GSO/Guilford Pols

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

« Mice elf agin | Main | War on Christmas »

Nov 26, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef0153939a2301970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You can't say that on TV:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Account Deleted

His third point is most salient. To continue to view ourselves as flawless in our post WWII foreign policy is a serious national defect. If we continue to absolve ourselves of responsibility for part of the tension in the world, and at the same time accelerate the amount of soldier and veteran worship that has overrun rationality post 9-11, we run the risk of creating an atmosphere for serious tyranny to take root here. In America.

As to the points Paul was making:

Related.

Not unrelated.

Fec

You're welcome. I've despised Schieffer in particular for a long time. Journalists don't often upset me, even those on Faux News, but this jerk makes me want to throw something at the TV.

JS, I also liked the third point best. Ron Suskind pointed out in The Way of the World that ever since we invaded Iraq under a false pretext, our standing in the world has been markedly reduced. And still, nothing has been done to repair the damage. Suskind and Hedges also agree that Imperialism practiced abroad will at some point be practiced domestically.

We are seeing this with the paramilitary DHS buildup among first responders, putatively to defend against terrorism, being used against peaceful protesters.

polifrog
soldier and veteran worship that has overrun rationality
Conflating patriotism with nationalism is to meander one's way to liberty lost, Jeff.

Witness Europe today as opposed to the Europe of 75 years ago. From nationalism to patriotism's technocrat forced and undemocratic end; when liberty is found between, it seems to be one extreme or the other for those poor souls.

  Bill Yaner

"[Europe's] technocrat forced and undemocratic end". Not a terribly accurate description of the health of democracies across 50 nations because of what's happening in Greece and Italy.

In fact many of those "poor souls" in Europe continue to be doing quite well, thank you, enjoying higher standards of living, excellent health and education systems, better diets, and yes, many fine parliamentary systems of government that have managed to make the tough decisions that deadlock our own government.

Save your pity, and schedule a thoroughly enjoyable and eye opening visit to Northern Europe and to some of the former Soviet block who have come a long way in a short time.

justcorbly

I don't particularly agree with Greenwald's characterization of Schieffer as the consummate establishment news guy, bent on sustaining his industry's own peculiar version of objectivity. The guy has always seemed to me, at least, to have a personality.

That said, Paul's comments on foreign policy stand out in comparison to the hopeless banality of most of his domestic pronouncements. Of course, U.S. foreign policy can have a negative affect. It isn't so much that the world is full of people who do not like Americans. The world is full of people who think their own best interests are not the same as what America says is in its own best interests. Very often, they are right.

Billy Jones

Fec, "Suskind and Hedges also agree that Imperialism practiced abroad will at some point be practiced domestically."

Apparently, Domestic Imperialism set to begin on Monday or Tuesday.

bubba

"Apparently, Domestic Imperialism set to begin on Monday or Tuesday."

Some people are trying very hard to create another Kent State, thinking such an outcome will give them some moral high ground.

Here's a clue: Such an outcome most certainly will backfire, even with overwhelming support from media who don't even attempt to maintain their phony facade of impartiality anymore.

The public is not as stupid as the puppet masters need them to be in order for such a manipulation to work.

Fec

Uh, the 67 rounds fired over 13 seconds by the Ohio National Guard occurred after 4 days of vandalism and looting in town, in addition to student protests on campus. The soldiers faced a crowd of 2000 who failed to disperse after being ordered several times and being subjected to tear gas.

The soldiers obviously had little training for such a situation and order broke down, resulting in 29 of 77 guardsmen firing their weapons.

Today's constables are not a military force and have been trained in crowd control, although the LAPD has a troubled history of using paramilitary forces, primarily due to the prevalence of gang activity.

There is nothing about the Occupy Movement to indicate they would act in such an unlawful manner, precipitating anything like a Kent State response.

In short, your notion is hysterical.

MojoNixon

Okay, time out, Billy. We need to dial back the hyperbole on this National Defense Authorization Act bit. The ACLU is doing everyone a great disservice by distorting -- nay, bold-face lying -- in this instance. This Act is renewed every year (this year's renewal is S.1867), and there are NO glaring changes that would do things like wreck Posse Comitatus or see Americans thrown in military jails without due process. It is just not in there.

Here's the link I used to view the bill directly: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

The sections in dispute / controversy are either Title X, Subtitle D ("Detainee Matters"), Section 1031 or Title X, Subtitle D ("Detainee Matters"), Section 1032, depending on which summary you are picking up in the media. Bold is my emphasis.

Here is the part from Section 1031:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2)


In summary: The definition of "covered persons" in (b) requires association with known terrorist organizations. Any notion that the words in (b)(2) reading "including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces" means anything new, like a domestic protest group, is a stretch, since "such enemy forces" is a direct attribution to the specific terrorist organizations mentioned.

Moreover, in (D), it is mentioned that nothing in this section changes the powers of the President or the military relative to last year's renewal of NDAA.


Here is the part from Section 1032:

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

SUBSECTION B SAYS IT ALL -- this does not apply to US citizens or even lawful resident aliens. In fact, the wording makes it explicitly clear that lawful resident aliens are to be treated in accordance with the US Constitution. Would we expect that US citizens would be treated any worse?


Nothing would make me happier than to see OWS coalesce in some meaningful way to have an electoral impact. But when it latches onto, what is in this case, ACLU alarmism, it is self-defeating. There is no dark cabal in the US government seeking to throw its citizens into military jails when they protest against something. There is nothing new in this year's bill along those lines.

MojoNixon

Fec is absolutely correct. Bubba's serial exaggeration tendencies strike again.

polifrog

Fec:

Uh, the 67 rounds fired over 13 seconds by the Ohio National Guard occurred after 4 days of vandalism and looting in town, in addition to student protests on campus. The soldiers faced a crowd of 2000 who failed to disperse after being ordered several times and being subjected to tear gas.

The soldiers obviously had little training for such a situation and order broke down, resulting in 29 of 77 guardsmen firing their weapons.

This is not the left's definition of Kent State. Kent State to the left has long been the moment that, well let the left speak:

The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4th, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.

The drumbeat to muster from a pepper-spray incident a moment like Kent State around which a movement may coalesce is unmistakable. This is the Kent State moment Bubba refers to.

Your subsequent description of the reality of Kent State is how the right sees Kent State and why the right defends the use of pepper-spray. We should avoid the decent into the immorality of allowing the lawless lawlessness as the results have proven dire. The nation does not need a repeat of Kent State; Occupy does, the left does, as they see it as the gateway to relevancy.

MojoNixon

Polifrog Distortion #1: If Haldeman really suggested that the shootings began the slide into Watergate and the end of the Nixon Administration, how is that the "left's definition"? How does that passage, in which Nixon's most trusted advisor -- his chief of staff -- makes an important acknowledgment in his own memoir, speak for the left? That's just sloppy. As for numbering the campus shutdowns in the hundreds, the main source for that (which estimates about 450 closings in the aftermath) is a History Channel documentary entitled "Nixon: A Presidency Revealed". Is the History Channel leftist? Because they aired Howard Zinn's "The People Speak"? Really? C'mon, man!

Polifrog Distortion #2: There is no drumbeat to coalesce a movement around the pepper spray incident at Cal-Davis. Had that officer been fired immediately for his cruelty, that would have been the end of it. But the chancellor of UC-Davis was silent in the immediate aftermath, suggesting her approval (if not condemnation) of the incident. This silence allowed momentum to develop nationally in support of Occupy. She's trying to undo the damage, to her credit. We'll see if she waited too long.

Polifrog Distortion #3: You and BubbleGum continue to try to make the spurious claim that OWS is seeking a Kent State moment. From where do the two of you get these weak talking points? Let it go! Fec made the distinction clear for you.

Polifrog Distortion #4: Peaceful protest protected by the 1st Amendment has no connection to lawlessness. That second to last sentence of yours is so convoluted that it makes no sense. What in the hell is "lawless lawlessness"? And there you go again with your own personal construct of morality. Not a distortion, but absolutely influenced by your own personal bias.

Polifrog Distortion #5: OWS does not need a Kent State moment to become relevant. It already is relevant. Whether it can translate that relevancy into power at the polls, like the Tea Party did in 2010, is still up for debate.

Worryingly, as Billy suggests, what may happen in the coming hours in LA could well become a Kent State-type moment, given the LA police's shaky track record concerning the use of appropriate force. There is precedent that should give Occupy LA members pause concerning whether to remain at City Hall. And that's not hyperbole.

bubba

"In short, your notion is hysterical."

We've covered this before on this very blog.

As detailed previously here, we now know that the Kent State violence was instigated and directed by organized domestic terrorists. The out-of-control hysteria we currently see over Occupy events is similar to the out-of-control hysteria we saw about the false and discredited narrative of Kent State. Regarding the current violence the various Occupy groups have committed, emerging evidence shows that it is not happening by chance.

My version of Kent State is supported by the facts, whether you or any of your fellow alternately clued current era enablers like it or not. Plus, you and like minded apologists will share a great deal of the culpability for any current bloodshed from Occupy events because of your foolish drivel.

Roch101

"well let the left speak:" -- polifrog

H. R. Haldeman is the "left"? Geez, you write some supremely stupid stuff sometimes — a lot, actually. Mostly.

This article was written about you. It's how the right is being overrun by people who live in a fantasy land of fabricated reality. You should read it because your views are never going to be advanced, much less even considered serious, if they require that people join in mass hallucinations. H. R. Haldeman the left. Yeah, and the moon is made of green cheese.

polifrog
How does that passage, in which Nixon's most trusted advisor -- his chief of staff -- makes an important acknowledgment in his own memoir, speak for the left?

My choice speaks to the power of myth. It is the pervasiveness of the leftest mythology that it frequently speaks through the right. That should be obvious.


Was it not Nixon who said, 'we are all Kenynesians now'?

Was it not Newt who said, he advocates for a form of the individual mandate?

polifrog
What in the hell is "lawless lawlessness"?

The whole sentence is helpful:

We should avoid the decent into the immorality of allowing the lawless lawlessness as the results have proven dire.

Should we allow the lawless to exercise lawlessness?

That they were told to disperse in accordance with campus regulation and refused defines this group as lawless.

To allow their continued lawlessness is an escalation toward the dire consequences Kent State proved could result.

To allow that escalation is in itself immoral, hence the moral use of moderate force in an effort to avert escalation.

polifrog
OWS does not need a Kent State moment to become relevant. It already is relevant.

It is no longer a world wide movement and within the US many of it encampments have been shut down. Where once they had Obama and other liberal politicians speaking to their relevancy and standing at their side, they have since been abandoned.

Occupy's relevancy is in decline, they are movement being shuttered ... they are a movement in need of anther hail-marry now that the faux moralization over the use of pepper-spray has failed to create a Kent State moment.

And that should be a biggest fear, the fear of what Occupy's increasing irrelevancy may provoke.

Fec

Occupy's Kent State has already occurred in Oakland. The movement's intelligentsia has not decamped, and only inclement weather and the patience of local governments have caused the end of some occupations. I see no evidence that the world wide movement has abated at all.

If the pansies on the right have anything to fear, it is that their cowardice and stupidity will be further unmasked, resulting in their continuing political marginalization and discrimination.

cheripickr

Bubba: Some people are trying very hard to create another Kent State, thinking such an outcome will give them some moral high ground.

Fec: your notion is hysterical.

Fec: Occupy's Kent State has already occurred in Oakland.

Yes, only Bubba could concoct such a ridiculous parallel.

(there goes my career)

Fec

One idiot on MSNBC does not define a meme. And mirroring my statements does not make them true.

Ed Cone

Does creating another Kent State mean people actually getting killed, or people scoring political points off perceived excesses by police?

Because I'm against shooting and killing people -- hell, I'm even against pepper spraying non-violent protestors -- but I'm fine with publicizing police tactics and deciding if they should be modified.

Also, the Schiefferizing of Ron Paul (see post) was interesting.

bubba


"If the pansies on the right have anything to fear, it is that their cowardice and stupidity will be further unmasked, resulting in their continuing political marginalization and discrimination."

....straight out of the 60s nonsense rhetoric!

I love it!

Buffoons apparently will believe ANYTHING that's fed to them, regardless of the era. It's further proof that you can always fool some of the people all the time.

Those who are in love with this Occupy fad fail to realize that the right has nothing to do with this.They need only look to their supposed "friends" to find the faction that's manipulating them so successfully.

MojoNixon

"That they were told to disperse in accordance with campus regulation and refused defines this group as lawless."

If that is the case -- why do we even need the judicial branch?

See, that's where you are far more out of touch than you realize -- you defer to executive authority as the final interpreter of the rights of the people. That is truly, utterly shocking.

The Framers would be ashamed to be associated with your way of thinking. As a matter of fact, they would be far more inclined to view your stance as "immoral" than the actions of people peacefully protesting who refused to disperse in the exercise of a Constitutional right that stands higher than any executive authority.

Roch101

"That is truly, utterly shocking."

It is flabbergasting, I agree. It's civic retardation.

Elliot

That's sort of the larger point I had hoped would be discussed in the thread associated with the post about the pepper spraying. We as a voting populace have sat idly while our elected politicians gradually erode the fundamental rights guaranteed in our founding documents. I'm sure that would be a fundamental plank in Frog's arguments here. In many cases, these folks are violating the letter of the law. So were the founders WRT to their royal government. That's why this arguing about morality and legality seems specious to me. I haven't seen anyone who approves of the pepper spraying also state that the Minutemen deserved the same. Goodness knows they were far more violent.

cheripickr

It's nice to know that we can all start arbitrarily ignoring enforcement of rules and regulations by those charged with enforcing them based on the presumption that the judicial branch will ultimately side with us against the jack boots in the end. Boy will they ever be busy. Nothing lawless about that!

But any other opinion would of course be truly, utterly shocking!, cowardice! flabbergasting!, supremely stupid! retarded! psychosis!, hysterical!, mass hallucinations!!, fantasy land!!, fabricated reality!!, green cheese!!
Did I leave anyone out?

What's the game here? If you can't say "you're wrong" persuasively, say it loudly?

Ed Cone

Civil disobedience is a deep part of the American tradition.

Those practicing it should know there may be consequences.

But that doesn't mean all responses by law enforcement are appropriate or desirable.

polifrog
See, that's where you are far more out of touch than you realize -- you defer to executive authority as the final interpreter of the rights of the people. That is truly, utterly shocking.

Final?

They can take it to court if they want. They can appeal it to the supreme court if it is accepted, but unless the law is changed as a result they were lawless.

Isn't that the point of challenging law via breaking it?

Of course, that is not what happened on the UC Davis campus. Those students were not protesting non encampment regulation. They were there to "occupy".

And despite attempts to create a new right of occupation via the abuse of both the right to free speech and the right to freely assemble there is no right to occupy.

-----------

The civic minded understand that there is a process by which law is deligitimized after review. It is sad that others choose to first delegitimize law as "executive authority" and ignoring it with the expectation of avoiding repercussions.

Occupy is not above the law. The expectation that it should be is flabbergasting.

Roch101

"Occupy is not above the law. The expectation that it should be is flabbergasting."

Who has expressed that expectation? You are not arguing against a figment of your imagination again, are you?

Fec

Those who are in love with this Occupy fad fail to realize that the right has nothing to do with this.

First of all, I was one of the first around here to criticize the Occupy movement, as evidenced by my inadvertent quote in the N&R.

Secondly, it remains to be seen if the movement is a fad.

Finally, the right, with its love of the Tea Party rhetoric of austerity and support of the oligarchs, plutocrats and Imperial warmongers, is directly responsible for the conditions which precipitated the rise of the Occupy movement.

Andrew Brod

Wait a minute. How did a thread about journalistic objectivity morph into the latest argument about Occupy? Oh, I see. It was Billy and Bubba.

As for the original topic, here once again is my retired-journalism-professor father:

"Greenwald certainly has it in for Bob Schieffer. He sets up a straw man, that Schieffer claims to be objective. I have a feeling that most journalists no longer believe that a sterile objectivity works, particularly in political reporting. Schieffer pushed Ron Paul hard and was anything but objective. But, then, it's Greenwald who says Schieffer says he's objective."

Billy Jones

Occupy a fad? Maybe, time will tell. As for closing encampments, here in Greensboro we've seen our numbers growing since having closed our encampment. The encampment was a huge drain on our resources and dropping it has given us much more to go towards causes and recruitment.

Let's not forget that nationwide, more people joined credit unions in one month than usually join credit unions in one year. It was Occupy that made that happen. Banks will lose $Billions in service fees alone-- not counting the investment losses incurred by not having other people's money to burn.

Tomorrow, a group from Occupy Greensboro goes to Raleigh along with Occupiers from all over the state to protest Duke Energy's intended rate increase just as Occupy Greensboro and Occupy Winston-Salem protested Duke Energy in High Point a few weeks back.

Did the right have anything to do with it? Funny, I don't remember anyone from C4GC or the Tea Party showing up in High Point to help old people and poor children who won't be able to afford higher electric bills. I don't remember the Right having anything to do with anything positive. It's as if conservatives don't care about poor people and the working class.

Here in Greensboro, we are in possession of contact info, (names, e-mail, telephone numbers and more) for literally tens of thousands of Occupiers nationwide. And every time we send the list out it comes back almost twice as big as before. Telephone trees are being built and text alerts are being added to our communications.

There's an Occupy High Point now!

Our local media team has built websites for several other cities as far away as Georgia and Alabama, and the requests keep coming in. Thousands of smaller Occupy Groups have come on board in towns most people have never heard of. While they might not be big enough to make a difference on their own, these smaller groups can move so much faster than larger groups and are doing so.

Are we going to fall apart? Maybe. As for the encampments, most are operated in shifts allowing Occupiers to go to work, get showers and take care of their families. Only the truly homeless remain in encampments 24/7. In that way, even the worst of Winter weather won't push us out.

And lest we forget the New Continental Congress is to meet in Philly on July 4th with 2 representatives from every voter district in the USA set to attend. Occupy is so democratic that the Republicans and Democrats look like commies when compared.

Billy Jones

PS. But if if makes Bubba feel any better, Obama is rapidly losing ground with us Occupiers. He's even been mic checked already.

Ed Cone

AB, objectivity (or "objectivity") is without doubt a canonical value in the journalism of which Schieffer has for so long been an adept, so in a general sense it is not a standard imposed by Greenwald.

However, it may not be the right standard to apply to a Sunday show.

But surely fairness is, and in the clip I saw the host is not just openly contemptuous of Paul's ideas, he actively misrepresents them.

bubba

"I don't remember anyone from C4GC or the Tea Party showing up in High Point to help old people and poor children who won't be able to afford higher electric bills."

How many people did Occupy feed in Greensboro this Thanksgiving?

Andrew Brod

I didn't see the contempt you saw. And to the extent Schieffer misrepresented Paul's views, it sounded like he wasn't smart enough to handle the relative subtlety of those views. Sure, you and I see the difference between describing blowback from American policy and "blaming America for 9/11." But some people aren't good at subtlety. I mean, in this very thread, Frog and CP seem to think that defenders of Occupy believe that movement to be above the law. Missing the point is endemic, and my take on this episode is that Schieffer isn't immune.

Ed Cone

Yeah, network television hosts should be held to no higher standards than the dimmer wattages in a comment thread.

Consider also the specifics of that conversation, and the relationship to eshtablishment wisdom...Greenwald has a point.

Andrew Brod

Wow, missing the point really is endemic. I didn't say that Schieffer shouldn't be held to a higher standard. I'm not excusing him for being a dummy. But that doesn't imply that he was sneeringly misrepresenting Paul's views on purpose. There's a difference.

But okay--we've reached diminishing returns on this. Back to arguing about Occupy, I guess.

Billy Jones

Bubba asked, "How many people did Occupy feed in Greensboro this Thanksgiving?"

As many as we could afford and we didn't use the effort to bring TV cameras to a church filled with overstuffed zealous bigots intent on making themselves look like saints.

Big deal. Lawndale Baptist Church bought 5000 birds and fixings to give away while thousands of North Carolinians won't be able to afford their electric bills next winter. I'd be willing to bet that most of your members never even miss the $20 each you were all required to chip in while your portfolios grow bigger if Duke Energy gets their rate increase.

Fec

It is a big deal anytime the least of us is served.

It's also important to recognize that conservatives in general donate a disproportionate amount of time and money toward charitable causes.

What we should be fighting is intolerance by whomever it is practiced, whether they be local social conservatives or national media journalists. And objectivity is a necessary trait in being tolerant with those, like Ron Paul, with whom we might not agree.

cheripickr

Well-articulated Fec. When the well-meaning Billy, whom I believe is quite sincere, makes statements like:

"I don't remember the Right having anything to do with anything positive. It's as if conservatives don't care about poor people and the working class"

there is no point in bothering to respond. Reasonable discourse is already stifled. He crafts his perceptions to fit his crusade du jour.


sean

can't we all put partisan chest puffing aside and recognize that people do good for other people, regardless of their political affiliations?

what elected representatives do in their political squats is a completely different partisan discussion.

bubba

"Secondly, it remains to be seen if the movement is a fad."

Yes, you're correct. It did'nt remain in the fad stage long, did it?

It's moved from fad through public nuisance, through public danger, to public violence. All by plan.

What's next?

bubba

"Finally, the right, with its love of the Tea Party rhetoric of austerity and support of the oligarchs, plutocrats and Imperial warmongers, is directly responsible for the conditions which precipitated the rise of the Occupy movement."

I don't think so.

Here's why.

Billy Jones

Hey Bubba, the LAPD just backed down! So much for Occupy's death.

Ed Cone

The long-term success of Occupy may depend less on people in the street than broader changes in political focus.

It seems that public scrutiny of corporate misbehavior is in vogue, which looks like a win for the movement.

polifrog

Claiming what already was is a win?

MojoNixon

I think more specifically the "win" is the newer public scrutiny of financial institutions in particular. They have largely escaped a serious look over the last few years, at least from the general American public, and if Occupy is to have any shot at becoming a sustainable movement, it should stick to its original focus. Being pissed off about everything perceived as an injustice is nothing new or novel. If you are an Occupier, the head of your serpent would be the financial industry, plainly. Simply looking at how they have profited from bailouts, been able to award the same exorbitant individual bonuses on the backs of the taxpayer, and not experienced anything close to the unemployment situation of the larger economy should give OWS all of the longevity it needs. Isn't that what the Tea Party was all about before they morphed into Birthers?

bubba

"Claiming what already was is a win?"

Ah, but the sky is green, not blue, when need be to fit the meme.

Look how hard Billy is trying to rationalize his version of the sky being green.

The comments to this entry are closed.