee'.
> See my above comments. That is what is wrong with reading from ONE
> PAGE in a 900 page book.
See my comments, which essentially are indicative of the same thing.
I.e. there is a tendency to entangle too many differing concepts and
themes instead of getting to the nitty-gritty of CURRENT distinctions.
That is I think we are all about. What happened eons ago may be passably
interesting, even curious - but we need to know the immediate inputs
into the systems of Liberalism, Marxism, Fascism as *currently*
operative on the world stage.
> I didn't say they were. But they have the same great-grandfather.
So do Man and the contemporary great apes (by modern evolutionary
theory). That doesn't mean I'd call your great -great grandfather an
'ape' just as I'd hope you wouldn't refer to mine thus.
Focus, as always, is the key.
Daeron
> Fine. I accepted that. But don't now turn around and expect me to
> accept ANYTHING from such an obvious and well-known liberal rag as
> "The Nation". Fair is fair, after all.
As you will note I also included an article published in The Baltimore
Sun which corroborated those statistics. Are you going to dis the Sun as
well? Another 'liberal rag'?
> <snip>
> >
> Unless both those people are demanding I provide "proof", and then one
> cites the book as completely authentic, and the other dismisses it out
> of hand. It makes it difficult to provide arguments when the two I am
> arguing with both want different forms of "proof".
Hey, join the club! I've been in that situation on this ng more than
once, in respect to various issues. All this means is that you've
discovered what many of us (who've done research in science for years)
have known all along: there is *no* such thing as an absolute proof.
That's why- in a post I responded to several months ago, I noted it's
far more productive to go for high QA (quality assurance) in a lot of
material you are presenting, rather than just one or a few sources.
> Again, I agree. The only point I was trying to make is that just as
> it is unfair for me to equate the modern left with Fascism, so is it
> unfair of you to equate the modern right with it.
But the modern right has displayed numerous links and associations - all
documented - with it. See my REAL FAQ Addendum (e.g. with Reagan's 1980
election team's links to known fascists, like the correspondence between
Philip Guarino - associated with the Republican Heritage Group's
COuncil, and Licio Gelli -P2 member who wanted to help Reagan with his
'favorable comments' in Italian newspapers. Guarino, a known fascist in
his own right also hosted Gelli at Reagan's 1981 inauguration). See the
New York Times of June 4, 1981, p.7 Or get hold of the book: 'Old
Nazis, the New Right, and The Republican Party', 1990, printed through
the American Atheist Press.
As I said, when we look at the current dynamics, linkages, inputs we are
able to see more clearly how the current socio-political systems stand.
Most of this doesn't require 'rocket science' but it does demand the
capacity to see without blinkers - and *not* believe the deflecting
propaganda and patter that the *right* wing press, media weave.
Your choice.