nut flaps...
Mike Marshall
Chapman Stick.
Oh the heck with it, I don't care what Manc is saying, it is still funny.
-Mike
Brian Huntley
Nut is head, so ears, I figure.
Jym Dyer
they're having a "Tea Party" tomorrow. They have duly earned
the name they've acquired -- "tea-baggers" -- and of course
that has much to do with nuts flapping.
<_Jym_>
Mike Marshall
Hey ->JyM<-...
Didja notice the ridiculous Bizarro cartoon today where he insinuates that
stem cell research used to be illegal? Maybe Manc was refering to that? And
of course that has much to do with nuts flapping.
-Mike
John Duncan Yoyo
I just figured FAUX NEWS is going porno with the tea bagging events
sponsered by Dick Army.
Actually I didn't have a clue about the other conotation of tea
bagging until I looked in urban dictionary.
-
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
Peter B. Steiger
> Maybe it has something to do with all the nuts who think
> they're having a "Tea Party" tomorrow.
My brother called to chat last night and asked me if I was going to be
attaching tea bags to my mailbox. I had *no idea* what he was talking
about (oddly enough, the subject hasn't come up on Reuters where I get my
news) and thought he was kidding me.
What on earth do those people expect to accomplish, apart from getting
their mail carriers angry with them?
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes
where you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
wrote:
> My brother called to chat last night and asked me if I was going to be
> attaching tea bags to my mailbox. I had *no idea* what he was talking
> about (oddly enough, the subject hasn't come up on Reuters where I get my
> news) and thought he was kidding me.
>
> What on earth do those people expect to accomplish, apart from getting
> their mail carriers angry with them?
>
"In this case, I think we have to go all out. I think that this
situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture, be
done on somebody's part."
Jym Dyer
>> they're having a "Tea Party" tomorrow. They have duly earned
>> the name they've acquired -- "tea-baggers" -- and of course
>> that has much to do with nuts flapping.
> events sponsered by Dick Army.
=v= If you're tea-bagging at so many locations, that's exactly
what you're going to need. Well, technically, what you need is
a nut army (mission accomplished).
> Actually I didn't have a clue about the other conotation of
> tea bagging until I looked in urban dictionary.
=v= Urban Dictionary is wrong, it does NOT involve a girlfriend.
Rent John Waters' film /Pecker/ to see the true context, a gay
bar with male go-go dancers. (It's not clear to me that these
fools have the balls for this sort of thing; they may have to
rent those dancers.)
<_Jym_>
Mike Marshall
So you're asking "what do those people expect to accomplish with
grassroots non-violent civil protest against government policy"?
I'm guessing they expect to focus attention on the policy which in turn
might lead to change.
I'm also guessing that the consensus by many of the most vocal here is
that grassroots protest is stoopid as practiced by conservatives and
that change is abhorrent when it goes the way conservatives want it to,
but that grassroots protest and change are good otherwise...
Last night when I was at the Laurens Sons of Confederate Veterans meeting
I heard a lot of people talking about going to tea parties today. I came
to a realization: there's tons of people like us here, and none of us
are ANYTHING like ->jYm<-.
HALLELULYA!!
In (probably vain) hopes that it might short circuit any ignorant statements
the cluelessly uninformed might wish to make about what might go on at
Sons of Confederate Veteran meetings, here's an interesting news
article about the focus of our meeting last night:
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/042009/04112009/458698
Have a nice day.
-Mike
Mike B
> In (probably vain) hopes that it might short circuit any ignorant
> statements the cluelessly uninformed might wish to make about what
> might go on at Sons of Confederate Veteran meetings, here's an
> interesting news article about the focus of our meeting last night:
>
< http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/042009/04112009/458698>
Spotsylvania always sounded to me like
the place Boris and Natasha should be from.
Jym Dyer
> with grassroots non-violent civil protest against government
> policy"?
=v= There's absolutely nothing grassroots about the tea-baggers.
It is a well-funded "astroturf" group:
I have been robocalled for this, despite being in the Do Not
Call Registry, and spammed, which is illegal in my state. The
tea-baggers are clearly long on funding and short on ethics.
<_Jym_>
Mike Marshall
>=v= There's absolutely nothing grassroots about the tea-baggers.
>It is a well-funded "astroturf" group:
* For the online left, it's been far too easy to mock the tea party
* organizers. All the talk of socialism, Marxism and "tea-bagging," a
* slang reference for a sexual act made widely known by an episode of
* HBO's "Sex and the City," have been fodder for cable hosts and
* liberal bloggers. Some charge that the parties are actually organized
* by the usual suspects, big conservative groups such as FreedomWorks,
* headed by former house majority leader Dick Armey, and not by everyday
* Joes and Janes. Critics claim that the movement is AstroTurf --
* fake grassroots.
*
* var...@washpost.com.
->jYm<- you're such an on-line-left kind of tool.
Here's an article that talks about both the grassroots component of
the tea parties as well as the organized partisan element.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/15/1892475.aspx
The above article also addresses the "what republicans might stand to
gain" part of this thread...
-Mike
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> =v= There's absolutely nothing grassroots about the tea-baggers.
> It is a well-funded "astroturf" group:
>
> http://www.savetherich.com/
>
> I have been robocalled for this, despite being in the Do Not
> Call Registry, and spammed, which is illegal in my state. The
> tea-baggers are clearly long on funding and short on ethics.
> <_Jym_>
Didn't the politcal types exempt themselves from the Do Not Call list?
Peter B. Steiger
> I'm also guessing that the consensus by many of the most vocal here is
> that grassroots protest is stoopid as practiced by conservatives and
> that change is abhorrent when it goes the way conservatives want it to,
> but that grassroots protest and change are good otherwise...
I don't have a clue whether this is a conservative or liberal game; I
just think that nailing tea bags to your mailbox isn't any kind of
movement, grassroots or otherwise. It's not a statement that will be
heard by anyone's congresscritter; it's just going to impede mail
delivery. How does that accomplish change for the better?
Sherwood Harrington
> I don't have a clue whether this is a conservative or liberal game; I
> just think that nailing tea bags to your mailbox isn't any kind of
> movement, grassroots or otherwise. It's not a statement that will be
> heard by anyone's congresscritter; it's just going to impede mail
> delivery. How does that accomplish change for the better?
What, you don't think that irritating postal workers is a good idea?
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
George W Harris
<hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> * What on earth do those people expect to accomplish...
>
>So you're asking "what do those people expect to accomplish with
>grassroots non-violent civil protest against government policy"?
It's not grassroots, it's astroturf.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:22:18 +0000 (UTC), Mike Marshall
>
> <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> > * What on earth do those people expect to accomplish...
>
> >So you're asking "what do those people expect to accomplish with
> >grassroots non-violent civil protest against government policy"?
>
> It's not grassroots, it's astroturf.
Can we declare a moratorium on the use of spin vocabulary and talking
points?
If you have something to say, please say it in original words- I for
one will take people points more seriously if they show some sign of
original thought and not reflex regurgitation of dogma from either
side of the political spectrum. (Not that this a a big problem in
RACS, but I feel like more of this is creeping into our discussions
and it would be nice to nip it in the bud before we devolve into flame
wars.)
Beefies
points?
Yes we can.
Brian F.
Smartass Falls, Calif.
Mike Peterson
"spin vocabulary"?? Could you please say that in original words?
Whoops. Could you please rephrase that in terms that you just thought
up and nobody else has said yet?
I don't think "astroturf" has anything to do with "reflex
regurgitation of dogma." It's a perfectly serviceable, non-partisan
term for fake grassroots movements. As someone who sorts through
letters to the editor trying to spot the fakes, I have seen more
astroturf -- form letters generated from web sites -- from the left
than from the right, though I don't think it's as large a phenomenon
as it was a year or so ago. Could be that editorial revulsion is
causing more of these sites to say "please write to your local editor"
rather than "click here to send this letter to all the editors in your
area."
And I do think the tea parties were astroturf -- heavily promoted by
talk show hosts and Fox itself. Given the amount of push from them,
the turnout was kinda lackluster, I'd say.
The interesting question is, where does grassroots become astroturf?
That is, the underground press certainly supported the turnout at the
Democratic Convention in '68, and there were no screamingly partisan
networks like Fox then.
There was also no screamingly partisan talk radio because of the
Fairness Doctrine -- if you gave Abbie Hoffman three hours a day to
play the partisan clown in the morning, you'd have to put Julie
Eisenhower on for three hours in the afternoon to play the docile
little good girl, or you'd have to have an endless line of
"responsible opposing views" getting their three hours every day. Not
practical.
In any case, parsing over a term like astroturf isn't productive. If
you need to know what it means, hit Google. Meanwhile, it's not
partisan and it's no more jargony than the term "spin."
IMHO, of course. YMMV.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
news:75qcu4d5arta2b9j0...@4ax.com.
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:22:18 +0000 (UTC), Mike Marshall
> <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>
>> * What on earth do those people expect to accomplish...
>>
>>So you're asking "what do those people expect to accomplish with
>>grassroots non-violent civil protest against government policy"?
>
> It's not grassroots, it's astroturf.
1. It isn't.
2. Is a laughable complaint when one considers how much money Soros has
tossed at leftish groups to pay for event organizers and in some cases
protesters.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Dann
news:0OSdnTsbHfe8Z3jU...@bresnan.com.
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:33:04 -0700, Jym Dyer sez:
>> Maybe it has something to do with all the nuts who think
>> they're having a "Tea Party" tomorrow.
>
> My brother called to chat last night and asked me if I was going to be
> attaching tea bags to my mailbox. I had *no idea* what he was talking
> about (oddly enough, the subject hasn't come up on Reuters where I get
> my news) and thought he was kidding me.
I'm curious. Did the good people of Reuters cover the "protest" held at
the AIG executive's home in Connecticut about a month ago? I mean, were
you aware of it as a part of your normal reading at the time.
Mike Peterson
> On 15 Apr 2009, George W Harris said the following innews:75qcu4d5arta2b9j0...@4ax.com.
>
> > On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:22:18 +0000 (UTC), Mike Marshall
> > <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>
> >> * What on earth do those people expect to accomplish...
>
> >>So you're asking "what do those people expect to accomplish with
> >>grassroots non-violent civil protest against government policy"?
>
> > It's not grassroots, it's astroturf.
>
> 1. It isn't.
It certainly is. Good or bad, it's still astroturf.
>
> 2. Is a laughable complaint when one considers how much money Soros has
> tossed at leftish groups to pay for event organizers and in some cases
> protesters.
So you're saying that nobody was financing the Tea Party to make it
look spontaneous, but it was okay that they were.
Gotcha.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
news:4ebd48ca-902e-4bfe...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.
> On Apr 16, 6:31 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 2009, George W Harris said the following
>> innews:75qcu4d5arta2b9
>>
>> > On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:22:18 +0000 (UTC), Mike Marshall
>> > <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> * What on earth do those people expect to accomplish...
>>
>> >>So you're asking "what do those people expect to accomplish with
>> >>grassroots non-violent civil protest against government policy"?
>>
>> > It's not grassroots, it's astroturf.
>>
>> 1. It isn't.
>
> It certainly is. Good or bad, it's still astroturf.
I've been following the Tea Parties for a couple of months now. I'm
gonna need more than the Kos Kidz Komplaints.
>>
>> 2. Is a laughable complaint when one considers how much money Soros
>> has
>> tossed at leftish groups to pay for event organizers and in some
>> cases protesters.
>
> So you're saying that nobody was financing the Tea Party to make it
> look spontaneous, but it was okay that they were.
>
> Gotcha.
Nope. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left in complaining
about astroturfing when so much of the left is made up of astroturfed
organizations. To make matters worse, some of them like ACORN are
partially funded by the government.
Dann
4fb7-99bb-f...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com.
> I don't think "astroturf" has anything to do with "reflex
> regurgitation of dogma." It's a perfectly serviceable, non-partisan
> term for fake grassroots movements. As someone who sorts through
> letters to the editor trying to spot the fakes, I have seen more
> astroturf -- form letters generated from web sites -- from the left
> than from the right, though I don't think it's as large a phenomenon
> as it was a year or so ago. Could be that editorial revulsion is
> causing more of these sites to say "please write to your local editor"
> rather than "click here to send this letter to all the editors in your
> area."
The problem here is that your definition of "astroturf" is off.
An "astroturfed" movement that is one that is basically paid for by one
person or a small group of people. It is more than a bunch of people
sending in form letters. "Astroturfing" would involve paying those
people to send in the form letters.
For example, the protest at the AIG executive's house in Connecticut was
astroturfed. ACORN paid those folks to protest. There was nothing grass
roots about it.
Mike Marshall
>It's not a statement that will be
>heard by anyone's congresscritter;
google -> tea party -> 20,000,000 hits.
U must think they're dummer than I do! <g>
-Mike
cryptoguy
I think of it 'astroturf' when there is an element of deception, going
to some effort to present a false impression of a grassroots
movement.
Note that an astroturf campaign *can* take off and become a
grassroots campaign. But it doesn't happen very often.
Thank God we got away from the so-called 'Fairness
Doctrine'. Its main effect was to stifle debate and the
airing of views on mass media.
pt
Invid Fan
<6e08a02a-26b5-4ca4...@l16g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank God we got away from the so-called 'Fairness
> Doctrine'. Its main effect was to stifle debate and the
> airing of views on mass media.
>
We still don't get actual debate, and I'm not sure different viewpoints
talking past each other because nobody listens to stations they
disagree with is an improvement, but we probably shouldn't bring it
back.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Invid Fan
<deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2009, Peter B. Steiger said the following in
> news:0OSdnTsbHfe8Z3jU...@bresnan.com.
>
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:33:04 -0700, Jym Dyer sez:
> >> Maybe it has something to do with all the nuts who think
> >> they're having a "Tea Party" tomorrow.
> >
> > My brother called to chat last night and asked me if I was going to be
> > attaching tea bags to my mailbox. I had *no idea* what he was talking
> > about (oddly enough, the subject hasn't come up on Reuters where I get
> > my news) and thought he was kidding me.
>
> I'm curious. Did the good people of Reuters cover the "protest" held at
> the AIG executive's home in Connecticut about a month ago? I mean, were
> you aware of it as a part of your normal reading at the time.
I think the question would be did Reuters mention that protest AFTER it
happened and thus was "news", as I assume they would this one, instead
of writing about the buildup to it as I guess some outlets have with
the tea parties.
Peter B. Steiger
> I'm curious. Did the good people of Reuters cover the "protest" held at
> the AIG executive's home in Connecticut about a month ago? I mean, were
> you aware of it as a part of your normal reading at the time.
Not at the time, no. I did follow some stories about the general trend
of outrage, Obama's slap-on-the-wrist response to the bonuses and
suchlike, but I don't recall anything about a specific protest at a
specific location. A quick search reveals a March 23rd article about a
Connecticut bus tour to AIG exec homes that took place the previous
Saturday, and the article makes a point of noting that the protest was
funded by "Connecticut Working Families, a small liberal political
party." Since it was written after the event took place, there was no
attempt to fuel participation.
Looks like that's it. All the other articles on my search for
"protest"+"AIG" are about general trends, not specific acts of protest;
they also put more emphasis (not suprisingly, since this is Reuters
rather than Faux News) on international response. The phrase "howls of
protest over the payouts" is repeated in several of the articles. Oh,
and here's one from March 08 about a protest group that went after an
auctioneer profiting from foreclosures.
Since I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with your question,
I'm not sure if I proved your point or negated it.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> Whoops. Could you please rephrase that in terms that you just thought
> up and nobody else has said yet?
Yeah, not a really good choice of owrds- good thing I don't earn a
living with words. What would be a good phrase to secribe echoing
phrases and words meant to belittle or demean another position. I
guess propaganda is as good a another, but seems to broad. Any
suggestions?
>
> I don't think "astroturf" has anything to do with "reflex
> regurgitation of dogma." It's a perfectly serviceable, non-partisan
> term for fake grassroots movements. As someone who sorts through
> letters to the editor trying to spot the fakes, I have seen more
> astroturf -- form letters generated from web sites -- from the left
> than from the right, though I don't think it's as large a phenomenon
> as it was a year or so ago. Could be that editorial revulsion is
> causing more of these sites to say "please write to your local editor"
> rather than "click here to send this letter to all the editors in your
> area."
>
I humbly disagree- I've only just recently seen "astroturf" used in
this manner, usually in a sneering or condesending manner. Why not
just say one thinks the movement is not sincerly grassroots?
> And I do think the tea parties were astroturf -- heavily promoted by
> talk show hosts and Fox itself. Given the amount of push from them,
> the turnout was kinda lackluster, I'd say.
>
I don't disagree that the whole tea party movement seems a bit
artificial, although I think the sentiment is a lot more sincere than
some believe. Regardless, when I see terms like "astroturf" amd "tea
bagging" used my many different posts talking about the same subject,
I immediately think of talking points and pretty much discount
whatever point is trying to be made. I place much more weight on
original thought or analysis rather than repeating phrases and slogans
spouted by one side or the other.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> I think of it 'astroturf' when there is an element of deception, going
> to some effort to present a false impression of a grassroots
> movement.
>
When I think of Astroturf and I think of the late, great Tug McGraw.
When asked if he preferred grass or Astroturf, McGraw replied "I don't
know. I never smoked Astroturf."
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> In article
> <6e08a02a-26b5-4ca4-8966-29bfc23e4...@l16g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thank God we got away from the so-called 'Fairness
> > Doctrine'. Its main effect was to stifle debate and the
> > airing of views on mass media.
>
> We still don't get actual debate, and I'm not sure different viewpoints
> talking past each other because nobody listens to stations they
> disagree with is an improvement, but we probably shouldn't bring it
> back.
>
Interestingly enough, our city's talk radio station features a liveral
talk show host in the morning and a conservative talk show host inthe
afternoon. Both shows are locally based and produced. Although there
is some lively debate and sometimes makes my blood boil, there is
still civility and respect to the differing viewpoints on each show.
Perhaps this is because the hosts have to actually live and interact
with their listeners, but I think it makes for a fairer exchange of
ideas and exploration of issues.
deto...@hotmail.com
> In article <Xns9BEF4B86FF333detox665hotmail...@74.209.136.89>, Dann
My point in asking the question was that in infer from PBS's post that
he didn't know that the whole Tea Party movement. It has been going
on....not simply planning for yesterdays festivities, but there have
been Tea Parties over the last couple of months....um, erm, for a
couple of months.
And yet the MSM has reported very little about these gatherings.
I ask about the fake protest at the AIG executive's house because
there were a few hundred people holding a Tea Party less than a
hundred miles away from the couple of dozen paid protesters hassling
that guy from AIG. Yet it seemed that the smaller group of people
received far more coverage.
I agree that reporting on the planning for an event can be pointless.
[Usually] It ain't news until it happens.
However in this case, Tea Parties have been happening all of the
country for at least a couple of months.
Without being seriously covered by the MSM.
--
Regards,
Dann
deto...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Since I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with your question,
> I'm not sure if I proved your point or negated it.
Thanks for taking the time to look. Recollection would have been fine
by me.
I think you can see my point in my other response. Your post neither
helped nor hindered, IMO.
Fair enough, either way.
--
Regards,
Dann
Jym Dyer
=v= Well, one clue is that Fox News served as its press agent.
=v= Their robocalls and spam were tailored to the presumed
market segementation of the audience (which, again, reveals
a well-funded campaign). I am registered independent, and
I got a very vague and misleading spiel. My libertoonian
friends got a very different spiel, and my Republican friends
got the usual spittle-soaked culture-war rants.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
=v= Dummer? You can get that on a T-shirt:
http://times-up.org/index.php?page=membership-support
(About midway down the page, two up from the hat being
modeled by yours truly.)
<_Jym_>
JC Dill
> However in this case, Tea Parties have been happening all of the
> country for at least a couple of months.
Really?
I just googled - I found dozens of cites for the "tax day tea parties";
a band called Tea Party; plenty of pages about how to host an afternoon
tea party; and of course lots of information about the historical Boston
Tea Party. I couldn't find anything about tea parties in the last
"couple of months" prior to yesterday.
It sounds a lot like conservative talk radio making a mountain out of a
molehill after someone, somewhere, organized a few people to hold a "tea
party" a couple of months ago, and the dittoheads couldn't stop talking
about it. Hardly a movement.
You can get anything you want.... at Alice's Restaurant.
The turnout yesterday wasn't all that impressive. See:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/tea-parties-appear-to-draw-at-least.html
Quote:
"protests in favor of immigration reform drew several million
participants in the spring of 2006, including several individual events
of at least 300,000. Likewise, anti-war protests in 2003 involved
attendance of at least 300,000 in a single American city (New York) on a
single day."
jc
Jym Dyer
> As someone who sorts through letters to the editor trying to
> spot the fakes, I have seen more astroturf -- form letters
> generated from web sites -- from the left than from the right,
> though I don't think it's as large a phenomenon as it was a
> year or so ago.
=v= In my view, that sort of thing is an artifact of technology,
not astroturf _per_se_. Unless each and every form letter makes
the false claim that it was sent independently without any sort
of organization involved, they're not astroturfing.
=v= Astroturfing is when there's the (often strident) claim
that it's a grassroots movement, when in fact it's structured
and funded and controlled from the top down.
> The interesting question is, where does grassroots become
> astroturf? That is, the underground press certainly supported
> the turnout at the Democratic Convention in '68, and there
> were no screamingly partisan networks like Fox then.
=v= The 1999 WTO protests in Seattle and the 2004 RNC protests
in New York City were both larger protests with far more diverse
attendance than the 1968 DNC protests. These were grassroots
events, not organized from the top down and not beholden to any
particular ideology. The MSM spun these elements as "anarchist"
rather than grassroots, go figure.
=v= (The fact that the 1968 DNC protests remain such a cultural
touchstone when there were more recent, relevant, and larger
protests says a thing or two about the MSM.)
> There was also no screamingly partisan talk radio because of
> the Fairness Doctrine -- if you gave Abbie Hoffman three hours
> a day to play the partisan clown in the morning, ....
=v= I was in radio when the Reagan Administration got rid of
equal time. Abbie Hoffman produced a high-quality radio show
that commercial radio stations wouldn't air, and when college
and community radio stations programmed it they were met by
organized resistance from Young Republicans (funded by William
F. Buckley). Meanwhile, right-wing tripe filled the airways
and the entire medium underwent huge corporate takeovers and
centrally-programmed playlists.
=v= Abbie went onto the Morton Downey Jr. show and actually
won over the audience. This is the one episode that Downey
never aired, go figure.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> complaining about astroturfing when so much of the
> left is made up of astroturfed organizations.
=v= With the caveat that "the left" is a phrase I find too vague
to be particularly useful, the organizations you're complaining
about do not qualify as astroturf because they are not lying
about being grassroots. The "Yes we can!" apparatus is widely
acknowledged as having an organized leadership, and indeed that
fact is used as evidence of its competency.
=v= It's the Saul Alinsky model, not the astroturf model at all.
> To make matters worse, some of them like ACORN are partially
> funded by the government.
=v= Gotta love how the wingnuts have grown ACORN into a mighty
oak of social control. Yes, yes, ACORN controls all, knows all,
sees all. There's an ACORN under every rock. Big Squirrel is
Watching You.
<_Jym_>
deto...@hotmail.com
> detox...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > However in this case, Tea Parties have been happening all of the
> > country for at least a couple of months.
>
> Really?
>
> I just googled - I found dozens of cites for the "tax day tea parties";
> a band called Tea Party; plenty of pages about how to host an afternoon
> tea party; and of course lots of information about the historical Boston
> Tea Party. I couldn't find anything about tea parties in the last
> "couple of months" prior to yesterday.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/?s=tea+party
Ok...scratch "couple of months"...insert "couple of weeks".
Scroll down to the bottom and work your way up. There have been tea
parties going on since March 30th.
> It sounds a lot like conservative talk radio making a mountain out of a
> molehill after someone, somewhere, organized a few people to hold a "tea
> party" a couple of months ago, and the dittoheads couldn't stop talking
> about it. Hardly a movement.
>
> You can get anything you want.... at Alice's Restaurant.
>
> The turnout yesterday wasn't all that impressive. See:
>
> http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/tea-parties-appear-to-draw-at-...
>
> Quote:
>
> "protests in favor of immigration reform drew several million
> participants in the spring of 2006, including several individual events
> of at least 300,000. Likewise, anti-war protests in 2003 involved
> attendance of at least 300,000 in a single American city (New York) on a
> single day."
My point is that the MSM has given much greater coverage to much
smaller protests conducted by those on the left. At the least, given
the turnout that did occur and has been occurring for a couple of
weeks, there should have been more coverage than has been the case.
What little national coverage that I've seen seeks to explain the
protests aways as being some radical extremist maneuver. At least, it
isn't anything like the sympathetic coverage given to the leftist
protesters over the last few years.
--
Regards,
Dann
Mike Peterson
gets-paid-to-know-this-stuff newspaper editor while I have the
chance.
Just as "headline" or "hed" refers to the large words over a news
story and "classifieds" refers to ads that are sorted by type,
"astroturf" most certainly DOES mean phony letters to the editor.
Whether it has other meanings as well -- including a brand of
artificial turf -- is beside the point. It means phony letters to the
editor, and it doesn't matter whether the writers are being paid or
simply encouraged to send them.
Here is a good starting point, but don't miss the "related articles"
in the rail.
http://tinyurl.com/cpacfb
That's fact: In the newspaper world, it means phony letters to the
editor.
And here's opinion: I don't think being paid is the operative issue
even in the wider aspects. If ACORN or anyone else rents a bus and
encourages people to go to a rally, it doesn't matter whether or not
they are being paid to attend. That's a silly distinction that muddies
the conversation. The point that is interesting to discuss is whether
a group takes advantage of a growing movement or creates that
movement, and if we're going to get into distinctions, that's the one
that is relevant here.
My view is that I never heard anyone on the radio asking "Are you
going to the anti-war rally?" or sending their personalities across
the country to appear at those rallies. Fox pumped this thing up, not
just on their cable network but through their affiliates. And, in my
opinion, the turnout didn't show a lot of influence. If there really
was a grassroots movement, Fox's support and encouragement should have
brought throngs out.
Louis Farrakhan could teach them a thing or two, that's for sure.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Mike Marshall
>http://times-up.org/index.php?page=membership-support
>(About midway down the page, two up from the hat being
>modeled by yours truly.)
Good lord, I almost had a heart attack at first when I thought maybe you
were the pretty hat-wearing girl in the picture two up from the dummer
picture.
-Mike
JC Dill
> My point is that the MSM has given much greater coverage to much
Why are you focusing on MSM? They are just one news source. Anyone who
wants to know what is going on in the world is going to get their news
from more than just one news source.
> smaller protests conducted by those on the left.
Such as?
At the least, given
> the turnout that did occur and has been occurring for a couple of
> weeks, there should have been more coverage than has been the case.
>
> What little national coverage that I've seen seeks to explain the
> protests aways as being some radical extremist maneuver. At least, it
> isn't anything like the sympathetic coverage given to the leftist
> protesters over the last few years.
Such as?
jc
George W Harris
<wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> And I do think the tea parties were astroturf -- heavily promoted by
>> talk show hosts and Fox itself. Given the amount of push from them,
>> the turnout was kinda lackluster, I'd say.
>>
>
>I don't disagree that the whole tea party movement seems a bit
>artificial, although I think the sentiment is a lot more sincere than
>some believe.
Actually...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117433/Views-Income-Taxes-Among-Positive-1956.aspx?CSTS=alert
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dm6ba7
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 08:58:10 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> >> And I do think the tea parties were astroturf -- heavily promoted by
> >> talk show hosts and Fox itself. Given the amount of push from them,
> >> the turnout was kinda lackluster, I'd say.
>
> >I don't disagree that the whole tea party movement seems a bit
> >artificial, although I think the sentiment is a lot more sincere than
> >some believe.
>
> Actually...
>
>
> or
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/dm6ba7
> --
> Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
>
> George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
I don't think its the amount of taxes people object to, it's the use
of said taxes. Although, I do agree, the concept of a "tea party"
implies an objection to taxes in the first place and thus is the wrong
symbol for the protest.
Then again, like on-line petitions, the tea party was another way for
people to feel like they are doing something when they really aren't
doing anything.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> > However in this case, Tea Parties have been happening all of the
> > country for at least a couple of months.
>
> Really?
>
> I just googled - I found dozens of cites for the "tax day tea parties";
> a band called Tea Party; plenty of pages about how to host an afternoon
> tea party; and of course lots of information about the historical Boston
> Tea Party. I couldn't find anything about tea parties in the last
> "couple of months" prior to yesterday.
>
It looks like the New American Tea Party has been holding rallies for
several months now:
http://newamericanteaparty.com/
Also looks like it is sponsored by several conservative groups:
National Taxpayer's Union, Heartland Institute, Institute for Liberty.
Not sure about media coverage or attendance at these events.
Mike Marshall
Mike Peterson
I reckon I'm just one of those pointy-headed lib'ruls who can't park a
bicycle, but I'm havin' a little trouble finding a logical connection
between my post about form letters and your posting of a governor
saying he went to a rally which attracted 1,000 of South Carolina's
2,495,806 registered voters.
What's your point, there, peckerwood?
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 16, 6:31 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 2009, George W Harris said the following innews:75qcu4d5arta2b9j0...@4ax.com.
>>
>> > On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:22:18 +0000 (UTC), Mike Marshall
>> > <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> * What on earth do those people expect to accomplish...
>>
>> >>So you're asking "what do those people expect to accomplish with
>> >>grassroots non-violent civil protest against government policy"?
>>
>> > It's not grassroots, it's astroturf.
>>
>> 1. It isn't.
>
>It certainly is. Good or bad, it's still astroturf.
>
I like to call it Aswan Dam State; something a lot of people on the
right have been in since that particular day last November . . .
>>
>> 2. Is a laughable complaint when one considers how much money Soros has
>> tossed at leftish groups to pay for event organizers and in some cases
>> protesters.
>
>So you're saying that nobody was financing the Tea Party to make it
>look spontaneous, but it was okay that they were.
>
>Gotcha.
>
I'm surprised you didn't go with the (George) Soros reference.
He's become a boogeyman of the far right, apparently funding every
left-wing organization in the book; with the more clueless just
picking up what they hear, and mentioning the man's name whenever
possible. Of course, ask for any proof/evidence of this "massive
consipiracy," much less who the man actually is, and the silence is
almost deafening. I guess simple minds always need a specific
"villain" to fight . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Mike Beede
The idea is that a governor outranks a newspaper
editor when talking about stuff that requires
knowlege about society and stuff? Hmm. Not as
clear-cut as all that.
Mike Beede
JC Dill
> I reckon I'm just one of those pointy-headed lib'ruls who can't park a
> bicycle, but I'm havin' a little trouble finding a logical connection
> between my post about form letters and your posting of a governor
> saying he went to a rally which attracted 1,000 of South Carolina's
> 2,495,806 registered voters.
Ditto.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Apr 16, 2:40 pm, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>> Peterman:
>>
>> >Excuse me for a moment if I pull rank
>>
>> Anywho...
>>
>> http://www.governorsanford.com/
>
> I reckon I'm just one of those pointy-headed lib'ruls who can't park
> a bicycle, but I'm havin' a little trouble finding a logical
> connection between my post about form letters and your posting of a
> governor saying he went to a rally which attracted 1,000 of South
> Carolina's 2,495,806 registered voters.
I didn't see anything there that claimed that the "over a thousand"
were all registered voters or even all local.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"It makes you wonder if there is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |anything to astrology after all."
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |
|"Oh, there is," said Susan.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |"Delusion, wishful thinking and
(650)857-7572 |gullibility."
Mike Peterson
> In article <gs7u33$st...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
The question was whether the term "astroturf" could be properly
applied to form-written letters to the editor.
The honorable governor of South Carolina did not address the question,
much less provide a more definitive answer.
I'm not sure you can apply the term "idea" to Mickey Mushmouth's
nonsensical response.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Kinda like the way the left needs Rush Limbaugh? ;)
Dann
4d4f-9107-3...@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com.
> Excuse me for a moment if I pull rank, but I'm going to be a for-real,
> gets-paid-to-know-this-stuff newspaper editor while I have the
> chance.
OK. I'll withdraw the objection to your definition of "astroturf".
I've got more, but the Red Wings beat the Blue Jackets last night and I've
been enjoying comics all morning.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Eric S. Harris
Well, that makes sense, given that the Republicans helped create the
problems that the Tea Party types are incensed about.
If hypocrisy were a fatal condition, there would not be any talk of term
limits for Congress, as few would live long enough to run for
re-election. -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386 May 2008: The
yahoo.com address has technical difficulties. Dec: Yahoo is fixing ...
Eric S. Harris
>>So you're asking "what do those people expect to accomplish
>>with grassroots non-violent civil protest against government
>>policy"?
>
>
> =v= There's absolutely nothing grassroots about the tea-baggers.
> It is a well-funded "astroturf" group:
>
> http://www.savetherich.com/
>
> I have been robocalled for this, despite being in the Do Not
> Call Registry, and spammed, which is illegal in my state. The
> tea-baggers are clearly long on funding and short on ethics.
> <_Jym_>
Looks like the Republicans are taking a page from Microsoft's playbook.
They can't get rid of the small-government Republicans (and
small-government non-Republicans, and small-government types who are
anti-Republican) so they're going to try to make it their own.
Linux (or whatever) doesn't become bad just because Microsoft tries the
Engulf-and-Devour approach, or even quit being Linux (or whatever).
Ditto for the original Tea Party types and the Republican attempt to use
and/or destroy them.
I wonder how well this will play out for the Republicans. Badly, I
hope. As for what I expect ... as usual, my hopes are cheerier than my
expectations.
We'll see. -Eric
Eric S. Harris
> On 16 Apr 2009, Mike Peterson said the following in news:27120175-100e-
> 4fb7-99bb-f...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com.
>
>
>>I don't think "astroturf" has anything to do with "reflex
>>regurgitation of dogma." It's a perfectly serviceable, non-partisan
>>term for fake grassroots movements. As someone who sorts through
>>letters to the editor trying to spot the fakes, I have seen more
>>astroturf -- form letters generated from web sites -- from the left
>>than from the right, though I don't think it's as large a phenomenon
>>as it was a year or so ago. Could be that editorial revulsion is
>>causing more of these sites to say "please write to your local editor"
>>rather than "click here to send this letter to all the editors in your
>>area."
>
>
> The problem here is that your definition of "astroturf" is off.
>
> An "astroturfed" movement that is one that is basically paid for by one
> person or a small group of people. It is more than a bunch of people
> sending in form letters. "Astroturfing" would involve paying those
> people to send in the form letters.
>
> For example, the protest at the AIG executive's house in Connecticut was
> astroturfed. ACORN paid those folks to protest. There was nothing grass
> roots about it.
>
This post is a disturbing development. You wrote calmly and rationally.
You made your point without using inflammatory vocabulary. You back
up your statement with a pertinent fact.
If you continue to do this and -- worse yet -- if others emulate you, it
will change the entire tenor of this discussion. It might even spread
to other threads. And then where would we be? -Eric
JC Dill
> Mike Peterson <racs...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Apr 16, 2:40 pm, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>>> Peterman:
>>>
>>>> Excuse me for a moment if I pull rank
>>> Anywho...
>>>
>>> http://www.governorsanford.com/
>> I reckon I'm just one of those pointy-headed lib'ruls who can't park
>> a bicycle, but I'm havin' a little trouble finding a logical
>> connection between my post about form letters and your posting of a
>> governor saying he went to a rally which attracted 1,000 of South
>> Carolina's 2,495,806 registered voters.
>
> I didn't see anything there that claimed that the "over a thousand"
> were all registered voters or even all local.
My housemate went to the one in San Jose. He took photos. He thought
there were "a few hundred" but the paper reports "a thousand". Based on
his photos, I think "a few hundred" is more accurate. Also, many were
grade-school-age kids (not voters).
The paper reported "less than 50" in Oakland, which was cited and
entered as "50" in the 538 blog total. The paper also reported "2000
were expected in Pleasanton" which 538 entered as 2000 attending. Given
the low actual turn-out at many bigger cities around Pleasanton, I don't
think that 2000 actually turned-out in Pleasanton.
Looks like a lot of turnout-number inflation took place, especially at
the less-well-attended locations.
Here in California, on the day Shrub went to war in Iraq, there were
huge demonstrations everywhere. There were over 5000 people who showed
up to demonstrate at a location in Grass Valley or Nevada City (I forget
which), which was a number greater than the total number of residents in
that city. There were large demonstrations like this (drawing people
from outside the city) at small cities all over California, which makes
the relatively tepid turnout for these Tea Parties less-than-impressive.
Also, the Tea Parties were organized well in advance, on a specific
and planned date while the demonstrations about the Gulf War were
spontaneous, because no one knew what day it would start.
jc
Mike Marshall
>I didn't see anything there that claimed that the "over a thousand"
>were all registered voters or even all local.
In your conspiracy theory, who paid to bus them in?
-Mike
Mike Marshall
>On Apr 16, 2:40=A0pm, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>I reckon I'm just one of those pointy-headed lib'ruls who can't park a
>bicycle
I think so too.
-Mike
Evan Kirshenbaum
For the first group, probably their parents. A lot of reports I've
seen have talked about there being noticeable numbers of children
present. Or themselves. There may not be quite as many non-citizens
(and, therefore, non-voters) in South Carolina as in California, but
there surely must be some.
For the second group, I mostly had in mind out-of-state students, who
were probably registered (if registered) in other states, as well as
people who might have happened to be there on business that day.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If you think health care is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
deto...@hotmail.com
> Jym Dyer wrote:
> >>I don't have a clue whether this is a conservative or
> >>liberal game ...
>
> > =v= Well, one clue is that Fox News served as its press agent.
>
> > =v= Their robocalls and spam were tailored to the presumed
> > market segementation of the audience (which, again, reveals
> > a well-funded campaign). I am registered independent, and
> > I got a very vague and misleading spiel. My libertoonian
> > friends got a very different spiel, and my Republican friends
> > got the usual spittle-soaked culture-war rants.
>
> Well, that makes sense, given that the Republicans helped create the
> problems that the Tea Party types are incensed about.
Many of the reports I have read from the Tea Party protests take great
pains to point out that the organizers/speakers took great pains to
say that the protest was not about being anti-Obama and that the GOP
was just as much a part of the problem as were the Democrats.
I'm sure that wasn't the case at 100% of the protests, but it is
fairly common in my [admittedly limited sample] reading.
I would also point out that the whole Tea Party phenomenon has gotten
large enough so that some of the big league type politicians are
trying to get in front of the parade. To mix a few metaphors.
For example, Mr. Newt tried to get a speaking gig and was rejected
from one demonstration site. Also, GOP chairman Michael Steele was
also refused a speaking slot. I believe in Chicago.
Also, the American Family Association is trying to claim that they are
organizers....even though the first I've ever heard of their
involvement was earlier today. I've been following this movement for
at least a couple of weeks.
> If hypocrisy were a fatal condition, there would not be any talk of term
> limits for Congress, as few would live long enough to run for
> re-election.
Well, sure. And manna would fall from heaven, money would grow on
trees, babies would be born diaper trained. <grin>
--
Regards,
Dann
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Anything he does, he does to himself, three hours a day, five days
a week, with occassional extras on the side . . .
--
- ReFlex76
LNER...@juno.com
Protest/rally attendance inflation has been going on for decades.
It's endemic to both sides of the political spectrum (but I will point
out that the "left" simply does more protesting, seemingly because
they seem to be the ones ingrained or naive enough to think it'll do
any good). And it's become so politically charged an issue that the
National Park Service (and I believe the DC police as well) now
officially refuse to participate or cooperate in ANY way with crowd
estimates at rallies on the National Mall. (I think the straw that
broke the camel's back on that one was the Million Man March.)
I've had to do crowd estimates for the media--most recently at
trackside in Edgewood, Md. on Jan. 17th as Obama & Biden's pre-
inaugural photo-op train rolled through. You go ahead and try to get
an accurate count of a jam-packed crowd--and I had the luxury of an
elevated perch as part of the press pool at that event. "Let's see,
averaging about 15 deep, and about 100-120long if we're lucky, plus,
the people still stuck in the security screening lines........
1,500? 2,000?" I would shudder at the thought of trying to calculate
a crowd of any size, like what happened in Baltimore as he spoke later
(while I was high-tailing to a station below Baltimore for more
photos).
If you're so anxious to be cynical and skeptical about "Tea Party"
attendance numbers, please be equally skeptical about attendance
numbers at such things as anti-Bush/Iraq War rallies, anti-nuke
rallies, etc. The beauty of the "blogosphere" is that the occasions
when media reporters outnumber protesters at Lafayette Park are being
exposed by "alternate view" photos posted by bloggers. I'll be most
happy to see a photo of six Tea Party protestors being photographed by
25 reporters and camermen, if anyone can find such a photo.........
aemeijers
Not disputing what you are saying here. A Photo Op is a Photo Op, and
many lefties (and I assume righties) actually have a sit-down with the
cops ahead of time to plan it all out. Nobody wants to get bloody, and
best to time the arrests so bail can beat the bus to county lockup. A
choreographed arrest is an easy arrest.
But the arrest part aside, how is this much different from a member of
congress speaking passionately to an empty gallery, just to get the
footage on C-Span? (Too bad they can't read video into the record, like
they do with the Congressional Record print edition.)
--
aem sends....
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Totally OT, but have you seen Dogfish Head Ale's Blue & Black?
Dann
news:gs7osn$h62$1...@news.motzarella.org.
> The turnout yesterday wasn't all that impressive. See:
>
> http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/tea-parties-appear-to-draw-at-le
> ast.html
>
> Quote:
>
> "protests in favor of immigration reform drew several million
> participants in the spring of 2006, including several individual
> events of at least 300,000. Likewise, anti-war protests in 2003
> involved attendance of at least 300,000 in a single American city (New
> York) on a single day."
>
It is unsurprising that you would use the lowest estimate. Here is a
link to all of the estimates:
http://northshorejournal.org/tea-party-turnout-nationwide
Oh! When I read this earlier, the PJTV estimates were quite a bit less
than the 500,000+ they are showing now.
Here is the Simmons/Collier estimate with the numbers for each location:
http://freedompress.ning.com/forum/topics/tea-party-updates
Sampling from Michigan:
<quoting>
Adrian- 250
Ann Arbor- 500 (Thanks, again to EZ and her brother...)
Midland- 400 (Thanks to Emily Z for the update)
Lansing- 4,000-5,000
Oxford- 300 (Thanks to Tina B for the update)
Troy- 1000 (Metro Detroit area)
</quoting>
Not included:
Coldwater - 200 [reported in the Battle Creek Enquirer]
Jackson - 250+ [reported in the Jackson Citizen Patriot]
Kalamazoo - 400
and here is a breakdown of the numbers from PJTV:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=view-events&type=1
&sort=date&reverse=false&category=2&state=
I sorted on "Michigan" and found even more protest locations that were
not included in the Simmons/Collier count.
PJTV is citing over 800 protest locations.
538 is lowballing at 306 protest locations.
Regardless of the actual count, my point remains that these events were
as worthy of serious coverage as any of the left's protest from the last
eight years.
Dann
> deto...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> My point is that the MSM has given much greater coverage to much
>
> Why are you focusing on MSM? They are just one news source. Anyone
> who wants to know what is going on in the world is going to get their
> news from more than just one news source.
I kinda like the idea of a competitive media that considers presenting
ALL of the facts to be a basic job function.
Others have commented on the natural trend to seek out only information
that confirms one's preconceived ideas. It isn't healthy for any
population to be so segmented and isolated that diametrically opposing
points of view can exist living yards apart and ignorant of one another.
I don't believe that having only partisan media outlets is productive.
Unfortunately, that day has apparently passed. Wade into the pro-Tea
Party blogosphere and you will shortly find video of a CNN correspondent
in Chicago who, rather than reporting the news of the event before her,
attempted to debate attendees. She apparently got a little shrill when
asking "don't you realize that you qualify for tax credits?" and "do you
realize that the state is getting stimulus money?".
>> smaller protests conducted by those on the left.
>
> Such as?
>
> At the least, given
>> the turnout that did occur and has been occurring for a couple of
>> weeks, there should have been more coverage than has been the case.
>>
>> What little national coverage that I've seen seeks to explain the
>> protests aways as being some radical extremist maneuver. At least,
>> it isn't anything like the sympathetic coverage given to the leftist
>> protesters over the last few years.
>
> Such as?
>
Mainly the small* anti-war protesters and pretty much anytime Code Pink
farts.
*I realize there have been large rallys/protests/etc. Covering those
larger events makes sense. But covering events where the media
outnumber the protesters serves no purpose other than to show the
favoritism the media is showing those people.
Particularly when the same media is either studiously ignoring the Tea
Party protests, or simultaneously denigrating and dismissing them with
blue humor.
Dann
4d4f-9107-3...@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com.
> Excuse me for a moment if I pull rank, but I'm going to be a for-real,
> gets-paid-to-know-this-stuff newspaper editor while I have the
> chance.
<snip>
>
> That's fact: In the newspaper world, it means phony letters to the
> editor.
Fair enough. It means what it means.
However, it looks to me like an awful lot of editors are using the
perception that the Tea Parties are astroturfed as an excuse not to cover
them seriously.
At the least, any astroturfing that is going on is on par with what has
been done in the past by MoveOn, Yes We Can, as well as various anti-war
groups over the last eight years.
Yet just about any.....individual...that stood on a streetcorner holding
a sign that read "Chimpy Bushitler McHalliburton for First Convict" was
liable to receive some sort of coverage.
And yes, I know I'm exaggerating on that last part. Not by as much as
I'd like to be.
> And here's opinion: I don't think being paid is the operative issue
> even in the wider aspects. If ACORN or anyone else rents a bus and
> encourages people to go to a rally, it doesn't matter whether or not
> they are being paid to attend. That's a silly distinction that muddies
> the conversation. The point that is interesting to discuss is whether
> a group takes advantage of a growing movement or creates that
> movement, and if we're going to get into distinctions, that's the one
> that is relevant here.
Hang on. If the organizers basically pay for people to be there...or bus
them in....that isn't an interesting distinction.
But...when a news network plans on reporting the news of the day, somehow
that disqualifies the entire event? How much pre-inaugural reporting did
we see in anticipation of that event? Did that pre-reporting invalidate
the heartfelt emotions of the millions of people that watched the
inaugural?
And yes, there is a pretty big difference between the two, but I think
you are teeing off on Fox...mostly because you consider them to be
Faux....and not because they did something out of the ordinary.
[[On further thought, I don't watch Fox. If you do, then you might have
seen something that is suspect. You have yet to describe something that
I would find out of the ordinary.]]
Let's admit it, the Fox demographic overlaps with the Tea Party
demographic. Saying that they are going to cover the event is nothing
more than advertising future programing to their demographic.
IMO, Peter Trei got it right when he offered that labeling a group/event
as astroturfed involves some sort of deception regarding the group/event.
I can see where your example of identical letters to the editor fall into
that category. So too would a group that couples funding from a few
sources with a small but dedicated core to appear to represent more
people than they really do.
Another example would be several of the "veterans against the war" groups
whose memberships are largely* comprised of:
- people that never served in uniform
or
- people that served in uniform but never overseas
*largely is not the same as "solely". Those groups usually have some
portion of their membership that are veterans that served in a combat
zone. People that have been there that want to present themselves as
combat veterans opposed to a conflict have more than earned the right.
While these Tea Parties obviously have some leadership organizations
involved, there are a lot of these events that are being orchestrated by
ordinary people and being attended by ordinary people. All of who are
motivated by a very real belief that the current spending binge
[including TARP and extending further into the past] is a problem.
Their story is worthy of serious coverage rather than being subjected to
mocking commentary and off color jokes.
Mike Peterson
> However, it looks to me like an awful lot of editors are using the
> perception that the Tea Parties are astroturfed as an excuse not to cover
> them seriously.
>
> At the least, any astroturfing that is going on is on par with what has
> been done in the past by MoveOn, Yes We Can, as well as various anti-war
> groups over the last eight years.
>
> Yet just about any.....individual...that stood on a streetcorner holding
> a sign that read "Chimpy Bushitler McHalliburton for First Convict" was
> liable to receive some sort of coverage.
>
> And yes, I know I'm exaggerating on that last part. Not by as much as
> I'd like to be.
It's always been true that the person who dresses like a crazy gets in
the paper -- the silly people dressed as colonials got a lot more
photos than the people in normal clothing. The people with outrageous,
insane, nonsensical signs got more photos than people saying "I hate
taxes."
(Never mind the governor who misheard the chants of "No More Taxes"
and thought it meant he should secede. ba-da-boom.)
> > And here's opinion: I don't think being paid is the operative issue
> > even in the wider aspects. If ACORN or anyone else rents a bus and
> > encourages people to go to a rally, it doesn't matter whether or not
> > they are being paid to attend. That's a silly distinction that muddies
> > the conversation. The point that is interesting to discuss is whether
> > a group takes advantage of a growing movement or creates that
> > movement, and if we're going to get into distinctions, that's the one
> > that is relevant here.
>
> Hang on. If the organizers basically pay for people to be there...or bus
> them in....that isn't an interesting distinction.
>
> But...when a news network plans on reporting the news of the day, somehow
> that disqualifies the entire event? How much pre-inaugural reporting did
> we see in anticipation of that event? Did that pre-reporting invalidate
> the heartfelt emotions of the millions of people that watched the
> inaugural?
Come on, now -- be fair. You can't seriously compare the inauguration
of the president, which has been covered every time it has happened
since the beginning of the nation, to decisions around coverage of a
single, unpredictable event like the Million Man March, the various
anti-war demonstrations or this latest set of demonstrations.
Let's go with something else: The 1968 Democratic Convention. It was
very well known that it would be well-attended by protestors, and
there was extensive news coverage showing the cops and the National
Guard preparing to deal with the crowds, as well as some attention
paid to the publicity stirred up by the Yippies, though the national
media paid more attention to the nonsensical idea of putting LSD in
the water supply than they did to the nonsensical nomination of
Pigasus the Pig. Mostly because the authorities (without apparently
talking to even the chemists at their own water treatment plant) took
the acid threat as credible.
But only small, insider underground media like the Chicago Seed
actively "promoted" the demonstrations. The Sun-Times had been
horrified by a police riot at a May 1 antiwar demonstration, but their
coverage had the effect of discouraging people from coming to the
bigger demonstrations in the summer, when the same thing happened
again on a much larger scale. Still, this was an effect of their news
coverage -- they didn't say, "And watch out this summer in case it
happens again!" They simply reported, and the moderate anti-war people
decided.
The media set up to cover the convention itself, as they did in those
days, more or less gavel-to-gavel, with fewer talking heads telling
you what you should be thinking -- they simply told you what you were
seeing, which is different. There were reporters assigned to cover the
demonstrations, but not enough to really cover it, as it turned out,
because events spun way out of control beyond anybody's expectations.
But ABC, CBS or NBC did not run promos ahead of time talking about "
NBC Anti-War Rallies" or "CBS Grant Park Gatherings." They did not
send out their correspondents to speak to the crowds and express their
agreement with the Yippies and other demonstrators.
Fox did that. They ran promos for "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties" and sent
out their people not just to cover but to participate.
It's a different media world than it was 41 years ago, but the rules
haven't changed much. What has changed is that Fox News has greater
access to a larger number of people than the underground press ever
reached, and it's on all the time instead of coming out once a week
like those papers did.
Because of its reach, Fox has to be judged, not alongside the Chicago
Seed and the Berkeley Barb, but alongside the major networks. Which
means that, when it acts like the Seed and the Barb, it's worth
pointing out. Obviously, some small publications, some local talk show
hosts or columnists, were going to speak favorably about the Tea
Parties, just as the underground press spoke favorably about the
demonstrations in Chicago. But when you have the muscle of a major
network, you have the responsibility to take ownership of your actions
and not pretend to be "fair and balanced" and to just be reporting
something that is happening on a spontaneous basis.
Fox did not just cover the Tea Parties. It promoted them and it
participated in them. And that makes all their coverage suspect, as
well as the idea that these events were spontaneous expressions of
grassroots emotion.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Jym Dyer
>> (About midway down the page, two up from the hat being
>> modeled by yours truly.)
> Good lord, I almost had a heart attack at first when I
> thought maybe you were the pretty hat-wearing girl in
> the picture two up from the dummer picture.
=v= Oh yes, people confuse us all the time. You see, her
name is Kym.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> articles" in the rail.
> That's fact: In the newspaper world, it means phony letters
> to the editor.
=v= Okay, you have indeed amply demonstrated that the newspaper
world is using the word this way.
=v= Now if I can pull rank as a member of the editorial board
of a for-real environmental publication (which is Berkeley
collectivese-speak for saying that I had the great privilege
of working with Chris Clarke, the best editor an environmental
journalist could ever hope for), I'll point out that the word
*did* have a more specific meaning.
=v= Polluters have always used sophisticated marketing to cover
up their misdeeds, but in the 1990s they started cooking up
"grassroots" "movement" groups to promote destructive practices
as somehow reasonable for the environment. "Wise use" was one
of the terms for this "movement." Environmentalists responded
by calling them "astroturf" both because of the phony grassroots
but also because it indicates how natural and environmental they
really are!
=v= I know that usage changes over time, but for me it's pretty
unfortunate when a term gets diluted. There's a huge difference
between organizations that inspire and prompt citizens to send
letters to the paper and organizations that completely fabricate
a citizen-led groundswell, and I think we're better off having
coinages that reflect these differences.
=v= But what can you expect from an MSM that can't tell the
difference between "liberal" (as described by Lionel Trilling
in the 1940s) from "socialist" (the Marx/Engels variety)?
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> gets in the paper -- the silly people dressed as colonials got
> a lot more photos than the people in normal clothing.
=v= Yeah, though the teevee cameras kind of spoil the effect:
http://times-up.org/gallery/view.php?photoid=120
(This was truly a grassroots group, though.)
<_Jym_>
Mike Peterson
>
> =v= But what can you expect from an MSM that can't tell the
> difference between "liberal" (as described by Lionel Trilling
> in the 1940s) from "socialist" (the Marx/Engels variety)?
As opposed to a "liberal" in the sense of a guy who manages to piss
off not only the people who disagree with him, but the ones who might
otherwise be his allies, too?
I'm pleased to be part of the MSM if that otherwise insulting term
differentiates me from a certain brand of "liberal" dipshit who really
would rather be demonstrating his ineffable philosophical perfection
through an endless, self-aggrandizing series of never-ending arguments
than make the actual effort to occasionally listen to other people,
respect their differences and get along in a real world that actually
functioned well.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
LNER...@juno.com
> (This was truly a grassroots group, though.)
So how are we to distinguish a "grassroots" group from a so-called
"astroturf" group?
Apparently, to satisfy the critics here, we're going to have to adopt
the following:
If a mob of folks show up to protest something completely by
coincidence, it's a "grassroots protest."
If even one person has communicated the desire to protest at a certain
time and place to anybody else who then also attends with common
interest, then it's no longer a "grassroots" protest, but rather an
organized "astroturf" protest.
Correct?
(This sounds a lot better and more accurate than the prevailing
definition, which if we're honest is "the group with which I agree is
grassroots, but the group with which I disagree is 'astroturf' because
someone organized it"...................)
Eric S. Harris
>>I don't have a clue whether this is a conservative or
>>liberal game ...
>
>
> =v= Well, one clue is that Fox News served as its press agent.
>
> =v= Their robocalls and spam were tailored to the presumed
> market segementation of the audience (which, again, reveals
> a well-funded campaign). I am registered independent, and
> I got a very vague and misleading spiel. My libertoonian
> friends got a very different spiel, and my Republican friends
> got the usual spittle-soaked culture-war rants.
> <_Jym_>
Speaking of spittle-soaked rants ... At about the half-way point of this
video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6rv09Zqm6M> is Janeane Garafalo
being, um, enthusiastic. -Eric
Mike Peterson
It's an interesting question, because, of course, a lot of movements
do rely on coordination by some kind of group that was chartered for a
larger purpose. Very few actions beyond the very local happen, in
fact, because of a determined ad hoc group putting up posters around
the neighborhood, which is "grassroots" in the pure sense.
For example, the NAACP took a leadership role in pursuing the
discrimination case against the bus company in Montgomery and had been
looking for a good, clean case that would focus on the facts of the
case and not get sidetracked on the individual involved. Rosa Parks,
though often portrayed as a "tired seamstress" was not only a college
graduate but was secretary of the local NAACP. That event did not
"just happen" though she hadn't planned on confronting that driver on
that day -- she knew the potential and seized the moment.
But, while the court case was not entirely spontaneous, the boycott
itself was a message carried by local churches throughout the
community, and it did not take a lot of money or outside interest to
get that going. I think the boycott qualifies as "grassroots" because
of the relatively loose organization and low budget involved -- and
I'm not sure it cost anything to get it going, other than, perhaps, a
pot of coffee at whatever meeting they held with the local pastors.
At the other end of the political spectrum, I think -- though they
haven't been as well documented -- that the anti-busing demonstrations
in Boston's Old South were grassroots. There was no big political/
economic machine making those happen.
Where you get into astroturf is when a major, well-funded group
creates a "movement" that was either minimal or non-existent to begin
with, and uses its resources to actively promote and recruit people
until it provides the appearance of a spontaneous outpouring.
Obviously, that's the intent in any political campaign, whether the
candidate is Ross Perot or Barack Obama. It's harder to come up with
examples of large movements that were orchestrated to that extent
It's more often that an existing, planned event becomes co-opted by a
group. For instance, in about 1978 or 79, the Klan was coming to
Colorado Springs and there was a move to create a counter-
demonstration. On the day it happened, there was a reasonable crowd of
anti-Klan people in the city park, but they were overshadowed by a
busload of socialists from Denver who set up microphones and led the
crowd in chants of (I'm not making this up) "Down with the Klan and
the Shah of Iran!" Many locals were annoyed with them, others just
found them ridiculous, but since the Klan didn't show up at all, it
hardly mattered.
The 1970 attack on peace demonstrators by construction workers ("hart
hats") from the World Trade Center was different -- it was
orchestrated by the publisher of a right-wing publication, the "New
York Graphic." But it wasn't the co-opting of an event that was going
to happen anyway, and it didn't "just happen." Later demonstrations
in NYC by hardhats were run by the unions and "demonstrators" were on
the clock at union rates while they demonstrated. Hardly grassroots.
The Tea Parties may have sprung up in a relatively spontaneous way at
first, though this ol' dog is suspicious of any movement that springs
up in several places around the country at the same time. But however
the term and concept began, it's undeniable that Fox News adopted and
promoted the movement, as did some other talk show hosts. That's a
long way from having some preachers in Montgomery urge their
parishioners to walk to work until the bus situation was straightened
out.
But at what point a movement isn't "grassroots" (and national
synchronization is a pretty good indicator on that), and at what point
it goes from the muddy middle to being "astroturfed" is unclear.
Still, having a major television network and cable channel overtly
pouring its resources into an event is astroturf.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
LNER...@juno.com
> But at what point a movement isn't "grassroots" (and national
> synchronization is a pretty good indicator on that), and at what point
> it goes from the muddy middle to being "astroturfed" is unclear.
>
> Still, having a major television network and cable channel overtly
> pouring its resources into an event is astroturf.
>
going to reject my premise solely because you disagree with my
viewpoints and use the excuse that I don't/didn't carefully and
painstakingly document every word I read, as well as the date and time
thereof":
I don't hang out with right-wingers. I'm not a card-carrying
Republican or even a card-carrying Libertarian. I glance at Daily Kos
and the Puffington Host as well as Instapundit and Geekpress, and I'm
not on any e-mail lists for any activist groups or PACs. And I don't
watch Fox News except on the rare occasion when I'm in a brewpub or
the like that happens to have it on one of the TVs.
I was hearing about the "tea party" protest plans and loose-knit
organization for same LONG before Fox News supposedly started
"rallying" for them. I've been hearing about them for at least two
months, more likely three. I was hearing about them long before they
started using the term "tea party" commonly. In fact, I didn't go out
for one around April 15th because, as far as I could determine, there
wasn't one being held in my immediate area, according to the bunch of
websites trying to document and announce them in advance. (It turns
out one was held in my city after all--utterly stunning, as I figured
all those sympathetic to their causes besides me and my wife fled the
city long ago and left it to people hawking Obama attire at/to one
another.) Some of these protests--and they've been going on almost
since the day or three after Obama announced just how deeply he was
going to plunge us into debt--were being noted by the Wall Street
Journal, whose editorial writers were eager to point out the double
standard they perceived, which has been commented on above--"ten anti-
Republican nutcases get fifty reporters to eagerly cover them, yet
five hundred anti-big-government protesters get a passing sentence at
best".
Disagree with the protesters and their premises all you want, but face
reality: The "tea party" protests were/are NOT in any way the
orchestration of the Republican Party or Fox News. They are as
utterly "grass roots" as any Million [Aggrieved Group} March, any pro-
anarchy protests outside a World Bank or other international summit
meeting, any anti-nuclear rallies over the past 40 years, or any anti-
war protests. I have issues with Fox News hyping the rallies, but in
my opinion it's no different from the way other news sources "hype"
rallies and protests by covering them, often in advance ("The World
Bank is meeting in Seattle this week, and along with it come
protesters eager to shut down the meeting process.......").
And you know what? Even IF Fox News, Wal-Mart, GM, the Republican
Party, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet were organizing the protests--so
freakin' what? They have a right to do so, and if they can get 100 or
a million people to agree with their cause, more power to them. It's
utterly no different from the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO or SEIU, the
NOW, the AARP, or PETA organizing and pulling off rallies. (I was
doing contract work for the SEIU's website developers for a while, and
trust me, the language, techniques, organization, etc. for their
efforts make any of the "tea party" folks look like a bunch of
chickens with their heads cut off in comparison. "Grass-roots," my a$
$.)
Dann
@econet.org.
> =v= I know that usage changes over time, but for me it's pretty
> unfortunate when a term gets diluted. There's a huge difference
> between organizations that inspire and prompt citizens to send
> letters to the paper and organizations that completely fabricate
> a citizen-led groundswell, and I think we're better off having
> coinages that reflect these differences.
Oh snap! We agree!
>
> =v= But what can you expect from an MSM that can't tell the
> difference between "liberal" (as described by Lionel Trilling
> in the 1940s) from "socialist" (the Marx/Engels variety)?
That has more to do with socialists of the Marx/Engels variety calling
themselves "liberal" than anything else.
That sure didn't last long.
Dann
news:14c141cb-536f-419a...@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.
> On Apr 17, 11:23 pm, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > And here's opinion: I don't think being paid is the operative issue
>> > even in the wider aspects. If ACORN or anyone else rents a bus and
>> > encourages people to go to a rally, it doesn't matter whether or
>> > not they are being paid to attend. That's a silly distinction that
>> > muddies the conversation. The point that is interesting to discuss
>> > is whether a group takes advantage of a growing movement or creates
>> > that movement, and if we're going to get into distinctions, that's
>> > the one that is relevant here.
>>
>> Hang on. If the organizers basically pay for people to be there...or
>> bus
>> them in....that isn't an interesting distinction.
>>
>> But...when a news network plans on reporting the news of the day,
>> somehow that disqualifies the entire event? How much pre-inaugural
>> reporting did
>> we see in anticipation of that event? Did that pre-reporting
>> invalidate
>> the heartfelt emotions of the millions of people that watched the
>> inaugural?
>
> Come on, now -- be fair. You can't seriously compare the inauguration
> of the president, which has been covered every time it has happened
> since the beginning of the nation, to decisions around coverage of a
> single, unpredictable event like the Million Man March, the various
> anti-war demonstrations or this latest set of demonstrations.
Well....let's check the tape. You snipped:
"And yes, there is a pretty big difference between the two, but I think
you are teeing off on Fox...mostly because you consider them to be
Faux....and not because they did something out of the ordinary."
I obviously do not believe you can compare the inauguration of the
President to the Tea Parties, or the MMM, or the anti-war demonstrations.
Nor do I think that you could compare inauguration to the Super Bowl or
the Stanley Cup playoffs. But any of the above would suit for my
question.
Was Fox promoting the event, or were they promoting their coverage of the
event? Whoever has the Super Bowl airs lots of commercials, player
profiles, and other pre-game programming to make sure that you know the
event is coming up and that they will be there to provide coverage.
Those pre-game events don't affect attendance.
I don't want Fox, so I don't know exactly what they did. If you watched
Fox and think that they crossed the line, then I'm willing to accept your
judgement on the issue.
> Fox did that. They ran promos for "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties" and sent
> out their people not just to cover but to participate.
But was that to get people to attend the events or to get them to watch
Fox for coverage of the events?
> It's a different media world than it was 41 years ago, but the rules
> haven't changed much. What has changed is that Fox News has greater
> access to a larger number of people than the underground press ever
> reached, and it's on all the time instead of coming out once a week
> like those papers did.
I disagree. I think there has been a sea change in the media where they
no longer feel obligated to tell both sides of the story. The media has
become enamored with being advocates rather than reporters.
[Parenthetically, the local paper has a hard on for the local community
college president and continues to run stories about non-issues in an
attempt to make him look bad. IMO, if the editor really wants to run the
college, then perhaps she ought to run for the board of trustees.]
It is precisely as a result of that declining sense of evenhanded ness
that provided the political vacuum that allowed for the rise of Rush and
FoxNews.
> Fox did not just cover the Tea Parties. It promoted them and it
> participated in them. And that makes all their coverage suspect, as
> well as the idea that these events were spontaneous expressions of
> grassroots emotion.
If, upon further reflection and personal experience, you believe that Fox
crossed the line, then I'll accept your more experienced opinion.
In either case, I doubt that Fox was the sole disseminator of information
regarding these protests. I've been reading about them for at least the
entire month of April on various blogs as well as Drudge. We even had a
couple of articles in the local paper a day or two before the protests
were held.
IMO, the rest of the MSM are using the presence of some sort of
organizing group and/or Fox's apparent behavior as an excuse to vilify
the protesters while ignoring their complaint.
LNER...@juno.com
>
> That has more to do with socialists of the Marx/Engels variety calling
> themselves "liberal" than anything else.
>
> That sure didn't last long.
>
time it will be before "progressive" has the same pejorative
connotations to it as "liberal" seems, by and large, to have by now.
aemeijers
Of course they label themselves as 'progressive'. To the hardcore left,
a socialist nanny state is progress. To those of us who prefer to make
our own decisions, for better or worse, not so much. I have to bite my
tongue a lot visiting most of my relatives. Sadly, most of them have
their rose-colored glasses surgically attached. Hope they remember all
that when the current spending binge makes their savings vanish, and the
balance due on their houses exceeds what they could sell it for.
--
aem sends...
John Duncan Yoyo
<wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 16, 10:24 am, cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think of it 'astroturf' when there is an element of deception, going
>> to some effort to present a false impression of a grassroots
>> movement.
>>
>
>When I think of Astroturf and I think of the late, great Tug McGraw.
>When asked if he preferred grass or Astroturf, McGraw replied "I don't
>know. I never smoked Astroturf."
You gotta believe.
The problem with the tea bag thing was that it was a libertarian idea
that got ginned up by FOX and fizzled. They got a few people to show
up but only enough to make it look pathetic.
-
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
Dann
4f2932...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.
You can't place bets on history.
Jym Dyer
>> difference between "liberal" (as described by Lionel Trilling
>> in the 1940s) from "socialist" (the Marx/Engels variety)?
> As opposed to a "liberal" in the sense of a guy who manages
> to piss off not only the people who disagree with him, but
> the ones who might otherwise be his allies, too?
=v= I really don't understand your hostility towards me:
http://joshreads.com/?p=744#molly
I thought this was a civil exchange, in which we both clarified
what we meant. Then you insult me.
> I'm pleased to be part of the MSM if that otherwise insulting
> term differentiates me from a certain brand of "liberal"
> dipshit who [inaccurate string of insults deleted].
=v= IMHO you took this too personally. Perhaps I am guilty of
not spelling this out clearly, but I don't blame you personally
for the MSM's dilution of terms. The quality of discourse has
plummeted in this country, and the MSM (if not you, personally)
shares some of the blame for this. It's not dipshitful of me
to complain about the misappropriation of terms when I believe
that dilutes the quality of the discourse.
=v= For the most part I respect your writing and and often in
agreement, except when you misattribute negative beliefs to me
(and my friends). Also, I don't find it useful to self-identify
as "liberal" except in the sense Trilling meant, though that
word's meaning had been destroyed by its political enemies even
before I was born. My relationship to the label was explained
quite well by the likes of Phil Ochs and Molly ivins.
<_Jym_>
Invid Fan
<deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2009, said the following in news:c8d77fd4-629e-4ddc-8dec-
> 4f2932...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.
>
> >>
> >> That has more to do with socialists of the Marx/Engels variety calling
> >> themselves "liberal" than anything else.
> >>
> >> That sure didn't last long.
> >>
> > *I really wish I could place a wager with a bookie on how long/short a
> > time it will be before "progressive" has the same pejorative
> > connotations to it as "liberal" seems, by and large, to have by now.
>
> You can't place bets on history.
You can if you treat it all as a sporting event.
"$100 on Cuba to still be Commie in 5 years."
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Dann
in...@loclanet.com.
>> You can't place bets on history.
>
> You can if you treat it all as a sporting event.
>
> "$100 on Cuba to still be Commie in 5 years."
That's betting on the future _making_ history. Which is a little different
that betting on events that have already become history.
Unless you last name happens to be McFly.
Invid Fan
<deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2009, Invid Fan said the following in news:200420091327580410%
> in...@loclanet.com.
>
> >> You can't place bets on history.
> >
> > You can if you treat it all as a sporting event.
> >
> > "$100 on Cuba to still be Commie in 5 years."
>
> That's betting on the future _making_ history. Which is a little different
> that betting on events that have already become history.
>
Ah. Going back and re-reading what you snipped I see you meant the word
already had that definition. Not having a dog in the fight I missed
that :)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>LNER...@juno.com wrote:
>>> That has more to do with socialists of the Marx/Engels variety calling
>>> themselves "liberal" than anything else.
>>>
>>> That sure didn't last long.
>>>
>> *I really wish I could place a wager with a bookie on how long/short a
>> time it will be before "progressive" has the same pejorative
>> connotations to it as "liberal" seems, by and large, to have by now.
>
This, as has been covered over and over, due to people on the far
right using "liberal" as an epithet unchallenged for seemingly
decades. Not that there are many liberals trying to take the word
back . . .
>Of course they label themselves as 'progressive'. To the hardcore left,
>a socialist nanny state is progress. To those of us who prefer to make
>our own decisions, for better or worse, not so much.
Oookay, looks like another person who doesn't know what socialism
actually is, and the current changes are nowhere near it. Of course,
similar cries of "encroaching socialism" were made during the New
Deal, and the Great Society, the critics equally wrong then too.
First, the actual definition; this should provide a good, basic
start:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism>
Here's my own take:
"Socialism is Hugo Chavez nationalizing Venezuela's oil industry;
socialism is Salvador Allende nationalizing Chile's copper industry;
socialism is Mohammed Mossadegh nationalizing Iran's oil industry;
socialism is Guatemala confiscating United Fruit Company's plantations
and distributing their land amongst peasant farmers. Socialism is not
higher taxes, much less mildly higher taxes, no matter what the
excuses or whining."
I have to bite my
>tongue a lot visiting most of my relatives. Sadly, most of them have
>their rose-colored glasses surgically attached. Hope they remember all
>that when the current spending binge makes their savings vanish, and the
>balance due on their houses exceeds what they could sell it for.
There's an old saying, "you have to spend money to make money."
Those whining about projected debt should remember the projected
*surpluses* of 2000. Projections are just that, conditions changes.
This complaining about spending also seems like a bystander
ignorant of agriculture accusing a farmer of wasitng food when he
plants seeds into the ground, unaware of how crops grow. Jobs beget
jobs; anyway, as the saying goes, time will tell . . .
--
- ReFlex76
aemeijers
My definition- Socialism is taking MY money, and giving it to someone
else, without my blessing, for functions not inherently governmental in
nature. Wanna create jobs? Build a business case, and go find some
venture capitalists. Stay the hell out of my pockets. Government taking
a financial stake in business enterprises, much less quasi-operational
control, is certainly socialism. No (thankfully), the US has not gone
down that road as far as some countries have (yet), but based on the
dismal track record of state-run or state-subsidized ventures in other
countries, it is pretty clearly a road to avoid. I WORK for the
government. They can't even manage their own operations and money, much
less anyone else's.
--
aem sends...
Sherwood Harrington
> My definition- Socialism is taking MY money, and giving it to someone
> else, without my blessing, for functions not inherently governmental in
> nature.
What functions do you consider to be "inherently governmental in nature"?
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
aemeijers
> aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> My definition- Socialism is taking MY money, and giving it to someone
>> else, without my blessing, for functions not inherently governmental in
>> nature.
>
> What functions do you consider to be "inherently governmental in nature"?
>
traffic control, schools, libraries, cow college universities, public
safety stuff like cops and medical/food standards, that sort of thing.
I'm not an absolutist- I recognize that a limited degree of the PTB
making some decisions about what promotes the public good is needed. So
I do support a certain degree of public assistance, as long as it is 'a
hand up, not a handout' in nature. I think directly bailing out failing
corporations goes far beyond that. Much more than the previous example
of simply guaranteeing loans made from other sources, like with Chrysler
in the Iaccoca era.
Like obscenity, I guess- I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
And the current proposals set off my BS detectors bigtime.
--
aem sends...
Sherwood Harrington
> Sherwood Harrington wrote:
>> aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My definition- Socialism is taking MY money, and giving it to someone
>>> else, without my blessing, for functions not inherently governmental in
>>> nature.
>>
>> What functions do you consider to be "inherently governmental in nature"?
>>
> Oh, I'm pretty traditional- defense, roads, weights'n'measures, air
> traffic control, schools, libraries, cow college universities, public
> safety stuff like cops and medical/food standards, that sort of thing.
"Cow college universities"?
Dann
news:ot5qu4ldbnbrjpesa...@4ax.com.
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:07:54 GMT, aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>LNER...@juno.com wrote:
> This, as has been covered over and over, due to people on the far
> right using "liberal" as an epithet unchallenged for seemingly
> decades. Not that there are many liberals trying to take the word
> back . . .
"liberal" used to mean "tolerant and open minded". I'm all in favor of
restoring that definition.
>>Of course they label themselves as 'progressive'. To the hardcore
>>left, a socialist nanny state is progress. To those of us who prefer
>>to make our own decisions, for better or worse, not so much.
>
> Oookay, looks like another person who doesn't know what socialism
> actually is, and the current changes are nowhere near it. Of course,
> similar cries of "encroaching socialism" were made during the New
> Deal, and the Great Society, the critics equally wrong then too.
>
> First, the actual definition; this should provide a good, basic
> start:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism>
>
> Here's my own take:
>
> "Socialism is Hugo Chavez nationalizing Venezuela's oil industry;
> socialism is Salvador Allende nationalizing Chile's copper industry;
> socialism is Mohammed Mossadegh nationalizing Iran's oil industry;
> socialism is Guatemala confiscating United Fruit Company's plantations
> and distributing their land amongst peasant farmers. Socialism is not
> higher taxes, much less mildly higher taxes, no matter what the
> excuses or whining."
In which case, socialism should include the nationalizing of our
banks....cause that's what they are trying to do. As well as the
nationalizing of GM and Chrysler, as that's pretty well a done deal when
the President can fire the CEO of GM and tell Chrysler who they have to
merge with.
Best line I've heard yet.....Hearing that the President has fired the CEO
of a car company makes about as much sense as hearing that the Pope has
fired off a bunch of nuclear missiles.
> I have to bite my
>>tongue a lot visiting most of my relatives. Sadly, most of them have
>>their rose-colored glasses surgically attached. Hope they remember all
>>that when the current spending binge makes their savings vanish, and
>>the balance due on their houses exceeds what they could sell it for.
>
> There's an old saying, "you have to spend money to make money."
> Those whining about projected debt should remember the projected
> *surpluses* of 2000. Projections are just that, conditions changes.
>
> This complaining about spending also seems like a bystander
> ignorant of agriculture accusing a farmer of wasitng food when he
> plants seeds into the ground, unaware of how crops grow. Jobs beget
> jobs; anyway, as the saying goes, time will tell . . .
Man....if there were a fine for metaphor abuse, you'd be in court for the
next year and a half.
In any case, I'd be a little less upset if they were spending money on
some great national project such as the Hoover Dam or re-building the
entire highway system. But they aren't. [yes, there is some highway
money in there]
It is as if some economist came up with a magic number of spending and
the President told Congress to spend that amount of money. That is an
invitation to graft and pointless spending that no member of Congress,
Democrat or Republican, has the will to withstand.
PatONeill
Because I'm interested...why "roads...air traffic control" but not
rails or public transportation? Why is maintaining good automobile
transit or safe air travel a government function, but not moving
masses of cargo or people on rails? Why is it that the government can
pay for and maintain traffic controls on roads and airways, but not
the same kind of controls for railroads (the railroads pay for and
maintain their own such systems, although the standards for them are
government-determined).
LNER...@juno.com
>
> Because I'm interested...why "roads...air traffic control" but not
> rails or public transportation? Why is maintaining good automobile
> transit or safe air travel a government function, but not moving
> masses of cargo or people on rails? Why is it that the government can
> pay for and maintain traffic controls on roads and airways, but not
> the same kind of controls for railroads (the railroads pay for and
> maintain their own such systems, although the standards for them are
> government-determined).
*Everyone is always quick to say to me (the railroad expert) "the rest
of the world's railways are nationalized; why aren't ours?" Well,
guess what: While you folks weren't looking, the European Union
mandated the denationalization and privatization of railroad systems.
British Rail, Deutsche Bundesbahn, etc. no longer exist--replaced by a
national-rail infrastructure bureaucracy and a bunch of privatized
companies. Even Richard Bramson is in the act with Virgin Rail.
How well this arrangement works is open to heated debate--so much so
that, last I checked, the French have still refused to go along with
it and are sticking to their old nationalized SNCF. The British have,
by and large, vastly improved service and equipment (much of the
latter imported from overseas makers such as GM/EMD), but as vastly
increased prices which draw the ire of old-timers conditioned to think
of rail service as a social obligation (no kidding, some of the old
subsidies were actually named "Service Obligation Grants").
I've had others point to Conrail, the semi-nationalized network in the
Northeast assembled from six bankrupt railroads (including Penn
Central, at the time the largest bankruptcy in US history) as a
supposed model or proof the "the government can do it". Wrong.
Basically, Conrail was a private corporation where the government held
all the stock. It was run as a private company, with abandonments of
redunbdant and disused trackage left and right, as well as Draconian
(for the industry and era) labor cuts. Neither one of these are
feasible in a political environment. In addition, Conrail (and the
entire rail industry) benefited from deregulation signed by Jimmy
Carter in the last days of his term. Right now, the rail industry is
fighting all it can just to ward off re-regulation of the type that
made railroading (and, granted, airlines, trucking, etc.) too mired in
regulation to effectively compete in the marketplace and respond
appropriately to changing market conditions (example: under the old
ICC, they might still be holding hearings on ethanol haulage rates
today, even as that boom in alternate fuels and their transportation
has come and gone; post-deregulation, the rail industry is re-
allocating the tank cars they had built specifically for that
traffic).
There's something to be said for government ownership, or at least
oversight, of vital rail infrastructure such as the Northeast
Corridor. On the other hand, I only need to look at the current state
of certain spots in such networks--such as how long it's taking to
replace vital links such as the Penn Tunnels NYC-Newark and two
"massive bottleneck" failing tunnels in Baltimore (Union and B&P
Tunnels) to know damned well that "government ownership" ain't a
magical solution to the problems.
LNER...@juno.com
>
> Because I'm interested...why "roads...air traffic control" but not
> rails or public transportation? Why is maintaining good automobile
> transit or safe air travel a government function, but not moving
> masses of cargo or people on rails? Why is it that the government can
> pay for and maintain traffic controls on roads and airways, but not
> the same kind of controls for railroads (the railroads pay for and
> maintain their own such systems, although the standards for them are
> government-determined).
Let me put it another way: Do you want the railroads, often the
default transport mode for hazardous chemicals and the like,
maintained by the same folks that brought you the (potholed to hell)
Interstate highways and the (dangerously antiquated and overtaxed) air
traffic control systems?
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
wrote:
>
> >>> My definition- Socialism is taking MY money, and giving it to someone
> >>> else, without my blessing, for functions not inherently governmental in
> >>> nature.
>
> >> What functions do you consider to be "inherently governmental in nature"?
>
> > Oh, I'm pretty traditional- defense, roads, weights'n'measures, air
> > traffic control, schools, libraries, cow college universities, public
> > safety stuff like cops and medical/food standards, that sort of thing.
>
> "Cow college universities"?
>
You know, the ones that hand out BS dgrees.