Balancing the Budget Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 07:05 PM 5/14/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: >--- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> And thus our current President presided over one of >> the mildest recessions >> ever - even after the bursting of an asset bubble no >> less! > >Well, true enough, but: >1. How much of that is he responsible for? Probably a >lot. Let's be fair. The President applied a level of >fiscal stimulus to the economy that we probably >haven't seen since the Great Depression. Actually, if one uses headline budget deficits* as a percentage of GDP, the 2003 budget deficit was actually not any larger than the the deficit in 1993 - and almost certainly not as large as the deficit in 1983. The budget deficit during World War II, of course, was unlike anything we are ever likely to see again. * - I should point out, however, that neoclassical economic theory suggests that headline budget deficits are inherently arbitrary figures. For example, consider Social Security. As we all know, the government needs to make promises to today's workers and make payments to current retirees under the present system. Accordingly, the government tax today's workers in exchange for a promise of future benefits and make payments to today's retirees and thus "balance" the budget.Alternatively, the government could borrow money from today's workers, in exchange for future repayment + interest and make payments to today's retirees and thus "run an enormous deficit." Yet, the two policies described above are economically identical. Now, I should point out that I am uncomfortable with this model. Nevertheless, I think that it does provide some useful insights, and a lot of very intelligent and highly respected PhD economists totally subscribe to it totally. These economists would argue that the relative tightness or looseness of a given fiscal policy can only properly be evaluated using something called "generational accounting" - the specifics of which are still being worked on.Interestingly enough, however, among the implications of "generational accounting" is that the fiscal policy of the early 1980's was actually *not* particularly "loose", and may in fact have been fairly tight. This is because the headline budget deficits were accompanied by an increase in Social Security taxes and a decrease in Social Security benefits. Likewise, Bush's recent expansion of Medicare benefits may well make the current policy far more extraordinarily loose than the current "headline budget deficits" indicate. >2. What were the long term consequences of those >actions? That, I think, is the more important >question. I have, on occasion, written on this list >on the limitations of long term planning. True >enough. But there are things that we can see. While >I don't think that the entitlement problem is in any >sense catastrophic - given recent increases in >productivity, it may, in fact, be entirely manageable. I am glad that you mentioned this. I had the opportunity recently to speak "off the record" with a PhD economist at the Federal Reserve Bank, and he noted that (paraphrase) "if the last several year's productivity figures are at all accurate, then it is entirely possible that our entitlement problems will just evaporate." It is worth noting that productivity growth for the last several years has been - extraordinary - and if you combine it with productivity trends from the 1990's, then it seems entirely possible that these trends might even be sustainable. This has the very real possibility of substantially raising our long-term GDP. > But it still _has to be managed_. And recent >economic policy has made that immeasurably more >difficult, and it's only likely to get worse. The tax >code is far less progressive than it was - and I >happen to think that's a bad thing. The progressivity debate is one for another time, I think, so let's just stick to the deficits. >Government >spending has shot through the roof, and the war >doesn't even _begin_ to explain that. It is certainly >fair and appropriate to pay for war spending with >debt. That is what Ronald Reagan did, and I think >that was appropriate. But _some_ tax increases, or at >least holding off on tax cuts, to pay for the war was >necessary. The long term damage to America's fiscal >health may well be quite significant - and only >success in Iraq could possibly make up for that in an >evaluation of the Bush Presidency, in my opinion, at least. In terms of long-term damage to America's fiscal health, about the only thing you can fault Bush for is the prescription drug benefit. Yet, this initiative is strongly bipartisan - so much so that during the 2000 election Democrats wailed about how Bush was "confusing the differences" by "stealing the issue."Indeed, just about every Democrat who voted against the prescription drug benefit did so because Bush's plan was not nearly generous enough!Thus, it is arguable that by virtue of Bush be
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:05:07PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > I don't think that the entitlement problem is in any sense > catastrophic - given recent increases in productivity, it may, in > fact, be entirely manageable. Do you have numbers to back that up? Or is that just wishful thinking? The present value of promised entitlements (SS, Medicare primarily) amounts to $45 trillion. That is 4 times GDP, or about $154,000 per American alive today. > But it still _has to be managed_. Either taxes need to be raised by about 65%, or the boomers will be eating dog-food. Who will raise taxes by that much? Productivity ain't gonna do it. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And thus our current President presided over one of > the mildest recessions > ever - even after the bursting of an asset bubble no > less! Well, true enough, but: 1. How much of that is he responsible for? Probably a lot. Let's be fair. The President applied a level of fiscal stimulus to the economy that we probably haven't seen since the Great Depression. Given the underlying health of the American economy, would the recession have been far worse otherwise? Maybe. I don't know the answer to that question - and neither does anyone else, to be honest. 2. What were the long term consequences of those actions? That, I think, is the more important question. I have, on occasion, written on this list on the limitations of long term planning. True enough. But there are things that we can see. While I don't think that the entitlement problem is in any sense catastrophic - given recent increases in productivity, it may, in fact, be entirely manageable. But it still _has to be managed_. And recent economic policy has made that immeasurably more difficult, and it's only likely to get worse. The tax code is far less progressive than it was - and I happen to think that's a bad thing. Government spending has shot through the roof, and the war doesn't even _begin_ to explain that. It is certainly fair and appropriate to pay for war spending with debt. That is what Ronald Reagan did, and I think that was appropriate. But _some_ tax increases, or at least holding off on tax cuts, to pay for the war was necessary. The long term damage to America's fiscal health may well be quite significant - and only success in Iraq could possibly make up for that in an evaluation of the Bush Presidency, in my opinion, at least. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 06:08 AM 5/14/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: >--- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But to listen to Dan tell it, you would think that >> after Bill Clinton was >> elected in 1992 he attacked balancing the budget >> with a single-minded focus. >> >> JDG > >Relative to our current President, he's right, sadly enough. And thus our current President presided over one of the mildest recessions ever - even after the bursting of an asset bubble no less! Coincidence?I think not. JDG - Who would point out that Clinton's first initaive as President was a spending increase styled as a "simulus bill" - not exactly a budget-balancing initiative. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
> From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > any single actor in the American system. If President > Clinton had not had a Republican Congress - then > things would have been very different. If that same > Republican Congress had not had a Democratic President > - then things would have been very different. I think > "economic policy" is a little too broad to be called a > program, though. My brother has a theory that a Democratic president and a Republican Congress is the only way we'll ever see a truly balanced budget again. Each side stopping the other from their pet spending sprees and their taxing sprees. What do you think? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shopping Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote: > > From the subject line, one might wonder just what you have been shopping > for . . . > Hm. Well, to tie it in to SF, read _Barrayar_ by Lois McMaster Bujold and then get back to me on the subject line. Julia Thread Drift Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shopping Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
From the subject line, one might wonder just what you have been shopping for . . . Other Possible Wisecracks Withheld Out Of Respect Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But to listen to Dan tell it, you would think that > after Bill Clinton was > elected in 1992 he attacked balancing the budget > with a single-minded focus. > > JDG Relative to our current President, he's right, sadly enough. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 08:23 PM 5/13/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: > If President >Clinton had not had a Republican Congress - then >things would have been very different. Yeah, HillaryCare was defeated by what, one vote? (In a Democratic Congress no less.) But to listen to Dan tell it, you would think that after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 he attacked balancing the budget with a single-minded focus. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 08:23:15PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > I would say that the economic policies of the Clinton Administration > pretty closely approximate my ideal (I would cut taxes and spending > more, but I can definitely live with what we had). You think so? Wait 20 years and see if you still think so. Clinton (and Bush, Bush II, and Reagan) did not manage to reduce the "spending" that really matters, the present value of future entitlement spending for the baby boomers. If that present value were included in the national debt, it would be 10 times larger. Time has already run out to some extent -- the choices now are to raise taxes by more than 50% or to see a generation of old people eating cat food in housing projects -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:24:29PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > Indeed, IMHO, Target has often provided better value than Wal-Mart. > I've been shopping there for almost 40 years. The prices are slightly > higher, but I feel that the better quality of the material is worth > it. (e.g. the clothes last enough longer so that the price per wearing > is lower). I have shopped at numerous Target's and Walmarts in the past 10 years, in quite a few different cities, and I have not noticed any quality difference. Target usually has a slightly better SELECTION of clothing, but the quality is no different. Walmart, on the other hand, usually has lower prices and has a better selection on most everything besides clothing, and most importantly, Walmart is more likely to have the size or variation needed on the shelf, than Target. It seems to me Walmart's inventory control really works. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On the subject of taxes, was Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Gautam Mukunda quoted from someone on ABC They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. In my opinion taxes are a way to distribute a countries collectively earned wealth more evenly thereby providing a mechanism to protect, educate and care for the majority and extra care for those that cannot take care of themselves, without totally depriving the happy few of the niceties and luxuries their wealth brings with it. I think that is an objective most people loose sight of when arguing taxes and what is done with them. :o) Sonja GCU: Also a problem here. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Shopping Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Dan Minette wrote: > Indeed, IMHO, Target has often provided better value than Wal-Mart. I've > been shopping there for almost 40 years. The prices are slightly higher, > but I feel that the better quality of the material is worth it. (e.g. > the clothes last enough longer so that the price per wearing is lower). > Before it went downhill, doya think its Martha's fault? :-), even K-mart > had decent value. On some items, Target will actually be cheaper. (Ask me about the price of size 2 Huggies at various stores) For clothing, I've been more impressed with Target than Wal-Mart, in general. I've spent enough time shopping in both stores to have a pretty good mental picture of which store has a better selection in a given department, so I do some shopping at each. I just somehow end up at Target more often. (Specific location might have something to do with that, though.) Target: clothing for my children, diapers size 2 and smaller, diaper wipes, plastic storage totes, air cleaners, certain electronics Wal-Mart: baking pans, kids' dishes, mirrors, hardware (nails, screws, etc., not tools) Sam's: parmesan cheese, diapers size 3 and larger, batteries, tires Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do consider Wal-mart and Sam's vastly superior to > the NE department > chains that went bankrupt trying to compete. I > consider their investment > in inventory control very much on target: a real > investment in > productivity. But, I think that you overstated your > caseunless of > course you meant "in my lifetime" to apply to "Wal > Mart has done more to > improve the lot of the American poor than any > government program that I can > think of." If that's what you meant, and you mean > improvements over the > last 25 years, then its a closer call. It would > depend on whether one > calls Bill's fiscal management qualifies as a > program...and whether you > trust Brad's or JDG's economic judgment more. > > Dan M. Append "in my lifetime" and you get to what I meant, yes. I think both Brad _and_ JDG vastly overstate the extent to which economic policies can be attributed to any single actor in the American system. If President Clinton had not had a Republican Congress - then things would have been very different. If that same Republican Congress had not had a Democratic President - then things would have been very different. I think "economic policy" is a little too broad to be called a program, though. I would say that the economic policies of the Clinton Administration pretty closely approximate my ideal (I would cut taxes and spending more, but I can definitely live with what we had). Also (as I think I've written here) one of the unheralded stories of the Clinton Administration was its _masterful_ handling of the 1998 Asian economic crisis. So I'm not stinting of my praise for what was, all in all, an excellent performance on that issue. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:51 AM Subject: RE: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse > Indeed, let's praise Wal Mart. In my lifetime (again) > no one has done more than Sam Walton to make sure that > the American poor and middle class can get > inexpensive, high-quality food and clothing. For that > his company has been demonized. Wal Mart has done > more to improve the lot of the American poor than any > government program that I can think of. While I think Sam Walton actually did some very nice work, I think you overstate your case. The inflation adjusted purchasing power of the poor and middle class really boomed during the '60s. There was still widespread malnutrition during the '50s, which mostly ended in the '60s, due to government programs. Before that, SS, the CCC, etc. did a great deal to help the poor in the US. A wise man once said that SS saved capitalism. That has got to be more important than anything Sam did. Indeed, IMHO, Target has often provided better value than Wal-Mart. I've been shopping there for almost 40 years. The prices are slightly higher, but I feel that the better quality of the material is worth it. (e.g. the clothes last enough longer so that the price per wearing is lower). Before it went downhill, doya think its Martha's fault? :-), even K-mart had decent value. So, I cannot see why Sam gets more credit than FDR's programs. I do consider Wal-mart and Sam's vastly superior to the NE department chains that went bankrupt trying to compete. I consider their investment in inventory control very much on target: a real investment in productivity. But, I think that you overstated your caseunless of course you meant "in my lifetime" to apply to "Wal Mart has done more to improve the lot of the American poor than any government program that I can think of." If that's what you meant, and you mean improvements over the last 25 years, then its a closer call. It would depend on whether one calls Bill's fiscal management qualifies as a program...and whether you trust Brad's or JDG's economic judgment more. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
The Fool wrote: > > -- > From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What would a left-wing libertarian be like? What sort of positions > would one take on various issues? I'm curious. > > > ACLU. EFF. > > The ACLU even defends scum-sucking proto-fascists like rush limbaugh. OK. I can get behind the EFF easy. In fact, we've sent them money. Every year we try to earmark money for politically-related contribution, and more often than not, it goes to the EFF. One year a number of politicians who'd hit us up for money got copies of the letter explaining why our money was going to EFF and not to them. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > As for "brainwashed on cheap DVD's [sic]", well, what > gives you the right to decide what "holistic[ally] ... > benefits the consumer"? Are _you_ brainwashed on > cheap DVDs? Why then do you think they are? Maybe > they want cheap DVDs. I know I do. I wish I lived > near a WalMart so I could get some of them. Oh, and sometimes you can find some great stuff in the bargain bin. You just have to be willing to really dig. Or so I've been told by someone who does that when he gets the oil changed in his car there. Julia who doesn't go to Wal-Mart very often, because the nearest one is in "the parking lot from hell" and the next-nearest one is on the other side of the interstate ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:17 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse > The Fool wrote: > > > > -- > > From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I can tell you what John Stossel once told me - that a > > sign of how far to the left TV news is is that people > > think he's a conservative - when he is, of course, a > > libertarian. > > > > --- > > There you go again with the 2 dimensional French political axis. The > > reality is there are right-wing libertarians, and left-wing libertarians, > > but the libertarian party tends toward being right-wing radicals (much > > further beyond even reptiliKlan radicals). > > What would a left-wing libertarian be like? What sort of positions > would one take on various issues? I'm curious. > Hi! xponent You're Soaking In It Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Fool wrote: > > -- > From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I can tell you what John Stossel once told me - that a > sign of how far to the left TV news is is that people > think he's a conservative - when he is, of course, a > libertarian. > > --- > There you go again with the 2 dimensional French political axis. The > reality is there are right-wing libertarians, and left-wing libertarians, > but the libertarian party tends toward being right-wing radicals (much > further beyond even reptiliKlan radicals). What would a left-wing libertarian be like? What sort of positions would one take on various issues? I'm curious. I'm curious as to where The Fool would place our good Dr. Brin on this spectrum: http://www.davidbrin.com/libertarianarticle1.html _ Getting married? Find tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Umm, I did not mean to be irritating, > It was the start of a larger thought about how > the right really doesn't like the media cos they > don't see the need for it. You mentioned the lack > of evangelical Christians in the media. They would > report the Truth, not the truth. The right doesn't > need the media cos its either all written in a book > some bloke wrote 2000 years ago, or look, don't > worry > your pretty head about that stuff, just leave it to > old > Papa Bear to look after you, trust me, I will... You might want to think about the implications of what you just said on several levels. First, I would say that the twentieth century suggests that the right is, at worst, no less anti-democratic than the left. The history of, say, Russia, China, and Eastern Europe, does not suggest that those on the right are more inclined to tell people to trust in authority. Second, are you suggesting that everyone has difficulty with getting past their perceptual biases? If so, congratulations, you've just agreed with me. The intellectual homogeneity (not any sort of conspiracy) of the elite media and its effect on coverage is exactly my point. Alternately, you could be suggesting that there's something about evangelical Christians that makes them uniquely unable to see past their perceptual biases. That strikes me as pretty bigoted. Now bigotry against Christians is pretty common on this list and among leftist elites in general, so that wouldn't shock me, but it's still bigotry. If you believe that, what would you do about it? Forbid evangelical christians from working in the media? In practice - although not formally - we're not far from that position right now but it strikes me as quite unhealthy. Do you think it's actually a good thing? > I never suggested that all business leaders and the > military > were right wing. I would not be so simplistic. In the case of the American military, if you did suggest it, to first order you would be correct. > WalMart, great saviour of the American Poor ! > Halleluiah ! Praise the Checkout ! > Lucky they are saving them, cos some of the > monopolistic practices that > these huge purchasing conglomerates wield is making > plenty more of them too. > Farmers get 20c in the $ on retail prices. And its > getting worse. > But then you need a lot of markup to pay for all > that advertising, > to sponsor the news shows I guess. Ahh it's a lovely > vicious circle. > > I don't object to Capitalism. In a balanced world > it's a great idea. > When this world is balanced, and competition > actually works as a tool > that really, in a holistic sense, benefits the > consumer, rather then > keeping them brainwashed on cheap DVD's, I will > fully support it. > For now I treat it with the cautious respect it > deserves. > > Andrew Indeed, let's praise Wal Mart. In my lifetime (again) no one has done more than Sam Walton to make sure that the American poor and middle class can get inexpensive, high-quality food and clothing. For that his company has been demonized. Wal Mart has done more to improve the lot of the American poor than any government program that I can think of. As for "brainwashed on cheap DVD's [sic]", well, what gives you the right to decide what "holistic[ally] ... benefits the consumer"? Are _you_ brainwashed on cheap DVDs? Why then do you think they are? Maybe they want cheap DVDs. I know I do. I wish I lived near a WalMart so I could get some of them. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
-- From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Fool wrote: > > -- > From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I can tell you what John Stossel once told me - that a > sign of how far to the left TV news is is that people > think he's a conservative - when he is, of course, a > libertarian. > > --- > There you go again with the 2 dimensional French political axis. The > reality is there are right-wing libertarians, and left-wing libertarians, > but the libertarian party tends toward being right-wing radicals (much > further beyond even reptiliKlan radicals). What would a left-wing libertarian be like? What sort of positions would one take on various issues? I'm curious. ACLU. EFF. The ACLU even defends scum-sucking proto-fascists like rush limbaugh. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 08:45 PM 5/12/04, Andrew Paul wrote: > From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > No conspiracy. Just a lot people who think alike. > Those biases affect their coverage. How many > evangelical Christians do you think report for the New > York Times? For CNN? Does that bias their coverage? > A very high proportion of the population of the US - > something over a third - is evangelical Christians. > I'd be shocked if the equivalent proportion is 5% > among elite news organizations. Something around 40% > of Americans identify themselves as "conservative". > What do you think that proportion is at the Washington > Post - 10%? I'd be surprised if it's even 5%, > actually. > So, the people who are trained to investigate and understand things, by the best universities in the country, given lots of time and money to do so, and undiluted access to real information, and the people actually making the decisions, end up having a left-wing bias (in your eyes at least) Couldn't be that they are actually onto something could it? Or, it could be a self-selection effect, frex, that ECs are not generally drawn to careers in news, or at least that those who are interested in news careers are not drawn to the NYT, the WP, or CNN. For instance, some genuine believers find the cutthroat competition required to reach and stay at the top levels of pretty much any profession is at odds with their Christian beliefs about how they should treat their fellow human beings, e.g., the "Golden Rule." Or maybe it reflects that it is the case in news as well as many other professions that getting a job is frequently largely a matter of knowing the right people, or IOW the people who do the hiring tend to hire people they know and who are "like them", so ECs or members of any other group tend to get hired by news organizations where other ECs are already in positions of leadership, which presumably does not include the NYT, the WP, or CNN. (Note: I am not claiming that either of these explanations is necessarily the correct answer, but rather just suggesting that the same factors may affect employment in the news field as affect employment in other fields.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, 12 May 2004 23:17:20 -0500, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Fool wrote: > > From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > What would a left-wing libertarian be like? What sort of positions > would one take on various issues? I'm curious. > >Julia I have a friend who is an engineer at NASA who could be considered a left-wing libertarian. (Interesting how many libertarians work for government organizations.) He is anti-government and anti-tax and pro-civil liberties. When there is not a Libertarian candidate he will now normally vote for the Democrat. His dislike of the Christian moralist busybodies who comprise most of the Texas GOP is more than his dislike of what he thinks is the too quick to tax Democrats. Since the decline of fiscal responsibility in the GOP he seems to be even favoring Democrats over a Libertarian candidates in close races. I am libertarian on social and personal issues, just not on economic. I feel that the Libertarian Party refuses to consider the loss of liberty economic power causes which can be greater than the loss of liberty caused by government power. Arianna Huffington might be considered another left-wing libertarian. People may not remember that Arianna Huffington started out as a prominent Republican commentator because of her libertarian views - which she thought helped those less fortunate. She became disillusioned that the GOP leaders only wanted sound bites that their policies helped those with lower incomes. Gary Denton Notebook - http://elemming.blogspot.com Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
> From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, the people who are trained to investigate and > > understand things, > > by the best universities in the country, given lots > > of time and money to do > > so, and undiluted access to real information, and > > the people actually making > > the decisions, end up having a left-wing bias (in > > your eyes at least) > > > > Couldn't be that they are actually onto something > > could it? > > > > Andrew > > You know, that sort of left-wing self-congratulation > is the single best weapon conservatives have. Also > the most irritating trait of the left. > Umm, I did not mean to be irritating, It was the start of a larger thought about how the right really doesn't like the media cos they don't see the need for it. You mentioned the lack of evangelical Christians in the media. They would report the Truth, not the truth. The right doesn't need the media cos its either all written in a book some bloke wrote 2000 years ago, or look, don't worry your pretty head about that stuff, just leave it to old Papa Bear to look after you, trust me, I will... The media is perhaps inherently unconservative (I hate using these stereotypes, but its all we have) because it wants information, and open criticism of the government cos that's their job. When the Lord sends his second Son down to run America, then perhaps the government wont need criticism, until the more the better. So if you want a media that spouts the Truth According to Bush then sure, perhaps this lot is a little lefty. For mine I see more of a right wing bias in the media personally, but perhaps that just me. And it depends where you look, you can find whatever you like, and take it however you feel like taking it. > One could easily reverse the question. So, those > people who have proven their abilities in the real > world by managing organizations, employing people, > creating wealth, or protecting their countries (i.e. > people in business and the military) who have to face > real responsibilities and make real decisions, not > just ace standardized tests, get put through private > schools by accomplished parents, and comment from the > sidelines on things done by others, end up having a > right-wing bias. > > Couldn't be that they are actually onto something > could it? > I never suggested that all business leaders and the military were right wing. I would not be so simplistic. > You could also ask it differently...people from those > best universities in the country are, > disproportionately, the children of the wealthy and > privileged. You liberals always talk about how people > back their class interests. So those people with > inherited (not earned) wealth and privilege tend to > support the left...maybe that should tell us > something. One person who works with me (an > immigrant) says that his objection to the left is that > it's made up of a bunch of people whose parents > succeeded in American society, then want to pull the > ladder up underneath them - through things like high taxes, >government regulation, and, in fact, the >expanded power of the government in general (which is > far more likely to be a tool of the rich against the > poor than the other way around). > Yea, I can see some truth in that angle on things. It easier to be sympathetic to others when you are comfortable. I am quite happy to pay more tax if it means better schools, hospitals, welfare etc, cos I think that makes a better society. But than I can afford to pay more tax. For some that may not be such an easy decision. But that's perhaps cos the tax system is basically stuffed, but that's another argument. However, I am not sure I am a leftist if that means being for high taxes, government regulation, and, in fact, the expanded power of the government in general. I am for appropriate taxes, necessary government regulation, and the government protecting the people against the excess of the system, be that capitalist exploitation or environmental lunacy. And for that, as it happens, one needs a free and unfettered media. And BTW, by 'best' schools, I didn't mean most expensive. I meant the places that educate people the best. I couldn't care less if you went to Yale or Hicksville High. I don't judge the quality of education by how much it costs. > You could look at specific policies, too. Wal Mart is > the best thing to happen to the American poor in my > lifetime, period. Which company is most hated by the > American left, with the possible exception of > Halliburton? Hmmm. I wonder why? Could it be > because Wal Mart, with its $39 DVD players, is just so > declasse? Just a thought. > WalMart, great saviour of the American Poor ! Halleluiah ! Praise the Checkout ! Lucky they are saving them, cos some of the monopolistic practices that these huge purchasing conglomerates wield is making plenty more of them too. Farmers get 20c in the $ on
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
The Fool wrote: > > -- > From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I can tell you what John Stossel once told me - that a > sign of how far to the left TV news is is that people > think he's a conservative - when he is, of course, a > libertarian. > > --- > There you go again with the 2 dimensional French political axis. The > reality is there are right-wing libertarians, and left-wing libertarians, > but the libertarian party tends toward being right-wing radicals (much > further beyond even reptiliKlan radicals). What would a left-wing libertarian be like? What sort of positions would one take on various issues? I'm curious. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > --- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sure. And I don't hate any of them. I've dated > > someone who works for ABC News - and, for that > > matter, > > someone who works for The Nature Conservancy > > (admittedly, by far the best of the environmental > > groups. Someone who worked for Greenpeace, that > > could > > be a problem. It would depend on how cute she was.) > > Note for the humor-impaired - the last sentence in the > passage quoted above was a joke... Hm. You just reminded me of the job I didn't take one summer during college with an environmental organization. Might have been Greenpeace. I don't remember now. Would I have been cute enough? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On 5/12/04 6:07 AM, "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The phrase is "waiting for the other shoe to drop" and the idea is > that things are not finished here yet. To me it means an inevitable event. Something that can't be stopped or suppressed. Or see the following: http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-wai1.htm I may have jumped off the deep end with equating what you said with justification. But in essence it is darn close and it still makes me angry. Just don't take it personally, it just rubbed me the wrong way. Matthew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:17 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse > At 12:04 AM 5/12/2004 -0400 Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: > >As much as he has a right to be angry, I blame the guy with the knife and > >his masked buddies. But then again I do gloss over the big issues... > > At 12:20 AM 5/12/2004 -0400 Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: > >On 5/11/04 8:58 PM, "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> The Other Shoe Maru > > > >As much as I like tag lines, this one gets me. These people can kill a man > >on video, and you can go ahead and justify it. Great. At least I can get a > >taste of what I am going to read tomorrow in the New York Times. > > > Sorry for the "Me too" post, but it is a rare moment when I am absolutely > and totally in agreement with Matt, and I couldn't pass it up. Explained in another post, but I understand where you are coming from and would be in agreement with you if *that* was the meaning I wanted to convey. > > I would point out that almost nobody has pointed out that the above > subject-header is wrong. It should read: "Beheading Avenges Release of > Photgraphs of Prison Abuse."It strikes me as very likely that if CBS's > Sixty Minutes II does not leak the photos of the abuse that this doesn't > happen. > With the mentality and meme-set we are having to deal with over there, don't you think any excuse would do for the killers? xponent Freaking Cowards Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well..there really wouldn't be anything wrong > with it being the > truth. > > What's wrong with overlooking ones differences with > others if there is > a strong attraction? > > > xponent > Just A Thought Maru > rob Well, sure, but as I explained in a rather painful conversation with one of my best friends a year ago - attractive is more than cute. Cute helps. Cute can be key. But that's not _all_ there is to it. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:16 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse > At 12:44 PM 5/12/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: > >> Isn't it obvious? The same reason that they butchered > >> Daniel Pearl. They think that doing something like > >> that is going to scare us - shake our resolve and > >> convince us to surrender. > >> > >>Or, even more (as we've > >> seen) convince us that this is somehow _our fault_, > >The only responsibility we had was to open the door to this type of > >revolting action having the potential for a positive effect for the > >murderers. > > Dan, > > I think that you utterly missed Gautam's point.At least one Brin-L'er > has already called this "the other shoe" - i.e. that this was at least > partially our fault.Thus, it seem clear that at least one goal of these > murderer's is to weaken American resolve by causing some subset of > Americans to believe that we have brought this horrible death of an > American upon ourselves, and that as such our cause is no longer worthy, > and that as such our troops should come home immediately. > Okay.so you are the second person to misunderstand. My comment was meant to imply that there is likely more to come. There is at least one American soldier and three Italians still being held hostage in Iraq and there is great concern over their safety. As for the rest, I agree with Gautam that this kind of atrocity is likely to cause many Americans to dig in their heels. xponent Axis Of Lack Of Clarity On My Part I Suppose Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:00 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse > --- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sure. And I don't hate any of them. I've dated > > someone who works for ABC News - and, for that > > matter, > > someone who works for The Nature Conservancy > > (admittedly, by far the best of the environmental > > groups. Someone who worked for Greenpeace, that > > could > > be a problem. It would depend on how cute she was.) > > Note for the humor-impaired - the last sentence in the > passage quoted above was a joke... Well..there really wouldn't be anything wrong with it being the truth. What's wrong with overlooking ones differences with others if there is a strong attraction? xponent Just A Thought Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Nature Conservancy Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 04:54 PM 5/12/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: > >The Nature Conservancy > >(admittedly, by far the best of the environmental > >groups. > > The recent expose in the Washington Post > notwithstanding? > > JDG Didn't read it (as I recall, wasn't it interrupted by September 11th...) but I did forward the link to my friend who worked there, and she described it as "interesting", so it can't have been _that_ bad... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, the people who are trained to investigate and > understand things, > by the best universities in the country, given lots > of time and money to do > so, and undiluted access to real information, and > the people actually making > the decisions, end up having a left-wing bias (in > your eyes at least) > > Couldn't be that they are actually onto something > could it? > > Andrew You know, that sort of left-wing self-congratulation is the single best weapon conservatives have. Also the most irritating trait of the left. One could easily reverse the question. So, those people who have proven their abilities in the real world by managing organizations, employing people, creating wealth, or protecting their countries (i.e. people in business and the military) who have to face real responsibilities and make real decisions, not just ace standardized tests, get put through private schools by accomplished parents, and comment from the sidelines on things done by others, end up having a right-wing bias. Couldn't be that they are actually onto something could it? You could also ask it differently...people from those best universities in the country are, disproportionately, the children of the wealthy and privileged. You liberals always talk about how people back their class interests. So those people with inherited (not earned) wealth and privilege tend to support the left...maybe that should tell us something. One person who works with me (an immigrant) says that his objection to the left is that it's made up of a bunch of people whose parents succeeded in American society, then want to pull the ladder up underneath them - through things like high taxes, government regulation, and, in fact, the expanded power of the government in general (which is far more likely to be a tool of the rich against the poor than the other way around). You could look at specific policies, too. Wal Mart is the best thing to happen to the American poor in my lifetime, period. Which company is most hated by the American left, with the possible exception of Halliburton? Hmmm. I wonder why? Could it be because Wal Mart, with its $39 DVD players, is just so declasse? Just a thought. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
> From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > No conspiracy. Just a lot people who think alike. > Those biases affect their coverage. How many > evangelical Christians do you think report for the New > York Times? For CNN? Does that bias their coverage? > A very high proportion of the population of the US - > something over a third - is evangelical Christians. > I'd be shocked if the equivalent proportion is 5% > among elite news organizations. Something around 40% > of Americans identify themselves as "conservative". > What do you think that proportion is at the Washington > Post - 10%? I'd be surprised if it's even 5%, > actually. > So, the people who are trained to investigate and understand things, by the best universities in the country, given lots of time and money to do so, and undiluted access to real information, and the people actually making the decisions, end up having a left-wing bias (in your eyes at least) Couldn't be that they are actually onto something could it? Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:16:12PM -0400, JDG wrote: > I think that you utterly missed Gautam's point. At least one > Brin-L'er has already called this "the other shoe" - i.e. that this > was at least partially our fault. Thus, it seem clear that at least > one goal of these murderer's is to weaken American resolve by causing > some subset of Americans to believe that we have brought this horrible > death of an American upon ourselves, and that as such our cause > is no longer worthy, and that as such our troops should come home > immediately. Or perhaps YOU totally missed Dan's point. It seems to me that the Bush "human-rights violations 'R' us" administration has so completely bungled everything in Iraq after the shock and awe part that they have made it (arguably) strategically correct for al Qaeda to do barbaric things to win over more Islamic (esp. Iraqi) support to their cause. Making a strategic mistake isn't the same thing as causing something to happen, but the responsibility for the mistake is clear. The Bush administration made a clear pattern of infringing human rights ever since 9/11, and it was bound to catch up to them sooner or later. When mistakes are paid, people pay the consequences. The hell of it is that the people most responsible, Bush and Rumsfeld, appear to be getting away with it. They may say they take responsibility, but it is really others who are paying the price for their mistakes. I originally supported overthrowing Saddam for humanitarian reasons, but it was a close decision and I had expected Colin Powell and the State department to play a big role in Iraq after the initial military push. If I had known that Bush and Rumsfeld would be overseeing post-war Iraq while marginalizing the State department, I would not have supported the invasion. While the Iraqis are probably better off now, the costs were too high. It is becoming increasingly clear that we should have followed Dan's plan of delaying the invasion until the time was right (which increasingly looks like it would not have been until a competent administration took over the White House...) -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 05:28:31PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > I have no idea what you mean. I may disagree with And I have no idea what you mean about Tom. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Uh uh. That wasn't the implied question. Do you LIKE > them (collectively? > I don't care who you've dated...)? It certainly > doesn't sound like it > to me. You said you like "American people", but I > don't see it in your > writing. You appear to like some, but not others. > -- > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ I have no idea what you mean. I may disagree with some of them, but there's no American whom I wouldn't defend. There are some who are mistaken. Some who actively wish to harm those things which I would give anything to defend. But that doesn't make them any less my countrymen. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Nature Conservancy Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 04:54 PM 5/12/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: >The Nature Conservancy >(admittedly, by far the best of the environmental >groups. The recent expose in the Washington Post notwithstanding? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Changing the Topic Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 10:46 AM 5/12/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: >Let me think about the rest of it but respond to this. > I would argue that there's a very simple rule to >predict when the press will show a picture. One interesting test case for any rule describing when the media shows a picture is that the rule must explain why the media refuses to show pictures of aborted human fetuses/babies.If showing a picture is about bringing home the reality of a killing - then surely these pictures should be shown at some point in time. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 12:44 PM 5/12/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: >> Isn't it obvious? The same reason that they butchered >> Daniel Pearl. They think that doing something like >> that is going to scare us - shake our resolve and >> convince us to surrender. >> >>Or, even more (as we've >> seen) convince us that this is somehow _our fault_, >The only responsibility we had was to open the door to this type of >revolting action having the potential for a positive effect for the >murderers. Dan, I think that you utterly missed Gautam's point.At least one Brin-L'er has already called this "the other shoe" - i.e. that this was at least partially our fault.Thus, it seem clear that at least one goal of these murderer's is to weaken American resolve by causing some subset of Americans to believe that we have brought this horrible death of an American upon ourselves, and that as such our cause is no longer worthy, and that as such our troops should come home immediately. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 12:10 PM 5/12/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Will the right-wing press >publish the images? I think that they will (and have) >put more emphasis on the images than their left-wing >brethren. For the record, ABC Nightly News last night showed a very extensive clip of the video, only ending the clip at the point in which one of the murderers "suddenly" whipped out a large knife. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 12:04 AM 5/12/2004 -0400 Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: >As much as he has a right to be angry, I blame the guy with the knife and >his masked buddies. But then again I do gloss over the big issues... At 12:20 AM 5/12/2004 -0400 Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: >On 5/11/04 8:58 PM, "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The Other Shoe Maru > >As much as I like tag lines, this one gets me. These people can kill a man >on video, and you can go ahead and justify it. Great. At least I can get a >taste of what I am going to read tomorrow in the New York Times. Sorry for the "Me too" post, but it is a rare moment when I am absolutely and totally in agreement with Matt, and I couldn't pass it up. I would point out that almost nobody has pointed out that the above subject-header is wrong. It should read: "Beheading Avenges Release of Photgraphs of Prison Abuse."It strikes me as very likely that if CBS's Sixty Minutes II does not leak the photos of the abuse that this doesn't happen. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
-- From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I can tell you what John Stossel once told me - that a sign of how far to the left TV news is is that people think he's a conservative - when he is, of course, a libertarian. --- There you go again with the 2 dimensional French political axis. The reality is there are right-wing libertarians, and left-wing libertarians, but the libertarian party tends toward being right-wing radicals (much further beyond even reptiliKlan radicals). - "I can't imagine that I'm going to be attacked for telling the truth. Why would I be attacked for telling the truth?" Paul O'Neill, 60 Minutes ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 04:54:11PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Sure. And I don't hate any of them. I've dated Uh uh. That wasn't the implied question. Do you LIKE them (collectively? I don't care who you've dated...)? It certainly doesn't sound like it to me. You said you like "American people", but I don't see it in your writing. You appear to like some, but not others. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure. And I don't hate any of them. I've dated > someone who works for ABC News - and, for that > matter, > someone who works for The Nature Conservancy > (admittedly, by far the best of the environmental > groups. Someone who worked for Greenpeace, that > could > be a problem. It would depend on how cute she was.) Note for the humor-impaired - the last sentence in the passage quoted above was a joke... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aren't the media "American people"? Aren't liberals? > Aren't > environmentalists? > > -- > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ Sure. And I don't hate any of them. I've dated someone who works for ABC News - and, for that matter, someone who works for The Nature Conservancy (admittedly, by far the best of the environmental groups. Someone who worked for Greenpeace, that could be a problem. It would depend on how cute she was.) They're my (political) opponents. Not my enemies. They're all important and I wouldn't want any of them to vanish from the American political spectrum. I might want them to be less powerful, but that's a big difference. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Inept, but still able to coordinate the release or > restriction of > certain videos (Berg, 911 jumpers, etc)? I suppose > it depends on what > ineptitude you're calling them on. It's not about conspiracy, it's about groupthink. > > We agree that most of mass media is corrupt, but I > think we disagree as > to the source of that corruption. It is not, as you > make pains to > insist, that they are leftist dupes. It is that they > are greed Where did I say corrupt? I don't think they're corrupt. I think they honestly believe certain things which I happen to disagree with. That doesn't have anything to do with corrupt. > > > Fox exploited a fairly obvious market > > niche (a news broadcast not skewed to the left) > > That's like saying that white is a color "not skewed > towards the black." > I'm sure that it would be possible to create a > "news" network to the > right of Fox, but I think that people would catch on > the first time that > swastika logo showed up. You know, the argument that people who disagree with you on the right are Nazis is so pathetic it's not even worth my time to answer. > ABC, CBS, NBC, et al, are entertainment businesses > that have > entertainment programs structured around the events > of the day. > Broadcast news is hardly much more than a > reality-based TV show. They > don't sit around figuring out what stories to cover > (and how) based on > how they'll support their supposed liberal agenda. > I've worked in a > broadcast news organization that had its share of > conservatives, > liberals and people on all sorts of political > dimensions. I'm sure that > any individual story reflected the biases and > experience of the > reporter, but I'm equally sure that the overall mix > did not. Which organization? And do you mean "conservative" by your standards, or by the standards of the American public as a whole. Because I bet they're not the same. I can tell you what John Stossel once told me - that a sign of how far to the left TV news is is that people think he's a conservative - when he is, of course, a libertarian. > > As for your earlier claim that TV news didn't show > the 911 jumpers or > the Berg murder because it didn't support their > biases, I think not. > What's more, I don't think America needs any more > whipping-up. But that's your opinion, isn't it? I happen to disagree. I think too many Americans are forgetting exactly what happened, and we need to remember who our enemies are. > It is not a sign of media bias that TV presents > everything as black and > white, but it is a sign of black-and-white thinking > that you and others > persist in the "liberal media" witch hunt. Or it could be that the witches are really out there... > They're not alone in that. Most of the rest of the > world kept its distance. So what? > > > It does not understand how educated, sensible > people > > could possibly be wary of multilateral > institutions or > > friendly, sophisticated European allies. > > Perhaps "it" (this monolithic vast left-wing > conspiracy you imagine to > lurk behind media) *does* understand, but doesn't > organize its > programming around any particular small > constituency. No conspiracy. Just a lot people who think alike. Those biases affect their coverage. How many evangelical Christians do you think report for the New York Times? For CNN? Does that bias their coverage? A very high proportion of the population of the US - something over a third - is evangelical Christians. I'd be shocked if the equivalent proportion is 5% among elite news organizations. Something around 40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative". What do you think that proportion is at the Washington Post - 10%? I'd be surprised if it's even 5%, actually. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
-- From: Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ~Guatum Actually Wrote~: >>>The Fool wrote: > The conventional wisdom on the main network news > broadcasts is that they lose money significantly. > That may be incorrect (I'm not a media expert) but my > impression is that they are treated as loss-leaders. > The demographics of their audience are _extremely_ > old, and advertisers generally pay much lower rates > for elderly eyeballs. I'm astounded that this perception persists... but since the media treat the media as a virtually taboo subject for real journalism, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me. They are very profitable. --- Still need to fix Content-Type: multipart/mixed. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
-- From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And as for the right exploiting the mistakes of the > liberal media, well, > "Nobody ever went broke understimating the taste of > the American people." > > Dave I might get to the rest later, but, as I repeatedly point out to Tom, that sort of contempt for the public is why, in the long run, I and people like me are going to win. I _like_ the American people, and I respect them, and so do most people who believe what I believe. You mean the Rednecks and the Christian Fascists? They sure do respect other peoples rights. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:50 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse > News in general is a profit center (to the extent you > can call "Dateline NBC" news, I guess). The main > network newscasts - which I referred to - do not. > Peter Jennings is expensive, and not many people watch > him at 6:30pm. How expensive is he? He can't cost a million a show, can he? His news program, from the last Nielson's I got, would easily be in the top 25 prime time shows. I won't argue that his demographics are as good as Friends, but I'll research exactly how good/bad they are. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
The Fool wrote: The conventional wisdom on the main network news broadcasts is that they lose money significantly. That may be incorrect (I'm not a media expert) but my impression is that they are treated as loss-leaders. The demographics of their audience are _extremely_ old, and advertisers generally pay much lower rates for elderly eyeballs. I'm astounded that this perception persists... but since the media treat the media as a virtually taboo subject for real journalism, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me. They are very profitable. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Gautam Mukunda wrote: News in general is a profit center (to the extent you can call "Dateline NBC" news, I guess). The main network newscasts - which I referred to - do not. Peter Jennings is expensive, and not many people watch him at 6:30pm. Nonsense. The network news operations, which are business units, are quite profitable. It doesn't even make sense to talk about the profitability of the evening newscast, since news-gathering expenses are shared by the rest of the news operations. The way that big media is organized, news is a very profitable business. That becomes painfully clear to the people in those divisions when profits drop. I'm *not* criticizing capitalism here. I'm criticizing an oligopoly that (legally) abuses liberal democratic freedoms. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:27:50PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > I might get to the rest later, but, as I repeatedly point out to Tom, > that sort of contempt for the public is why, in the long run, I and > people like me are going to win. I _like_ the American people, and I Aren't the media "American people"? Aren't liberals? Aren't environmentalists? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And as for the right exploiting the mistakes of the > liberal media, well, > "Nobody ever went broke understimating the taste of > the American people." > > Dave I might get to the rest later, but, as I repeatedly point out to Tom, that sort of contempt for the public is why, in the long run, I and people like me are going to win. I _like_ the American people, and I respect them, and so do most people who believe what I believe. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
-- From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > . I disagree that they're > > _primary_, because if they were none of the > networks > > would have an evening news broadcast. Yet they > do, so > > clearly something else is going on. > > Why do you say that? The news is not in prime time, > yet it commands decent > ratings. The main news channels rating would easily > put them in the prime > time top 25...which would be enough for renewing any > show. Viewers of prime > time news (NBC and ABC from what I've seen) is > between 8.5 and 9.0 > million. Seems like a good deal to me. > > Dan M. The conventional wisdom on the main network news broadcasts is that they lose money significantly. That may be incorrect (I'm not a media expert) but my impression is that they are treated as loss-leaders. The demographics of their audience are _extremely_ old, and advertisers generally pay much lower rates for elderly eyeballs. As opposed to Sugar-Daddy Moon's Washington Times, or the NYPost? Sugar-Daddy Moon has spent over two billion dollars on his right-wing propaganda newspaper, because it loses 40 million dollars a year. The NYPost also loses something in that range. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
-- From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Let me quote from an ABC News institution, in fact - The Note: Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions." They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow. The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies. It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending. It remains fixated on the unemployment rate. It believes President Bush is "walking a fine line" with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between "tolerance" and his "right-wing base." It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him -- and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base. Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias -- not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!). The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race. [End quote] Now, that's not me talking. That's an employee of ABC News in an official writing, not even something published independently. Here's where your entire argument falls apart. First you are arguing that this person you quote is a part of the 'left-wing media elite'. But the person you quote is just repeating all of the pre-spun right-wing talking points I read every day from every single right-wing source, and fox news and MSNBC and all the right-wing web logs, and newsgroups. Every single thing he says is the exact same propaganda I read every day, fed for you and other right-wing hacks and partisans to spread. And you are trying to pass this right-wing propaganda you quote as coming from a biased left-wing media elite. Your constant use of false dichotomies and post hoc ergo propter hoc argumentation is rather...unenlightening. I read this kind of right-wing propaganda every day. Just because you are spouting it doesn't make it any more true. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Gautam Mukunda wrote: I think I've realized where the difference between you and me on the media really stems from, Dan. You think that they're good at their jobs, and I think they're inept. Inept, but still able to coordinate the release or restriction of certain videos (Berg, 911 jumpers, etc)? I suppose it depends on what ineptitude you're calling them on. We agree that most of mass media is corrupt, but I think we disagree as to the source of that corruption. It is not, as you make pains to insist, that they are leftist dupes. It is that they are greed Fox exploited a fairly obvious market niche (a news broadcast not skewed to the left) That's like saying that white is a color "not skewed towards the black." I'm sure that it would be possible to create a "news" network to the right of Fox, but I think that people would catch on the first time that swastika logo showed up. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions." ABC, CBS, NBC, et al, are entertainment businesses that have entertainment programs structured around the events of the day. Broadcast news is hardly much more than a reality-based TV show. They don't sit around figuring out what stories to cover (and how) based on how they'll support their supposed liberal agenda. I've worked in a broadcast news organization that had its share of conservatives, liberals and people on all sorts of political dimensions. I'm sure that any individual story reflected the biases and experience of the reporter, but I'm equally sure that the overall mix did not. As for your earlier claim that TV news didn't show the 911 jumpers or the Berg murder because it didn't support their biases, I think not. What's more, I don't think America needs any more whipping-up. More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow. Oddly enough, we agree here. The "fluid narrative" is part of TV's need to keep you watching through the next commercial set: "We'll be right back with continuing coverage of the latest bloodshed, but first..." As for the rest, people watch contests: football, baseball, basketball, horse racing, etc. TV news gives you both sides of the story, no matter how many sides there may be. It is not a sign of media bias that TV presents everything as black and white, but it is a sign of black-and-white thinking that you and others persist in the "liberal media" witch hunt. The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. They're not alone in that. Most of the rest of the world kept its distance. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies. Perhaps "it" (this monolithic vast left-wing conspiracy you imagine to lurk behind media) *does* understand, but doesn't organize its programming around any particular small constituency. Now, that's not me talking. That's an employee of ABC News in an official writing, not even something published independently. The media -- left, right, center -- *loves* to talk about itself, and since it has a bias towards controversy, what better than a hit piece on itself? I think that the Democratic Party (for example) is going to have to figure out how to operate in an environment where every story is not pre-spun to their benefit, as it has been for the last 30-40 years. Yeah, all that crap about Clinton and his blow jobs was pre-spun so nicely And as for the right exploiting the mistakes of the liberal media, well, "Nobody ever went broke understimating the taste of the American people." Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That was true in the 60s, but ever since "60 > Minutes" showed that news > can be profitable, news has become a very important > profit center. The > network news organizations had far more freedom when > they were a fixed > necessary (to meet FCC regs) expense than the > present situation, in > which they are expected to match or exceed the > profitability of the rest > of Disney, GE, etc. News in general is a profit center (to the extent you can call "Dateline NBC" news, I guess). The main network newscasts - which I referred to - do not. Peter Jennings is expensive, and not many people watch him at 6:30pm. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Gautam Mukunda wrote: The conventional wisdom on the main network news broadcasts is that they lose money significantly. That may be incorrect (I'm not a media expert) but my impression is that they are treated as loss-leaders. The demographics of their audience are _extremely_ old, and advertisers generally pay much lower rates for elderly eyeballs. That was true in the 60s, but ever since "60 Minutes" showed that news can be profitable, news has become a very important profit center. The network news organizations had far more freedom when they were a fixed necessary (to meet FCC regs) expense than the present situation, in which they are expected to match or exceed the profitability of the rest of Disney, GE, etc. You might find the classic "The Media Monopoly," by Ben Bagdikian, to be a real eye-opener, given the misconception above. He saw where things were headed, and the forces driving them, a long time ago. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > . I disagree that they're > > _primary_, because if they were none of the > networks > > would have an evening news broadcast. Yet they > do, so > > clearly something else is going on. > > Why do you say that? The news is not in prime time, > yet it commands decent > ratings. The main news channels rating would easily > put them in the prime > time top 25...which would be enough for renewing any > show. Viewers of prime > time news (NBC and ABC from what I've seen) is > between 8.5 and 9.0 > million. Seems like a good deal to me. > > Dan M. The conventional wisdom on the main network news broadcasts is that they lose money significantly. That may be incorrect (I'm not a media expert) but my impression is that they are treated as loss-leaders. The demographics of their audience are _extremely_ old, and advertisers generally pay much lower rates for elderly eyeballs. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Gautam, grinding the "Everybody but me hates America" axe, wrote: --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The image is available on their website for anyone who wants to see it. I think that the media isn't showing the murder out of respect for the families...just like it stopped showing people jumping from the WTC. Let me think about the rest of it but respond to this. I would argue that there's a very simple rule to predict when the press will show a picture. If it's likely to inflame the American public against their enemies - the pictures don't get shown. If it's likely to inflame the enemies of the US against us - the "news value" of the pictures suddenly gets more important, as in the case of the prison photos. Why? It seems to me that the answer to that is very simple. Like (for example) a few people on this list, most members of the elite media don't, in their heart of hearts, believe that people outside the United States act against us in anything but retaliation for our own actions. Murdering Daniel Pearl wasn't because the people who did it were Islamist fanatics bent on the murder of Jews and Americans, but in retaliation for the acts of the United States (see Robert Fisk's articles at the time, for example). It's not that they think that the terrorists are right, it's that they think the terrorists have "understanable grievances" and that the best thing we can do is "understand why they hate us" and act differently so as to appease our enemies. Thus the photos of the torture - those create an important policy point. They (might) get the US to back away from Iraq and appease Islamist fanaticism - and that is pretty much what most members of the media think that we should do (note this is not condemnatory - there's a coherent argument to be made that this is, in fact, the correct policy. I don't agree with it, but it's not immoral or anything like that, it's just incorrect). So the photos get published. But showing people jumping from the World Trade Center - that's not about respect. That's because those photos are inflammatory - they are likely to remind Americans of the true horrors of what happened on September 11th (and you can already see people forgetting). So those photos become "too horrible to show." Every time I see a statement that "the" reason that a person or organization did (or didn't do) something, I know that I'm about to hear someone grind their axe. I reject that idea that there is "a reason" that we went to Iraq, that there is "a reason" that some goobers abused prisoners, that there is "a reason" that some other goobers beheaded Nick Berg. There are lots of reasons that all of those things happen. Some of them are vile. Some are either justifiable or without justification depending on your point of view. Disclaimer: I do not support terrorism, prisoner abuse, beheadings or pre-emptive wars. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 2:10 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse . I disagree that they're > _primary_, because if they were none of the networks > would have an evening news broadcast. Yet they do, so > clearly something else is going on. Why do you say that? The news is not in prime time, yet it commands decent ratings. The main news channels rating would easily put them in the prime time top 25...which would be enough for renewing any show. Viewers of prime time news (NBC and ABC from what I've seen) is between 8.5 and 9.0 million. Seems like a good deal to me. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, let me walk through this arguement. First of > all, I saw people jumping > from the WTC a number of times on TV. Then, an > announcment was made: "we > have been requested to stop showing these photos > because of the feelings of > the families of the people in the WTC. We thought > about it, and decided > they were right." My real guess is that they > thought Americans would > believe that and it was not worth the risk of > alienating too many viewers. > > Second, in your discussion of the media elite, you > have made it looked like > a left wing monolith. I cannot agree with that. > Are you arguing that Fox > news has had a left wing pacifict agenda over the > last year that permiated > its news coverage? Don't you think the NY Post, or > at least the Washington > Times would be willing to publish those photos, if > the only reason for not > publishing them was a left wing agenda? Is every > news outlet part of the > leftist elite? No, but most of the major ones are. I think I've realized where the difference between you and me on the media really stems from, Dan. You think that they're good at their jobs, and I think they're inept. I agree with you (to some extent) that viewership and such are important. I disagree that they're _primary_, because if they were none of the networks would have an evening news broadcast. Yet they do, so clearly something else is going on. But more than that, the success of Fox News suggests (to me) the extent to which the media elite is completely out of touch with the American mainstream. This isn't surprising - read David Brook's articles in _The Atlantic_ on Red & Blue America. But it does seem clear. Fox exploited a fairly obvious market niche (a news broadcast not skewed to the left) and met with remarkable success. But no one in the business except Roger Ailes saw it. I have a friend who works for ABC News who keeps referring to Ailes as a genius. I don't think so - I'm sure he's smart, but mainly he just didn't share the ideological blinders that she and almost all of her co-workers have. Let me quote from an ABC News institution, in fact - The Note: Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions." They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow. The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies. It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending. It remains fixated on the unemployment rate. It believes President Bush is "walking a fine line" with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between "tolerance" and his "right-wing base." It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him -- and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base. Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias -- not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!). The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race. [End quote] Now, that's not me talking. That's an employee of ABC News in an official writing, not even something published independently. Will the right-wing press publish the images? I think that they will (and have) put more emphasis on the images than their left-wing brethren. Because they work in an environment in which the dominant norms are entirely shaped by the press organs of the media elite, they won't go all the way - they will feel restrained by a sense of not getting too far away f
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:46 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse > --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The image is available on their website for anyone > > who wants to see it. I > > think that the media isn't showing the murder out of > > respect for the > > families...just like it stopped showing people > > jumping from the WTC. > > > Dan M. > > Let me think about the rest of it but respond to this. > I would argue that there's a very simple rule to > predict when the press will show a picture. If it's > likely to inflame the American public against their > enemies - the pictures don't get shown. If it's > likely to inflame the enemies of the US against us - > the "news value" of the pictures suddenly gets more > important, as in the case of the prison photos. Why? > It seems to me that the answer to that is very simple. > Like (for example) a few people on this list, most > members of the elite media don't, in their heart of > hearts, believe that people outside the United States > act against us in anything but retaliation for our own > actions. Murdering Daniel Pearl wasn't because the > people who did it were Islamist fanatics bent on the > murder of Jews and Americans, but in retaliation for > the acts of the United States (see Robert Fisk's > articles at the time, for example). It's not that > they think that the terrorists are right, it's that > they think the terrorists have "understanable > grievances" and that the best thing we can do is > "understand why they hate us" and act differently so > as to appease our enemies. > > Thus the photos of the torture - those create an > important policy point. They (might) get the US to > back away from Iraq and appease Islamist fanaticism - > and that is pretty much what most members of the media > think that we should do (note this is not condemnatory > - there's a coherent argument to be made that this is, > in fact, the correct policy. I don't agree with it, > but it's not immoral or anything like that, it's just > incorrect). So the photos get published. >But showing > people jumping from the World Trade Center - that's > not about respect. That's because those photos are > inflammatory - they are likely to remind Americans of > the true horrors of what happened on September 11th > (and you can already see people forgetting). So those > photos become "too horrible to show." OK, let me walk through this arguement. First of all, I saw people jumping from the WTC a number of times on TV. Then, an announcment was made: "we have been requested to stop showing these photos because of the feelings of the families of the people in the WTC. We thought about it, and decided they were right." My real guess is that they thought Americans would believe that and it was not worth the risk of alienating too many viewers. Second, in your discussion of the media elite, you have made it looked like a left wing monolith. I cannot agree with that. Are you arguing that Fox news has had a left wing pacifict agenda over the last year that permiated its news coverage? Don't you think the NY Post, or at least the Washington Times would be willing to publish those photos, if the only reason for not publishing them was a left wing agenda? Is every news outlet part of the leftist elite? Let me give another explaination. The most important question for any news outlet is what will improve our ratings. That can easily explain the importance of pushing a mike into the face of someone who has just lost a loved one in some horrid manner (murder, burned in a fire, etc.) and asking "how do you feel." It is newsworthy because it sells soap. It shows why docudramas like "COPs" are so important. The prison abuse story has been sitting there, univestigated, for for a long time. Without pictures, Americans didn't want to believe it was anything more than a minor abberation. With no boost to circulation or ratings, why spend any time or money chasing down the story. With pictures, the story had sex appeal, and could push up ratings. Therefore it was a serious subject for journalism. The details were not shown because the risk of an FCC fine overrode any benefits that could be gained from sensationalism. I'm arguing that news must be viewed first and formost as a profit making business. The legs a story has is not based on its objective importance, but on its effect on ratings. Thus, we pick out one murder out of thousands as one worth following to the nth degree, while ignoring others. For example, the Peterson trial is still big news, with no objective reason why this is more important than any other double murder. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The image is available on their website for anyone > who wants to see it. I > think that the media isn't showing the murder out of > respect for the > families...just like it stopped showing people > jumping from the WTC. > Dan M. Let me think about the rest of it but respond to this. I would argue that there's a very simple rule to predict when the press will show a picture. If it's likely to inflame the American public against their enemies - the pictures don't get shown. If it's likely to inflame the enemies of the US against us - the "news value" of the pictures suddenly gets more important, as in the case of the prison photos. Why? It seems to me that the answer to that is very simple. Like (for example) a few people on this list, most members of the elite media don't, in their heart of hearts, believe that people outside the United States act against us in anything but retaliation for our own actions. Murdering Daniel Pearl wasn't because the people who did it were Islamist fanatics bent on the murder of Jews and Americans, but in retaliation for the acts of the United States (see Robert Fisk's articles at the time, for example). It's not that they think that the terrorists are right, it's that they think the terrorists have "understanable grievances" and that the best thing we can do is "understand why they hate us" and act differently so as to appease our enemies. Thus the photos of the torture - those create an important policy point. They (might) get the US to back away from Iraq and appease Islamist fanaticism - and that is pretty much what most members of the media think that we should do (note this is not condemnatory - there's a coherent argument to be made that this is, in fact, the correct policy. I don't agree with it, but it's not immoral or anything like that, it's just incorrect). So the photos get published. But showing people jumping from the World Trade Center - that's not about respect. That's because those photos are inflammatory - they are likely to remind Americans of the true horrors of what happened on September 11th (and you can already see people forgetting). So those photos become "too horrible to show." = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:45 AM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse > Isn't it obvious? The same reason that they butchered > Daniel Pearl. They think that doing something like > that is going to scare us - shake our resolve and > convince us to surrender. I really don't see it that way. I think that they are a lot brighter and a lot more subtle than this. I agree that showing the footage will not weaken the US's resolve. But, I don't think we are the primary audience for this. I think the rest of the world is. I'd argue that much of the basis for this is in blood feuds. Going back to the bible, "an eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life" was a call for moderation in a time of blood feud. It would make sense for them to promote the idea of a blood feud between a US controlled by the Zionist conspiricy and all the Mosilums. The rest of the West would be advised to move away from the US so as not to get caught up in this. Any country that followed Spains "wonderful" example would be downgraded on the "who to hit list." Any country that denounced the US would be eliminated. Further, they would wish to promote themselves as defenders of the honor the the people of Iraq. Only they have the power and the will to attack those who shame the people of Iraq. Only by supporting this cause can the people of Iraq regain their honor. Since about half of the people of Iraq supported at least some attacks against coalition troops before things started heating up in the 2nd week of April, I'd argue that a majority does now. We are at a point where we need to see progress or risk losing the majority of the Iraqi people. I'd argue that this beheading needs to be seen in the context of how it affects that. As an aside, I'm sure you know that I'm making no excuses for what happened. It goes without saying that it is evil and revolting. However, the very last thing I want is for the killers to accomplish their goals. >Or, even more (as we've > seen) convince us that this is somehow _our fault_, The only responsibility we had was to open the door to this type of revolting action having the potential for a positive effect for the murderers. Now, the fact that the two victims were Jewish may very well have been the overwhelming factor. But, since a number of hostages had been released before, and its been two years since Daniel Pearle, its also possible that AQ determined that the climate was not right for this particular type of killing advancing their cause. But, after the abuse scandle, they thought that the plusses now outweighed the minuses. The war with AQ et. al., is being fought on a number of different levels. I don't think it is irresponsible to say that a mistake on our part has afforded the enemy a particular advantage. That certainly doesn't justify the murder in any way at all. A linkage is not necessarily a justification. > and that we are to blame because our enemies act like > this. I think that they are mistaken in this and that > it will not, in fact, erode American resolve, instead > strengthening it (if the media does its job and shows > the images), but hey, I could be wrong. The image is available on their website for anyone who wants to see it. I think that the media isn't showing the murder out of respect for the families...just like it stopped showing people jumping from the WTC. Further, when it showed the abuse, it blurred things out to show the idea, not the actual picture of a man being forced to masturbate in front of a womanetc. The pictures shown with the dogs in the New Yorker, for example, didn't show the bite wound...even though it was available. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 07:45:13AM -0700, Gautam > Mukunda wrote: > > > The question is, though, do you believe them? > > A better question is, why did they do it? > > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ Isn't it obvious? The same reason that they butchered Daniel Pearl. They think that doing something like that is going to scare us - shake our resolve and convince us to surrender. Or, even more (as we've seen) convince us that this is somehow _our fault_, and that we are to blame because our enemies act like this. I think that they are mistaken in this and that it will not, in fact, erode American resolve, instead strengthening it (if the media does its job and shows the images), but hey, I could be wrong. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 07:45:13AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > The question is, though, do you believe them? A better question is, why did they do it? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, didn't they allegedly (I don't speak > Arabic, and the sound quality > on the piece of video I have seen replayed on the > news is so poor that I > couldn't tell what anyone was saying, no matter what > language they were > saying it in) say that they were doing this in > retaliation for the prison > abuses? Or did I get that wrong, too? > -- Ronn! :) It wouldn't shock me if they did - but so what? Everything about that video was a carefully crafted propaganda statement (one done by idiots, but idiots who might be saved by the Western media's belief that only images that piss off Americans are verboten, while those that anger the rest of the world _at_ Americans are just fine). _Of course_ they would claim that - it's the obvious move. The question is, though, do you believe them? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
> However, didn't they allegedly (I don't speak > Arabic, and the sound quality > on the piece of video I have seen replayed on the > news is so poor that I > couldn't tell what anyone was saying, no matter what > language they were > saying it in) say that they were doing this in > retaliation for the prison > abuses? Or did I get that wrong, too? I'm pretty sure they said it was in retaliation to the prison controversy. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 08:09 AM 5/12/04, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That was Robert but I would also say I knew this was > coming, who > didn't after seeing the photos? > > I am in no way justifying it, it just was going to > happen. > > Gary You've heard of Daniel Pearl, perhaps? What was his beheading in retaliation to? How hard is it to believe that Al Qaeda members might want to kill Americans for reasons that have nothing to do with Abu Ghraib? They've kind of done it before. However, didn't they allegedly (I don't speak Arabic, and the sound quality on the piece of video I have seen replayed on the news is so poor that I couldn't tell what anyone was saying, no matter what language they were saying it in) say that they were doing this in retaliation for the prison abuses? Or did I get that wrong, too? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That was Robert but I would also say I knew this was > coming, who > didn't after seeing the photos? > > I am in no way justifying it, it just was going to > happen. > > Gary You've heard of Daniel Pearl, perhaps? What was his beheading in retaliation to? How hard is it to believe that Al Qaeda members might want to kill Americans for reasons that have nothing to do with Abu Ghraib? They've kind of done it before. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: "Matthew and Julie Bos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:20 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse > On 5/11/04 8:58 PM, "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The Other Shoe Maru > > As much as I like tag lines, this one gets me. These people can kill a man > on video, and you can go ahead and justify it. Great. At least I can get a > taste of what I am going to read tomorrow in the New York Times. > The phrase is "waiting for the other shoe to drop" and the idea is that things are not finished here yet. Consider that the name Daniel Pearl still gets mentioned in the news quite often. xponent This Story Isn't Over Yet Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:20:18 -0400, Matthew and Julie Bos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/11/04 8:58 PM, "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The Other Shoe Maru > > As much as I like tag lines, this one gets me. These people can kill a man > on video, and you can go ahead and justify it. Great. At least I can get a > taste of what I am going to read tomorrow in the New York Times. > > Matthew Bos That was Robert but I would also say I knew this was coming, who didn't after seeing the photos? I am in no way justifying it, it just was going to happen. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On 5/11/04 8:58 PM, "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Other Shoe Maru As much as I like tag lines, this one gets me. These people can kill a man on video, and you can go ahead and justify it. Great. At least I can get a taste of what I am going to read tomorrow in the New York Times. Matthew Bos ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On 5/11/04 10:23 PM, "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Berg said he blamed the U.S. government for creating > circumstances that led to his son's death. He said if his son hadn't > been detained for so long, he might have been able to leave the > country before the violence worsened. As much as he has a right to be angry, I blame the guy with the knife and his masked buddies. But then again I do gloss over the big issues... Matthew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Tue, 11 May 2004 19:58:26 -0500, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040511/D82GL8V00.html http://pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-16/108430077760820.xml > > The family of an American civilian shown beheaded on an Islamic > militant Web site huddled in in tears Tuesday after learning of the > existence of the graphic videotape. Michael Berg lashed out at the U.S. military and Bush administration, saying his son might still be alive had he not been detained by U.S. officials in Iraq without being charged and without access to a lawyer. Michael Berg said he blamed the U.S. government for creating circumstances that led to his son's death. He said if his son hadn't been detained for so long, he might have been able to leave the country before the violence worsened. "I think a lot of people are fed up with the lack of civil rights this thing has caused," he said. "I don't think this administration is committed to democracy." Also NPR has a conversation: http://here-now.org/shows/2004/05/20040511_6.asp Beheading video is online but I don't feel like posting the link. Prayers and sympathy are due the Berg family. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
