Letters to the Editor
-
Vietnam OliverA
MSM History
-- OliverA
Vietnam was in our living rooms every night.
Mai Lai Massacre.
American Marines and Soldiers burning grass homes in villages of Vietnamese families.
Carpet bombings.
American Marines and Soldiers on stretchers or in body bags. There was no media blackout during Vietnam.
-
Anon @ 12PM
How about this: large groups of citizens attend sessions of the House and Senate on the same day and, after eating something vile, vomit on Congress.
First you have to make it into the building / onto the floor. Leg breaking seems to be a new occurrence when visiting such places...
-
Military coup...
Glenn already has pointed out that a revolt by the military would NOT be good. But, will that even be possible? With private security contractors growing larger in numbers, will the military be in effect sidelined? Does this explain the seemingly deliberate destruction of our military?
-
whining
Is there anything that might convince you to stop whining so much? If so, what?
-
the middle of right hand road
First, we should not underestimate the jejunity of the MSM. Remember "Broadcast News?" That was 20 years ago and identified the MSM's slide into trite and sophomoric "journalism" that has only steepened since. A previous thread linked to a depressingly poor display of critical thinking and abysmal writing skills by a University Professor with a Ph.D. in English:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MaryGrabar/2007/09/30/osama_bin_laden_dead,_hundreds_of_thousands_protest?page=full&comments=true
Emblematic, I think.
Second, the MSM and much of the citizenry, too, I think, has been convinced that bipartisan means that the left and right deserve equal consideration regardless the topic. Ethics or morality play no role. The MSM chooses a path which it thinks is middle of the road, when it actuality it is far, far to the right. The argument is not is torture right and wrong, but how much is ok? The feeling is not that Bush should be punished for breaking the law, but rather that the ends justified the means.
-
This pulls together some other news today...
Military coup...
Glenn already has pointed out that a revolt by the military would NOT be good. But, will that even be possible? With private security contractors growing larger in numbers, will the military be in effect sidelined? Does this explain the seemingly deliberate destruction of our military?
-- OliverA
I see where the crazy American taliban has promised to support a third party run if both parties run a pro-choice candidate.
I was thinking they could call it the Theocratic Party of America (TPA). They could run Erik Prince, who is an evangelical as well as authoritarian. He's perfect. He even has his own army so he doesn't even need to enter the election to take over.
I'm thinking the army could be called:
--> The Godshirts?
--> Army of God (wait... some group might have this one already, but in another language)?
--> ?? -
Idiocy
Is there anything that might convince you to stop whining so much? If so, what?
Without a doubt the stupidest comment I've ever seen on Unclaimed Territory (and that's saying a lot). I literally mean "stupidest" in that it displays a breathtaking lack of intelligence (as generally manifested by the ability to comprehend what you've read and to think in a coherent and rational fashion).
Even if you object to liberal positions (even if you hate liberalism and all liberals), adopting this "confused" stance is just willfully ignorant.
Even if I accept your characterization of the discussion on this board as "whining," I still don't understand how anyone could read these posts and be unclear as to what we're all asking for and what would satisfy our demands. It really couldn't be more clear! In the last ten pages of comments, the entire progressive agenda (with all its inherent differences of opinion and shades of meaning) has been laid out for all to see.
If you read all these comments and still can't figure out what would "get us to stop whining" despite the fact that we are LISTING OUR GRIEVANCES in the clearest possible language, then you are very, very stupid.
-
P.D. "Bo" Steele
From your blog:
It is no secret to any educated man of letters that we are living in the second great decline of Western civilization.
Hey, at least let me have a seatbelt so that I can enjoy the ride...
-
Army of God
Good ol' US of A:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God
-
@ P.D. "Bo" Steele
Lets see what Bo does know? Just for the hell of it, might I ask what your opinion on this subject is MR.Bo??
-
Mostly true but not universally so
I couldn't agree more, Glenn, it makes me sick to my stomach (almost literally).
But I did think that the blanket condemnation of the Washington set was a bit unfair and said so in the linked post. There were some true profiles in courage, even in the shock of the aftermath of 9/11. People such as Russ Feingold, Scott Ritter and Sy Hersch really don't deserve to be lumped in with the rest of politicians and media figures who failed (and continue to fail) in their duty to the public.
-
Head in the sand Democrats
Many theories have been proposed to explain why the Dems have not been more aggressive in persuing investigations of and taking action against the Bush administration's extreme, radical and often illegal policies and activities, such as torture, rendition, indefinite detentions, signing statements, warrantless surveillance (it goes way beyond wiretaps, of course), national security letters, politicization of the DoJ, etc. These theories include spinelessness, cluelessness, cynical political opportunism, complicity, collaboration, etc.--with the favorite, default position of most being appearing to be spinelessness--i.e. Dems are gutless and need to "grow a pair".
Well, no doubt each of these theories has some validity, to one extent or another, depending on the specific Dem and situation. And no doubt more than one of them is at play with many Dems and in many situations. I'm not a big believer in the "one grand theory that explains everything" school of politics (or anything, really), and I think that it's an oversimplification to say that the Dems behavior is due to one reason and one reason only, such as spinelessness--even though, I would agree, that this does apply to quite a few Dems. But so do other reasons.
And I think that one of those other reasons, that hasn't been getting as much attention, is what I think of as a "head in the sand" mentality among leading Dems. I.e. they know, or strongly suspect, that something is seriously wrong, and has been for years, but choose to pretend that things are not THAT bad, or they're bad, but it's a passing storm, that will go away once the Bush administration is no more, and Dems increase their majorities in congress.
And so they rationalize that the administration's policies and actions, however radical and bad that they are, can be waited out for another year or so, and then all will be well again, and there's no need to fight them, since they'll end soon anyway, and why subject oneself to the difficult, divisive and politically risky experience of having real oversight and investigations, when this is going away soon anyway? I.e. kick the can down the road, keep the powder dry, live to fight another day, because this is not a fight that they feel that they need to have now, nor one that they want to fight, nor one that they feel that they should risk fighting.
Of course, this is certainly spineless. People don't stick their head in the sand unless they're trying to avoid something that they fear and lack the courage to face. But it's not, and cannot possibly be in my opinion, just spinelessness. I think that it's spinelessness, combined with cluelessness, along with active self-delusion, complicity, collaboration, political opportunism, and all these other motivations. But on a functional, operative level, I think that Dems believe, or have chosen to believe because it suits them, that things aren't as bad as they clearly are, and that they don't need to fight this fight, and can just wait things out and all will be well again.
Which I think most of us would agree is a wrong and dangerous position to take. But these Dems have the luxury of not having to listen to us right now, and of being able to deny reality (or what most of us view as reality), and the likely serious consequences of doing nothing meaningful to oppose and investigate these radical and illegal policies and actions. And whether due to spinelessness, cluelessness, complicity, opportunism, etc., pretending that things aren't that bad and can be waited out, these Dems' unwillingness to do this is a manifestation of an overall head in the sand mentality that is going to be extremely hard for us on the outside to penetrate. Not that we can't penetrate it, and shouldn't try. But as many have noted, they live in an elite, protected bubble--the beltway, the "Village", "Versailles", etc.--that shields them, in the near term at least, from outside criticism and influence.
I think that it can be penetrated, and will become somewhat easier to penetrate, as the campaign season gets underway at the congressional, as opposed to presidential level. Between a refusal to support incumbents, to support for primary challenges, to activist groups such as MoveOn running attack ads on the most egregious Dems (and Repubs), to holding rallies and protests and other grass-roots activities, to prominent bloggers (and a handful of courageous and honest journalists and pundits such as Dana Priest, James Risen, Sy Hersh, Paul Krugman, E.J. Dionne, etc.) not letting the matter rest, we to can have some influence. It may or may not make the difference, but it's certainly worth trying.
But simply calling these Dems "spineless" in self-righteous indignation and giving up in disgust is not a solution, and in its way is just as spineless itself. This is not a spectator sport, and anyone who is upset with this is morally and ethically obliged to do something about it beyond complaining about it. At the very least, we should all be calling our members of congress and letting them know that they need to be far more aggressive in standing up to the administration. But we can do much more, I think, and should.