@radx and @enoch

radx said:
Painting Truthout, Truthdig, Counterpunch, Alternet, BlackAgendaReport, NakedCapitalism and others as stooges of the Kremlin is such an obvious attempt to discredit dissenting voices that it's, quite frankly, rather offensive.

enoch said:
i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

All of the outlets and authors listed above have been very thorough or exhaustive in documenting the evils of America or Capitalism(as represented by America). The length, depth and detail they have all given and time spent documenting any and every instance is almost breath taking. For a long time, I sort of sat closer to you both by looking at the merits of each instance and case weeding through which stories were accurate, which ones were complete, which ones were misleading or fair. Lots and lots of the coverage from those groups and individuals were very accurate.

Here's the counter balance though, how much time, detail and effort have all of those groups combined given to any positive outcomes of America or Capitalism(as represented by America). How much time, detail and effort have all of those groups combined given to the evils of any alternatives or opposing forces that would or did fill the voids were America isn't involved? It's crickets all around.

Chomsky's work alone could fill a library with the thorough documenting of America's evil corporate execution of class war on the workers of the world. How many books and documentaries can we count form the entire group that attempt anything similar for China, Russia, Middle Eastern nations, heck, the rest of the world combined?

I don't draw attention to this to point out that anything they have all observed is even wrong or incorrect. I draw attention to the glaring omission of similar documentation of alternatives. As it stands, a country like Russia couldn't dream of a better and more effective propaganda coup than the work of these groups and individuals. That doesn't in anyway say any of them are in allegiance with Russia, or even like anything about Russia. It still stands that even if Russia set out to discredit and smear America and leave itself looking clean, it couldn't pay people to do a better job of it. That's something worth considering and the deep, deep absence of balance and perspective that the listed sources represent is DAMAGING when taken in isolation.

Perhaps more pointedly, is the problem with Breitbart merely with it's fact checking department? They are, in as close as investigated them both, about on a Howard Zinn level for accuracy/honesty. None the less, it's the facts they willingly and knowingly leave out that makes them so damaging. The fact they fall right wing instead of left wing doesn't make their damage so much more appalling to me.

@newtboy
can you show me where hedges promoted russian propaganda?
i ask this sincerely,because i have not seen any evidence of what you are accusing him of.

i get that we disagree,but hedges has earned my respect for his journalistic veracity.

you have earned my respect for being a decent human being,who i happen to agree with more often than not,but in this case i will not simply disregard hedges stellar work because you accuse him of being a propagandist.

i have read his books.
watched his lectures.
and sifted through his sources.

you have openly admitted you have done none of these things,yet..you have formed an opinion on his work by the venue he has chosen.you have even gone as far as to presume his intent on WHY he is on that venue.

now..you are free to speculate all you wish in regards to hedges motivations,and even be skeptical of his work due to him being on RT atm (he was also on Telesur,and al jazeera english).


i do not find this skepticism unwarranted nor unreasonable.i understand why you may feel this way.

but i am the captain of my own ship.
i do consider hedges respectable and worthy of consideration,because i have considered his words,read his books and watched his lectures.

i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

does this equate to everything that they postulate the unerring word of GOD?

of course not.
i can disagree with someone and still respect them for their views.

example:@bcglorf

i really do not see an issue here.
i also do not understand why i am being put in a position to defend why i may respect a reporter/journalist for the good works they have produced.

i am sure there are authors/journalists/academics that you admire and trust their work,because they have earned that trust by being consistent with their methodology.

so i do not see a rub at all.
i see you making conflations and comparisons based loosely on associations,and not tangible and concrete evidence.

if you have evidence,and i am simply being biased and residing in my own bubble.then by all means..pop that bubble...i am human after all,and just as prone to confirmation bias as the next person.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Matt Damon, Obey, Rule of Law, Civil, Obedience' to 'Matt Damon, Obey, Rule of Law, Civil, Obedience, Howard Zinn' - edited by xxovercastxx

I recommend that Mr. Damon study up. He can start with Lysander Spooner, Henry David Thoreau, Josiah Warren, and H.L. Mencken. After that, he can graduate to Frank Chodorov, Murray Rothbard, Robert Higgs, and few other advocates of free market anarchism, but suffice it to say that, should he wish to have a better understanding of history, he'd better first know of which he speaks. (And no, it's not enough to have been neighbors with Howard Zinn.)

Just in case you missed the vimeo title, as I did, this is an excerpt from a speech Howard Zinn gave in 1970 as part of a debate on civil disobedience.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'frederick, douglass, july, 4th, howard, zinn, patriotism, nationalism, Brian Jones' to 'frederick, douglass, july, 4th, howard, zinn, patriotism, nationalism, Brian Jones, 1852' - edited by Trancecoach

Tags for this video have been changed from 'frederick, douglass, july, 4th, howard, zinn, patriotism, nationalism' to 'frederick, douglass, july, 4th, howard, zinn, patriotism, nationalism, Brian Jones' - edited by Trancecoach

Upvoted as I respect his unique point of view but Howard Zinn is far above his caliber.

quantummushroom: the only way I can make sense of your definition of freedom is that either you are in the top 1% capitalist class or are completely ignorant of the history of labor and rise of the middle class in America.

This may come as a shock, but you don't have to be in the 1% to be happy or free. Very few of those 1% are inheritors of wealth, they earned it, and the wealth was a byproduct of providing some useful goods or service people wanted. If you're getting your history of these United States from Howard Zinn or lamestream media, yeah, ignorance could be your secret admirer as well.


A third possibility is that you are just duped by Fox News I suppose.

I never watch it. I suspect more liberals watch it than conservatives, for the same reason people who hate Howard Stern listen to him: to see what he says next.

What exactly is a 'liberal scheme" anyway? Can you point to some concrete examples? The labor movement? Affirmative Action? Social Security? Medicare? Do these qualify as schemes?

The labor movement served a valid purpose until it didn't. And no government employee should be in a union. Ever. A scheme is a questionable idea which has revealed itself as existing mostly its own sake, usually by fraud and incompetence. Affirmative action is an insult to minorities. Medicare might have some merit, but the 60 billion dollars it loses to fraud EVERY year makes one question whether it really exists mainly to help people or aw away for government to take over the medical field.

King Obama has ALREADY spent over a trillion in "stimulus". Result: jack squat. Government spending has never been, nor will ever be, the solution.
















>> ^petpeeved:

quantummushroom: the only way I can make sense of your definition of freedom is that either you are in the top 1% capitalist class or are completely ignorant of the history of labor and rise of the middle class in America.
A third possibility is that you are just duped by Fox News I suppose.
What exactly is a 'liberal scheme" anyway? Can you point to some concrete examples? The labor movement? Affirmative Action? Social Security? Medicare? Do these qualify as schemes?

>> ^rougy:

I second the Chomsky recommendation, and would add Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States."


For people who wants to read it, it is available online in full here:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html
With the blessing of the author as well.

TL;DR version - my team is better than your team.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I'm sick of fan-boy politics. Do you have any ideas of your own, beyond my team is better than your team? I'm sick of liberal fan boys, conservative fan boys and libertarian fan boys. Instead of insults and distractions, why not put forth a fucking original thought for once. Behind each of these political brands are real life ideas that we can talk about. Let's shut off Glenn Beck and Air America and ReasonTV and do some thinking for ourselves. These motherfuckers do not speak for us. These motherfuckers do not work for us. These motherfuckers do not think for us.
Glenn Beck is sick in the head, and if him calling for the execution of his opponents isn't reason enough for you to abandon him, then you've got problems. What if I said bobknight should be shot in the head and skull fucked? Would you find that to be enlightening discourse? Would you consider that left wing slant? Or would you consider that the unproductive words of a sociopath?
There is nothing wrong with political slant. You have a slant. I have a slant. Anyone with any understanding of politics has a political slant, and to attempt to hide that slant just makes you deceptive. The bigger problem with the concept of 'bias' or 'slant' is that it causes people to shut off their brains if they are exposed to anything outside of their own ideology. 'Bias' serves as a default argument for people not informed enough to form their own arguments. How many times have you seen an argument dismissed entirely because of 'bias'. Arguments ARE bias. Liberals should listen to conservative and libertarian slant, conservatives should listen to liberal and libertarian slant, libertarians should listen to conservative and liberal slant, if for no other reason than to challenge their own belief systems, to make sure they aren't suffering from the echo chamber syndrome.
Do you know that if you took a more intellectual approach to political discourse, that you'd get more respect and your arguments would be much more persuasive? Flush Fox news down the toilet and pick up a book. Surely the right must have their own Howard Zinns and Noam Chomskys, right? Take back your ideology from these manipulative corporate media clowns.
Talk to Geesussfreek. I don't agree with him, but he's obviously well read, intelligent and knows how to put an argument together. I'd like you to be a more formidable political adversary and to stop wasting your breath with "Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc". I know you can do better. I know you could kick some serious liberal ass on this site if you educated yourself.
Same goes for liberals. Enough with the namecalling. If we are going to take this country back, we are going to have to do it with ideas, not with insults. I've been guilty of all of this stuff too, and I'm making efforts to change. If I engage in useless idea-free insults in the future, you should call me on it .
Note for any future reference back to this comment: insults and criticism are not the same thing


>> ^bobknight33:
Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Surely the right must have their own Howard Zinns and Noam Chomskys, right?



Noam holds many conservative views actually. Most of his conservative views line up with the majority of society.

I'm sick of fan-boy politics. Do you have any ideas of your own, beyond my team is better than your team? I'm sick of liberal fan boys, conservative fan boys and libertarian fan boys. Instead of insults and distractions, why not put forth a fucking original thought for once. Behind each of these political brands are real life ideas that we can talk about. Let's shut off Glenn Beck and Air America and ReasonTV and do some thinking for ourselves. These motherfuckers do not speak for us. These motherfuckers do not work for us. These motherfuckers do not think for us.

Glenn Beck is sick in the head, and if him calling for the execution of his opponents isn't reason enough for you to abandon him, then you've got problems. What if I said bobknight should be shot in the head and skull fucked? Would you find that to be enlightening discourse? Would you consider that left wing slant? Or would you consider that the unproductive words of a sociopath?

There is nothing wrong with political slant. You have a slant. I have a slant. Anyone with any understanding of politics has a political slant, and to attempt to hide that slant just makes you deceptive. The bigger problem with the concept of 'bias' or 'slant' is that it causes people to shut off their brains if they are exposed to anything outside of their own ideology. 'Bias' serves as a default argument for people not informed enough to form their own arguments. How many times have you seen an argument dismissed entirely because of 'bias'? Arguments ARE bias. Liberals should listen to conservative and libertarian slant, conservatives should listen to liberal and libertarian slant, libertarians should listen to conservative and liberal slant, if for no other reason than to challenge their own belief systems, to make sure they aren't suffering from the echo chamber syndrome.

Do you know that if you took a more intellectual approach to political discourse, that you'd get more respect and your arguments would be much more persuasive? Flush Fox news down the toilet and pick up a book. Surely the right must have their own Howard Zinns and Noam Chomskys, right? Take back your ideology from these manipulative corporate media clowns.

Talk to Geesussfreek. I don't agree with him, but he's obviously well read, intelligent and knows how to put an argument together. I'd like you to be a more formidable political adversary and to stop wasting your breath with "Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc". I know you can do better. I know you could kick some serious liberal ass on this site if you educated yourself.

Same goes for liberals. Enough with the namecalling. If we are going to take this country back, we are going to have to do it with ideas, not with insults. I've been guilty of all of this stuff too, and I'm making efforts to change. If I engage in useless idea-free insults in the future, you should call me on it*.

*Note for any future reference back to this comment: insults and criticism are not the same thing




>> ^bobknight33:

Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc

I actually agree, business and government certainly isn't exempt from hypocrisy and targeted ridicule. As historian Howard Zinn stated "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

More on topic with this thread..

The problem is the mass media these days is so preoccupied by issues that have little effect on the well being of the nation or the well being of society at large. Example. Such book burnings. They focus on one wacko Florida preacher. When he doesn't burn the Koran.. they portray a massive sigh of relief and a victory for civilization. Meanwhile.. on youtube.. hundreds or thousands of books are burned and videos are posted. Not even a whimper on the airwaves. Go figure.


>> ^quantumushroom:

I enjoyed reading your reply, Tonk. Well said.
I admit, I do bash religion, but there is just too much hypocrisy, inconsistency, and lack of reason in it to leave it alone.

In that statement you can also replace "religion" with "government", "the legal system", "organized sports" or "business".

Fear is a wonderful emotion. It will keep you alive. The left wants everyone to panic over water vapor and warm weather, so there's no monopoly on fear-mongering.

One of the State's legitimate functions is to defend its citizens from barbarians both inside and outside the gate.

The modern liberal doesn't have the will to lead. Whether deliberately practiced or not, s/he is incapable of taking a stand for anything and refuses to differentiate between not only good and evil, but what works (based on experience) and what doesn't (also based on experience).

The intellectual dishonesty of a zinn or chomsky helps no one.







>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

QM, you seem interested in comparing modern European style socialism to a 20th century Soviet Military dictatorship. Do you understand the difference?
Do you understand that socialism, communism and capitalism are financial -rather than political- systems?
How many people has Swedish socialism killed?
What about American socialism gasp such as the highway system, schools and national parks?
Whether you know it or not, qm, we are both on the same side of the American class war - and we are both losing. I don't doubt the sincerity of your arguments, but I have to wonder if you feel you've been properly rewarded for your loyalty to powerful elites who run this country. My guess would be no.
Do you ever wonder why they fill your head with so many things to be afraid of? Commies, "Hemophiliacs", Terrorists, 'Islamofascists', Old Europe, France, Fags, Feminists, Liberals, Socialists, Illegal Aliens, Educated people, Poor people, etc............
Your entire being on this site is most accurately summed up in a single word: Afraid.
I'm sure you don't see yourself this way, but have you ever put your personal beliefs to the test? Have you ever broken down your belief system to see why you believe the things you believe?
As I have said before, your arguments seldom stray from the cliche-conservative-bumpersticker variety. Why not dig deeper? Why don't you think it through and give me your own unique opinion, rather than dittoing decades of partisan-politico programing?
As those who are winning the class war might say: Just do it!