From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 16:30:00 GMT
MSH proposes to include al-Jazeera in every U.S. cable package:
> Which of these channels show the real situation on the ground in
> Iraq, showing the utter destruction of Falluja, for example, and
> reporting the fact that the so-called insurgency is stronger than
> ever, that the hostility toward the American occupation is at an
> all- time high? Fox News and CNN are part of every cable and
> satellite package offered in the US. Why isn't al-Jazeera? As far
> as I know, the only way to get al-Jazeera is through one sat tv
> company, EchoStar. Why the discrepancy?
> and this is platt's response:
> According to MSH, America would have been better served if during
> World War II U.S. radio had broadcast what the Germans were
> listening to from Goebbels, or the Japanese from Tojo, and after the
> war, what the Russians were learning from Pravda. Why do I doubt such
> information would have made the world better than it is today? Could
> it be because the Nazis and the Japs and the Communists might still
> be in power, or have it least stayed in power longer to slaughter
> millions more?
>
> msh says:
> I ask seven precise questions, and I'm told that during WWII I would
> have been a Fascist sympathizer. How's that for an argument?
You made a specific proposal which I answered. The rest was simply a
leftist propaganda couched in question form, like "If pigs could fly...? .
> But that aside, the implication seems to be that the people who have
> power over information services know best about what should and
> should not be heard. That's a scary thought, whether it comes from
> Goebbels or Murdoch.
And your proposal to correct this supposed crime is? (Note the ad hominem
association of Murdoch with Nazi.)
> platt:
> Anyone today who truly desires to get differing points of view from
> what is broadcast on American TV over 200 channels can get it from
> the Internet, by subscribing to foreign newspapers, or by listening
> to short wave radio. After all, MSH must be getting his information,
> as distorted as it is, from someplace.
> msh says:
> It comes from spending a large portion of everyday reading. Why
> should people have to do this in order to stay informed? Shouldn't
> the public airwaves provide the full spectrum of information, so that
> people can be informed as easily as they can buy a new set of Ginzu knives?
See answer regarding al-Jazerra above.
> msh says:
> People are thinkers. Thinkers aren't chosen. The important issue,
> one at the heart of this thread, is whether or not entrenched power
> is likely to permit action on thoughts which question the authority
> of existing power structures. For example, it would be foolish of
> profit-driven-instutions, such as the commercial media, to allow the
> dissemination of ideas that undermine the notion that the best way
> to deliver information is on a for-profit basis. They are not going
> to plant the seeds of their own destruction. This makes perfect
> sense; and this is why no one who seeks a high-quality understanding
> of world affairs will rely solely on the commercial media.
>
> platt:
> I know of no media that isn't commercial.
>
> msh says:
> Which proves my point. In the US, there are no truly non-commercial
> TV stations, and only one non-commercial radio network, Pacifica,
> which is completely listener supported but available on the air in
> only three or four major cities. Thanks to the internet, they can be
> streamed, but that still keeps them unavailable to the vast majority of
> Americans. Again, why the discrepancy?
>
> Fortunately, there are many more non-com sources available on the
> internet but, again, not everyone has access or time to avail
> themselves of these. In a free society, non-com sources of
> information would be available to everyone over the air.
If you define non-com sources of information as those that are listener
supported, then free people in a free market in a free society will
provide the networks you desire.
> platt:
> Last time I looked Chomsky's books weren't free, nor as far as I know has
> he refused to take a salary from MIT provided by taxpayers, alumni
> donations, and investments in corporate America. When he renounces all
> that, I might begin to put some credence in his anti- profit,
> anti-capitalist, anti-American rants.
>
> msh says:
> Though your tone here is insulting (and laughable, considering the
> source), I'll say this much: 1) The question under discussion is
> about profiting from other people's misery, not about making a
> living.
If Chomsky isn't profiting from other people's misery, I don't know who
is. His diatribes are paeans to misery.
> 4) Questioning his integrity in this regard is
> the supreme example of your favorite phrase: "Killing the messenger."
Yes, your're right. I apologize. I have learned well from leftists. It's
hard to shake their techniques. Accusing one of hypocrisy is a form of ad
hominem.
> And, besides, it makes you look like an asshole which, BTW, is an
> insult not an ad hominem attack. ;-)
Insult or ad hominem attack. Call it what you wish. It tells more about
the accuser than the accused.
> msh said:
> NYC has desperate third-world-level poverty existing along side the
> neon glitz of the so-called free and dynamic market. By focusing on
> the vibrant excitement and ignoring the stagnant misery you wilfully
> distort the positive influence of the so-called free market system.
> If you are right in thinking that Pirsig would claim that NYC is the
> highest quality example of urban life (I don't think you are), then
> he, like you, is demonstrating a willful blindness that is the
> result of anything but the pursuit of Quality.
>
> platt:
> Pirsig blind to the pursuit of Quality? Far out, man, far out.
>
> msh says:
> This is a meaningless unsupported comment, similar to stuttering.
Did you just stutter or what?
> msh continued:
> Besides, Arlo has provided you with numerous examples of cities,
> with a different sense of the value of social equality, that are
> anything but dull. Why is his opinion any less important than
> Pirsig's?
> platt:
> I've been to many socialist cities, too, and found them dull like
> Pirsig says. So why is my opinion any less important than Arlo's, or
> yours?
> msh says:
> It isn't. It's just a matter of taste, really, not even opinion, on
> all sides, even Pirsig's. Besides, how have you managed to equate
> the absence of dullness with the presence of Quality? There's
> nothing dull about, say, throwing infants into the air and catching
> them on bayonets.
You've taken the issue of dull cities vs. vibrant cities out of context by
ignoring that socialism smothers DQ while capitalism encourages it.
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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 : Fri Jan 28 2005 - 22:11:05 GMT