I posted this to Documentaries/Fahrenheit 9/11 , where it was deleted twice without annotation:

Footnote:

As a footnote to all of the above, those interested in more light on the subject, as oppose to heat, should take a gander at the recent “America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order” by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, two conservative intellectuals who clearly want to distance American conservatism from the virulence of neo-conservatism, and made the case that neo-conservatism’s ascendancy in the Bush administration have led to foreign policy disasters. It is an ironic side note that where traditional conservatism had advocated for isolationism, the Bush administration have created a world where we are in fact isolated from much of the world’s public opinion, where we’re alone with the consequence of our foreign policy.

The authors detail the roots of neo-conservatism from the days of Commentary (marking the first break of Jewish intellectuals with liberalism over the issue of race and entitlement) to Weekly Standard (the current standard bearer of neo-conservatism with favored access into the Bush administration) and such policy mills as Project for the New American Century and American Enterprise Institute (from which many, if not all, of Bush’s foreign policy advisors had sprung from - to fill a head-of-state who prides himself as someone who neither read newspapers nor watch television, and previous to his presidency, had little to no interest in foreign affairs, except the family’s oil business.).

Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke’s critique of neo-conservatism is by no means unique. Their book is merely one of dozens in the recent marketplace, but remarkable because it comes from the house of conservatism, where ideological parents finally saw fit to distance themselves from, and maybe acknowledge the shortcomings of a bad offspring. Still there remains new conservatives like John Russell Meade who, while stepped back from botched disasters like Iraq, remains unrepentant in thinking that we should assume the mantle of imperial empire, thinking that we have an obligation (translate, right) to impose “democratic” values elsewhere worldwide.

I think there is an adage that goes, “There are no want of fathers for victory, but defeat is an orphan.” Not exactly like rats off a sinking ship, since the American public still has to weight in on this this November, but you can see it coming.

End post.

[I believe this post is more germane to the context of the thread in Fahrenheit 9/11, after all, my argument is consistent with Moore's film, debunking and attacking the Bush administration's war policies in Iraq. It was meant as a footnote.

This post is not any more inflammatory that those by myself and others that were left intact; in fact, it is less so. It is a review of a book that is out there, much like the reviews of films and music here. Reviews for this title has appeared in LA Times and NY Times, among others. It affords some additional light on the topics under discussion.

So why?]

What did y'all think of USA Today hiring Ann Coulter to do a column from the DNC and then firing her after reading her first column?? Hadn't they ever read one of her books or ANY of her columns before agreeing to publish her in their fine publication? You can't simply pick up a hot button author and expect her to fall in line with all of your editor's viewpoints. I find that extremely funny. Coulter is at the extreme right of the spectrum, probably as right as Michael Moore is left. Why in the world would USA Today hire her in the first place? Somebody didn't do his homework, I think. I bet if Ann used more colorful charts and graphs, they would have overlooked her right-wing rhetoric.

I would guess they're tryin' for "fair and balanced" - that weird politically correct practice of presenting two (2) opposing points of view so that no one can accuse them of being political and violating their mandate to the public.

I see PBS has David Brooks doing commentary alongside David Shield at the DNC. Of course he was skeptical of Jimmy Carter's speech, and thought Clinton's was only "okay".

After all, who don't know that Brooks is the conservative tandam of columnists at the NY Times.

I guess this is fair and balanced in some cuckoo land. According to this logic, they'll have James Carvell doing color at the Republican Convention.

Once Fox had the former spokesperson (a woman) of the Pentagon opposite David Keys, the WMD specialist appointed by the Bush administration to seek WMD in post-war Iraq, but came up empty handed and was useless to the hawks. Jesus, was she gonna agree that there weren't any. Of course, they could'a sent her.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wong828,

But at least the "fair & balanced" network is actually going to air its interview with Michael Moore tomorrow. Why is USA Today so afraid of little 'ol Ann Coulter??? So funny....

This is simply Ann Coulter bein' crazy as a fox.

Now she can claim censorship, muzzling of the conservative media's right to free speech, etc.

Hopefully this will give her an uptick on the bestseller list, and increase her speaking fee to the right-wing choir.

She is as media savy as Michael Moore.

Besides, she looks cuter in a skirt than Michael would.


BUT, I did take a look at her piece thru your link. Your little 'ol Ann was being deliberately inflammatory. I'm not sure any mainstream publication, much less a national newspaper, wouldn't pull the piece in a New York minute.

Just read it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wong828:
This is simply Ann Coulter bein' crazy as a fox.

Now she can claim censorship, muzzling of the conservative media's right to free speech, etc.

Hopefully this will give her an uptick on the bestseller list, and increase her speaking fee to the right-wing choir.

She is as media savy as Michael Moore.

Besides, she looks cuter in a skirt than Michael would.


BUT, I did take a look at her piece thru your link. Your little 'ol Ann was being deliberately inflammatory. I'm not sure any mainstream publication, much less a national newspaper, wouldn't pull the piece in a New York minute.

Just read it.

---

Oh, I read it when I heard the story, and you're making my point for me. Of course she's inflammatory. I told everybody that she's as far right as you can get on the spectrum. That's what she does. Remember Wally George? One and the same. My point was that a traditional media publication like USA Today -- you'd think they would have SOME idea who they're employing. Every one of her articles for the last several years is just sitting there at "anncouter" dot com, for pete's sake! How ignorant can a major paper be??? Don't be lazy, USA today! Maybe I can throw in a pie graph for them to figure it out.... You don't see the Wall Street Journal employing Louis Farakkhan for an opinion piece, do you??

Actually, there is something perverse to this.

If some political operative were to make a zillion copies of this and mailed one to every undecided Republican voter in the swing states, good money will get you George Bush will be watching the presidential inauguration on TV from Crawford in January.

It really is too bad that USA Today didn't have the guts to print it. It would have been accused of being irresponsible, but hey, what else is journalistic freedom for?

At some point, Karl Rove would've distanced Bush and the conservative and religious right from Coulter. One more black eye for an administration known for being ham-handed and maladroit from Iraq to George's inability to read a teleprompter.

All USA Today needed was lead with a banner disclaimer, "Ann Coulter, conservative columnist."

Their readership would've skyrocketed.

I don't think the President has ever endorsed Coulter... Much like I don't think Kerry has ever endorsed Michael Moore or Al Franken. So I wouldn't go so far as to call it a black eye for Bush. It's merely a black eye for USA Today. I love it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wong828:
I posted this to Documentaries/Fahrenheit 9/11 , where it was deleted twice without annotation:

---

I saw this post in the Farenheit 9/11 thread last night, wong, and it's still there this morning.

It seems to have found a more robust discussion here, though. I wish I had something substantive to add. Despite the inevitable attention blowhards like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage draw, they really are the lunatic fringe and their actual impact is quite small.

The more apt comparison to Michael Moore is probably Rush Limbaugh. Both moderate their remarks enough to be just this side of reasonable.

I've not read America Alone, wong, but I've seen it referenced in multiple articles that dissect the rise of The Weekly Standard. William Kristol's slow, deliberate maneuvering to become a true journalistic influence within the Beltway is fascinating and ultimately has more far reaching consequences than the kind of bluster Fox News provides.

Now Playing: NPR's Morning Edition

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LinnTate,

Oh Canada! Thank You so much to my parents for raising me in Canada! I am a fairly political person but find it odd posting my opinions here because I am from Canada, and most of the rest of the people here are American. I find almost all U.S. media to be horrible. I get my news from BBC or CBC. I consider Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh to be cartoons, very humorous. Debating their merits is a waste of time. They both perfectly fit the stereotype that the rest of the world has about Americans. Fat, white men willing to bend the facts to their personal or party opinions. I have no reason to watch Fahrenheit 911, both because I am Canadian, and because I read about that stuff from more reputable sources. It blows my mind that everyone in the States wants to discuss powderpuffs like these guys, and lunatics like Ann Coulter, when you have so many authors there writing important works! I never seem to hear any discussions on the documentary The Fog of War, or about Noam Chomsky's writings, or even Ralph Nader's ideas! It's sad that someone like Nader will not be appreciated until after he dies, while we waste time talking about Michael Moore's movies. I always loved how Leonard Cohen described America in the song "Democracy"-"the cradle of the best and the worst", which I find to be very true. The biggest problem is that the U.S. media is so screwed up, noone knows which is which. I think that was a goal of the major players in U.S. politics, to dumb down or polarize people so much that they could get away with anything! There are so many crazy things going on down there that are not adequately reported or debated that it is frightening. I mean, did you know that the U.S. Federal Reserve is a private company!?! How is that possible?!? I know I am ranting now, but I really hope that the intelligent people here are checking out what goes on in their country. Watching Fox News or CNN will teach you less than the Daily Show with Jon Stewart does. Check out independent media wherever you can, read books by the authors that your media shuns. For a start, read Rule By Secrecy by Jim Marrs, or Body of Secrets by James Bamford. There is so much out there...get to it!

Well, at least we have freedom of the press in America. We don't have the government department that Canada has which decides what news sources are objectionable to Canada's delicate sensibilities. They recently decided that Al-Jazeera is OK, but Fox News is just a little too scary, so they won't allow it in the country. The U.S. lets EVERYONE, no matter how wacky and nuts they are, speak their minds so that the people can decide who the blowhards are and who the legitimate folks are. I agree with you on Nader. He's an unfortunate victim of our virtual two-party system. Very tough for the independent politician to make any headway.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RayRay,

Well, S, I always love your posts, and I should have known that you would be the one who would get me to admit even something worse than my love for "Temple of Doom."

Yes, I voted for Ralph Nader the last TWO elections. I guess that means I'm responsible for Clinton in 96 and Bush in 00. Actually, if you've heard me on the sites earlier, this shouldn't be a surprise. I've lambasted the two-party system, and this was my way of addressing the situation. Maybe I thought there was a better candidate (God, I hope so), but at least I exercised my right to vote for someone other than what the robots say, so I hope I get cut a little slack.

I haven't decided who I'll vote for this year. I just wish there were more people who didn't look on the election as the better of two evils. I've had several of my students, who've never voted, tell me that I "threw" my vote away. That's scarier than anything else I could dream up.

I don't think it matters where you live as long as YOU PAY ATTENTION to what is actually going on. Even here behind the Orange Curtain, the Orange County Register is a surprisingly-balanced reporter of the "news."
I hope you all have access to the "truth" as well.

LinnTate wrote: “I saw this post in the Fahrenheit 9/11 thread last night, wong, and it's still there this morning.”

Yes, but it was only after I posted it for the third time, and here in Off Topics, when the first two (2) posts were deleted without annotation (and noted also by another Metacritic staff). I go into greater details on this issue elsewhere in General Discussions under post topic “Censorship & Consistency”.


“Despite the inevitable attention blowhards like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage draw, they really are the lunatic fringe and their actual impact is quite small.

“The more apt comparison to Michael Moore is probably Rush Limbaugh. Both moderate their remarks enough to be just this side of reasonable.”

I don’t know that their impact is small and not significant. Coulter and Savage are media figures, as are Hannity and O’Riley. They are media figures who can shape public discourse, and thus public policy, social, economic and military. After all, the success of the Bush administration in shaping the discourse of terrorism ended up with the United States stuck in Iraq. And Limbaugh has been credited to some measure with giving voice to, and mobilizing conservatives on all the hot button issues in terms of domestic policy. It should surprise nobody that Limbaugh is the only talk radio that goes to our troops in Iraq and oversea.

“William Kristol's slow, deliberate maneuvering to become a true journalistic influence within the Beltway is fascinating and ultimately has more far reaching consequences than the kind of bluster Fox News provides.”

I find it interesting that Commentary started out as being a bastion for social conservatism, almost a halfway house for liberal intellectuals disenchanted with liberalism and the issues of race, before they bolt to conservatism. Their single foray into foreign policy was in regard to the safety and survival of Israel.

I think this single preoccupation over time led naturally to the ascendancy of neo-conservatism with their obsession with foreign policy - particularly as regard to the Middle East, and of course the agenda to provide a more favorable political and military climate for Israel. Perle and Wolfowitz are simply the most obvious examples of this mindset. I think it is hubris for anyone to imagine that democracy can be imposed onto the Middle East, but it is an ideological banner I think they know they can use for a crusade. I think Woodward even quoted Perle as saying that WMD was simply a pretext to get us there.

George Bush and 9/11 was their fulcrum, and for the worse, they have reshaped the world.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wong828,

Don't even get me started on Ralph Nader. I'm no fan of the two party system, but I feel he has made himself into this alternative that many people vote for without doing a lot of research on him or really knowing much about him at all.

I am very liberal ... but I have not and will not vote for Ralph Nader. To be honest, I think the man is a lunatic.

An example of one of the things he claims he will do:

quote:

---

"personal public transit" which would allow you and fellow passengers to call up a monorail car to take you to your destination

---

I'm sorry but I think that's totally crazy ... how on earth could you ever make something like that?

Well, I'm not going to go off on Mr. Nader. I fully support the right of people to vote for who they think would make the best president. I just know too many people who voted for Nader in the last election without really knowing anything about him except that he was all "Democrats and Republicans are the same! Vote for me, I'm better!" I think that's an extremely uninformed vote to make. At least go out and do some research. Then, of course I heard a lot of whining not long after Bush was elected from people who were discovering to their dismay that Democrats and Republicans are not exactly as alike as they were claimed to be (although I do agree that the Democratic party has pushed itself almost as far to the right as it can and still be Democrats).

John Kerry is not my preferred presidential candidate. Nor is Ralph Nader. Bush certainly isn't. I don't know if anyone who will be on the ballot is.

Basically I think voting for your choice in the two major parties just because you don't want the other party to win is no worse than voting for whatever third candidate is most vocal just because you don't want to vote for the other two. Take some time, see EVERYONE who's on the ballot if you want to explore other options and figure out what they are each all about to determine who you want to vote for. Here's a good starting point: 2004 Presidential Candidates

Oh my god ... sorry about all that, I'm kind of angry about politics every day lately.

Don't worry, KT. You have a right to speak your mind, and I don't really think you were calling me mentally-deficient for mentioning my confession about Nader. If his monorail crack bothers you, I'm sure that there's dozens of other cracks by every other nominee that might bother you. I'm not trying to be a wise-ass, but I have voted for 30 years now, and I believe I weigh my choices more than most (pat on the back to yourself, you mofo.)

In a liberal democracy, those who rule do so by consent. So it is our responsibility to choose wisely - because at the end of the day we'll deserve whoever we got.

It is the height of irony that when we finally get through the selection process and make that critical choice, we don't end up with anyone we would be comfortable inviting to dinner.

What's wrong?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wong828:

It is the height of irony that when we finally get through the selection process and make that critical choice, we don't end up with anyone we would be comfortable inviting to dinner.

What's wrong?

---

Wow, wong, that's pretty cynical. I'd be more than happy to invite Ralph Nader, George Bush, or John Kerry over to dinner. They are all patriots and want what's best for the country, with different paths to that goal. I'm glad you don't represent most lawmakers in this country because if you can't even break bread with your adversaries, how the hell do you ever make progress toward your vision in life?

Mark F, I certainly didn't mean to imply anything about you from my post. My complaints were about people who DON'T inform themselves before making their choice.

Clearly you have and that's all I ask.

The monorail thing is just an example of why I think he's crazy, but the bigger reasons I'm not a Nader fan run much deeper and bigger than that one thing. I just don't want to head the discussion off that way, so I'm leaving all of that out.

SparkleMotion:

That's a very literal reading of my remark. I was simply reiterating KT's sense that she didn't care for any of the likely choices on this November's ballot, and at best, we don't choose the best, but the lesser of two evils.

But let's be literal:

I would be okay breaking bread with: Jimmy Carter, Ronnie Reagan, George Bush, Sr, even Dick Nixon, since he went to China.

Of the candidates, I'ld have been okay with Wes Clarke. Howard Dean, maybe just lunch.

Just because someone's the President of the United States is no reason I would want to have dinner with him, much less invite him into my home.

George Bush is an overgrown frat boy who has wrapped himself in the cloak of God and country and damaged it in every ways imaginable. He is no patriot in my book. He skirted service, such as it was; and he sent the children of others to die so he could strut onto the deck of a aircraft carrier for a photo op.

Dick Cheney would never consent to have dinner with either me or you; former CEO of Halliburton, I'm not sure we belong in his social circle.

There's a reason why our Founding Fathers didn't created a monarchy; this way, people like you and me don't have to kneel to them, or invite them to dinner.

I have no problems with adversaries, because there would be mutual respect. But someone who lies to you? Or someone who sprouts nonsense and platitudes? Wouldn't dining alone be better?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wong828,

quote:

---

Originally posted by RayRay:
...The U.S. lets EVERYONE, no matter how wacky and nuts they are, speak their minds so that the people can decide who the blowhards are and who the legitimate folks are.

---

In the context of discussing broadcast media, RayRay, it is worth noting that the First Amendment prohibitions against the abridgment of freedom of speech and the press should not be interpreted to mean that the citizenry is provided with unfettered access to the airwaves. Broadcast media is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States (witness the Federal Communications Act, which weighs in a 330+ pages). While the FCC makes few decisions regarding content, policies regarding ownership have significnt influence on free access to the airwaves.

What brought this to the forefront of my mind was a session I attended at a professional conference in Austin last week. Thursday morning I listened to remarks from Maxie C. Jackson, III who is the General Manager of WEAA-FM in Baltimore, Maryland, which is a non-commerical radio station licensed to Morgan State University. Jackson spoke generally regarding the case for funding news programming, but specifically about programming to underserved constituencies. In the case of WEAA, they are the only station in Baltimore with an editorial focus on news of interest to the African-American community, this despite the fact that the African-American community represents 75% of the population of Baltimore.

A well-managed radio station is a license to print money utilizing what is essentially a public commodity, the broadcast spectrum. FCC rules mandating providing programming in the public interest and very loose and afford very broad definitions of what constitutes public service, which means there are really very few opportunities for everyone to speak their mind on the broadcast airwaves.

Of course, any idiot can start a newspaper, but difficult economic conditions have sadly made that a rare occurance. I long for the age (and entertainment) of the clearly partisan newspaper. The Washington Times is a pale shadow of those wild and wooly days of which Citizen Kane is damn near a documentary.

Now Playing: "If It Were Up To Me" Rooney Rooney (Geffen)