From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
emerging new progressive infrastructure

June 18, 2006 5:06 PM

it's happening on the blogs.

because anyone can be a blogger, it's really really hard to get people to pay attention to you. which means the people with the audience are damn good at it. not because they are celebrities, but because they earned it.

bloggers are becoming very good at...

1. media appearances. markos was exceptional on meet the press; sirota was incredible on colbert. their readers, commenters and other bloggers all put them through the ringer, so their messasge gets honed perfectly. being forced to constantly write your arguments... thousands of words a day... combined with the constant feedback from others creates great soundbites.

folks have talked a lot about training new pundits for our side... we're already doing it.

2. sniffing out the big story. since the traffic game is so cut-throat, and every time they post something they get instant feedback on whether people care or not (did anyone link to it?).. there is a visceral understanding of what will get attention and what won't.

there are probably more.. but the key here is... blogs are our farm team. we have a vetting process far more advanced than conservative talk radio because it's completely bottoms up. it's a leapfrog of at least part of the right-wing messaging infrastructure.

so blogs are great at emerging new pundits and thought leaders... we're doing well there because we have the blog as a tool. and since that's the tool we've got, we're naturally applying it to other things as well. for instance, the news hounds use a blog to act as media watchdogs.

but we can also create every other element of progressive infrastructure if we just build the right online tool that will open the process up to everyone. this is how we leapfrog the conservative infrastrucutre. the tool that can emerge the best campaign folks. the tool that can emerge the best policy. the tool that can emerge the best candidates. the tool that can emerge the best field organizers. whatever it is, we can probably design some emergent, democratic and online way of going about it.

more to come (forgive the formatting/lower case.. i blame carpal tunnel)

More from the archive in Emergence, Progressive, Strategy.

emerging new progressive infrastructure (06.18.2006)

Next Entry: Big mistake (06.21.2006)
Previous Entry: Why did Francine Busby lose? (06.16.2006)

Read the 57 comments.

Right Wing Robby:

Calling the interent a tool in that context is interesting. But do you know what else you need? An audience. I live in NY state. about 6 years ago WABC(the rush station) had both progressive voices, then called liberals, and conservative voices.

This station featured both. Over the course of the following years, the ratings dictated who would stay and who would go.

Now, there is one liberal voice left, and everyone else is conservative. So AIR AMERICA opens, the new liberal infrastructure is finally here. And guess what, its failing terribly.

The point is, in media outlets, its the audience that will determine its outcome, not merely a desire. Supply and demand isnt interested in the fairness doctrine.

Will Blogs be the liberal media's outlet to surpass radio? The people will decide, not the pundants.

Sometimes the problem isnt the messenger, its the message.

Mon Jun 19 2006 3:38 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

Have to say, Reagan killing the fairness doctrine was the worst possible thing to do. It should never be market forces that dictate what is debated. I find it absolutely retarded that (and im talking about the right wing that always cries that the media is 'liberal') on any given day you can turn on FOX, or CNN, or MSNBC and guess what... you will find a conservative host, asking questions to a center-right pundit and a super far right pundit, and somehow your getting the whole story? I dont think so. The fairness doctrine made sure that every fact, point of contention, opposing, dissenting view, no matter how anti-current political climate. The right always screams that their side was never heard. Well guess what, during the entire run up to the Iraq war, i barely heard a peep or a squeek of dissenting voice or oppinion in the MSM about the war. One could only catch it on the internet where the message cannot be trounced upon by corporate meddling. Indeed the internet is the last bastion for progressive truth because you cant silence the message.

It ain't the message, as at least 54% of the American public can attest to now.

I've always said, the extreme right is entitled to their opinions and have them heard, so long as it is balanced by a countervieling point from anywhere on the left, and you dont see that anywhere in the outdated media anymore. The blogs truely are the last hope for debate, fact and truth. And there is definatly a huge audience out there that hungers for the truth.

Mon Jun 19 2006 4:46 PM


Jim Gilliam:

I've yet to meet a liberal who actually listens to Air America. No one I know does. So I'm pretty sure it's either the medium, or all the shows suck. Either way, that explains the lack of audience.

Mon Jun 19 2006 10:03 PM


Tom from Madison:

Certainly beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is an audience for AIR America on 92.1 in Madison.

I find Air America to be somewhat entertaining, especially Al Franken and Stephanie Miller. Al Franken appeals to those who were formerly fans on Saturday Night Live. I appreciate both of these shows for their willingness to 1) de-construct conservative talking points and 2) offer points not mentioned by conservatives--e.g. how Iraqi deaths are simply not news to the right.

The problem with partisan radio generally is the lack of real debate. The exchange of ideas and discussion of alternatives is what is missing from TV, talk radio, and most news papers. Not every issue need be framed as liberal vs conservative. Yet this is what we get from main-stream news outlets.

The statement that "AIR America is failing terribly" has been made repeatedly even as the nationwide network continues to grow. Is there really evidence of this or is this simply another talking point?

Mon Jun 19 2006 10:56 PM


Jim Gilliam:

I don't think it's failing.. but i don't think it should be held up like it has to be bigger than talk radio for it to be worthwhile. It makes total sense that a lot of progressives would be more interested in blogs and NPR, than something modeled after a conservative phenomenon.

It's also worth pointing out that conservative radio has been building since I was a little kid...I know cause I used to listen to Rush when I was about 11 years old. It doesn't just happen overnight.

A lot of good he did with this 'young skull full of mush'

Tue Jun 20 2006 1:42 AM


Tom from Madison:

I agree, the point of liberal talk radio is not to be the biggest, it is simply to get the message out in another forum. It's nice to be able to read David Sirota's blog, hear him on AIR America, and see him on Colbert. The different media reinforce eachother.

Tue Jun 20 2006 3:42 PM


Right Wing Robby:

The Fairness doctrine is total BS for more than one reason. For starters the government shouldnt be telling the people what they can and cant listen to. The fact is they cant do it anyway because people will turn the dial.

When people turn the dial the station loses money. Some stations that are on the edge will end up out of business. Whats "fair" about that?

Secondly, with the number of viewpoints that exist, who will determine which get on and off the air? Mike thinks CNN and MSNBC are conservative. He thinks that because he is far far left. I turn on the same channels and see something totally different, anti Bush.

So fairness is subjective, and therfor being fair for all is unobtainable.

So let the market handle it. If people like the message and medium, they will tune in. If not, they will tune out. Thats fair.

The reason you didnt hear a peep about Iraq from the MSM before the war, is because the democrats were for it. (before they were against it?) When they turned, the media followed.

Wed Jun 21 2006 9:19 AM


Mike of the Great White North:

Funny that im far far left.

Far far left is voting for the Reform Party(under P.Manning), and the Progressive Conservative Party in federal elections during the 12 year rule of the liberal party.

Far far left is voting for the Tories provincially ever since i could vote, begining with Mike Harris.

Far far left is being against the Long gun registry which makes law abiding citizens criminals, and against wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars on government boondogles (HR scandal), criminal scandals(adscam). Far far left means supporting expanding the military to have the means and capability of being able to succesfully defend Canada's soveriegn territory.

I am a conservative. Im not a right wing activist nor am i conflating my politics with religious zealotry. The only reason i am 'Far Far Left' in your eyes is because of my unyielding stance on the illegal and immoral war Bush started in Iraq, and the continuing occupation and failure in Afghanistan. This does not make me 'left'. Now that i've gotten that out of the way....

Back to the fairness doctine. Basically what your saying is, if every corporate owner of every media outlet(which almost seems the case) began simply reporting and stating completely hard right opinion, ommision of facts, and outright lying... government has no right to say anything about it? How is a populace supposed to make an informed choice with only 1 set of 'facts'... especially when the choice comes to war making decisions. If everyone were forced to play by the same rule, why would anyone switch the channel or lose money? Fairness may be subjective, but facts are incontravertable and completely obtainable, and should not be shoved aside for ratings.. or have we forgot the first rule of journalism already? In fact i would say that corporate ownership of news media should never have been allowed, period. Just present the facts, and leave opinion making to those of us who have the facts.

I agree with you on the last point.(to a degree), because i heard a ton about Iraq in the MSM before the war, but it was all pundits and commentators from verified right wing think tanks and institutions, playing up all the doomsday scenarios, and clips of Rummy and Cheney making the most ludicrous statements that could not be backed up. Yet it was all repeated in the MSM adnaseum. When in the RAREST case a dissenting view was allowed (classic example, on the 'lefty' CNN) such as Scott Ritter on Paula Zahns show, she belittled him for his views and made the statement ON THE AIR that he was drinking some of Saddams kool-aid!!! Thats not fair, and in retrospect, Paulas the one the looks like she injested some grade-a BS. And this is definatly where Democrats failed. Because the evidence was there if you just cared to dig it up. And many progressives on the net were talking about the issues. Yet they voted lockstep with the Repubs. Which only proves my point... when it comes to foriegn policy, the 2 parties are identical. In fact, Hilary has become more of a hawk than Bush, she's the front runner, and totally going against the grain of what the American public is asking for now.

Wed Jun 21 2006 1:54 PM


Dave E.:

"Fairness is subjective"? That line is a keeper. What a grand display of self-rationalization.

Fairness, by definition, is not subjective. I believe RWR is attempting to explain the role of relativism toward what different people believe as fair. Much different. The role and reason we have organized into a community with judicial system, is precisely to reach fair and just conclusions to conflicts, either between state-citizen or citizen-citizen. When you lose such a conflict, you may complain that it's not fair. It's most likely to be quite fair - you're just a sore loser.

But he asks who makes the fair decision? Surprise: the FCC is chartered for making such decisions. RWR will be happy to know it's already well on its way toward deregulating ownership to allow yet even further consolidation in media conglomerates: an example of applying free market ideology which will further restrict, limit, and consolidate the very diversity of viewpoints that RWR seems so passionate toward protecting. But evidently he'd be happy with straight up state run media (at this point I will refrain from calling him a pinko commie lefty socialist and telling him to move to Cuba for wanting a media that is only sympathetic to Dear Leader).

Currently, Newscorp, Viacom, Disney, GE, Time Warner, and CBS control something like 90% of everything we see, hear, and read. Two central requirements of a successful free market, as many including Adam Smith argued, requires both a large plurality of actors (perfect competition) and the absolutely full disclosure of information to customers (fully informed decision making). This does not exist in the media today. Quite the opposite, and this conclusion is supported empirically.

This lazy and pervasive little 'market forces' is an illusory panacea. It doesn't exist, but makes for a quipy little talking point. In fact, a free market doesn't exist unless the government creates regulations making it so. Market theory is subordinate to governance theory for this very reason.

I find many conservatives are schizophrenic when it comes to the role of government. Big when it suits them (privacy issues that pander to the fundie base) and small when it suits them (deregulation of industries like media that pushes toward oligopoly). It's probably because they've been staring at news COMMENTARY outlets all day, and not news outlets. Told exactly what their opinion is, without the time and effort it takes to form their own after applying their own reason to a set of comprehensive facts.

Listen. A government is a necessary evil. It must exist for an ordered and just society. It must exist for your precious free market to exist. Once you get your schizophrenic brain over that hurdle, you might be able to order your opinions in a rational method which won't make you seem so schizophrenic. Until then, we'll just continue to elect people that don't believe in government (big business and military interests notwithstanding) to run the government (for the people's interests). The case study is also known as Katrina.

Wed Jun 21 2006 2:54 PM


Right Wing Robby.:

What I consider fair, and what you consider fair, are two different things. Thus, it is subjective.

Nice diatribe on news "monopolies." I liked the way you said how wrong I was on the issue, when I never mentioned it.

Just so you know, what I think is fair is that every single different viewpoint be heard. How many viewpoints are you going to restrict it to? 2? 3? 10? How many viewpoints equals "absolutely full disclosure." Does the Greenparty get equal time as democrats? How many others get equal time?

Not only does the viewpoint matter, but the choice of what to report on matters. Reporting real news stories, on things that negatively effect Bush constantly isnt fair.

The agenda is set by the stories covered, not just the opinions on them. How are you going to govern that? Every story cant be covered so someone has to pick. Whatever stories are picked, becomes the agenda. And the Agenda drives public opinion. Whats the front page of a newspaper for? And who get to decide whats on it? A Jury of my peers?

Fairness doctrine. Gimmie a break.

Wed Jun 21 2006 5:38 PM


NJGuardsman:

Fairness (as in the Fairness Doctrine) is defined by the one who dictates the doctrine, had it not been for Reagan and those in government stopping the resurgence of this doctrine (every time) there would be no “other side” there would be no “opposing view” this is a veiled attempt to stifle free speech just like Feingold did with campaign finance another intrusion on the right of free speech.

The press is under the misconception that it is the fourth branch of government, Because the press is 90%+ Democrat/Liberal they had a strangle hold on what the public read in news papers, saw on TV and heard on the radio. With the advent of talk radio and the internet and some press beginning to make inroads like the Weekly Standard for example give people choice. By and large the “old school” press can’t stand that how dare the upstarts give us an alternative and when this press realizes that they are losing circulation, ratings, market share, then you all cry like spoiled kids!

Air America is a farce; this is a case of libs/dems instead of doing something all their own mimic conservative talk radio. With out people like Soros I would doubt that AA would still be around. You have very few people listening hence no sponsors selling their products so basically no money going to the stations, my question is how long will it be before you realize that the American people don’t subscribe to the liberal point of view.

12 SEP 2001 Sean Hannity started a national radio show, in the 4 years since he is second only to Rush Limbaugh and the reason for this is that America (weather you like it or not) is to varying degrees… CONSERVATIVE! Why given the same time constraints cannot a liberal talk show do the same since everyone agrees with you at this time, and when dems/libs run for office using what they REALLY believe, they lose (check CA recently). The only way liberals win elections is when they lie, show me one liberal Democrat that won an election say that he/she would raze taxes during a campaign, the other way is to keep people dependent on them “vote for me, I’ll get you more government money” and these same people complain when more and more money is taken from them (taxes) they exploit class envy demonizing the rich when the “rich” (the top 3 – 5 % of wage earners) pay 50 – 60% of total taxes in America where the bottom 3% pay little or no taxes and you hate the rich for sheltering their money?!?!?!? Are there bad rich people? YES Are there bad poor people? YES Are there bad middle class people? YES, so why are only the rich demonized? Why are criminals from the inner city (any inner city) given a pass by blaming their upbringing as the cause for their crimes? Why is a mid-class man sued for protecting his family from an intruder BY THAT SAME INTRUDER?!!?

Wed Jun 21 2006 5:58 PM


Dave E.:

"What I consider fair, and what you consider fair, are two different things. Thus, it is subjective."

Well, I guess since you said "thus" it proves it to be so. Actually, wrong again. Fairness is an objectively and dispassionately reached conclusion. Again, you can't seem to grasp this concept. The 'Me' and 'You' have nothing to do with it. Please, please read a book or something. These are generally held principles that approach lay-status. But your oddly recalcitrant position on a fairly simple concept does open a tiny window into the this wingnut mentality, so thanks for that. I am more informed now.

"Nice diatribe on news "monopolies." I liked the way you said how wrong I was on the issue, when I never mentioned it."

I simply took the liberty of extending your own logic toward its conclusion. The media industry is not a monopoly, it is, by every measurable, an oligopoly - a narrow few producers exerting an undue controlling influence on a market. And it's becoming even more concentrated. You can't take the position you take without discussing the current status quo. By not realizing this, you're only illustrating how uninformed you are on the issue.

"Reporting real news stories, on things that negatively effect Bush constantly isnt fair."

Bollocks. Are you suggesting real news be suppressed because it may negatively affect Bush? Again, the insinuation endorses a state run media completely sympathetic to Dear Leader.

The reason the few negative Bush stories trickle through is because Bush generates them himself. News outlets don't make the news, they cover it: don't shoot the messenger simply because Bush and his admin has been an unmitigated disaster of week to week screw ups and criminalities.

I like to put it this way: if Bush worked in the private sector, he'd have been shit-canned long ago. Fired with impugnity, bye bye, no severence.

Your slippery slope angle on viewpoint restriction is a reach position that any rube can adopt. The fairness doctrine was administered successfully in the past - the record speaks for itself. Especially upon witnessing what news sources have become: lapdogs for fear of losing access, or all fiercely partisan commentary, all the time. (What opinion should I have about this? Hmmm...I'll just tune into Fox or Rush to find out.)

When people count Rush and Hannity as their prime sources of newsgathering, the systems broke.

Wed Jun 21 2006 6:37 PM


NJGuardsman:

“The evil that men do lives after them, / The good is oft interred with their bones,” wrote Shakespeare in Julius Caesar. For the media reporting on Iraq it has been a matter of headlining the efforts of maleficent terrorists and burying the news of progress and successes, or not reporting them at all.

The media practically choked on the fact of Zarqawi’s death. It’s hard to believe that he was killed only two weeks ago. But then the 24/7 news cycle tends to warp our time references and create its own “fog of war” through neverending, mind-numbing chatter and analysis and discussion, extra shovelfuls of obfuscatory dirt heaped upon the facts of ongoing successes in Iraq.

Thu Jun 22 2006 8:42 PM


Dave E.:

Thanks for proving my point about being a slave to others for your opinions and not providing a single word of your own in rebuttal.

By the way. More journalists have been killed in Iraq than the 10 years in Vietnam, the 3 years in Korea, or the 7 years of WWII.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002577061

So forgive them if they're having "difficulties" reporting on the new school being rebuilt after being previously destroyed after being rebuilt that will have its teachers kidnapped and murdered in front of the students by sectarian death squads. And forgive the people that work with the US in Iraq that must keep their employment secret for fear of being whacked, as per the US embassy in Iraq - just before Bush's visit declaring all this "progress" you copy and paste from partisan sources.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ct=title&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-06-20-voa80.cfm
(take your bipartisan news source pick)

Come to think of it...why the hell haven't you been shipped to Iraq yet? Set us "terrorist-enablers" straight once and for all?

Thu Jun 22 2006 10:31 PM


NJGuardsman:

More journalists have been killed because the military has given them more access to/with front line troops then ever before (in any war) in an effort to keep people informed. So now the big bad US of A routinely murder journalists I guess.

There are about 2 million people in the American military, not all of them have to be deployed to be involved in the War on Terror. FYI - I have repeatedly asked my commander if there are any deployments I could volunteer for and I have been repeatedly told that if there is something he would let me know.

I dont believe Americanthinker.com -or- http://www.heritage.org/ (The Heritage Foundation) are partisan.

Sun Jun 25 2006 1:12 AM


Anonymous:

In WW2, reporters wanted USA to win the war. They didnt reveal top secret information to the enemy. Maybe if they wish to die in fewer number, they shouldnt give the enemy information.

"Lose lips sinks ships". Wisdom of the ww2 era.

Tue Jun 27 2006 11:32 AM


Dave E.:

"Our Mission
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."
http://www.heritage.org/about/

If you don't think Heritage is partisan towards conservative, then apparently you can't even read from its very own website. It's like a full time job keeping wingnuts in line with facts.

And journalists aren't employed to "root" for anything. I'm not stupid enough to think my side never makes mistakes, so I want objective reporting delivered to me so appropriate criticism can be applied to eventually improve the good guys performance.

Thick fucking skulls man.

Wed Jun 28 2006 5:51 AM


Dave E.:

"The right to exist, and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us." -
http://www.americanthinker.com/about.php

That's like, 2 monkey clicks it took me to get to this information NJ. Typically, devout exclamations of pro-Israeli policy indicates neoconservative agenda.

Let this be a record, yet again, for all who reads that the average wingnut has no clue who is informing them.

Tragic really. But it seems the country is slowly setting itself right (fox news viewership is *way* down).

Wed Jun 28 2006 6:06 AM


NJGuardsman:

I said I DIDNT BELIEVE they were partisan, so what if they are they're right (as in correct) in the issues they cover.

Oh and by the way "Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture."

Thu Jun 29 2006 6:16 PM


Anonymous:

Dave

Please tell me what YOU find: Wrong/EVIL, what you oppose in:

"free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

Thu Jun 29 2006 6:19 PM


NJGuardsman:

Dave

Just because you oppose them philosophically do the articles contained in these websites lose any of their merit?

Thu Jun 29 2006 6:24 PM


Dave E.:

NJ: fair question.

Certain institutions, especially Heritage, are chartered to advocate positions. They produce persuasive cases designed to further whatever the agenda their mission statement details. It is not news. It is opinion crafted around carefully selected facts, and both the right and the left have think tanks created to churn them out.

This makes lines that dilineate information distribution purposely blurry. As a result, one piece written from a conservative think tank might not contain any patently false information in support of its position, but may intentionally leave out information to the contrary or mischaracterize the opposing position to make it seem flimsy or absurd. This is common practice from both the right and the left.

The difference? The right's machine runs to the tune of around $300 million per year (last I checked) and has had decades to fine tune their advocacy message - this began in '64 when conservatives were disgraced after Goldwater lost the presidential election by a landslide and set about constructing the huge election machine we see dominating today. Many cite this as the revival of the current conservative movement, and obviously it's been very successful. Too bad the message has been irreparably corrupted.

Read a little bit about the think tank industry and you'll see what I mean. I studied them in fair detail in undergrad, and it certainly opened my eyes. Whenever I see something penned (by either side) coming from a think tank, I always consider the source when reading because what was written was designed to persuade me to agree.

Some people call this manipulation, because many people simply don't know that places like Heritage, American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century (yes...that one), and CATO, to name a few, get widely reported on without any attribution to their ideological mission. Most people don't have time, or don't care to research their mission statement before ingesting their carefully designed message. Again...both the right and the left do this, but the right are far more sophisticated at churning out partisan rationalization because they've been doing it so long and are very well funded - it has been reported that by 2002 Richard Scaife had donated $340 million dollars to conservative think tanks, with Heritage being one of the major recipients.

So, this is usually why I (and most people who are moderately versed in the think tank industry) find it difficult to engage in a discussion with someone who produces as evidence of their position studies and articles written by places whose raison d'etra is to be that positions blatant sophist.

Sorry. I'm just not buying it. Journalists don't report on whatever progress gets squeezed out of all that anarchy over in Iraq because they can't...in fact, I've read reports where the military discourages reporting on specifics of reconstruction, because if it's reported that x school was just built in y neighborhood, the next day x school gets blown the fuck up.

Security security security. This issue underpins every single discussion about thie Iraq debacle.

Thu Jun 29 2006 10:09 PM


NJGuardsman:

Dave

Do you actually think, these think tanks would take an indefensible position? Would they leave out facts so that people like you could find them & take them to task? I don’t know if one would donate BIG money (any money) to an organization just because he wants to forward an agenda. I tend to believe that these people (organizations)/most people believe in what they do and have their best intentions at heart; by and large I believe that of everyone until I’m proven wrong.
I never once got the “feeling” that Jim Gilliam has this blog site because he wants to screw the “other side” I’ve never felt anything malicious (until the picture of caskets covered in flags issue).

I’m sorry I find nothing… sinister in advancing their ideas for the betterment of the American people thru their analysis, articles and yes dialog.

I do believe that the left has been… somewhat lacking in honesty (especially recently). The left has had a strangle hold on American politics, the American press, and in higher learning (colleges), also including the entertainment industry while conservatives have only held the majority since basically 1994 (Contract with America), with the MAJOR exception of Reagan Administration dealing with Democrat controlled Congress and Senate.

When you talk about the money “the right’s machine” has it seems small in comparison to what I listed above.
When the left attacks big oil for high gas prices and brings the CEOs in front of congress and proceed to grill them screams to me of scapegoat (how come no one asks how much tax revenue was raised or how much our own property taxes have gone up, how come no one calls on politicians to explain themselves). All the while knowing that the oil industry has been hog tied because of ever tighter regulations as to where they can drill, they cant drill in off the coast of California, they cant drill in the Gulf of Mexico (but the Mexicans & Cubans can) they cant drill off the east coast either.
When the left attacks big tobacco for those who had died from lung cancer etc, etc yet big government taxes this instead of banning it totally like asbestos was screams hypocrisy to me.
When the left goes after gun manufacturers instead of going after criminals that murder people with those guns and the gun runners that supply them screams that they are misleading the American people.
When people decide to sue McDonalds because they’re fat and don’t take into account personal responsibility screams absurdity to me. Yet the left demonizes the fast food industry.

When the left attacks President Bush with made up facts is wrong, the fact that the press willingly goes along with it is evil. When the NYT actively, willingly divulge military secrets is exactly what you talk about in your preceding blog – they had an agenda, they thought about circulation not American life and the consequences of what they (and other organizations) have done! How many tools will be taken away from America? How long until we fight with nothing, this is exactly what happened in Viet Nam (BUT instead of a President hog tying the military it’s the left leaning press). When those philosophically apposed to the party in power actively, willingly undermine the President during a time of war is evil to me. When private citizens also actively, willingly call Bush a liar and criminal with no real proof while the enemy is out there listening in, reading American newspapers, surfing the internet, all the while beheading soldiers/ and contractors taken prisoner I call that evil yet the left still ignores this (could it be because an election is coming? Are American lives worth so little) I believe that the left has to demonize everything Bush does wrong right-it doesn’t matter for POLITICAL reasons and not for the betterment of the American people, but for power – THAT’S AN AGENDA.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/28/the_press_in_an_unsettling_firefight_of_its_own/


Fri Jun 30 2006 5:58 PM


Dave E.:

First Amendment to the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

There's my answer. We were chartered to have a free press and to be free from unreasonable searches without probable cause.

Free press. Probable cause.

That story was newsworthy, because the program is unconstitutional.

I simply find it continually incredible that wingnuts quiver with uncontrollable ecstacy at this word "freedom", use it to justify and self-rationalize some of the most tyrannical acts performed by an increasingly monarchical government...

...yet become red-faced with rage when the free institutions of this nation, chartered by the plain language of the constitution itself, engage in the practice of freedom.

It Just. Doesn't. Square.

This is about living freely, IAW the US Constitution, and fighting the threat of terrorism legally - which I believe can be done. No more of these fucking illegal shortcuts that are prone to political manipulation a la Nixon spying on the Democratic party.

I respect that document NJ. I swore an oath to defend it. So did you.

Fri Jun 30 2006 9:21 PM


NJGuardsman:

ADDENDUM
When activist judges strip the President of his power given to him by the Constitution, ignore the Geneva Conventions,
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
-Ignore Supreme Court Precedent:

Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases are brought here by petitioners' several applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court, and by their petitions for certiorari to review orders of the District Court for the District of Columbia, which denied their applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in that court.

The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners by respondent for trial by Military Commission, appointed by Order of the President of July 2, 1942, [317 U.S. 1, 19] on charges preferred against them purporting to set out their violations of the law of war and of the Articles of War, is in conformity to the laws and Constitution of the United States.

After denial of their applications by the District Court, 47 F. Supp. 431, petitioners asked leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court. In view of the public importance of the questions raised by their petitions and of the duty which rests on the courts, in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty, and because in our opinion the public interest required that we consider and decide those questions without any avoidable delay, we directed that petitioners' applications be set down for full oral argument at a special term of this Court, convened on July 29, 1942. The applications for leave to file the petitions were presented in open court on that day and were heard on the petitions, the answers to them of respondent, a stipulation of facts by counsel, and the record of the testimony given before the Commission.

While the argument was proceeding before us, petitioners perfected their appeals from the orders of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and thereupon filed with this [317 U.S. 1, 20] Court petitions for certiorari to the Court of Appeals before judgment, pursuant to Section 240(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 347(a), 28 U. S.C.A. 347(a). We granted certiorari before judgment for the reasons which moved us to convene the special term of Court. In accordance with the stipulation of counsel we treat the record, briefs and arguments in the habeas corpus proceedings in this Court as the record, briefs and arguments upon the writs of certiorari.

On July 31, 1942, after hearing argument of counsel and after full consideration of all questions raised, this Court affirmed the orders of the District Court and denied petitioners' applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus. By per curiam opinion, 317 U.S. 1 , 63 S.Ct. 1, 87 L.Ed. --, we announced the decision of the Court, and that the full opinion in the causes would be prepared and filed with the Clerk.
The following facts appear from the petitions or are stipulated. Except as noted they are undisputed.

All the petitioners were born in Germany; all have lived in the United States. All returned to Germany between 1933 and 1941. All except petitioner Haupt are admittedly citizens of the German Reich, with which the United States is at war.

-and laws written by Congress:

IN GENERAL- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

'(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider—
(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or
'(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who--
(A) is currently in military custody; or
'(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.'

This decision is a victory for the enemies of America, a victory for terrorists, a victory for those who seek to destroy our way of life! Where is Andrew Jackson when we need him! I pray that Bush finds a pair (I know better but) and pulls a/an Andrew Jackson.

http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_ex_parte_quirin.htm
http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/detainee_act_2005.html
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

You scream about the rule of law, you scream "abuse of power"!
you scream power run amok - I agree.

Mike dont think I've forgotten about you - America has no military industrial complex, it has a welfare complex: Eisenhower spent 33% of this countries wealth on the military, today it's approx between 2 & 5%

You say "there's an agenda" I say yes you're right there is and people like me are here to stop it.

Fri Jun 30 2006 9:51 PM


NJGuardsman:

ADDENDUM
When activist judges strip the President of his power given to him by the Constitution, ignore the Geneva Conventions,
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

Fri Jun 30 2006 9:54 PM


NJGuardsman:

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Fri Jun 30 2006 9:55 PM


NJGuardsman:

-Ignore Supreme Court Precedent:

Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases are brought here by petitioners' several applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court, and by their petitions for certiorari to review orders of the District Court for the District of Columbia, which denied their applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in that court.

The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners by respondent for trial by Military Commission, appointed by Order of the President of July 2, 1942, [317 U.S. 1, 19] on charges preferred against them purporting to set out their violations of the law of war and of the Articles of War, is in conformity to the laws and Constitution of the United States.

After denial of their applications by the District Court, 47 F. Supp. 431, petitioners asked leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court. In view of the public importance of the questions raised by their petitions and of the duty which rests on the courts, in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards

Fri Jun 30 2006 9:59 PM


NJGuardsman:

--of civil liberty, and because in our opinion the public interest required that we consider and decide those questions without any avoidable delay, we directed that petitioners' applications be set down for full oral argument at a special term of this Court, convened on July 29, 1942. The applications for leave to file the petitions were presented in open court on that day and were heard on the petitions, the answers to them of respondent, a stipulation of facts by counsel, and the record of the testimony given before the Commission.

While the argument was proceeding before us, petitioners perfected their appeals from the orders of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and thereupon filed with this [317 U.S. 1, 20] Court petitions for certiorari to the Court of Appeals before judgment, pursuant to Section 240(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 347(a), 28 U. S.C.A. 347(a). We granted certiorari before judgment for the reasons which moved us to convene the special term of Court. In accordance with the stipulation of counsel we treat the record, briefs and arguments in the habeas corpus proceedings in this Court as the record, briefs and arguments upon the writs of certiorari.

On July 31, 1942, after hearing argument of counsel and after full consideration of all questions raised, this Court affirmed the orders of the District Court and denied petitioners' applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus. By per curiam opinion, 317 U.S. 1 , 63 S.Ct. 1, 87 L.Ed. --, we announced the decision of the Court, and that the full opinion in the causes would be prepared and filed with the Clerk.
The following facts appear from the petitions or are stipulated. Except as noted they are undisputed.

All the petitioners were born in Germany; all have lived in the United States. All returned to Germany between 1933 and 1941. All except petitioner Haupt are admittedly citizens of the German Reich, with which the United States is at war.

Fri Jun 30 2006 10:00 PM


NJguardsman:

-and laws written by Congress:

IN GENERAL- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

'(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider—
(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or
'(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who--
(A) is currently in military custody; or
'(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.'

This decision is a victory for the enemies of America, a victory for terrorists, a victory for those who seek to destroy our way of life! Where is Andrew Jackson when we need him! I pray that Bush finds a pair (I know better but) and pulls a/an Andrew Jackson

http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_ex_parte_quirin.htm
http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/detainee_act_2005.html
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Fri Jun 30 2006 10:02 PM


NJGuardsman:

-and laws written by Congress:

IN GENERAL- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

'(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider—
(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or
'(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who--
(A) is currently in military custody; or
'(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.'

This decision is a victory for the enemies of America, a victory for terrorists, a victory for those who seek to destroy our way of life! Where is Andrew Jackson when we need him! I pray that Bush finds a pair (I know better but) and pulls a/an Andrew Jackson

Fri Jun 30 2006 10:03 PM


NJGuardsman:

I'm well aware of the oath I took and I hold true to that oath every day!

You're rights end ware mine begin, my safty and that of those I love is paramount, I believe in my President, I believe in what he's doing and the program was not illegal - if you're getting phone calls & laundering money from/for terrorists then you have something to worry about.

http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_ex_parte_quirin.htm
http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/detainee_act_2005.html
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm


Fri Jun 30 2006 10:07 PM


Dave E.:

Those "posts" just sorta speak for themselves.

Yikes.

Fri Jun 30 2006 10:22 PM


NJGuardsman:

I'm well aware of the oath I took!
I believe in my President, I believe in what he's doing.
The program was legal

Fri Jun 30 2006 10:49 PM


NJguardsman:

Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution is not for the press to promote a political agenda for any political party or to promote policies/politicians that happen subscribe to their point of view

Fri Jun 30 2006 10:54 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

Perhaps your looking at it from the wrong point of view NJ. You're insinuating the press has a political agenda because it reports the news. Perhaps you see a political agenda because the press is telling the public (which is its job and mandate to inform the electorate) about the Presidents continual and unconstitutional power grabs all under the guise of security. They have the right to let the public know and the public has the right to be informed. The politics come into play after the fact.

And i dare say you could apply your own quote against FOX hands down.

Fri Jun 30 2006 11:16 PM


Tom from Madison:

The illogic spilling from the Right is incredible.

The silliest aspect of all this is the cost Americans are supposed to pay for "the war on terror". No draft. No tax increases. No sire! [That's how the subjects address the king] We're supposed to give up our civil liberties and our free press. We've already given up our standing in the world by ceding the high moral ground. Sending detainees to secret prisons in foreign countries is absolutely immoral.

We need impeachment and we need it now. I'm seeing more and more lawn signs calling for it in Madison, St. Paul Minnesota and elsewhere. This President needs to be held accountable.

Sat Jul 1 2006 2:25 AM


NJGuardsman:

When does the press have the moral duty/obligation NOT to report something?
When is it time for them to put national security over circulation (the bottem line)?

Mon Jul 3 2006 10:29 AM


NJguardsman:

No Mike I'm insinuating that the press is deliberately going out of it's way to smear and undermine the President as they've done time and again, since he came to office, even resorting to reporting false stories about his national guard service and European detention centers all in an effort to destroy him during a time of war.

Gone are the days where true Americans knew what would happen to their family and friends overseas - none of this rhetoric and venom happened during WW2 and this war is no different.

Yet, only for political ends (military lives and America be dammed) is this happening. I affirm one of my previous posts, the American press considers itself the fourth branch of government and is abusing the Fourth Amendment for their own political preferences. They’re just about as natural as Al-Jazzera and could care less as to how it ties America’s hands during this conflict which incidentally prolongs it economically and more importantly in cost of life.

Mon Jul 3 2006 10:54 AM


NJGuardsman:

Supposed to be "neutral" instead of "natural".

Mon Jul 3 2006 10:57 AM


NJGuardsman:

I could not have said it better!

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014515.php#014515

http://www.boredsoldier.blogspot.com/ (Letter to: NYT, LAT, WSJ)

Mon Jul 3 2006 12:10 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

I could not have said it better!

An Independent Republic Still?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9240

The Reality Beneath the Flag-Waving
by Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9236

Tue Jul 4 2006 8:24 PM


NJGuardsman:

Mike,

Thanks for proving my point!!
Yet again the leftist liberal propagandist machine is hard at work destroying the President with any & everything at their disposal.

Yet again the American left insults the American people, yet again the leftist elite consider the American people… dullards at best and retarded at most.
Leftests seek to generalize about the horrific act visited upon an Iraqi family by a few CRIMINAL soldiers, they and the press will lump the entire American military into the same accusations heard back in the early thru mid 1970s when our soldiers came back from another conflict, the American press prided themselves in when we all saw soldiers being spat upon, being called “baby killers” and other colorful adjectives when by and large the vast majority of them served honorably and with dignity!
You can add my voice to those that cry out for justice for that Iraqi family, those involved should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of American law and then I feel it’s only fitting that they face Iraqi Law.

Now the liberal press wants to do the same again to a new generation of fighting America! They seek to again make the American military into some kind of underground sub-class to be loathed.
True, there are those in the military with other then honorable motives, at this time I speculate there are even gang members that joined simply to become trained in weapons and tactics to further their own various illegal causes. This is the extreme exeption rather then the common rule.

Wed Jul 5 2006 8:18 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

Hahaha,

It must absolutely suck, that I link up to actual conservative authors and commentators like Buchanan and Roberts... and yet you still call me(and by proxie Pat and Paul) leftist, liberal and worst of all propogandist.

You have sunk to such a dispicable low, you don't even know what propoganda means anymore. You don't know the real meaning of anything anymore because of Bush's orwellian doublespeak. It's your cheerleading of this idiot against the facts and regurgitating half truths and spin from the administration that amount to propoganda.

No, you're pissed because it brings to light a shocking truth. That the Haditha incident would not have seen the light of day had it not been for the real jounalistic effort of an Iraqi journalist student. It goes to prove that embedded reporting is just awful and full of ommision and one sided patriotic masturbatory flag waving. It goes to prove that the lapdog media would have bought the original, whitewashed and wholey criminal bogus cover story that was published immediatly after the incident.

You may stick to your few bad apples theory.. i might even believe it. But there are far more cases like this that dont see the light of day because there are no real journalists doing what they're supposed to do, report.

Same goes on the homefront. You belittle the press when they ACTUALLY do their job, which is a miracle considering their deriliction over the past 5 years.

Propoganda. Look it up in the dictionary, im sure theres a picture next to it with Bush, Dick and Rummies face beside it.

Wed Jul 5 2006 8:52 PM


NJGuardsman:

When someone insults the American people I consider them as far from a conservative as possible!

Futhermore the Haditha incident has yet to be proven either way and you completely ignore the fact that I completely agree with you about what happened in Iraq!

I agree with a lot of what Buchanan has to say, I agree with the fact that too long we’ve shelled out money to other countries when that money should be for domestic issues.

I also I agree (for the most part) in Isolationism but I am not blind to the fact that total Isolationism is a falecy – How can you stand by while you neighbor’s house burns when you know the fire could also bun you!

I’m also not blind to the fact that both these people are RINOs!

Propoganda. Look it up in the dictionary, im sure theres a picture next to it with CNN, Michael Moore, and the NYT on it.

Wed Jul 5 2006 9:19 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

I can insult many Canadians. That does not mean I hate Canada or not be conservative. Besides, Ann Coulter has made a living of insulting liberals Americans, but no one questions she's a rightwing loon.

I know Haditha has not been proven against the soldiers. In fact, as more info comes to light, im begining to agree with their position (strictly legal defintion of ROE, though i still find it will be hard to win hearts and minds like that). My point is something happened at Haditha, and someone lied or tried to cover up, because the initial story did not reflect the evidence on the ground, and it would not have seen the light of day because the meek US in-bed press core would have swallowed it whole from a pentagon press breifing instead of doing their job.

Total isolationism is not what us libertarians are asking of america. We ask that you listen to the wise words of the people who created your republic.. words like “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none…”. -Thomas Jefferson
Currently your thirst for oil dictates you have alliances with despots and oligarchs like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and all those wonderful 'stan' countries. Your evangelical christian base and AIPAC force an alliance of absolute zero gain and polar interests to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, to the tune of 4 billion in aid and weaponry and is the greatest American welfare recipient in history. These two are the biggest of countless entaglements that have fostered the animosities you deal with today.

As for propoganda... ill bite. Moore is a given, he will twist things to fit his view in order to get his agenda through. We've all seen it done. But im curious, please point to me an example of propoganda from CNN or the NYT. Remember, actually reporting a FACT does not count... it has to be a clear distortion or lie by ommision to make the claim of propoganda. You know, something like "They hate us because of our freedoms." Now thats propoganda. Another example.. winning the 'war on terror'. I think a frenchman said it best. Ill close on his quote.

"It was a doomed enterprise from the very start: a 'war on terror' - it's as ridiculous as a 'war on anger.' You do not wage a war on terror, you wage a war against people," said Alain Chouet, a former senior officer of France's DGSE foreign intelligence service. "The Americans have been stuck inside this idea of a 'war on terror' since September 11. They are not asking the right questions."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=73675

Wed Jul 5 2006 11:01 PM


Dave E.:

Generally speaking, past experience has taught me that engaging any probing discussion with New Jersey usually means an unfortunate but eventual suspension of all rational thought leading to an inevitable descent into witnessing words of a pure and frenetic followership fit for scientific study in a petry dish.

I don't call anyone stupid who hasn't brought it upon themselves with the words they write that have absolutely no other explanation but. Sorry New Jersey...I've refrained for as long as I could restrain myself.

Indeed, I have quit refuting his words, because they are quite like mosquitoes - easy to kill, but you will never kill them all.

And so how goes the rest of this new American wingnut generation who frolic like pigs in their own shit, blindly beholden to a government that has long ago sold out any pretense of an interest in fighting for the majority of the citizens it represents, while the rest of moderate America shakes its head in unrepresented and disinterested shame at both political poles.

I suspect symantics between "left" and "right" don't really mean anything anymore, despite how they light up the pre-approved informational avenues to work up an audience. The division is an illusion. Prefabricated tripe. I think the biz of real governance to care and protect a people has past, efficacy irreparably damaged by brinksmanship between Democrats and Republicans.

The fringes will define this nation, because the rational moderates don't have the fucking time to deal with it. What's left over, only God knows what it will resemble or how it will be rationalized to the next generation.

Thu Jul 6 2006 3:22 AM


Mike of the Great White North:

One other thing NJ, read this article completely.. and then tell me again that the NYT is the bastion of propoganda and trying to sink the president at any cost...

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/05/the_timid_times.php

i think this part here sums it up perfectly....
"And let's look at the Times’ past actions. Yes, it did publish an article revealing that the National Security Agency, as directed by Bush, was intercepting phone calls of Americans to overseas destinations without obtaining warrants-if those Americans were suspected of being terrorists or were talking to people suspected of being terrorists. But the paper sat on the piece for about a year. Had the Times run the story when it had first learned of this arguably illegal wiretapping program, it would have appeared before the 2004 presidential election. The ensuing hullabaloo could have influenced the election results. Yet the diabolical Times did not seize this opportunity to weaken the commander in chief at a crucial moment. What were they thinking?"

What were they thinking indeed.. those liberal Bush hating propogandizing bastards.

Thu Jul 6 2006 12:00 PM


NJGuardsman:

Ann Coulter is far from a “loon”, she has openly offered to defend her positions against anyone that wants to debate her especially the “Jersey Girls”. Now because you don’t like her position on whatever issues is why you call her a “right wing loon”, and you are in the minority her book is #1 which means lots of people agree with her point of view and that by no means… means that this nation is full of: bigots, xenophobes, obstructionists, what have you.

You also continue to reinforce the false perception that the U.S. Military (Pentagon) is literally holding back the flood gates of military anarchy, that U.S. service people are free to do what ever comes to mind with no repercussions, that they as a matter of routine play God and: murder, rape and destroy at their fancy.

In other words the U.S. Military is another way of saying “government sanctioned crime wave” and if that were true America would not be what it is today, America would NOT have sent more money then most of the world to victims of the tsunami and also would not have cared about New Orleans and the surrounding area the way it has.

So… I’m supposed to let the NYT off the hook because they (FINNALLY) did something they were supposed to do to in the first place??? Even though they F’d up later????

I know I’m all for free enterprise and all but where are the editors/reporters/leakers morals when it comes to these issues???? So they held back during the election BIG DEAL!!!! Why didn’t anyone just say “NO” when it came to this, a rather successful program that was actually helping make us all safer and now that tool is lost to us.

I personally believe that we affect things/lives/people, and this is a detriment to our service men & women, our war effort, our country.

TIME magazine had an article about “Cowboy Diplomacy” saying it’s dead, I think not, cowboy diplomacy was practiced by: Washington, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan - Bush is no different in fact the Executive Branch is the only part of the American Government doing all it can to safeguard the American people, the Judicial Branch and the Congress has sided with the terrorists. I guess that TIME only likes the “Broke Back Mountain” type of cowboy.

I hope because of the recent Supreme Court ruling that the military do the right thing and we no longer take terrorist prisoners, we should kill all of them.

Like the song says “let the bodies hit the floor”

09 JUL 06 NYT front page above the fold TAX REVINUE UP (credit to Bush’s Tax cuts) could it be that the NYT is trying to… make nice with the administration???

Another lie of the left proven wrong, tax cuts = revenue - Kennedy, Reagan and now Bush proved it.

You also fail to realize these religious zealots have been at war with the U.S. in particular 10years B4 9/11 and no one did anything about it and that gave them (terrorists) balls, they thought they could run over America because we cant take soldiers coming home dead. They beleive that America is still stuck in Viet Nam, and to a large extent the press and a lot of the government is but there are many many more that are not!

Now we’re winning, al-Zarqawi's own papers indicated that Al Qaeda was losing against us yet you all ignore that.

Religious zealots like al-Zarqawi have been convinced/brainwashed/indoctrinated into thinking their way(religion) is the ONLY way, we’re wrong their right end of story and because of that we have to die if WE don’t convert, they themselves have said “Democracy is Evil” and you don’t believe they hate us for our freedom!

Even mow Israel is called a “terrorist” by the head of the UN for wanting to rescue it’s soldiers, a year after giving up Gaza they still do not know peace, Hezbala and other terrorist organizations promptly began lobbing rockets from Gaza , they want no “peace” dialog means nothing to them yet you call Israel evil.

Thu Jul 13 2006 3:45 PM


Dave E.:

Another glimpse into the mouth of madness.

I woudn't even know where to begin setting all of that nonsense straight. But as usual, his insane post more than sufficiently speaks for itself.

A parting juxtaposition, if I may:

"You also continue to reinforce the false perception that the U.S. Military (Pentagon) is literally holding back the flood gates of military anarchy..."

compared with:

"I hope because of the recent Supreme Court ruling that the military do the right thing and we no longer take terrorist prisoners, we should kill all of them.

Like the song says “let the bodies hit the floor”"

Schizophrenic thinking, demonstrated.

Thu Jul 13 2006 4:36 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

God, Dave E. is right... this is like boxing a glacier.

"her book is #1"
-Google "conservative books for $1"

"by no means… means that this nation is full of: bigots, xenophobes, obstructionists, what have you."
-no, just the ones that buy her books.

"I’m supposed to let the NYT off the hook because they (FINNALLY) did something they were supposed to do to in the first place?"
-Your idea of them doing something right is to NOT print news... man have you lost it. You claim it's anti Bush. HOW MUCH MORE ANTI BUSH COULD YOU GET THAN SINKING HIS REELECTION BID BY PUBLISHING HIS ILLEGAL WIRETAP STORY BEFORE PEOPLE GO TO VOTE??? The fact they held off till after the election puts to rest your fantasy of a 'liberal' media.

"the Executive Branch is the only part of the American Government doing all it can to safeguard the American people"
-no, it's going to imperil you, the people will pay for the sins of your gov'ts imperial policy. Liberties erode. Empires die.

"the Judicial Branch and the Congress has sided with the terrorists"
-the Judicial is the last thing standing between you and Tyranny. Congress has already abrogated its duties and is no longer relevant. It's subservience to a foreign gov't (Israel) and lack of knowledge regarding foreign matters, along with willful and negligent dereliction in handing over war making power to the president has given you a King.

"we no longer take terrorist prisoners, we should kill all of them."
-I think Dave pointed out the wisdom of this to you. Fat chance you can assimilate wisdom of any kind.

"these religious zealots have been at war with the U.S. in particular 10years B4 9/11"
-quite true, they've been at war ever since the CIA and MI6 helped overthrow Mohammed Mossadegh and install the Shah. This action was done specifically because he was going to nationalize Iran's oil industry. That one action, and the Shahs brutal regime, helped to instigate the 79 hostage crisis and Iranian revolution. You've been suffering the blowback of that ever since. It is a war you started, so don’t let your selective amnesia debate for you. and I’ve also explained the role Israel has played in this as well, but im sure you enjoy defending Israel’s strategic interests over Americas any day. Dual loyalist?

"Now we’re winning, al-Zarqawi's own papers indicated that Al Qaeda was losing against us yet you all ignore that"
-whats to ignore? yes, Al Qaeda is weakening. What you seem to ignore is that they were weakened the moment Afghanistan was invaded. What you further seem to ignore is that Al Queda could have been effectively wiped out had ignoramus W not diverted every resource out of Tora Bora and plunged into THIS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL WAR in Iraq. What you still fail to realize is that where Al Quada falls, smaller non interconnected groups rise up to perform operations, and homegrown terror cells. And finally, you continue to ignore the thing everyone else is now coming to realize, that your actions (and those of Israel) are further inflaming sentiment in the middle east and making recruiting of new terrorists so much more easier. Ill say it again, you and your ilk are the greatest enablers of terrorism.

"Religious zealots like al-Zarqawi have been convinced/brainwashed/indoctrinated into thinking their way(religion) is the ONLY way"
-some yes. but most have seen terrorism as the only way to compel a democracy to withdraw or negotiate with. They cannot defeat superior military power with conventional forces and you would not heed their calls for withdrawal. Your hubris and arrogance forced their hand. Ill bet you haven't read Robert Papes book yet.

"and you don’t believe they hate us for our freedom!"
-They hate you because of the following reasons, evident for all to see.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

In fact, bin laden states unequivocally that "Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.".. the message, don't fuck us over here, we won't fuck you back. Its a message you choose not to hear. Don't bother crying when it comes back to nail you.

Oh and that whole 'convert or die' thing you keep blabbering about... nowhere do i see Bin Laden asking us to convert. I do see evangelical dumbfucks swearing up and down for me to convert or burn in hell. i do see evangelical loons doing everything in their power to hasten the end times whereby all who do not convert (especially the jews in Israel) will be awash in blood when christ returns, while the privileged few get raptured right out of their pickup trucks.

And here come the kickers...
"for wanting to rescue it’s soldiers"
-by defying Geneva conventions, firing upon civilian populations under their occupation. the collective punishment of a people for a 'soldier' whom i would consider a legal target in the first place.

"Hezbala and other terrorist organizations promptly began lobbing rockets from Gaza , they want no “peace” dialog"
-Israel's MO. Hamas wins 'democratic' elections. Abbas forces a referendum to have Hamas recognise Israels right to exist. Hamas agrees to the document!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1803008,00.html
Oh dear, whats poor Israel to do? Lets bomb some Gazans enjoying a day at the beach! Up until that point Hamas had held up their ceasefire agreement started in Feb.05.

Any time there is hope for peace on the horizon, the Israeli gov't (not her people) do something to instigate a disruption. Israel cannot have peace because she is unwilling to let go of lands seized during her wars, which CANNOT be annexed and settled upon under international law. So they drag it out by escalating conflicts.

This is your fifth column. The actions of this foreign gov't, and your own that is beholden to their interests, and not of Americas is the REAL reason they hate you. Get used to it.

Thu Jul 13 2006 7:40 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:27pm ET
US vetoes UN demand that Israel leave Gaza

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-07-13T222713Z_01_N13285434_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-UN-GAZA.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-R2-Today-3

Language of resolution
"The vetoed resolution demanded the unconditional release of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit, captured by Palestinian militants on June 25, as well as Israel's immediate withdrawal from Gaza and the release of dozens of Palestinian officials detained by Israel. t condemned the firing of rockets into Israel as well as the Israeli assault on Gaza and pressed the Jewish state to halt its "disproportionate use of force" against civilians."

Even handed language, condemns rocket attack and hostage taking. Why was US only one to veto? Predictable pattern here.

They hate you because you're free. bullshit Goodbye little hearts and minds... fly freely!

Thu Jul 13 2006 8:03 PM


NJGuardsman:

“Schizo”?!? "Schizo" is believing your olive branch offer of peace will do anything but make the enemy believe we’re weak.

“EVEN MINUTIA SHOULD HAVE A PLACE IN OUR COLLECTION, FOR THINGS OF A SEEMINGLY TRIFLING NATURE WHEN ENJOYED WITH OTHERS OF A MORE SERIOUS CAST MAY LEAD TO VALUABLE CONCLUSIONS.” - George Washington, ca 1776
“Schizo” is believing the fallacy that printing information about a TOP SECRET LEGAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM used during a current conflict is the right thing to do! And thinking its news, it’s not in fact [in my book] it’s TREASON (ESPECIALLY AFTTER THE GOVERNMENT ASKED THEM NOT TO DO IT)!

“Schizo” is believing the five ambulance chasers on the Supreme Polit Bureau of the United States actually did something good by giving rights to enemy combatants in a time of war against the Geneva Convention, weaken the very treaty they seek to strengthen!
Did we EVER do this for Japanese or German POW/s!

“Schizo” is the mantra you continue to repeat about this “illegal and immoral” war which is neither!
The truth is they’ve declared a holy war against the “INFIDELS” but as President Bush has affirmed we are not at war with Islam, just the psychos who use it to their own evil ends!

“Schizo” is YOU BELIEVING AlJAZEERA, the terrorist propaganda machine!

OBL is right my security IS in my hands so is a bunker buster bomb with his name on it!
EVIL has to be confronted and destroyed PERIOD!!!!

I have no love of war but I unlike you am not afraid of it, it is a tool to be used when circumstances dictate – AND THEY HAVE!!!!!

“Defying Geneva conventions, firing upon civilian populations” - this is so typical of the left, OK will all the actual terrorists stop hiding within the civilian population…. PLEASE ;-)
-Again putting the blame on those trying to defeat evil instead of blaming cowards that hide among innocents! Those innocents should take it upon themselves to tell the authorities were the terrorists are and the Lebanese Government should go in there and clean house but they wont do that because the only good Jew is a dead Jew!

I’m no cheer leader but I support Good against EVIL I fight the good fight and I help and support those that do also!

The real reason this is happening is because to them were decadent unbelievers and their sole purpose is to unite the Middle East and soon after the world in their ISLAMO FASICST DOGMA and all those conspiracy theories you spew are just an excuse NOT the REASON!

I saw “The President VS David Hicks” over the week-end on Sundance WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!!!! Talk about PROPAGANDA David Hicks has no remorse what-so-ever about what he’s putting his parents thru let alone being a terrorist – I hope he never sees the light of day!

And you Dave, looks like you put the GI Bill to good use, so good in fact you seem to have forgotten were you came from you seem to have forgotten what it is to be “rank-and-file” with all your $100.00 words and your hypotheses from on high and now I see you minored in mental health.
You’re a disgrace to the uniform you once wore and it’s an insult to: this country as a whole and every fighting man and woman in the military in particular. Just because you don’t ware the uniform anymore does not release you from your vow.

Mon Jul 17 2006 4:36 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

"Again putting the blame on those trying to defeat evil instead of blaming cowards that hide among innocents! Those innocents should take it upon themselves to tell the authorities were the terrorists are and the Lebanese Government should go in there and clean house but they wont do that because the only good Jew is a dead Jew!"
-Geee... i guess all those people in the WTC towers shoulda been a little more forceful in demanding their gov't to vacate the middle east and stop helping Israel oppress and occupy. THOSE INNOCENTS DON'T HAVE TO DO DICK! THEY'RE INNOCENTS. Oh yeah, Lebanese gov't can take down Hezbollah. Sure. Right. Un'f'n'believable.

"The real reason this is happening is because to them were decadent unbelievers and their sole purpose is to unite the Middle East and soon after the world in their ISLAMO FASICST DOGMA and all those conspiracy theories you spew are just an excuse NOT the REASON!"
-Conspiracy theories? You've just earned the "Stupidest person on the planet" award. After all the evidence to the contrary, Dave's right. New Jersey is hopeless. Go die for Israel then. Go die for backward thinking rapturists then. Considering everything you've done for them I’m sure they've done right by America.
(Pollard/Aipac spying, USS Liberty, selling US weapon/tech/missile/radar to China, bullshit intel on Iraq/Iran, constant defiance of US pressure to stop building illegal settlement blocks, etc...)

Great trade off.

Mon Jul 17 2006 5:40 PM


NJGuardsman:

I made a mistake yesterday. I lost my bearing and let my emotions overwhelm me. I attacked Dave in a personal manner. This website above all is (for the most part) a POLITICAL forum and though I’m… passionate about what I believe I have to channel that passion.
I apologize to Dave for yesterdays comments no matter what I personally believe about him, this is not the venue. Again I humbly apologize to Dave.

Tue Jul 18 2006 7:17 AM


NJGuardsman:

Mike and you belive these Isalmo Facists are the victims in this whole thing, well then fine go fight for them!!!

OBL could use men like you.

Tue Jul 18 2006 7:22 AM


NJGuardsman:

Mike

First you say Israel is a puppet of the U.S. then now you spew all this which to me smack of a sovereign country accountable to no one except it's own people so which is it.

Tue Jul 18 2006 7:25 AM


Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam

Email:







Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Last.fm Weekly Artists Chart