From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jan 25 2005 - 14:01:27 GMT
Hi Arlo,
P:
> > I guess you don't think a president caught in a blatant lie, "I did not
> > have sex with that woman..." is newsworthy, and that undeniable truth is
> > a "smear." If so, that's a pretty far out view of journalism.
A:
> In retrospect we know Clinton lied. At the time all we had endless media
> attacks. Did you justify it (before you knew that he absolutely lied)
> because Clinton was a "liberal"?
I don't recall Clinton being attacked more than usual by the media prior
to the Lewinsky affair.
> > I'll be happy to change my mind if you can present evidence from credible
> > sources that Bush knew that Saddam did not have WMD at the time of the
> > liberation.
> Impossible to do, since you only accept the conservative media as "credible
> sources".
Again the questions seem to be, "What sources are credible?" "How do you
know?" If we could ever agree on a credible source or two, maybe we could
reach agreement on other issues more often.
> > > On the contrary, I was very critical of many of Clinton's decisions
> > > while in office. Why do you find it impossible to be critical of Bush?
> > I don't find it impossible at all. I think he's failed to protect the
> > U.S. border and am upset by his expansion of the federal government into
> > education.
> Permit me an "a-ha!" moment to hear you admit the conservatives government
> is expansive! Woo hoo!!
In any number of ways the Bush administration is conservative in name
only. His expansion of Medicare into paying for drugs is another example
of an action by a liberal, not a conservative. Like you, I don't swallow
whole what one side or the other says or does, accusations to the contrary
notwithstanding..
> I "think" that, because that's what people reported. And, to ground that in
> personal experience, nearly everyone I know who has voted for Bush has told
> me personally some variant of "if Bush was not re-elected, the terrorists
> would attack the U.S. again". Those that want to use the federal government
> to enforce "christian" lifesytles have their own agenda, to be sure.
I agree that many voted for Bush because they believed he would be better
at killing terrorists instead of terrorists killing them. Incidentally,
what is a "Christian" lifestyle?
> > > Does the "left" use deceptive propaganda? Yes or no.
> > > Does the "right" use deceptive propaganda? Yes or no.
> > I guess if all depends on your standards of truth, a deep philosophical
> > subject which you may want to start in a new thread.
> Interesting evasion. Please take a moment to reconsider answering.
No evasion at all. One man's propaganda is another man's truth. It goes
back to the question above about credible sources of knowledge.
> This was not simply "criticism of academics", it was rhetorical dismissal
> of academics who did not promote the administration, it was part of a
> propaganda campaign designed to discredit people's faith in the academy,
> and further establish one outlet of information as the sole "outlet of
> truth". The same verbal game is being played by the conservative media
> today. Does that make them National Socialists? No. It makes them good
> propagandaists.
Speaking of the academy, what do you think of the attacks on Harvard
president Lawrence Summers for saying that women's brains may be less
suited to science, math and engineering than men's?
> > Yes, hmmmm, indeed. The speech was made in 1934 after the Nazis came to
> > power, and Goebbels is bragging about how they did it. Why you would
> > believe him after all your railing against propaganda?
> Because its been corrobated, academically and historically. But tell me why
> I should bother to report other souces, since you only accept as credible
> that which comes out of conservative media think-tanks? Limbaugh did not
> write a history of Nazi Germany (William Shirer did, and he corrobates
> Goebbles description of the takeover of the popular media). And if
> Limbaugh, O'Reilly, the MRC or Rove are not on the credits list, you'll
> simply dismiss it.
I guess you don't accept as credible sources Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Rove or
the MRC even when they cite sources generally accepted such as university
and/or scientific studies. But you do accept Goebbels? As for Shirer, I
looked in the index of his "Berlin Diary" and found no entry for media or
propaganda. Perhaps you can cite a reference from him that supports your
point?
> Hypothetically, you are able to travel back in time to 1934. You are on the
> streets of Berlin. How would you convince people, or could you at all, that
> they were victims of propaganda? And, would you make the claim that at that
> time, everyone in Germany was "stupid"?
Not everyone. Some got out when they saw what was happening. Those who
voted for Hitler believed he would improve the quality of life, and for
awhile he did. Persecution of Jews in the early years was nothing out of
the ordinary in Europe. (It's going on today at some U.S. universities.)
Later when it became evident that Hitler was a monster, it was too late.
All politicians promise a better life, and many break their promises when
it becomes expedient to do so. Agree?
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 25 2005 - 14:37:40 GMT