From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 12:44:15 GMT
Platt
> > No, Platt. What you've been doing repeatedly is "dismiss" anything
> > challenge to the conservative orthodoxy by smearing it as "liberal (or
> > leftist) bias".
>
>Let's see. Does that mean that you agree with critiques of liberal
>orthodoxy? Somehow I doubt that's the case.
My world is not painted "conservative" and "liberal", Platt. I disagree,
and am critical of, anything that places ideology over DQ.
Point: Dan Rather placed ideological motivations, which sought power
entrenchment, over DQ. The MRC does so as well. As does Guerrilla News. I
do not dismiss, nor uncritically accept any report by any of these agencies
based soley on ideological affiliation. As Mark and Ant have also stated,
the key is to look for corroboration, primary sources, open disclosures of
data used, etc (I won't belabor this point).
Point: I have repeatedly stated criticisms of the "liberal orthodoxy",
recently so much as providing you with "parties" I've supported, and why
I've been more concerned with supporting principles rather than ideologies.
you point your any of critical evaluation on "leftist channels,"
>please point them out to me as my humble powers of observation have not
>been able to glean any.
>
See above.
> > You may admit that both sides have a "bias", but you portray in your words
> > as only "leftist bias" being "deceitful". Indeed, I think anyone would be
> > hard-pressed to see that you consider "right-wing bias" any sort of problem
> > whatsoever. If you truly believe there to be a right-wing bias, why do you
> > not critically examine the MRC, and instead take everything they say as
> > accurate? Point, if you believe Limbaugh to be as badly biased as Rather,
> > why do you believe what he says? Or consider him a credible source?
>
>Do you consider left-wing bias a problem? If not, why not? As for bias, we
>all are to some extent, but some are more so than others. Those who admit
>their bias often and openly are more credible to me than those who don't,
>like Rather, Jennings, Woodruff and others in the mainstream media.
>
Sure I do. You're trying to run me in dialectical circles here. Again, for
the record, any attempt to place ideological motivations (power
entrenchment) over DQ is immoral. Whether done by Rather or Rove.
Since bias indicates factual manipulation to suit ideological ends, it is
interesting that you'd find someone "admitting" this as "more credible" a
source.
> > Here, again, I point out the manipulative discourse. By painting what is in
> > reality centrist media outlets as "liberal", smearing the liberal label as
> > "deceitful, ad-hominem, propaganda, killing the messenger, traitorous,..
> > (name your MRC charge)", you are attempting to funnel all media discourse
> > through conservative filters (at best). The idea is to slowly get people to
> > associate "the liberal media" with "lies" and the conservative bastions
> > (such as O'Reily, Limbaugh, etc.) as "truth". It is precisely this tactic
> > that made Goebbels propaganda machine work so well. His years-long
> > propaganda campaign discredited "academic" sources as unpatriotic,
> > left-wing propaganda, the main-stream media as "liberal, jewish bias", and
> > as such set up his ideological platform as the sole outlet for truth and
> > honesty. After years of being told that the academics and the media were
> > deceitful leftist, jewish sympathisizers, it was not difficult for people
> > to uncritically accept the nazi propaganda as unquestionable, objective,
> > unbiased truth. Is it any surprise that so much effort is spent by
> > conservatives discrediting academics and main-stream news sources?
>
>Once again we see conservatives compared to Nazis. (And they criticize
>blame me for associating leftists with Commies!) This is a sure sign to me
>that one has exhausted all claim to "critical thinking."
Nice try, Platt. My comparison was to tactics, not ideologies. Can't deny
the comparative tactics, can you? You call this "exhausting critical
thinking"? Fair enough, if you feel my reasoning in this comparison is off,
please show me where?
> > But, the reason you have
> > to pay that money, Platt, is to support the police, and road constructions,
> > and infrastructure building, libraries, medical response teams, FBI, CIA,
> > armed services, traffic studies, emergency relief to disaster victims here
> > in the US, coast guard, forest rangers and fire units, sidewalks for you to
> > stroll on... oh I could go on for a while for all the things around you,
> > and this is not even mentioning your dreaded "safety" nets for
> > unemployment, worker's compensation, infant care for the uninsured, food
> > programs, work training, etc. You take all these things, Platt.
>
>Like hell I do. You were doing fine until you got to those "safety nets."
>which comprise a huge percentage of the national budget and consequently a
>huge percentage of taxes.
You've never been injured on the job? How lucky for you. Or fortuitous that
you either (1) had enough wealth, or (2) chose to starve instead of
accepting "handouts" while you were disabled. You've never had a relative,
who lacked insurance, get pregnant and give birth? How incredibly lucky for
you! I'm sure, you will tell me, if that happens, you will gladly not take
the baby to any doctor and take advantage of the net that provides funding
for uninsured infants. And you've never been unemployed and unable to find
work! How much more industrious you are than all the people out of work who
are looking for employment.
So I am glad you've never made use of ANY safety net, nor has anyone in
your family. Kudos to you.
As for the "safety net" being the huge percentage of your taxes, can you
send me links to government reports on this? I've tried to locate any, but
have had no luck. But, if I recall, last I heard the military budget alone
was five times that of social security. But its been a while, and I could
be mistaken.
In the meantime, let's assume that all safety net spending is 1/6 of your
taxes. You are still getting an awful lot of infrastructure there.
> > As those interested in the MOQ, we should agree (I hope) that it should be
> > a chosen desire for a society to maximize its citizenry's exposure to, and
> > participation in, DQ.
>
>Pirsig made it clear that the capitalist system of free markets beats
>socialism in making DQ available to all. That, at root, is what the
>argument is about.
No, business markets are only one part of a society's concerns in
maximizing its citizenry's exposure to, and participation in, DQ. For
example, this exposure increases with mobility. Providing an infrastructure
maximizing mobility is a concern in this regard. Sufficient leisure time is
another consideration. Access to knowledge, such as a public library, is
another. No matter how many times you repeat it, Platt, it's not all about
the money.
Plus, I hardly think that all those folks at the turn of the century,
dealing with unregulated "free markets", would indicate a maximized social
orientation to exposure to DQ.
> > Ideological labels are meaningless, and often detract
> > from progress towards this end, as it implies (wrongly) that DQ is a
> > function of an ideology. It is not. Once we are here, we can rightly
> > criticize attempts by ideology to subvert the dialogue to favor itself over
> > DQ. When the MRC, or Rather, uses their media power to subvert the dialogue
> > to favor its chosen ideology over exposing itself to the possibility of
> > disenfranchisement by allowing DQ to "flow where it may", this is what is
> > at point here. When the MRC, or Rather, fabricate results or stories to
> > further their own power-entrencment, and in doing so prevent from entering
> > into the discourse DQ led inquires that threaten this power, the should-be
> > chosen goal of maximizing exposure for its citizens to DQ is broken. And we
> > end up arguing over static social patterns.
>
>See comment above.
Calling to "free markets" ignores this point entirely.
>"Leftist" and "liberal" are pejoratives? That's news to me. I have no
>concern at all being labelled a "conservative." In fact, I'm proud of it.
Well, I think you use them as pejoratives, whether or not other people take
them as such is not really tellable. I ignore them either way since they
are misleading labels. The MRC, however, complains that the media overuses
the term "conservative" because it uses it as a pejorative descriptor.
Anyhow, I've pointed out how you use these terms associatively (liberal and
"dirty tricks"), and how this is evidence of the discursive manipulation in
preserving the static dichotomy of "liberal" and "conservative".
> > > Also, how do you propose to correct the faults of the "commercial" media
> > > other than by calling on the government gun power structure?
>
> > That's the point of the thread, is it not? Mark's already given some good
> > possibilities. More on this tomorrow...
>
>He has? Like listener-paid TV networks? I have no objection to that
>whatsoever. I look forward to your proposals.
Still putting this together, but another suggestion along these lines is to
move more bandwidth into the public domain. Do not regulate or privitize
this bandwidth, and let people use it as they'd like (think along the lines
of opening up more bandwidth to shortwave or open radio). As it is, your
"conservative" government is leading the charge in commericalizing these
frequencies, to the point where public domain frequencies will be
nonexistant in the short term future.
Arlo
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 - 22:46:55 GMT