Media Control in America

[amicus]

Boxlicker...I do not wish to disagree, but rather to amplify...all endeavors by humans...are profit driven....we work, we act, to provide ourselves with the essentials to live.

A corporation is a gathering of individuals, many of whom have offered, risked, captital, money, to form an new enterprise that may or may not make a profit....that is to say, an increase in what they had invested, or 'risked', as capital...

I suppose that some of us were lucky...to be granted or find or buy, land that had a natural resource....trees, lumber, animals, game, food animals...fur animals...water....vegetable foods... and we humans. then and now....act in an ego centric way to increase our ability to survive...

It seems so simple to one who respects the individual human, but so difficult to those who seem to think we can only exist as a 'social group'. All things begin with a single human mind.

Is that so hard?

amicus....

 

[Gary Chambers]

Originally posted by amicus
But then, I can't keep my eyes off of AmySweets boobs...I be a bad man...

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
Aren't they faboulous!

That pic is not me, btw, it's Katie Holmes. She makes me feel like a bad man too- and I'm not even a man!

Damn! She's done it again. First she had us drooling over her cute little belly button, only to reveal it was someone else's, leaving us all cowering and hating our own weakness. Then she emerges from that role, changes her name, and stretches back in Grass Ass Park with a look that says come and get me, only to inform us that it's bloody Kate Holmes again. Well I've got news for you, girl. I think you are Katie Holmes. You just call yourself Amy or SweetnPetite here so autograph hounds won't recognise you. Yep, I reckon that was your real belly button and those are your real tits. That's my fantasy and I'm sticking to it, so there.

Now I have to read this whole thread so I can give Amicus the response he deserves, and I'm going to ignore your avatar, but not your words, Amy Sweet.

 

[amicus]

Imply or infer..two different words..two different meanings, I did not mean to insult you, nor do I wish to take the role of a babtist ministering his flock...

"...
Amicus, I will attend to the balance of your argument under a separate heading, but first I must tell you that I find the above quote offensive. It's the sort of cheap shot one expects from the leader of the local Baptist congregation, not a man solid enough to stand up as a prince of porn. Every time some right winger gets in a spot of debating bother these days, they have certain pat insults they toss at people. One of the dirtiest, most scandalous, disreputable, intolerable of all is the 'conspiracy theorist jab'. At no time did I suggest a conspiracy. If you saw one, then it was in your mind, like the reader who sees pornography in erotica. Not in my mind...."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I shall await your separate heading...

amicus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Amicus, I will attend to the balance of your argument under a separate heading, but first I must tell you that I find the above quote offensive. It's the sort of cheap shot one expects from the leader of the local Baptist congregation, not a man solid enough to stand up as a prince of porn. Every time some right winger gets in a spot of debating bother these days, they have certain pat insults they toss at people. One of the dirtiest, most scandalous, disreputable, intolerable of all is the 'conspiracy theorist jab'. At no time did I suggest a conspiracy. If you saw one, then it was in your mind, like the reader who sees pornography in erotica. Not in my mind.

I don't see a conspiracy in the economic realities I outlined. Conspiracies may grow out of it, but the original event is just what is happening today. All the reactions to this reality, including any conspiracies that might be afloat, are just the machinations of us mere mortals, fumbling around trying to control our own destinies. Our human economy has a life of its own, like the economy of a swamp pool, and sometimes it chooses to live its life without our permission or guidance. That can result in war, pestilence, famine and disease. Sad but true; sad, but not a conspiracy in my mind, much less a conspiracy of Jews.

Hi, Gary. By the way, welcome back to AH. You were gone for quite a while and I missed your face. I named one of the characters in a story after you. A heterosexual male character, by the way. Personally, I would follow Lou into either Ohio or Florida, being careful to stay close enough to watch the intriguing sway of her hips.

I think the only one who is postulating a conspiracy is The Bullet with his comments about "The Right Wing" as if it were some vast monolith, which we all know it is not. Obviously, some members of the right wing are conspiring but they are conspiring against other persons, some of them also members of the right wing.

 

[dreampilot79]

Bullet...at the risk of bringing down your wrath...

Nope you don't speak for me.

I come from a long broadcast background.... and I have a personal bone to pick on the ownership issues, which gives me a bias in this outlook.

I have to agree with amicus.... arbitron rules as much as infinity or anyone else, in radio and neilson rules television more than any owner or group of owners.

Your ratings slip... you're gone no matter what your politics... right or left!!! Ratings are money and that trumps any political agenda.

I do not see the great conspiricy to control the press.... I merely see a danger.

Broadcast and Newspapers are different in one fundimemtal way. You can always print a paper.. basically anyone can and if 1000 new ones crop up in one city, it does not damage the ability to read the origional. If 1000 new broadcast outlets cropped up, there would not be enough bandwidth to accomodate them. There is a need to control the NUMBER of broadcast outlests to prevent interference.

Like I said, I have a bias but it has nothing to do with politics.

I do not like the concentration of ownership and I do find it a danger, but to this point that danger is theoretical because to this point, ratings rule and not the politics of the owners.

 

[thebullet]

I think the only one who is postulating a conspiracy is The Bullet with his comments about "The Right Wing" as if it were some vast monolith, which we all know it is not.

I have always stated that it is the neo-cons who are the conspiracy. They will admit it themselves. There aren't that many of them, but they control the Presidency and the republican party. I have tried, obviously unsuccessfully, to suggest that normal conservatives distance themselves from these people since the neo-cons are not true conservatives. Instead they are radicals.

I was taught as I sat at Barry Goldwater's feet that a true conservative jealously guards the Constitution; looks askance at foreign adventures; and is parsimonious with spending.

Does the current administration match any of these three criteria?

Whatever happened to the true conservatives, the classical liberals, in this country? I know they are out there somewhere.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I have always stated that it is the neo-cons who are the conspiracy. They will admit it themselves. There aren't that many of them, but they control the Presidency and the republican party. I have tried, obviously unsuccessfully, to suggest that normal conservatives distance themselves from these people since the neo-cons are not true conservatives. Instead they are radicals.

I was taught as I sat at Barry Goldwater's feet that a true conservative jealously guards the Constitution; looks askance at foreign adventures; and is parsimonious with spending.

Does the current administration match any of these three criteria?

Whatever happened to the true conservatives, the classical liberals, in this country? I know they are out there somewhere.

She's Colly and you pissed her off earlier.

An act which summoned forth from the bowels of Randtopia the infamous ami.

Repent now or all shall be for naught.



Or something of the type.

And ami, dear, tsk tsk, play nice or it's back in the cage without your special warm thick milk treat.

 

[curious2c]

I'm puzzled by this post. Why should it be surprising that top brass of competing corporations should see one another socially? They are often old friends, schoolmates and frat brothers. Even former co-workers because to rise in the industry sometimes requires a change in employer. After all, the competition among them is not conducted like a war between two gangs of drug dealers.

What is implied is that little fact that they talk shop here and there. At one point it can and in other times and ages, become a way of different people learning to exercise control over the masses.

I will admit that I have had problems with the media for years. They are first to yell if anyone, government or private persons try to step on the first amendment, but they are also first to try to take away the second amendment through their movies, articles, and constant bias in the news.

That is what leads me to think that there is an agenda that they talk about and try to press on the people.

I know it sounds a bit conspiracy like...but I fear it to be more true than not.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I have always stated that it is the neo-cons who are the conspiracy. They will admit it themselves. There aren't that many of them, but they control the Presidency and the republican party. I have tried, obviously unsuccessfully, to suggest that normal conservatives distance themselves from these people since the neo-cons are not true conservatives. Instead they are radicals.

I was taught as I sat at Barry Goldwater's feet that a true conservative jealously guards the Constitution; looks askance at foreign adventures; and is parsimonious with spending.

Does the current administration match any of these three criteria?

Whatever happened to the true conservatives, the classical liberals, in this country? I know they are out there somewhere.

No, it dosen't.

Would Kerry have? Let's take a look objectively.

He voted Bush the blank check and said he would have even if he had known the administration's basis for war was built on lies. He is a tax and spend liberal elitist. I think we can conclude pretty safely he would not have been parsimonious.

The Denocratic party has been assaulting my civil rights for as far back as I can remember, attacking my right to own a firearm. So they can't be said to have any claim to being more supportive of the consitution. They simply choose to attack rights they don't agree with, same as the Neo-cons.

And finally, Clinton sent in the troops anytime his ratings were slipping. Kerry said he would use the troops and supported the Iraq adventure.

So, by what leap of logic are you advocating old school conservatives distance ourselves? I am sure it would suit your agenda for us to split the party and just hand the presidency to a liberal. I don't see it happening. Liberals didn't abandon Clinton when he was exposed as a perjurer. Conservatives live between the devil and the deep blue sea. Accept the BS of the Neo-cons as the price of power OR support people we know will act in ways we find even more distasteful.

You wail, gnash your teeth, and tell us how we ought to act, without the ability to objectively examine the whole range of policy and ideology that directs a person to support one party or another or one ideology or another. It's your inability to see that your opinion is not defacto the right one, that makes it so easy for you to alienate people. You can honestly say you didn't insult my intelligence or try to tell me how I should think as a woman or lesbian, because you honestly can't see anyone who is a woman or lesbian not blindly following your reasoning.

I'm not one dimensional. I am a woman and a lesbian, but more than anythong else, I am a human being. I have 34 years of experience and upbringing, education and contemplation that guide me in forming my opinions. I don't blindly jump to one side or another simply because one or the other serves just ONE aspect of me.

Your hatered of the current administration makes you very much like a thressing machine gone amok. Mashing and smashing all in your path with no reguard. You DO get some points in, just like the threshing machine DOES thresh all the wheat in it's path. But even as it destroys everything not wheat, you destroy any modicum of respect or ability to debate in those who don't parrot your exact position.

Old school conservatives have even more reason than you do to dislike the Neo cons and resent the selling out of our party to the religious right. That said, you blithely advocate us simply handing the presidency to our most bitter foes in what amounts to spite. At no point have you or any liberal I am aware of taken the time to explain why or how your party would do it better. It's easier to just call us stupid and dismiss us. And when we have the termitity to argue with YOU, to belittle us in any way you can find.

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Colly-

Libs didn't split, but Lefties did but since no one in their right mind gives a damn about lefties anymore in the country no one noticed or cared and since the lefties had no where else to go (what they were going to join the party that was calling them traitors and commies as part of the Gingrich campaign?) it all became moot.

I wasn't on this forum for the wiki-whack, but I had no love for Clinton during the impeachment process. Yes, Starr was a rotweiller, but Clinton was being a bit of a smug sexist prick. I did not defend him for the hangers and many lefties didn't either. Many lefties also despised his presidency where he sat on his ass for 8 years doing very little but signing a couple of center-right bills and trying to endlessly woo people.

The fact that they are now the good ol' days is frightening in an aside however.

On a personal note, I think the true conservatives should stand firm against the psycho neo-cons in the inner-party battle and Dems should slap the sanctimonious whining power-monger persona off their pathetic little faces, stand up for their ideology on the Rhetoric War, reiterate that liberalism is the center of Christianity, reiterate that Patriotism begins on the homefront, on people's treatment of the land and its people and not on emptily waving a flag or supporting dumb wars, and claim for itself the role of fiscal conservative (cause it has that mantle without the credit right now) and drop the campaign against guns (NRA too fuckin' powerful, Dems are already in the pay and vote pro-guns anyway, and it opens a floodgate of pick-and-choose Bill of Rights discussions that no one in their right mind wants to enter (Neo-cons are not in their right mind)). Whether this will happen depends a lot on two things. The Democratic Party official elected for new DNC chairmanship and the actions of moderate Republican Senators and Representatives like McCain.

I'm trying to keep a close eye on both in these more unique and interesting days.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly-

Libs didn't split, but Lefties did but since no one in their right mind gives a damn about lefties anymore in the country no one noticed or cared and since the lefties had no where else to go (what they were going to join the party that was calling them traitors and commies as part of the Gingrich campaign?) it all became moot.

I wasn't on this forum for the wiki-whack, but I had no love for Clinton during the impeachment process. Yes, Starr was a rotweiller, but Clinton was being a bit of a smug sexist prick. I did not defend him for the hangers and many lefties didn't either. Many lefties also despised his presidency where he sat on his ass for 8 years doing very little but signing a couple of center-right bills and trying to endlessly woo people.

The fact that they are now the good ol' days is frightening in an aside however.

On a personal note, I think the true conservatives should stand firm against the psycho neo-cons in the inner-party battle and Dems should slap the sanctimonious whining power-monger persona off their pathetic little faces, stand up for their ideology on the Rhetoric War, reiterate that liberalism is the center of Christianity, reiterate that Patriotism begins on the homefront, on people's treatment of the land and its people and not on emptily waving a flag or supporting dumb wars, and claim for itself the role of fiscal conservative (cause it has that mantle without the credit right now) and drop the campaign against guns (NRA too fuckin' powerful, Dems are already in the pay and vote pro-guns anyway, and it opens a floodgate of pick-and-choose Bill of Rights discussions that no one in their right mind wants to enter (Neo-cons are not in their right mind)). Whether this will happen depends a lot on two things. The Democratic Party official elected for new DNC chairmanship and the actions of moderate Republican Senators and Representatives like McCain.

I'm trying to keep a close eye on both in these more unique and interesting days.

I left the GOP. My principals mean enough to me that I couldn't vote for Dubya. No one noticed, I am afterall, just one person, but I left.

Not easy, considering I have been voting the republican line since I was old enough to vote and suporting republican candidates even before I could vote. When push comes to shove, i will do what my inner voice directs, simply because I must face myself in the mirror every moring.

*HUGS*

NN

 

[Gary Chambers]

Eat, shit, fuck and die-all that matters

First of all, hello again to Boxlicker and yes it's nice to enjoy your company again too Minsue.

Political debate is a tiresome thing. Rumple's thread debating whether Karen McDougal's bum cheeks are symmetric, and whether nude models should be allowed to keep their real names is much more rewarding. Why? Because Karen McDougal's bum matters. Every little freckle, every tiny tag of her really matters. We are born to eat, shit, fuck and die. A beautiful and sensuous human being who is unafraid to be the sexual animal he or she truly is, matters more than all the political characters, protesters and pundits you can line up, and believe it or not, that is my primary political argument against yours.

[Stage Direction] AMICUS RUBS HANDS WITH DELIGHT, WHILE WINKING AT THE AUDIENCE.

You say you were a newspaper man. Me too, so lets see if we can't at least set the record straight on the left or right mass media bias question. I don't know about you, but I found that back in the Vietnam War days and for a decade or two afterwards, the majority of media types were left wingers. Some of the proprietors leaned that way too. The best ones worked hard at keeping their reportage balanced and objective, but they were often lefties true enough. I'm not sure whether that has since changed. Certainly you would be hard pressed to find a left wing media owner now, but you might still find a good many leftists in the trenches of journalism. What has changed is that Corporatism has grown into a virtual religion. As Gauche said, we must all earn a crust and that keeps us obedient to the new religion.

A case in point: two federal elections ago here in Canada, the man leading the Conservative Party was, Stockwell Day. He was a religious extremist. As a government minister in the province of Alberta, he went on a talk show and stated that the lawyer defending an accused child molester must himself be a child molester or he would not have taken the case. For that he was sued and through a bit of illegal chicanery Alberta taxpayers ended up paying the considerable damages awarded against him. When Day later ran for Prime Minister of the nation, he toured the country making speeches and peppering them with religious messages bordering on madness. Reporters working for then great, now fallen, media giant, Conrad Black, reported exactly what Stockwell was saying. Whether the journalists were left or right wing didn't matter. It got reported to the news desks. Once there, however, Day’s revealing drifts into religious mania were edited out, so to the people Stockwell Day appeared to be a reasonable and sane man. (He lost the election, however. This ain't Florida, Dorothy.)

Now I'm not saying that through all those previous years when the lefties controlled more of the media, these things didn't happen in reverse. I'm sure they did. I may even have done them myself now and then. All I'm saying is that they only happened in news organisations owned or controlled by rabid left wingers, and they were never in the majority because most business owners are conservatives, plain and simple. There was a left and right in mass media then, however, and any determined reader could find and read them both before making up his own mind between their viewpoints. That competition for readers or listeners encouraged media types to remain objective and apolitical most of the time. Today media ownership has swung further to the right, not just in the U.S.A., but everywhere it seems. Only one view is being represented. When Conrad Black's editors blue penciled Stockwell Day's slips into insanity, because Black owned virtually every newsroom across the country, the blackout (no pun intended) of truth was total. I do not recall that kind of total blackout in the more distant past.

It doesn't matter if you are left or right, Amicus, as a journalist you must surely agree that convergence of media ownership is not a positive thing. It flings the door wide open to that kind of abuse, and denies people the opportunity to vote with their wallets by buying another newspaper or tuning in a different station. No matter where you turn you'll find journalists reporting from a right wing viewpoint, because they must earn a crust, which means they must not rock the boat.

Personally I don't have anything against Rush Limbaugh or any other right wing media personality having their say. I want them there. I need them there. My only objection is that we have reached a point where only their voices are heard. Look at Dan Rather. We've seen his work for many years. Are we now to believe that all this time he's been nothing but a cheap propagandist? Is he really the pariah that right wing media critics have made him out to be? And if he went too far with Bush's military service records, was he doing anything others weren’t doing with Kerry's? The only difference is, that Rather was left in disgrace while the Smear Boaters were hailed as champions of truth and justice. Please, give us a break.

In the end we can argue this back and forth forever, but we will always be missing the point. Whether the new religion of Corporatism is good or bad doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with orgasms and you can't eat it, so it it's just bullshit. Like the precarious position of the petrodollar as the euro grows in strength, it only effects us if we allow it to. We were born to eat, shit, fuck and die. I like a good meal, a satisfying shit, an outrageous fuck and I want them all as often as possible before I die. They can twist their stories left and right; they can devalue one currency and inflate another; they can march my competitors off to die in some useless war; they can make Donald Trump into a god, and they can do much more than all that, but as long as I can still eat, shit, fuck and die in peace, none of it matters. Katie Holmes tits and Karen McDougal's bum matter much more, because they are real and the rest is only of imaginary importance; just a parade of clowns.

Democracy? Let me ask you this, Amacus: if Katie and Karen invite you around next election day, to a private threesome party to see how many orgasms you can all have before the polls close, will you really give a damn if you vote?

Remember the old saying: “What if they threw a war and nobody came?” Well, what if they threw a war and everybody came instead? That’s how you change things. When they piss you off, you just find some other pissed off soul, and go fuck your brains out in broad daylight on Pennsylvania Avenue. We should all find an Iraqi to wine, dine and fuck. That would really mess with the bastards on both sides. The Puritans and the mullahs would be holding meetings with each other to figure out how to get everybody back to work, and the media would love every moment of it.

 

[dreampilot79]

Actually, I think that the fact that we are debating weather the media has a left or right bias says that they are doing their thing properly.

When both sides say they are against them... they must be neutral.

What bothers me isn't what IS happening but what COULD happen.

Newspaper AND broadcast owners are now corporately driven.

Wittness broadcast news.... 25 years ago you had half an hour of news. (ok 22 minutes with commercials subtracted). Now we're lucky to have 10 minutes of news with another 12 minutes of fluff or interest stories. The same is true of newspapers. It's amazing how many public interest stories show up on the front page these days. Why is that? because ratings and circulation drive the news and not journalism.

What bothers me is the concentration of ownership and what that COULD mean. If the owners did have an agenda other than money (ratings/circulation) what effect COULD they have on our society?

It is nieve to think that they never will have their own agenda.

 

[dreampilot79]

Oh yeah.. one last point.... if the media is driven by ratings... I guess that means we are asking for what we get. We vote for it by listening/watching/reading.

25 years ago we went to the corner diner.... then McDonalds opened. Now the corner diner went broke.

You can't ask for a T bone steak at McDonalds so we seem doomed to a lifetime of greasy Quarter Pounders.

 

[amicus]

Gary, Colly, Luc....et al...

Seasons Greetings, the winter solstice is upon us and perhaps I detect a tone of amelioration amongst the clan of litsters herein.

That be a good thing. Happy Holidays to all!

amicustmas

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Oh yeah.. one last point.... if the media is driven by ratings... I guess that means we are asking for what we get. We vote for it by listening/watching/reading.

25 years ago we went to the corner diner.... then McDonalds opened. Now the corner diner went broke.

You can't ask for a T bone steak at McDonalds so we seem doomed to a lifetime of greasy Quarter Pounders.

On any story, from the firefighters rescuing widow Anderson's cat from a tree to a car bombing in Fallujah, the truth is out there. A concientious person can read several accounts from different sources, and form a pretty accurate picture of what is most likely the truth. It does however involve a will to know, some deductive reasoning ability and effort.

Thr real danger is not that the broadcast media will ever not be accountable, the real danger is that the majority will not hold them so, taking FOX news or ABC as gospel without checking up behind them through other sources.

Any action by the IDF, for example, will be reported as a just retaliation in the U.S. media and a hideous violation of human rights by arabic papers. European papers will sound more like the arabs, with perhaps a touch more journalistic integrity, while other sources will report the incident with more or less biase as their political mindset dictates. If you ONLY listen to fox, you get the idea it's totally warranted and cannot see what the big deal is. If you listen only to the arabic papers, you wonder why the world alows such things to go on. It is only by reading across the spectrum of sources that you can see where it really lies along the continum of self defense to genocidal mania.

The problem isn't ownership by a few, the problem is a general apathy to knowing when it requires more than a sound bite or the information distilled by other minds. That is the danger and it is already reality. People don't care enough to dispise being misinformed. That's the real danger. Not left or right wing biase, but sheer apathy from the majority of those allegedly being informed.

 

[amicus]

Colly makes some excellent points...

Apathy...you know, Colly, back in my younger days I had the same fear about an apathetic public, ill informed and mis informed by media with an agenda.

But, forty years later the american people seem to always find a way to sort through the information and come up with the right answer. It is, in a small way, rather amazing.

I was heartened that a majority of americans were wise enough to reject the Liberal left wing of american politics and defeat, outright, the righteous morality of the left wing libertine moral agenda.

Election day 2004 was a good day for all, just how good is yet to be seen, but the people rejected the Left in a rather astounding way.

It behooves those of us who honor freedom and liberty, not just in america, but around the world, to make our voices heard, loud and clear, even in a forum as limited as this.

Seasons Greetings...

amicus...

 

[dreampilot79]

Collie said
The problem isn't ownership by a few, the problem is a general apathy to knowing when it requires more than a sound bite or the information distilled by other minds. That is the danger and it is already reality. People don't care enough to dispise being misinformed. That's the real danger. Not left or right wing biase, but sheer apathy from the majority of those allegedly being informed.
Amacus said
Election day 2004 was a good day for all, just how good is yet to be seen, but the people rejected the Left in a rather astounding way.




Collie

What you are saying is that it's the FORMULA that causes the problem although you don't quite understand it.... the formula limits the time for real news and therefore even thos that understand that the topic needs more coverage don't have the time to do it. That goes back to the ratings

As to the middle east.... the two most destabilizing players in the mid east are the Isralies and the Iranians. The Isralies for their paranoia of defence and the Iranians for their religious zealosy. (god I wish I could spell). In my opinion, BOTH are wrong. But try and convince either of them. They both see the "Truth" of their convictions and the truth justifies any abuse.

Amacus
I have a hard time agreeing. It was an election in which I considered becomming president. I figured if I changed my name to "Noneofthe Above" I would have been a cinch. I failed to see a clear good choice and have deep trouble celebrating Bush's victory.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Collie said
The problem isn't ownership by a few, the problem is a general apathy to knowing when it requires more than a sound bite or the information distilled by other minds. That is the danger and it is already reality. People don't care enough to dispise being misinformed. That's the real danger. Not left or right wing biase, but sheer apathy from the majority of those allegedly being informed.
Amacus said
Election day 2004 was a good day for all, just how good is yet to be seen, but the people rejected the Left in a rather astounding way.




Collie

What you are saying is that it's the FORMULA that causes the problem although you don't quite understand it.... the formula limits the time for real news and therefore even thos that understand that the topic needs more coverage don't have the time to do it. That goes back to the ratings

As to the middle east.... the two most destabilizing players in the mid east are the Isralies and the Iranians. The Isralies for their paranoia of defence and the Iranians for their religious zealosy. (god I wish I could spell). In my opinion, BOTH are wrong. But try and convince either of them. They both see the "Truth" of their convictions and the truth justifies any abuse.

Amacus
I have a hard time agreeing. It was an election in which I considered becomming president. I figured if I changed my name to "Noneofthe Above" I would have been a cinch. I failed to see a clear good choice and have deep trouble celebrating Bush's victory.

No, what I was saying was that the audience for whom the news is supposedly being reported, is the real problem. There is not a pervasive wish to know the truth, one that makes doing some extra investigation on your own worth it. The majority, want complex issues distilled to simple "truths" for them by someone else. A soundbite is about the "depth" of coverage they want/need.

Ownership by a few cannot stifle the ability to find the truth. It can make doing so require effort and if you believe in conspiracies, that's the ultimate one. Those faceless, nameless, men enamored of power are not banking on the average american being too stupid to understand, they are banking on him being to lazy to go and find out.

the real danger isn't a biase in the media, that has always been there, it's a lack of desire to know and a lack of outrage when misinformed that is scary. At least to me.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Merry Christmas Amicus

I wish the best ofr you and yours and all the blessings of the season

 

[amicus]

dreampilot...

Welcome to the forum...I do not recall having seen your sn before.

Well..there are only two major political parties in the US. Traditionally, one is for big government and high taxes with intiative coming from the Federal government in all things.

The other party, traditionally, is for a smaller government, lower taxes and leaving the initiative to the private sector.

There is also the matter of ethics and morality and that is harder to define in terms that will not set the forum on fire.

In terms of your comments about Israel and Iran, I think one has to understand that the Jewish people fought for a homeland following the holocaust of world war two and the centuries long diaspora of jewish people from their homeland.

One must also acknowledge that the arab population immediately declared war on Israel with the intention of destroying the nation and driving the jews into the sea. One is compelled to have an admiration for the efforts of such a people to protect their own against overwhelming odds.

Iran...Syria...Jordan..there will be no peace into the middle east until some form of representational government replaced the religious oppression that now rules.

Nice to have you aboard...seasons greetings!

amicus...

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Gary, Colly, Luc....et al...

Seasons Greetings, the winter solstice is upon us and perhaps I detect a tone of amelioration amongst the clan of litsters herein.

That be a good thing. Happy Holidays to all!

amicustmas

And a very happy solstice to you too, amicus. Have a good time for the holidays and enjoy the time you have.

 

[dreampilot79]

seasons greetings to you all as well

damn this is off the topic... and usually I don't like to get into politics.

Ouch... it hurts to reply...but....

One can look at the "holy land" any way one wants.

The jews fought for it....and won. They were persecuted and there was an attempt to completly obliterate them.

I don't exactly feel that they were owed the holy land. Nor do I exactly condem them for taking it.

BUT....... one can not blame the palestinians for feeling excluded from what they think of as their OWN land.

It's time for peace and there is no SINGLE problem. Neither side is OWED the land of israel. It's time for cool heads to rule and there are none to be found!!!!!

There is the zealous feeling (possibly justified) that israel MUST have defensable borders.

There is the zealous belief that the palestinians OWN the land on which israel exists (with some justification).

There is the zealous belief that islam is the only religion and all other religions must be eliminated (oh yeah lets not forget that there is more than one flavor of islam and only one should be allowed to exist).

About the only thing missing is a group of fundamentalist Christians thinking that the wrath of god must smite all other religions dead. Well maybe we need a new cult of hindu's believing that they must pave the way for budda by decapating all non-believers.

Before there can be peace, there must be accomodation. Each faction must recognize the others right to exist. I do believe that Israel MUST be the first to capitulate. Allowing a self determining palestine to exist may not solve the problem, but it would take a lot of fuel off the fire.

Now damn it.. it's time to think about the press... or better yet... the cute lil weather girl givin someone (preferably me) a great bj while waiting for the red light to come on.

 

[gauchecritic]

Colly makes some excellent points...

amicus...

Oh right. Colly makes some excellent points. I write exactly the same thing and am called "anti deluvian" (sic), paradoxically "19th century", "blind", "outdated" and no one cares about anything I say.

(Ok I started with the insults so it was only fair)

But other people quote me, agree with my view and then Miss Colly says essentially the exact same thing, and she's the clever and articulate one that should be listened to.

You know I'm just arseing about here, right? When mi amico answers me (which he hasn't done for a long while) and again (as in our very first debait) chooses what parts to answer, I feel a satisfied glow.

As to outdated ideologies hmm. The largest single population in the world (and thereby a third(?)) of the world's population are governed by this system and it's oudated?

As you say, where are your facts?

Ok modern life. Quelle surprise... I have one. Computer? check. centrally heated 3 bed home? check. Family life for 25 years as head of household? check. Slave to 'the man'? check. Ardent supporter and active party supporter? (have been so) check. Oh. Sorry. Wait a minute.

You imply (or is it me that infers?): Rugged indivualist. The chance to be what I want to be. Taking advantage of all the opportunity presented to everyone born today. To be as rich as I want. To make my own choices. To defend my life, family, honour, economic wellbeing, chosen religion/sexual preference against all odds and come out on top, every time. Naa. Just arseing about again.

My modern life simply happens to include thinking about people and their choices, often but not exclusively, before my own.

The difference between us amico is the difference between souk mentality and freedom. (not your version of freedom obviously)

and another thing... WWII

I just deleted a 3 paragraph rant about what it really means to be disgraceful. I'll limit it to this. You really must try harder to be provocative amico. 'Tis you that are a disgrace to sink so low.

 

[amicus]

gauche....pleased to have provided you with a satisfied glow...although...after reading your last post twice...and realizing I have been insulted once again, I am still left with no response to what you said...

did not understand most of it....

Seasons greetings...

amicus the intolerable twit