"The official post-Vietnam line in the army, as taught in service schools (for officers), was articulated first by Col. Harry Summers, who was tasked by the army to write the official 'lessons-learned' document after Vietnam that became a course text, 'On Strategy' (purposefully referring to Clausewitz): it wasn't the media, it wasn't the protestors, it was us, the uniformed military --- 'we' did it to ourselves. . . .

One wonders in relation to that about the oath: one of the whines was that "Washington tied our hands". Actually, it was the Constitution which "tied the hands" -- with the rule of law.

Otherwise, much of the media back then trumpeted the gov't line. And the protesters were exercising their right of freedom of speech -- which right was purportedly being defended by a military which simultaneously opposed use of that right in ways in which the military disapproved.

I've personally been publicly complaining about government propaganda for nearly twenty years now.. Nobody gives a phuck, I can't even get people to tell me I'm wrong.

It's like screaming into an anechoic chamber, nothing comes back.

-- Aycharaych Saturday, May 10, 2008 02:02 PM

During the 1960s, teens learned:

1. "The gov't is lying to us about marijuana." [Correct.]

then jumped to this conclusion --

2. "Therefore, the gov't is lying to us about all drugs." [WRONG.]

I see that same oversimplification, that same jumping-to-erroneous conclusion happening today.

It is legal for the media to lie to us.

It is legal for the gummint to lie to us.

What is not legal is for the gummint to use our own tax dollars to ie to us using the "independent media" or "free press" as an undisclosed conduit for that propaganda or lies or whatever.

And the conversation has ended.

There you have it, in a nutshell.

When was the last time you observed two people saying, at the end of a long, contentious but relatively civil conversation, that they would have to 'agree to disagree'?

Tangentially --- sometimes I think about a line from an essay by Heidegger, his only real attempt at literary criticism, about the poetry of Holderlin. "We have been a conversation", was the line. It pains me to read that. These days, it's more like "We have been a series of colliding monologues that end in name-calling and vitriol which further our downward spiral of solipsism and narcissism."

But that's just when I'm feeling sour. Or when I'm paying close attention, one.

Some of our threads in here give me hope, though. Some of them.

Thanks for calling out the Alterman piece and linking to it --- I read his stuff about the media whenever I find it, and generally devour the NYer cover to cover, but I'm behind and appreciate your putting it at the head of my queue.

1. "The gov't is lying to us about marijuana." [Correct.]

then jumped to this conclusion --

2. "Therefore, the gov't is lying to us about all drugs." [WRONG.]

I see that same oversimplification, that same jumping-to-erroneous conclusion happening today.

Where you and I disagree is that, let's call it hard drug abuse, is really a victimless crime that should be treated asa public health issue, not a criminal justice issue BECAUSE it does affect the lives of others besides the addict. But that does not make them victims of the victimless "crime" that is only a crime by dint of the overuse of the criminal sanction.

bjobotts --

". . . . Gradually the American public has turned against this war/occupation but it would have happened much sooner without the daily propaganda (lies) fed to us by the corporate media."

1. Much of the mainstream media was spewing propaganda against Clinton throughout his 8 years in office, even after the "scandals" they were reporting had been disproven.

2. The Bushit criminal enterprise would not be in office had the media reported the law in addition to the politics, beginning with the fact that the Constitution expressly gives exclusive authority to Congress to resolve such election disputes.

3. The Bushit criminal enterprise would not have got away with lying us into Iraq had the media reported up front known facts that they instead relegated to the back "pages'.

It is short memories which remember only the most recent instance of the media shoveling propaganda into our eyes and ears.

". . . . Why is this not a conflict of interests involving national security?"

It is a conflict of interest. So how does one prohibit it?

for facilities that are better designed to deal with drug abuse and other mental health problems and issues that society prefers to ignore. But they cost money and taxes are for socialists, or something...

Not to pile on the nattering-nabob stuff, but I think your example shows how things are getting worse.

I keep thinking about Raymond Bonner, the NYT reporter who wrote about what happened in El Sal, specifically in El Mozote (someone correct me if I'm misremembering the name of the place). He walked right into the face of all the positive press about the Atlacatl Battalion, the counter-insurgency battalion 'we' had trained, and reported an atrocity ... which was well known (immediately after the fact), documented, and commented on OTR by the embassy staff. Bonner served in the Marines in Vietnam (0311, not as a reporter), and had a good reputation as a reporter.

Predictably, the RW went batshit when the story appeared, took the usual potshots at the NYT, tried to slime Bonner, etc.

BUT ... the paper stood by him, piled on more coverage with more reporters (this is a tactic we taught foreign editors struggling with the same things), which was then emulated by other outlets, and the truth became pretty hard to argue. The struggle to define what had happened went on, with the usual ambiguous outcome, but the RW had been handed their ass and people started taking a very critical line against the Reagan administration's claims about what was going on in their attempts to defend the hemisphere against the communist menace. That reporting was crucial to passing the Boland amendment, outlawing aid to the (Nicaraguan) Contras. I could be wrong, but I think that reporting was cited in the hearings.

Hard to imagine that happening now, isn't it?