The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Our Constitution protects the right of every journalist - nay, every citizen - to work against his government. Ellsworth made this clear.

Except for those who hold public office and their deputies. Leon Jaworski and Judge Sirica helped spread that news.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My response was a bit more emotional than it was well thought out. Shocking, no?

I walk thru a bookstore every day at lunch and see more and more of these “we are so fucked” or “someone is lying to you” or “these are the cancers you’ll be getting and they’re caused by Exxon and big pharma” books that I got a visceral reaction from reading a blurb about Collapse. I just so want it to be 1999 again. I think I have Clinton withdrawal... I mean, I am libertarian by nature, so I should be kinda psyched about some of what Bush has been doing... But I can’t help feeling down. The Oped pages are all bad, and the books aren’t about being a billionaire at 40 anymore; they’re telling me how to avoid getting leukemia from Splenda or how social security will be bankrupt in 2020. Sometimes it feels like society’s in a Hobbesian meltdown. No fun.

So I guess my point is, I don’t want to read about collapses anymore. I’d like to see a little more Irrational Exuberance around.

Is there a way to treat cynicism?

Um, I just wanted a field trip to some museum.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You know, you claim to have a conscience, and to be guided by a moral code. But, if one reads your posts, it becomes clear that on the political front you have no scruples at all. The only issue for you is whether or not something will help us win.

If you conclude that something will help us win, then it's okay, no mater how dishonest, nefarious, or violative of basic principles of moral or social decency. If you conclude something is likely to reduce the chance of our winning, or to harm our effort, then you are absolutist in your conviction that it is is wrong, and those behind the action you declare wrong are to be punished and destroyed.

I started this post thinking I was going to accuse you of being terribly Machiavellian. But I changed my mind midway through. You aren't merely a would-be Prince. You are a Pretender to God's throne. Where do you get your chutzpah?

Where do you get the Chutzpah? You are so confused by your moral relativism you don't know which way is up. Until you have some sense of right and wrong all your posts are going to sound ridiculous.

Why is paying off journalists to write sympathetic stories such a heinous act? Why does this act fall in the category of "doing anything" to win the war? I am not talking about extermination of the local population, torturing, etc. I am just talking about paying some journalist to write a story. Considering that most of the time to accomplish an objective in war you need to kill or maim people, just paying off a journalist is a pretty benign act. No one is getting killed or even hurt yet you make it sound like a war crime.

When we have occupied other countries (Japan and Germany) we have controlled and censored the press. Yet all we have done here is try and influence the press. But because we have tried to pay off a journalist we have completely lost all sense of decency? Give me a break.

I never said anything was OK to win a war, but some things should be done to win a war. What is wrong with using propaganda to win a war?

When Geraldo drew a map on the ground during the invasion of his location everyone freaked out and he was almost fired. But when an American newspaperman leaks some information that its only benefit will be to aid the enemy in the propaganda war you don't see a problem? What possible benefit could reporting on this have? But it will definitely aid the enemy in their propaganda war. So why report on it?

What is totally obvious here it is clear that you and the reporter that leaked the story don't want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Um, I just wanted a field trip to some museum.

As soon as Amazon.idiot gets it to me I will read it. I think the exhibit will last until January 17, 2006 (NCS am I wrong?) so as long as I get to it in the next couple of weeks we will be OK.

[Spanky]

I was watching this show on PBS where some Harvard professor was asking people "tough" moral questions. The professor asked Peter Jennings that if the United States was in a war with North Kosan (obviously a parallel with North Vietnam or North Korea) and he was imbedded with a North Kosanese platoon on patrol, and a situation arose where they were about to ambush an American patrol, and Jennings had the opporunity to warn the these American soliders to save their lives, would he do it. Peter Jennings first response was that he would not. He said it was his duty as a journalist to not get involved and stay objective.

After further disucssion among all the participants it became clear that Jennings position was completely insane and stupid. Jennings backtracked and apologised. But this insane way of thinking seems to have infected the media. The presses self apointed obligation to stay objective and not involved is no high moral position. It is easily trumped by more important moral issues. Like saving lives and furthering causes that are good.

Defeating the insurgency in Iraq is righteous and moral cause. Does anyone disagree with that? So why doesn't our success in Iraq morally trump the presses desire to be "objective" and "non-involved". Of course the press can really do whatever they want, but if their actions help the enemy, especially an evil enemy, anyone with any sense of decency should find their actions morally repugnant.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The only person that would think this is an interesting question is someone who does not understand the proper role of government. Your above statement makes transparent why your political judgement is totally lacking. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that government should step in and change it to your liking. The government needs to stay out, and as voters, we need to keep people from getting elected who think government should be involved in this issue.

Don't be so obtuse. When we think that other markets are working poorly, the government regulates them. Why not this one? If reporting is a public good -- and the Framers of the Constitution clearly thought it was -- then why wouldn't it be appropriate for the government to encourage its production?

Perhaps you're worried that the government will meddle with the news, bend it to its own purposes. I share the concern. But when this concern arises in other contexts -- think about how the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board or the director of the FBI serve -- there are ways to address it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't be so obtuse. When we think that other markets are working poorly, the government regulates them.

That is what socialists and economic morons do when they think markets are working poorly and usually with disastrous results. Farm subsidies screw the consumer by increasing food prices (which hits hardest on the people least able to afford it) and raises taxes. Airline Deregulation and telecom deregulation greatly decreased prices and improved service. The only time markets need to be regulated is when you have a monopoly situation. In other words, to increase competition. Otherwise trying to regulate the market does not help. That doesn't mean you shouldn't pass laws to protect public safety etc. but almost every time the government thnks it can improve a market it screws it up.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Why not this one? If reporting is a public good -- and the Framers of the Constitution clearly thought it was -- then why wouldn't it be appropriate for the government to encourage its production?

Just because it is a public good doesn't mean that the government should interfere. I know the founders would agree with me on that. A government intervention into the press and media would be a huge waste of money and would probably make the system worse. Encourage production? Why? Because it works so well with Oranges? I may not like the type of news that the public is demanding, but that doesn't mean the government should step in and give them what I think they should have. I don't want you or any bureacrat deciding what news the American public needs.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Perhaps you're worried that the government will meddle with the news, bend it to its own purposes. I share the concern.

Another problem and I can't think of one possible benefit.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop But when this concern arises in other contexts -- think about how the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board or the director of the FBI serve -- there are ways to address it.

The Central Bank and the FBI is where you need government involvement. When it comes to the press you don't need any government involvement. What are you suggesting, some quasi political apointee like the Federal Reserve Chairman or FBI director to "oversee" news distribution. A news Czar? You can't be serious.

The government has plenty of things that it has responsiblity for that it hasn't taken care of. Mainly eduction. We don't need to add another responsibility. Especially one where I don't see where the government could do any good.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The only time markets need to be regulated is when you have a monopoly situation.

This is the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time. Government justifiably does all sorts of things to regulate markets short of addressing monopolization. For example, it enforces laws against fraud. It restricts pollution. This is because there are other forms of market failure besides monopolization. To take just one more example, the government requires lenders to provide information when extending credit, because markets fail when information is too assymetric.

Does government power get abused (e.g., with farm subsidies)? Sure. So?

Just because it is a public good doesn't mean that the government should interfere.

Not ipso facto. The question I was raising was, is there anything the government can do to make this market work better?

A government intervention into the press and media would be a huge waste of money and would probably make the system worse.

Perhaps, but doesn't it depend on what the intervention is?

Encourage production? Why? Because it works so well with Oranges?

What? Have you been drinking?

I may not like the type of news that the public is demanding, but that doesn't mean the government should step in and give them what I think they should have. I don't want you or any bureacrat deciding what news the American public needs.

Nor do I. Maybe if we had better media, your critical reading skills would be better.

Another problem and I can't think of one possible benefit.

Recall that the premise of this little conversation was that there isn't enough hard reporting, because it's cheaper to provide op-ed fluff. So the possible benefit would be more reporting. I thought you agreed with premise.

What are you suggesting, some quasi political apointee like the Federal Reserve Chairman or FBI director to "oversee" news distribution. A news Czar? You can't be serious.

I don't recall suggesting that, no.

How about setting up another public broadcasting corporation, to be run by a board of directors with an equal number of democratic and republican appointees, each to be confirmed by a vote of 2/3 of the Senate? It could be funded by an endowment, rather than by continuing appropriations, and it could have a well-defined mission to serve the public good by gathering and broadcasting news.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
As soon as Amazon.idiot gets it to me I will read it. I think the exhibit will last until January 17, 2006 (NCS am I wrong?) so as long as I get to it in the next couple of weeks we will be OK.

Why do you need to read the book?

[Spanky]

Sometimes I think we would be better off if they just nuked Hollywood. All these pretentious actors whining about the war etc when they are promoting one of the biggest killers in the US. When they stop appearing in movies that glamorize smoking I might listen to their political opinions.


Smoke thickens on silver screen

RESEARCHERS WARN OF COPYCAT TEENS

By Lisa M. Krieger and Glennda Chui

Mercury News


Smoking is back in vogue in the movies -- especially films rated for young audiences -- and that's bad news for efforts to keep teens from lighting up.

How bad? Very bad, according to researchers at the University of California-San Francisco who examined almost 60 studies on smoking in the movies and among teenagers.

Nearly 80 percent of American movies rated PG-13 contain tobacco scenes -- from ``Anchorman'' to ``Ocean's 12.'' And while the number of smoke-filled scenes in all U.S. films declined for decades, it's back up to levels not seen since the 1950s.

On-screen smoking is part of the reason 390,000 U.S. teenagers try their first cigarette each year, according to a report by UC-San Francisco's Stanton Glantz and Annemarie Charlesworth in the December issue of the journal Pediatrics. That's half of all new teen smokers.

The researchers urge an R rating for films that depict smoking, echoing a previous recommendation by the American Medical Association, the National PTA, the attorneys general of 32 states and a growing number of other groups.

``The science is very solid. Smoking in the movies has a very substantial effect on the risk that kids will get addicted to nicotine,'' Glantz said.

Speaking for the Motion Picture Association of America, Gayle Osterberg said industry statistics show only about half of PG-13 movies over the past two years featured tobacco use.

``Everybody agrees that smoking is a serious health problem and that our industry shouldn't be encouraging or glamorizing smoking,'' she said.

In the new study, Glantz and Charlesworth collected the results of 59 studies -- 42 on smoking in the movies and 17 more on teen smoking -- to examine the influence of smoking on-screen. Taken together, the evidence shows that smoking in the movies promotes adolescent smoking, they concluded.

The findings include:

• Nearly four out of five PG-13 movies show someone -- usually a major character -- smoking cigarettes or cigars or chewing tobacco.

• Only about half as many people in the United States smoke as did in 1950 -- but that's not true on the silver screen. A sample of top-grossing films over the past 50 years found that the amount of smoking decreased from an average of 10.7 events an hour in 1950 to a low of 4.9 in 1982 -- and then shot up to 10.9 by 2002. (Events range from a character lighting a cigarette to a shot of a tobacco advertisement.)

• Because on-screen smokers are adults, teens see their behavior as sophisticated and something to emulate. And while smokers in real life tend to be of lower socioeconomic status, smokers on-screen are primarily white males from upper income brackets.

The researchers point to popular actor Jude Law, who smokes in ``Closer,'' ``Alfie'' and ``The Aviator.'' Nearly every major character lights up in the Will Ferrell comedy ``Anchorman.''

Hollywood heartthrobs Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts have lit up on screen. The animated character Hercules puffs on a cigar in Disney's G-rated ``Hercules.'' Even aliens pack Marlboros in ``Men In Black'' and ``Men in Black II,'' both of which are rated PG-13.

The UC-San Francisco researchers and anti-smoking advocates say all those movies should be rated R. They're seeking voluntary compliance.

``This doesn't mean that `Men In Black' and `Men In Black II' can't promote Marlboro,'' Glantz said. ``It means that if Steven Spielberg wants them to have a PG-13 rating, he'll need to cut out the promotions.''

Osterberg, of the motion picture association, said that ``tying a rating to any single item is a bit of a slippery slope, because there are all kinds of behaviors parents find objectionable.''

But Kori Titus, director of an American Lung Association program in Sacramento that has teenagers monitor tobacco use in 250 to 300 movies each year, said kids often don't see things as adults do.

``What we may consider the bad guy, often they have traits these teenagers want to emulate,'' she said. ``They're edgy, they're hip and yes, they're smoking on-screen.''

Over the past 11 years, Titus said, 75 percent of the most popular PG-13 movies featured tobacco use. Last year alone, 77 percent of PG-13 movies and 9 percent of PG movies -- including the animated hit ``The Incredibles'' -- had characters who used tobacco.

Kaitlin Kelly-Reif, 17, of Sacramento has been reviewing movies for the project -- called Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down! -- for four years. She notes not only how many times tobacco appears, but whether it's portrayed as sexy or cool, denotes wealth or power, or is mentioned by brand.

``I think it's been really helpful for me overall, because I'm more aware of what I'm watching, and how Hollywood uses certain tools such as tobacco,'' Kaitlin said. ``Also that tobacco is not something that's cool -- it's something Hollywood says is cool.''

The UC-San Francisco researchers would make exceptions to the R rating for films, such as ``Constantine,'' that show the dangers of smoking.

And, they'd exempt others, such as ``Good Night, and Good Luck,'' which realistically portrays the smoke-filled 1950s-era TV newsroom of Edward R. Murrow. ``The cigarette was a defining part of the persona of Edward Murrow, who ended up dying of lung cancer,'' Glantz said.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
Where do you get the Chutzpah? You are so confused by your moral relativism you don't know which way is up. Until you have some sense of right and wrong all your posts are going to sound ridiculous.

You are confused.

All of these liberal types are very sure that, come the revolution, they simply have to yell "Cut!", and the action will stop, and they can quickly run aside and not be hurt.

It's all unreal.

If Lenin got power, it would simply make network connections a little bit more complicated. Kulaks would eventually get back their cable.

Hitler back? Well, the jews in the posting group would simply have to be a bit . . . you know . . . more circumspect.

It's all a fucking joke to them. There are no bad guys, just undiverse systems.

Weren't the "fellow travelers" all scheduled to die?

Wouldn't it be funny, were we ever to reach that point?

[bilmore]

Dean now says "we're gonna LOSE!!"

(I guess he means there won't be a DEM voice n this country for years and years.)

"Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

Dean made his comments in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio.

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Dean says the Democrat position on the war is 'coalescing,' and is likely to include several proposals.

-------------------------------

Fuck Dean.

Fuck any person who follows Dean.

Ty? Comment?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Dean now says "we're gonna LOSE!!"

(I guess he means there won't be a DEM voice n this country for years and years.)

"Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

Dean made his comments in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio.

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Dean says the Democrat position on the war is 'coalescing,' and is likely to include several proposals.

-------------------------------

Fuck Dean.

Fuck any person who follows Dean.

Ty? Comment?

I hope he's wrong, but worry he's right. I keep waiting for someone to explain what we're going to do differently to turn things around over there. Bush unveils his "new strategy" which is a bunch of talking points about how the old strategy is working, without anything else. Many Dems seem to be more concerned with positioning themselves for the next election than with figuring out what we need to change. (Although it's hard to blame them, since the Administration couldn't care less what they have to, and the GOP is trying to run Congress so as to make their votes irrelevant.) And the press is more interested in the political posturing and consequences than in the substance of our policy. (Although it's hard to blame them, since doing actual reporting from Iraq is a good way to get yourself killed.)

Dean is making an empirical assessment that our policy has failed and that there's nothing we can do about it. Murtha reached a similar conclusion. I'm sure both of them have better information than I do -- nevertheless, I hope they're wrong.

What I don't get is why you are -- or pretend to be -- so offended at Dean. It's pretty clear to me what he's saying.

etfs

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What I don't get is why you are -- or pretend to be -- so offended at Dean. It's pretty clear to me what he's saying.

For the same reasons your answer offends me: The evidence, should you ever care to search it out (you won't be offered it by your media) and should you ever look at it dispassionately, suggests VERY strongly that we're winning now.

But that's agin' the party line, right? 'Cuz Bush made it happen, and he's evil. So, your mission now, should you decide to accept it, is to fight this success with every fibre of your being.

Fuck. If your side can take him seriously now, there's no dialogue at all any more. Ya'all are beyond belief. I can take back my very temperate "there's no treason" post from last week. There is treason. There are traitors.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
For the same reasons your answer offends me: The evidence, should you ever care to search it out (you won't be offered it by your media) and should you ever look at it dispassionately, suggests VERY strongly that we're winning now.

Please show us where we might find this information.