Re: RE: Bush's racial slur

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Matt Gushee wrote:

> Bijan Parsia writes:
> 
>  > > Not to be overly harsh, but isn't that obvious? 
>  > 
>  > It is obvious...and loads of people deny it
> 
> Hmm, yeah. Wasn't there a story about a naked emperor?

Well, Bush just fainted after choking on a pretzel while watching a
football game...I admire presidents who do that! ;)

[snip]
> I appreciate your thoughtful response, but please don't feel you need
> to rehash the whole argument for my benefit.

*Now* you tell me. Sorry, I had gotten into "Have to repeat everything
from first principle with small words and flash animations" mode from
dealing with the Yahoo FC response :)
[snip]
>  > It's very interesting that these sort of gaffes go almost completely
>  > unmentioned in the press. Considering Gore's very much more minor mishaps,
>  > this is telling.
[snip]
> But beyond that, I have long been puzzled by the "liberal" media's
> double standard regarding Democrats and Republicans. Bush Sr. pardons
> Elliot Abrams, who had admitted lying to Congress in support of
> Reagan's Contra war -- the press barely notice. Clinton pardons some
> sleazebag financier whose crimes were about as relevant to US policy
> as my dirty socks, and the press tell us it's "shocking" and
> "unprecedented." [made-up quotes following the spirit, not the letter,
> of the reportage]. Bush Sr. refuses to discuss his probable
> involvement in Iran-Contra, and the media take it lying down. [Insert
> your favorite Democrat here] has a sordid fling with the wrong woman,
> and it's Page One for months.

Well, the "liberal media" trope, like the "leftist academia" one is just a
stick to whip up a frenzy. They're just very good at repeating them over
and over.

(Witness that folks *still* complain that NPR is leftist/liberal. Yeah
*right*. ;))

> [ BTW, for the benefit of those out there (you know who you are, even
> if I don't) who are about to wax apoplectic again about us "Liberals"
> or "Clinton/Gore supporters," I never voted for Bill Clinton; and like
> Bijan (and maybe a few others on this list?) I voted for Nader in
> 2000. So criticize me for supporting Nader if you like. ]

Er...ok. You didn't give Nader enough money. So there! ;)
 
> I have yet to find a coherent explanation for this particular form of
> media bias ... partly, I guess, because I find it too grotesque to
> think about at any length -- and doubt that my understanding it would
> be of any use.

Heh. Know the feeling.

But Rupert Murdoch is a fairly coherent explantion, if nothing else. I
don't know if it's actually part of the Chomksy/Herman propoganada model,
but it's *very* hard, psychological, to deviate too far outside
establishing norms, especially if you'll be attacked for them. Not just
psyhoclogically, since, after all, if you get tagged as looney you can be
fired, voted out, etc.

It's always been interesting to me how *only* a Republican can be an
independant proscecuter. It's astonishing. When Dems are in power, they
appoint moderate Republicans with a reputation for honesty and
fairmindedness (like Walsh) who go after their (Republican) target with
proper diligence but see their efforts fucked by congress or the
prez. When Repugs are in a power, we get Kenneth Starr. Amazing. It's like
that was part of the deal for having the independant prosecuter law.

(Yes, I know it's a "Three judge panel" that appoints them...but they're
nominated by the AG, and why is the judiciary so right wing! :))

I've come to the conclusion that the Demoncrats, especially the smoke
filled room boys, are bascially incompetant. Except for Clinton, who had
to use basically Repug operatives and was a politic and sleaze master. How
else to explain Mondale, Dukakis, Gore....Daschle? Preaching fiscal
responsibility during a recession? Without saying we should repeal the tax
cut? Uh...I predict he loses the senate (unless we see some strong
individual contenders) and this is with like 4 or so ancient (but
popular) senators retiring. Lunacy.

I don't know what Nader and the Greens are doing for the mid terms, but
Nader should just find a state where he's a sure win and run for
senator. He could bust up the Senate hard. He'd have *real* power and no
one could ignore him. He'd be in much better position to support a Green
canidacy or even to run again.

Cheers,
Bijan.