Irishsean

Hmmm, sinking to their level proves nothing. I think a polite argument would work a lot better.

__________________
There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.
Leon Trotsky

Lebell

I tend to agree.

Letters like this are just held up while they trumpet, "You see???"

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Ustwo

Yep, which is why I have mixed emotions. Sure I can't grasp why the left is so hate filled and intolerant, but I'm glad when they shed the cloak and prove it with such pieces. I want more like this so everyone can 'see'

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

cthulu23

In contrast to the tolerance and understanding that you usually exhibit for the other side?

roachboy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...334135,00.html

here is an article from the guardian written by the independent ombudman about the reactions to the letter-writing campaign of last week.
the selections that were published last week under the title "dear limey assholes" were illuminating, like looking down some discursive sewer pipe.

the guardian's response is interesting.

yes, it is quite a band of enlightened fellow travellers bush has assembled.
quite a fine time to dip into the sewer that is american politics, this as well.
of course, the problem is with the guardian because they gave it a try.

the horror, trying to "influence an election" by pointing out that people outside the states have a stake in how this election turns out as well, that bush is and will continue to be a disaster in terms of relations with the wider world.

how dare they point this out?
the problem must be with the guardian.

here too.
the article above, quoted out of context btw, is obvious satirical--the conservatives here take it seriously.
"how could they call for the assassination of the president?"
well they arent.

you would have to be stupid to think otherwise.
the horror is not being expressed by stupid people here, however:
it is being expressed because, and only because, the source newspaper is the guardian.

the guardian is a better newspaper than any in the states. it is a source of information not skewed to the right, that expresses a viewpoint the bush crowd would prefer did not exist. they tried an experiment with clark county that did not turn out as they imagined (read the above)

so now you get the next step in the typical american right pattern of smearing the messenger--the guardian is calling for the assasination of the president.

it is absurd.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

whocarz

Because it is skewed to the left, which makes it a thousand times more appropriate.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

roachboy

do you actually read the guardian?
the quality of the coverage is not a function of the politics of the editorial staff--it has more to do with having less space devoted to adverts, more in depth articles, more context provided.
compare any given page of the print version of the guardian with one of the new york times---just look at it---with half to three quarters of every interior page devoted to what is going on at saks fifth avenue, the times does not have room to provide anything approaching adequate coverage of the issues it undertakes. this on an everyday basis--longer feature stories aside. and the ny times, for better or worse, is one of the best papers produced in the states. and this is not a function of the politics of the editorial staff.

there are decent right-leaning papers--le figaro is one. for the same reason--more space for writing, less for adverts.

a rag like the washington times is as it is because they do not make a clear seperation between how the news articles are written and the politics of the editorial staff. and the adverts.

but this is beside the point: the only reason the Outrage that litters this thread is there, the only reason teh thread itself is there, is because this satirical piece turned up in the guardian, which is the rights target of choice for the moment. the way the right attacks the guardian now only works if you do not read the paper.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

maximusveritas

In case anyone didn't notice, the Guardian put up the following apology at the link given in the original post:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/t...335307,00.html

I think he did the right thing in apologizing and that should settle this issue in the minds of most reasonable people.

seep

................

seep

Wow, I'm not a regular reader and even I caught that. I must be some kind of friggin genius...

Stompy

hahaha that's hilarious.

Although, Cheney as president would be scary.. no thanks! Who's in line after Cheney?

__________________
I love lamp.

Techno

Doesn't this suggest the level to which we think Bush is a bad idea*? Smoke, see? Probably a fire somewhere.


* And before anyone retorts with "Look at Blair" we know he's a mutant, we're very, very sorry and will be voting him out soon.

__________________
"Don't take any guff from these swine"

MSD

Right-wing talk show hosts said the same kind of thing about Clinton when he was president. That illustrates the level of hate and idiocy the extreme right has reached. This kind of thing should be condemned equally by both sides, no matter who it's targeted at.

Ustwo

Who? Please let me know when you find out. Did they enjoy the secret service cavity search?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

Tsk tsk. Why can't we all just get along?

Seriously though... cursing is not a good idea.


Mr Mephisto

tisonlyi

Ustwo: Is it me, or were you swaggering - such a distinguished characteristic for a statesman - as you penned the last line?

It. Is. A. Humour. Piece.

OBVIOUSLY.

What beef do right wingers have with limit pushing comedy? Freedom of speech a little too free when the friendly fire's directed your way?

Is it the fact that it came from the UK, which is the 'traditional, closest and most natural ally' (sic) to your hegemony, the only government (note, not populace) to substantially back the Iraqi step along the way to a New American Century that sticks in one's craw a little?

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

neutone

Here's my opinion.

I enjoyed reading the article and shared many of it's sentiments. I think the finale was a bit extreme. I think there should be a differentiation between politics and public. I suspect that, like me, there is a great deal of animosity towards US president and politics. It is not targeted towards Americans in general.

There is the theory that people put politicians into place and keep them there, but in this case I don't really think that's true. The rest of the world knows how Bush and his pack lied and cheated their way into power. Certainly my many American friends are not being represented and could hardly be held accountable.

Despite their personal feelings on the subject, they may on some completely illogical level defend him or respect him due to this bizarre (and powerful) concept of loyalty/patriotism. People wierdly reserve the right to insult a family member blatently at fault, and are then offended if others (non-family members) observe and vocalise the exact same feelings.

I would suggest that the idea of free speech be exported along with McDees and Microsoft. The fact that the UK is allies of the US is exactly the reason that its voice be listened to, and the rest of Europe for that matter. There are common global interests and the rest of the world has (a sometimes unwelcome) stake in who the next US president is.

irateplatypus

i think the problem the right has with comedy is that they feel it is a poor representative of reality. as in, it's not a satirical commentary on the reality of the situation... it's just sniping at imagined positions and half-truths. If the joke doesn't have a foundation in reality it often crosses the line from satire/comedy to mean-spirited lies. sometimes you get the "lol, well... as much as it sucks, i really got zinged there" sort of reponse, but most of the time its more of a...

::looks around:: "was that supposed to be directed at me? cause, if it was... it really wasn't very clever"

also, we conservatives bear more comedic jabs than anyone else. it's just the nature of the business. the liberal call for change will always be more entertaining than the conservative trust in what got us to where we are.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

roachboy

this kind of story operates with a set of assumptions about the short attention span particular to a broadcast media-dominated environment--it too has the earmarks of a karl rove special, the ridiculous distortion floated in the press for a few days, that does its damage because it is promkinent, and that is denied later or qualified later--the denial or qualification being printed on page 8 or mentioned in passing on tv.

the quote that began this thread was a problem because it was presented out of context.
it surfaced in the context of american right anger at the guardian's letter writing campaign.
it assumed that the people who were harumphing their way into a righteous lather did not and would not read the actual article, so the right press was free to make of this isolated quote what they wanted. and you see in this thread how accurate these assumptions were about the audience for such claims.

the problem here is not about humor. it is not about whether conservatives feel beleagured because their positions are such obvious targets for ridicule. it as more about how the right press operates. and now that the guardian issued a response that simply pointed out that the line was perhaps tasteless but was at the end of a humorous piece published in a humor column, you would expect this whole thing to no longer occupy much space in either here or in the right media environment.

because the next step would be to turn the questions back around on the right press itself. how is it possible that the framing gestures that situated the lines quoted at the outset of this thread could have been missed? do conservative pundits not read? well they obviously have to read otherwise they would not have found the quote. how could they have misread it so thoroughly then? what is the motivation behind this misreading--what function would it serve? you cant assume stupidity to explain this--you have to think about why this story was floated as it was...

unless the karl roves of the world are right about the tiny attention span of the american public insofar as that public gets its information from telvision, say, or finds itself innundated with information, cannot recall things, just rides along the crest of the information wave remembering what they are told, forgetting all else....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

KMA-628

roach -

I think you are over-generalizing here. It is not a right/left issue with people like me.

Let's flip the people involved here: Imagine Clinton as President and a right-wing rag involved.

You should know me well enough by now to know that I would say something like: I don't care for Clinton's politics, but he is still my president. Whether I like the guy or not, this comment is out of line.

There are some of us out there that still believe in decorum and principle and can look past our own political agenda to see that. Am I biased? Of course. But I can guarantee that if Kerry were to win, I would support him with the respect that the Office of the Presidency deserves.

And I would never, never support a comment like this about the President of the United States, regardless of whether I voted for him or not.

roachboy

kma--i seem to be developing quite a skill in making posts here that you take as personal when there was nothing personal involved--my apologies--i need to perhaps work on this a bit--what i was reacting to was the story itself, how it was framed, the reactions here and the guardian's apology.
it fits neatly into the pattern outlined above....

had i more time at the moment, i woudl have undertaken the middle step, which would be to link the post that started this thread to a bigger media-specific squall--i'd be interested in seeing it--but sadly for me i have to attend to other things.

normally, that would be the m.o.--perhaps had i had time to at least refer to it, the misunderstanding would not have developed.

mea culpa.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

KMA-628

roach -

I am not taking it personally

I just want you (and certain others around here) to realize that there are conservatives in this world that aren't being led by blind faith. There are actually people on my side that are decent and would be offended by this type of blather even if we didn't like the sitting President.

There is a tendency to lump us all together as if we were cloned with genes from Rush, Savage and O'Reilly--which just isn't the case.

roachboy

ok...

but the analysis above does stand, i think.
i'd be interested in reactions to it more than reactions against the possibility that a diversity of folk might be getting lumped under a rubric...

in general, when i talk about conservatives, i try to be careful to talk about the discourse not individuals who might articulate some or all of their politics through it. the question of why particular folk invest in that discourse is interesting but far more complicated to say anything about, i think.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

I've never listened to Savage, but I know neither Rush nor O'Reilly would lament the lack of presidential assasins.

I'm still waiting for which Right Wingers joked that Clinton should be assassinated.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

jimbob

The IRA successfully campainged for funds in the USA AFTER their assassination attempt on Margaret Thatcher. They also tried to assassinate John Major.


I wonder how many Americans even know that? This sort of thing actually matters and bad jokes about how the world would be better off without Bush's policies fall well behind on the scale of important news. It is a testament to the American "angry right" that this quote-out-of-context got anywhere at all.


Where's the outrage at $1Billion missing from Iraqi oil revenues? http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=73536 --> 8 replies so far! The neo cons use taxpayers' money to fight an illegal war and line the pockets of their backers and nobody seems to care much. No wonder the thinking world is so disillusioned with the US!


UsTwo:
"Its something I would expect from a radical Islamist, not the United Kingdom."

Don't think we like you just because our lapdog Prime Minister is always there for Dubya. An in return what do we get? We were let off George's illegal steel tariffs early. Cheers! If you spent less time reading pathetic diversions like this one and reading properly informed comment and unbiased reporting instead then maybe you'd understand why everyone else hates W. There's plenty of valid reporting going on. If it doesn't fit with your own politics then you should look at why you think the way you do, just don't waste time with this nationalism crap.


Aladdin Sane:
"Little Charlie’s mother must’ve been a Glasgow heroin whore suffering from syphilis when he was born, because she has no doubt passed her madness on to him. Insolent cretin. Where is Thomas Hamilton when he’s really needed?"

For those who don't get the reference, Thomas Hamilton killed 16 primary school children in Dunblane (not Glasgow). It's interesting that the article's author overlooked the "mother as syphillitic heroin whore" explanation for Bush's freakish debate performance.


KMA-628:
"This makes me angry, real angry."

How about getting angry at something that matters? Foreign chemical companies illegally polluting fishing areas while getting hundred million dollar subsidies - which you pay for! http://www.theecologist.org/article.html?article=474

KMA-628

jimbob -

you are right, if all of that information is correct, then that is something to be concerned about. Each person has their own "issues" that are important to them, this is not one of mine. I have actually run up against and fought some enviro-wackos, so I don't normally lend them much credence. Kind of like extreme right-wingers, they tend to make their entire cause look bad.

As for the IRA, I would be interested in seeing the information about that (reputable source-please). I would be most curious about when it happened and who supplied the money, etc.

For the record, I am a nationalist. I don't care who you are or where you live, don't even joke about assasinating my President (regardless of who holds the position). Anytime I see anything like this in print or any other form of media, I will be pissed. I don't care about the context. I don't care about the "intent". I don't care if it is a feeble attempt at humor or irony. My opinion - criticize all you want, but keep it respectful (you'll notice that I follow that same rule on this forum).

By the way, there are a lot of us that actually do think and are extremely dissilussioned with the rest of the world. (i.e. Iraq war is illegal--why isn't the US helping in Sudan, etc.)

roachboy

for what it's worth, i see nationalism as a collective mental disorder.

in the case of this election, i do not see what possible problem there could really be with all and any attempts to inform american voters that there is much at stake in this election, that bush is widely viewed around the world as having been a disaster as a president not only for the americans but for the entire global order.

in this case, nationalism seems to be invoked in order to enable folk to not think about what they might find to be unpleasant, to not introduce realilties that might force folk to think about bush in a frame of reference his party does not control.

to do this, the argument that has to stick is that the u.s. is at some level seperate from the rest of the world.
an idea that is ridiculous empirically and a gateway to fiasco politically.

i still maintain that it is defense of the otherwise outmoded notion of nationalism that explains more than anything else the entire iraq war farce, explains the republican's vitriolic actions under clinton (they know full well that clinton was not far from them ideologically, but he was too much a fan of multilateral agreements, too much willing to further the process of integrating the american economy into the global one--he did not pay adequate attention to tending the obsolete signifers of nation that conservative politics depends on)

dont believe me on iraq?
read the project for a new american century website--any critical reading of it prompts the argument that i am making to emerge clearly.

the bush administration can be seen as peforming a kind of neurotic reaction to the implications of a globalizing capitalism that they cannot criticize, that they have to see as an unqualified good--faced with this, and with the institutional implications of it (look at conventional conservative parties in europe--the writing is on the wall and the right knows it) they prefer to erect a fantasy of nationalism and use it to prop up their own political framework.

but maybe people prefer simple fictions to complex realities.
it fits well within an information context where news is understood as a commodity, where information is framing for advertising.

better not to think about it too much.
but that changes nothing about the status and function of nationalism.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

jimbob

Brighton Bomb, 1984
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2531583.stm

Mortar attack on downing Street, February 1991 (go to Security section)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/10_Downing_Street

IRA fundraising in the USA, June 1991
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/...tory301453.asp

Not sure what the 'Sunday Business Post' is, so here's something which linked to a now-dead page on the New York Post from 1992 (only did a quick search ;-)).
http://www.cronaca.com/archives/000014.html

jimbob

Why nationalism is bad:

"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger"

The more people willing to join in with this 'denouncing', the more likelihood your country will become like Nazi Germany. The quote is from Herman Goerring at the Nuremberg trials.
http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?ItemID=15630

Protecting your president nomatter what, and demanding that others show no disrespect is one step along the path to totalitarianism.

KMA-628

/still reading your links

you do understand that I am not blind regarding my nationalistic pride. I would hope that I am intelligent enough to see if my "leader" is moving in a Nazi-like state.

There is a difference, in my opinion, between proudly supporting your country and your leader and what you describe.

//godwin's law

Mephisto2

The Sunday Business Post is a leading financial and political paper from Ireland.


Mr Mephisto

jimbob

just looked up Godwin's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

sounds like an advanced move in Mornington Crescent!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent

If I'm allowed a defence under that law it's that I was using the Nazis as an example of totalitarianism arising in a country where most people no doubt believed they were proudly supporting their leader but also demanded that others show no disrespect. Nothing to do with genocide.

KMA-628

it's funny, but true. Not in all cases, but I have seen it happen many, many times in different places.

roachboy

you can of course use the fascism thing as a way to dismiss what is at issue here--its cheap and easy--but the main point for me at least is that the objection to people in other countries making their opinions (against bush in overwhelming majority) known to american voters is not a problem--using nationalism to object to the fact of it rather than think about what it might mean of america's implication in the wider world, and about the fact that much is at stake in the coming election **is** a problem.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

jimbob

Actually my original argument was that a poorly written joke by a no-mark TV reviewer is nothing to get wound up about, nothing about nationalism.

I thought i detected a nationalist undercurrent from some contributers but on rereading the thread I'm not sure where that came from.