This is a continuing exchange with Deb. I think it is useful
to continue this exchange to show the differences in points of
view.
You may have read some of this before, but I don't know how else
to post this to keep things in context.
My comments will be in blue Debs will be in black. Her reply to
my comments will be in green.
How do you win a war on terror? Wouldn't it be like trying to
win a war on murder, or a war on domestic violence? How can
you war on an aspect of human nature that is intricately and
essentially tied to the reality of free will?
We are not in a war on terror. We are in World War IV against
Islamic Nazis! As humans we have free will but suicide murder
against innocent civilians is wrong and should be condemned.
[Come on Andy, did you think that I wouldn't notice that you
did not answer my question? And by the way, what happened
to WW III?]
>I did answer your question. You can not win the war on terror.
Terror is a tactic. We are at War with Islamic Fascist or
more descriptive Islamic Nazis. The way you win a war is to kill
the enemy until they stop trying to kill you. I believe that is
the answer to your question. If you had read my blog you would
find that I consider the Cold War, which lasted 50 years, WWIII.<
How long will you tolerate our money being thrown around in
Iraq without proper over-site?
The oversight of money is the Congresses and the spending greatly
disturbs me.
[And right now it is a REPUBLICAN Congress, which should imply
fiscal responsibility, but does not.]
>I see we have found a point of agreement. Read my New contract
with America. Number 5. Vote for real cuts in spending,
eliminate corporate welfare, be fiscally conservative.<
How long will you tolerate a media that has corporate interests
and corporate board members signing the checks and reigning in
the voices and challenging questions of the reporters?
You are using talking point again. [Andy,though I am informed
to some extent by progressive news, I have never sought out
"liberal talking points" and if I do happen to espouse the
same principles of my party--oh well--great minds think
alike! ;^)]Major news organization are corporations we are a
capitalist society. That doesn't mean anything. Give me Three
examples of corporate board members reigning in the voices and
challenging questions of the reporters?
"In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all
news media in the U.S. Now, it's 6 corporations" (media matters.
org). I was talking about who SIGNED the checks and if you do
not believe me than just read the PBS transcripts from KCTS'
"NOW" interview with Orville Schell. Here's a quote by him,
a who is, by the way, a dean of the Graduate School of
Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley:
"[Reporters] know if they just come up with bad news, they're
going to be pilloried. They know their news outlets will be
criticized. Advertisers will abandon," he says. This, he says,
has made journalists more timid, cautious, and incapable of
standing up to criticisms. Information is being kept from
Americans, resulting in a democratic deficit, he says"
(From KCTS' NOW website). Here is a transcript link:
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/231.html
>I took the time to read the interview with Orvill Schell.
I don't know who this BRANCACCIO is but this is how he opened
the interview: "There was a time when being a reporter could
be seen as heroic: I walked in on my kids watching "All
the President's Men" the other day and there it was: intrepid
journalists and editors working tirelessly in pursuit of the
truth of Watergate. That was the seventies. Now we're bums:
criticized for what did not get reported, such as doubts about
the official line in the run-up to the Iraq war or criticized
for what did get reported including details on the government
tracking of bank data as part of the war on terror."
>This guy wants to be seen as a hero not a journalist.
Journalism is writing characterized by a direct presentation
of facts or description of events without an attempt at
interpretation.
>In Shells opening statement he says, SCHELL: "In my
experience—most journalists are—are very patriotic people.
They are citizens, too. And, I think editors and publishers
in—in my experience go to great lengths to consider whether
something is actually harmful to national security or not."
>It is not their job to decide what is national security or
not. They are to report the facts. He goes on to say
"On the one had I think the Bush Administration and to a
certain degree—Republicans come out of a tradition more of
public relations in which communications tries to attain a
goal. But, in actuality, we as reports and the press, come
out of an entirely different tradition, which is to follow
things wherever they go and try to say things—explain
things as we see them." No your job is to report the facts.
>Then a little later BRANCACCIO: "Well, you're not kidding
lost sight of it. You've seen the poll research from just
this year that says when—the American public is told that
journalists do what we do in the public interest to make
the country, or the world, a better place, they completely
don't buy that. They say that we reporters, when we say
that, are either being delusional or are just—lying." Their
job is tell the fact without an attempt at interpretation,
not to make the country, or the world, a better place.
For this guy Shell to compare our press to the Chines press,
which is just propaganda, is preposterous. Once again I ask
you give me three examples of corporate board members
reigning in the voices and challenging questions of
the reporters?<
The news rooms of the major media outlets are run by
liberals. Recent polls show most editors and reporters
vote Democrat. The colleges that graduate the reporters
are populated with liberal professors. This give the
media a liberal bias. [Again,Andy, I was talking about
the people who sign the checks, and though it could be
argued that they went to a college with liberal professors,
the media-puppet-masters are decidedly conservative.
>I think you are confused, the corporate heads who sign
checks may be conservative but they only sign checks they
don't write the news. Again I ask you give me three
examples of corporate board members reigning in the
voices and challenging questions of the reporters?<
>When Shell says "...what's the business model that
actually allows reporters and editors and producers,
to do a good job and to be as independent as possible?"
IT'S THE CONSTITUTION WHICH GUARANTEES A FREE PRESS.<
SCHELL: "I think we're in a very grave crisis where
the credibility of the press is at stake, where—people
perceive journalists as being somehow disingenuous
or having some private interests, or being biased.
> They perceive that because its true.<
And, I think it—it gets back to the fact that, you
know, we—we do now in—in America live in the most
market driven society that human history has ever
witnessed, and it's affected every aspect of our
lives. And, it makes notions of independence quite
quaint and quite difficult to.>Schell does not
understand markets. Markets produce from the
entrepreneurial spirit which is the most independent
form of expression. For Shell to blame the market
place for the presses failure is nuts. Just tell
the truth and everyone wins.<
How can you possibly argue that we are the liberators of
Iraq, when we claim that we're "fighting the terrorists
over there!?!" Doesn't that imply that we don't give a
damn about the Iraqi citizens, the Iraqi environment,
and the Iraqi children?
No. It means we are going to defend America and take the
fight to the Islamic Nazis. War is hell innocent civilians
will die. We did not start this war as a matter of fact we
were late coming to the war. But now we are at war and in
this War THERE IS NO SECOND PLACE!
You're ducking and hiding here Andy. You have not addressed
the inherent conflict between these two claims. You cannot
have it both ways.
>You have created a straw dog. Do you disagree with the
claim that we're "fighting the terrorists over there!?!"
We are fighting the Islamic Nazis over there. This
statement does not imply that we don't give a damn about
the Iraqi citizens, the Iraqi environment, and the Iraqi
children?<
What is the long term objective in Iraq? If they stand up
and we stand down, isn't that contrary to our "fight them
over there" policy? Or will we just start up another war,
perhaps with Iran, or maybe North Korea?
The long term objective in Iraq is to put a moderate
government in place that believes in basic freedoms.
That is opposed to Islamic Nazis. In this war THERE
IS NO SECOND PLACE! The Islamic Nazis want to kill all
the infidels. This is not acceptable. I want to kill
them before they kill us. Once the Islamic Nazis are
defeated in Iraq we must help Israel to defeat Hamas
and Hezbollah. Then we must pursue them wherever they
go next until they are not a threat to our way of life.
[You sound overly emotional here. True we want to
protect American interests; however we have to be cogent
about it. We cannot flail bullets and bombs at every
shadow that incites fear, for if we do then we create
more hatred, and more justification for more murderous
miscreants.]
>I am emotional we are in a war that may last 100 years.
What do you suggest we do? In this war THERE IS NO SECOND
PLACE.<
Just how high do you think our national debt can go before we
are owned by China, or isn't that a concern of yours?
This is a concern I don't know the answer but China needs us
right now more than we need China.
[And your evidence of this knowledge?]
>We are Chinese consumers they need us to buy their goods.<
What do you think would have been the result of spending the
money we have wasted in Iraq on domestic needs such as health
care for all children or early childhood education?
The money spent on Iraq has not been wasted. We are fighting
a war against Islamic Nazis.
[You didn't answer the question]
>I believe that if we would have spent the money on domestic
needs most of it would have been wasted in the bureaucracy.
Throwing more money at domestic needs will not solve those
problems. Just give me one example where throwing money
at a problem works. DC has the most money spent on education
and the worst test results.<
Do you believe that it is in the best interest of the United
States citizenry to align ourselves with Israel regardless of
their behavior?
Yes. We must support democracies in the world. What behavior
are you referring to? Surely not defending itself against
Hamas and Hezbollah?
[Their "defense" is over-kill, both literally and
figuratively. >This is a war. To win a war you must
defeat the enemy. There is no over kill. Israel did not
go far enough or fast enough.< Also, you say we support
democracies--well why then do we not support Hammas?
>Hamas is a terrorist organization whether they are
elected or not. If Hamas allows their citizens to
target innocent people to kill, we can not support them.<
They were democratically elected. You must
admit that even supporting "democracies" can be a slippery
slope for our interests if those elected are extremest and
prop-up policies that are contrary to ours? >Their policy
is to kill us. That is not acceptable.< In addition,
I would argue that Israel's hyperbolic response is not in
the best interest of our country and this administration was
dilatory in their so called diplomatic response. >Israels
response was not excessive. They did not go far enough. Our
best interest would be for Hesbolla to be destroyed. They
have killed more Americans and innocent citizens of the
world than any other terrorist organization except Al
Quida.< I believe Rice must go. She is an unctuous
smooth talker that has the blood of many children on
her hands due to her dispassionate tenacity propping
up a incompetent response to horrific bloodshed.]
> The blood of those children is on Hesbolla and
Hamas not Rice.<
Do you think that the 60 women and children of Qana would be
alive today had our administration's foreign policy been the
insistence of an immediate cease-fire during the first round
of diplomacy? And if that had not worked, don't you think
that we would have been of firmer moral ground, in that we
fervently argued for and sought out a cease-fire--even if we
had failed? From my perspective the blood of those children
are not only on Hezbollah and Israel, but on both Bush and
Rice for their failed ability to see the urgency and the
potential human cost of hesitating, while tacitly approving
of Isreal's brutal bombing campaign.
Hezbolla started this conflict. We are at war, there will
be civilians killed. There needs to be two people to
negotiate a cease fire. Who are we going to negotiate with?
ISRAEL uses guided missiles to limit civilian deaths.
Hezbolla uses indiscriminate weapons that they fire at
civilians. Who has the brutal bombing campaign?
This is a simplistic and shortsighted response.
Hezbolla certainly has allowed hubris to dictate policy.
Their decisions are reprehensible and I hope that they will
be judged in history for their selfish assertion of force
in a volatile and explosive Middle East. They should be
condemned. However, just like a miscreant son, one does not
choose to become their enemy--they teach by example,
restraint, and sagacious maneuvering. This "my guns bigger
than your gun b.s. has got to stop. >What is your
alternative? The enemy is out to kill you. You would use
restraint and farsighted judgment to maneuver the outcome
you want?< This world does not belong to hot-headed men
and this cycle of violence must stop. >We did not start
this war, but we must win it.< We are not apes, lizards,
snakes--we are, at least we should be, dignified, thinking
human beings. The soldiers that were captured were just
that, soldiers. They signed up for the risks that are
inherent in being a soldier. Just like you said Andy,
when you addressed my question about "terrorist attacks"
agianst our soldiers. You said that that was different.
Well, those men who somehow got in harms way were wearing
a uniform. Their capture does not justify the maiming of
children. BOTH SIDES ARE HORRIFICALLY WRONG AND I'M SICK AND
TIRED OF CHILDREN AND INNOCENTS PAYING THE PRICE FOR HOT-HEADED,
FOOLISH, FOOLISH MEN! I'm sick of it, and I'm sick to death
of you rationalizing crimes against children. >We are not
committing crimes against children and innocents. We are at
war and we target combatants. The Islamic Nazis are homicide
bombers who target innocents and children.< I believe that
as a human being I must voice my contempt of these actions.
EVERY CHILD IS A SACRED TRUST AND THESE SO CALLED
LEADERS ARE ALL PATHETIC. You may say, "Gee Deb, you sound
so angry." You're right I am. I'm angry with these
corporately owned leaders who could give a damn if our earth
is poisoned, our children are killed, and our democracy is
evaporating under the pretentious, cowardly magnifying glass
of fear. "Give me liberty or give me death," were the
words of our forefather Patrick Henry. Have we forgotton
Andy? It takes far more courage to sacrifice to save
lives, rather than to "prove" you are a bigger man with
a bigger gun. >Focus your anger on the enemy, the Islamic
Nazis, that want to kill you, not on your government that
is trying, although maybe not as efficient as I would like,
that is trying to protect you.<
Don't you think emoting 911 emotions and claiming the world's
a better place because Saddam Hussein is removed is wearing a
bit thin?
NO! We can never forget 911. We are at war against an enemy
that wants to destroy our way of life and kill us. The world
is a better place for the 300,000 that Saddam would have
killed if he had not been removed.
[So now you claim to know what would have happened if Saddam
was still in power? Oh please! This is not an argument or an
answer. This is trickery for your gullable fish bite!]
>This is from Bakhtiar Amin Executive Director, Alliance
Internationale pour la Justice
"For three decades Saddam Hussein and the Ba’th Party
have been ruling Iraq with an iron hand. The Iraqi
regime is responsible for two devastating wars with its
neighbors and 34 years of brutality and terror against
the Iraqi people. The Iraqi regime’s aggressive internal
and external policies have led to the direct killing of
More than one million Iraqis. The list of the Iraqi
government’s crimes is long, well documented and
known to everyone. " You can read the full letter at
http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=3229<
How can Republicans claim that we have not suffered another
terrorist attack when over 2,500 of our service men and women
have lost their lives? Are not they victims of this war on
terror? And isn't the loss of any American citizen due to
terrorist attacks, a terrorist attack--no matter where on the
globe?
A terrorist attack kills civilians. The loss of our service
personnel is terrible but they fighting an enemy.
[According to your definition, Israel is a terrorist.]
>Let me be more precise terrorist target civilians by
becoming a homicide bomber or firing indiscriminate
rockets.<
What has George W. Bush done for this country aside
from lining the pockets of the corporate energy Moguls?
[I'm assuming that you were a bit insulted by this
statement, and I understand that; however, I do
believe that it's all about money. > I just couldn't
believe you wanted an answer. Goerge Bush defended
our freedom from an external foe that is intent to
killing us, you and I.< My only hope is that they
will all go down in history as maligning the peace
of our world. Yes Andy, I understand that you do
not know what a world citizen is, and though I am
deeply rooted in this country, as I am half Native
American, I know that the people that thrive--hence,
the country that thrives--are those that can treat
others the way they would want to be treated. > I
agree. And we will thrive because we believe in
freedom, and we want to spread freedom and
democracy to all.< That means being a good neighbor.
>Most democracies don't attack their neighbors and
the United States does not.< That means listening,
arguing, pounding the table for diplomacy's sake.
You say I'm all about talking points. True, I
listen to what my party has to say, but if I
can leave you with anything, I want to leave you
with the knowledge that I am passionate about my
beliefs and I will not be led by the nose to an
autocratic society that measures worth by the size of
one's weaponry.>I don't see a society or government
being led by one person who possesses unlimited
powers.< I am a woman of faith, family, and community
and I see my responsibility as cascading out in
concentric circles into the realm of world citizenship.
I would not poison your land, do not poison mine.
I would not shoot blindly into your yard, do not shoot
blindly into mine. I would argue, get pissed, and
sometimes behave rather badly; but I would never,
ever harm your child. I believe we were justified to
go to Afghanistan, for we were defending our people.
But we are not capable of ridding the world of bad
guys, and the fact of the matter is that we often
manufacture bad guys in order to get someone in power
that with bend to our interests. Bin Ladin and Saddam
were both just such men. There is a price that we pay
for supporting treacherous men.
Andy, I believe that our country would thrive if
we would only be honest with ourselves and staunchly
prioritize being good neighbors, while protecting
our citizens. I believe that it can be done, though
it is clearly not the wide path.
Deb.
Comments