tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post115801558028160634..comments2024-01-04T19:35:00.635-08:00Comments on ThanBook: Obligatory 9/11 anniversary postthanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-1158610478521332352006-09-18T13:14:00.000-07:002006-09-18T13:14:00.000-07:00Revised version of comment:Gary: The newsmedia wer...Revised version of comment:<BR/><BR/>Gary: The newsmedia were critical of Clinton for his sex scandals and gays in the military and other such things, they were critical of Nixon over Watergate, and over his heavy-handed economic policies, they were critical of Reagan over Iran-Contra and over Granada, they were critical of Bush I for various things, and most importantly, before 9/11, they were critical of Bush II, portraying him as a mealy-mouthed guy with dumb ideas. He never had a honeymoon with the press, he was criticized right off the bat.<BR/><BR/>After 9/11, he was canonized as the War President. Even his Social Security plans of two years ago weren't that heavily opposed until polls made it clear that most of the country understood what Social Security really is - a retirement program based on current workers' wages, one that is *not* dependent on individuals' knowledge of the stock market.<BR/><BR/>Having all branches of government be one party is dangerous, I'll agree with: executive, both houses of Congress, and Supreme Court.<BR/><BR/>Milhouse: re "[the troops] overwhelmingly support the war":<BR/><BR/>As for the troops, their access to news is controlled by the Administration. Where are they going to get the New York Times? In Baghdad? Let alone the lefty blogs. Also, a volunteer army is going to be more supportive of the administration for which they volunteered, no?<BR/><BR/>For instance, this Zogby poll shows that a majority of troops want to see the war end this year. Meanwhile, 85% of them think that the Iraq war is retaliation for 9/11. Which only indicates that they have swallowed the Administration's lies hook line and sinker. And why not? What other news sources do they have?<BR/><BR/>http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075<BR/><BR/>The Christian Science Monitor brings military sources agreeing with the results of the poll:<BR/><BR/>http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0301/dailyUpdate.html<BR/><BR/>And in poll after poll, supporting the troops is perceived as a different position than supporting the war or the President. Most of the country, as do I, support the troops, but oppose the war. The troops say "get out by end of 2006", Bush says to stay indefinitely. It's not that hard to support one and not the other.thanbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-1158115455641623422006-09-12T19:44:00.000-07:002006-09-12T19:44:00.000-07:00What has happened isn't capitalism in any proper s...<I>What has happened isn't capitalism in any proper sense, though it's what is sometimes called by the confusing term of "state capitalism."</I><BR/><BR/>I see the inverse: crony capitalism. It's not the *state* that has burgeoning control over so much of our lives, it's the capitalists. And yeah, they sure aren't free market capitalists, on that we can totally agree.But I think they have to be called "capitalists", because they certainly do believe in the pre-eminence of those with capital.<BR/><BR/><I>by providing many other carrots and sticks, the government has trained businesses that they will profit by seeking favors, and will lose from independence</I><BR/><BR/>Again, I see the complete opposite. Or rather, I agree with you that there's a leash between government and business, but it's business that's holding the business end, as it were. Politicians have been trained to give favors to businesses much more than the other way around. This applies to both parties, but the leash is much tighter on the Republicans.<BR/><BR/>Let me put it this way: what was the last significant Republican policy initiative that *didn't* have the backing of the oil, finance, pharma, or military/industrial industries?Doctor Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460727665734543636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-1158069888248570152006-09-12T07:04:00.000-07:002006-09-12T07:04:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.thanbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-1158069398061940572006-09-12T06:56:00.000-07:002006-09-12T06:56:00.000-07:00Doctor Science: What has happened isn't capitalism...Doctor Science: What has happened isn't capitalism in any proper sense, though it's what is sometimes called by the confusing term of "state capitalism." The government, by having so much control over our lives, has become a primary supplier of information, which is a commodity that the news media depend on. And by providing many other carrots and sticks, the government has trained businesses that they will profit by seeking favors, and will lose from independence. It's not the existence of corporations as such, but the culture of dependence upon government in corporations, which has resulted in the loss of integrity that you describe.Gary McGathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12880087933512343984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-1158042001474191042006-09-11T23:20:00.000-07:002006-09-11T23:20:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Milhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350874508580081286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-1158027537028091182006-09-11T19:18:00.000-07:002006-09-11T19:18:00.000-07:00No, Gary. The news media are loyal to those who pa...No, Gary. The news media are loyal to those who pay the bills. With the consolidation and buying-up and generally rampant hard-core capitalism in the media industry over the last few decades, media owners have become more and more single-mindedly corporatist. And the corporatists are on the side of the Republicans -- or visa versa, because the leash is definitely in the hands of the rich and the collar on the party.Doctor Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460727665734543636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-1158023129525304222006-09-11T18:05:00.000-07:002006-09-11T18:05:00.000-07:00Well said, JonathanWell said, Jonathanotherdebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04775055112055273749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-1158019082019240052006-09-11T16:58:00.000-07:002006-09-11T16:58:00.000-07:00כן יהי רצוןכן יהי רצוןSteg (dos iz nit der šteg)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07694556690190505030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-1158019019831791952006-09-11T16:56:00.000-07:002006-09-11T16:56:00.000-07:00The news media are loyal to those who feed them st...The news media are loyal to those who feed them stories. When Democrats are in power, they're "liberal" media. When Republicans are in power, they're "conservative" media. They aren't so much pro-government as sycophants of the government.<BR/><BR/>Painting the issue as one of getting rid of Republicans just creates one more artificial us vs. them dichotomy. I'd soonest see the Republicans pushed out of the majority in at least one house of Congress, because too many of them are following the Bush line, and there needs to be more opposition to him. But the candidates need to be judged on their actual and intended actions, not on their party affiliation. In general the Democrats are no better, just out of power. Voting against incumbents may be the best rule in most cases.Gary McGathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12880087933512343984noreply@blogger.com