"if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide"

This is the pacifists dilemma though. There were numerous attempts to sway hitler from his course. Neville Chamberlain famously celebrating the Munich Agreement. At the end of the day, you can't peacefully stop someone if they are intent on causing violence.

I don't think you can really go down this road, either. It's a fun thought experiment, but it requires knowledge you only have once it's too late. You can't talk to the one kid who will grow up to be adolf hitler. There's very likely one out there now that we can't stop because we don't know them.

"At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities."

The pacifist's dilemma and this combined, to me, put this in a morally ambiguous place. If you accept that you can't stop someone bent on violence, and nazis arrive announcing that they are, then is it better for a little violence, visited upon those who pursue violent ends? Or is it better that we wait and see the violence occur before we react to it?

On further introspection, i think both of our positions exist in a similar ambiguity - you need to know who to speak to before you know who to speak to, and i need to know who to correctively punch before i know who to correctively punch. Yours might be better for short term, worse for long term. Mine might be worse for short term, better for long term.

In truth, i probably lean more towards agreeing with you, but i'm trying to point out that even though we think "be civil" is the best option, it doesn't have any divine right to be the best option. The best option (we would probably agree) is the one that causes the least overall harm, and we don't *know* what that is, and never can. I think it's important we reconsider accepted wisdom like that. (which is really why i decided to argue it..in honesty, i probably feel the same as you; disapprove but not loudly. My main problem with the position i'm taking is - how do you *stop* the nazi punchers once the nazis are suitably punched? And when do i become the nazi?)

@transmorpher
"leaving yourself and your loved ones open to the same treatment next time someone disagrees with one of your views."

I made it very clear in earlier comments that i'm only ok with someone being punched if they are openly calling for genocide and death to people. I'm ok with you ripping that argument apart (because i think it can be.. i'm leaving myself open on purpose), but that isn't what you've done. I don't accept there's an equivalence between my harmless beliefs and a genocidal maniac's.

Holy crap, that's probably the same reason why I like early smashing pumpkins stuff so much. corgan and chamberlain were absolute virtuosos and getting your hands on a concert bootleg from before 2000 was an actual musical find. I got a few and those gigs were so diverse.
Anyone know of other bands with similar chemistry and ability?

Wasn't it Wilt Chamberlain that mastered the half-time hooker?

This is unconscionable appeasement. All it does is reinforce their fiefdom ideas, that they should be treated as a special group, and be given special treatment.It is scarily reminiscent of Chamberlain's stance with Hitler: "Please, do as you wish, but don't start a war." Leaders should be more like Churchill and say to these people: "This country has laws based upon democratic consensus, not theocracy. And to those of you set on violence we say, we will come down on you with the full force of the laws which are in place to protect those residing in this country, a country you have decided to live in."

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

" Sure Hitler was awful. But to be fair, that was already growing antisemitism for several decades before he came to power"
Had Bernanke and Geithner been decent people, the crisis/meltdown would have been much less than it is right now. No two ways about it.

The right Hitler analogy to describe what you're talking about would be:

"Sure Hitler was awful. But to be fair, Neville Chamberlain could've done more to stop him, so isn't the Holocaust really all his fault?"

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Bernanke and Geithner did nothing but make the problems larger than they had to be [for the average american] so that their banker friends could shovel more money into their private accounts before more shit hit the fan.
Why give either of them any slack at all?


Because Bernanke has actually done a lot to try to make the situation better. He could've done more, but not a tremendous amount more. Geithner fits your description a lot more closely, but again, I dispute that Geithner made the problems worse, and I definitely dispute that he intentionally made things worse for his own gain.

I sorta don't get what your point is in arguing all this. Do you really think single individuals in any position anywhere deserve all the blame for the economic crisis? Do you really think the people most culpable are all government employees?

I wasn't there and can only guess what these folks meant. But this ANALsys will be way smarter than lefty insults.



Guy #1 "Obama has no idea how serious this is." ----Agree. This a power-vacuum that will likely be filled by radical muslim vermin.

Guy #2 "Obama has no idea what a Republic is." ----possibly referring to Obama's "unawareness" that there is no stable government to replace the dictator

Guy #3 "No coherent message from the White House/No one seems to know what's going on --self-evident

Woman "Obama's religious beliefs govern his foreign policy" ---disagree. Obama has no foreign policy, except to apologize for the US and turn a cold shoulder to our allies

Same woman/half of crowd - "He's a Muslim". ---Obama claims he's a Christian. If you take him at his word, he's the most Muslim-sympathetic Christian President besides Carter (BTW, the majority here at atheisift likely sees Obama's Christianity as a sham or character defect, so what's the big deal either way)?

Guy # 4 -- "His religious belief is liberalism" ---- Obama has faith in liberalism above all religions. Sure seems like it.

Guy #5 --"He's NOT a practicing Muslim. He is a Muslim sympathizer." And a Muslim apologist.

Blue Shirt Guy -- "His religion is liberalism, the most intolerant religion of all." If you're on the left this won't make any sense. Yet it's correct. Ever see how the left treats 'heretical' conservative minorities?

Plaid woman - "It's possible he's Muslim though he claims to be a Christian." ---less important than the observation that he's "waffling on both sides"----certainly not the first politician to do so.

Stache' --"He's an appeaser." Absolutely. No historical reference to Chamberlain necessary.

Glasses Chick -- "He gives textbook answers." ---She done goofed. 'Textbook answers' means "the most examined and correct answers possible" She probably meant Teleprompted answers, aka canned responses.

Next Guy -- "The crisis snuck up on (Obama) and he was unprepared." ---Agree

Glasses Chick -- "He doesn't know what to do....he 'never' knows what to do." ----Obama only knows what HE will do, whether or not it causes harm. If he 'never' knew what to do he'd be slightly less of a threat.

No Tie Guy -- "I think he believes America's at fault for the world's problems. I think he doesn't see the good America does in the world." This man is guilty of plagiarising Rule #1 from the Liberal Handbook.



Of course you're free to judge these folks as you see fit, just as I don't have to wait for Egypt to fall under the shadows of minarets on His Earness's watch to judge him.





---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@quantumushroom Those of us from the British Isles tend to spell words correctly because we've been using this language a hell of a lot longer than residents of other countries around the world. Coincidentally did you know that the English language originated in England? Yes I know, how bizarre!

I meant no offense and was joking.

Besides, everyone knows the favorite spelling of favourite is favouЯite.

Besides the 'muslim' points, I actually understand where they're coming from. Fundamentally, we have to admit Obama is a weak person. I could get into it ranging from his poker buddies who say he can't show strength (folding most of the time) to his weakness during the healthcare debate (about the public option).

Americans at a core like strong presidents, even if they disagree with them, they'll shut up and let the 'commander in chief' do his thing. Bush was a great example, he was strong and people followed him. I think these caucus voters hit the nail on the head when they say there's no policy or direction (no one seems to be in charge, there's no clear vision about supporting the democratic aspirations of egyptians vs mubarak, they disowned the special envoy's comments). And that's because fundamentally there is no policy (there are empty words, however) and the actual policy is to try to please the (washington) establishment. Even though the comments about Chamberlain are obviously being said for other reasons (OMG, he's hitler, etc.), they are in a sense correct about his unwillingness to have a conflict, even if it just a verbal conflict, in order to stand up for progressive values.

EDWARD R. MURROW

RTNDA Convention
Chicago
October 15, 1958

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor a director of that corporation and that these remarks are of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Several years ago, when we undertook to do a program on Egypt and Israel, well-meaning, experienced and intelligent friends shook their heads and said, "This you cannot do--you will be handed your head. It is an emotion-packed controversy, and there is no room for reason in it." We did the program. Zionists, anti-Zionists, the friends of the Middle East, Egyptian and Israeli officials said, with a faint tone of surprise, "It was a fair count. The information was there. We have no complaints."

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fall-out and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence.

Recently, network spokesmen have been disposed to complain that the professional critics of television have been "rather beastly." There have been hints that somehow competition for the advertising dollar has caused the critics of print to gang up on television and radio. This reporter has no desire to defend the critics. They have space in which to do that on their own behalf. But it remains a fact that the newspapers and magazines are the only instruments of mass communication which remain free from sustained and regular critical comment. If the network spokesmen are so anguished about what appears in print, let them come forth and engage in a little sustained and regular comment regarding newspapers and magazines. It is an ancient and sad fact that most people in network television, and radio, have an exaggerated regard for what appears in print. And there have been cases where executives have refused to make even private comment or on a program for which they were responsible until they heard'd the reviews in print. This is hardly an exhibition confidence.

The oldest excuse of the networks for their timidity is their youth. Their spokesmen say, "We are young; we have not developed the traditions nor acquired the experience of the older media." If they but knew it, they are building those traditions, creating those precedents everyday. Each time they yield to a voice from Washington or any political pressure, each time they eliminate something that might offend some section of the community, they are creating their own body of precedent and tradition. They are, in fact, not content to be "half safe."

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy, overt and clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored, requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials would not be profitable; if they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use the money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility.

So far as radio--that most satisfying and rewarding instrument--is concerned, the diagnosis of its difficulties is rather easy. And obviously I speak only of news and information. In order to progress, it need only go backward. To the time when singing commercials were not allowed on news reports, when there was no middle commercial in a 15-minute news report, when radio was rather proud, alert and fast. I recently asked a network official, "Why this great rash of five-minute news reports (including three commercials) on weekends?" He replied, "Because that seems to be the only thing we can sell."

In this kind of complex and confusing world, you can't tell very much about the why of the news in broadcasts where only three minutes is available for news. The only man who could do that was Elmer Davis, and his kind aren't about any more. If radio news is to be regarded as a commodity, only acceptable when saleable, then I don't care what you call it--I say it isn't news.

My memory also goes back to the time when the fear of a slight reduction in business did not result in an immediate cutback in bodies in the news and public affairs department, at a time when network profits had just reached an all-time high. We would all agree, I think, that whether on a station or a network, the stapling machine is a poor substitute for a newsroom typewriter.

One of the minor tragedies of television news and information is that the networks will not even defend their vital interests. When my employer, CBS, through a combination of enterprise and good luck, did an interview with Nikita Khrushchev, the President uttered a few ill-chosen, uninformed words on the subject, and the network practically apologized. This produced a rarity. Many newspapers defended the CBS right to produce the program and commended it for initiative. But the other networks remained silent.

Likewise, when John Foster Dulles, by personal decree, banned American journalists from going to Communist China, and subsequently offered contradictory explanations, for his fiat the networks entered only a mild protest. Then they apparently forgot the unpleasantness. Can it be that this national industry is content to serve the public interest only with the trickle of news that comes out of Hong Kong, to leave its viewers in ignorance of the cataclysmic changes that are occurring in a nation of six hundred million people? I have no illusions about the difficulties reporting from a dictatorship, but our British and French allies have been better served--in their public interest--with some very useful information from their reporters in Communist China.

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the coporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time-- frequently on the same long day--to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from the proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of criticism.

Upon occasion, economics and editorial judgment are in conflict. And there is no law which says that dollars will be defeated by duty. Not so long ago the President of the United States delivered a television address to the nation. He was discoursing on the possibility or probability of war between this nation and the Soviet Union and Communist China--a reasonably compelling subject. Two networks CBS and NBC, delayed that broadcast for an hour and fifteen minutes. If this decision was dictated by anything other than financial reasons, the networks didn't deign to explain those reasons. That hour-and-fifteen-minute delay, by the way, is about twice the time required for an ICBM to travel from the Soviet Union to major targets in the United States. It is difficult to believe that this decision was made by men who love, respect and understand news.

So far, I have been dealing largely with the deficit side of the ledger, and the items could be expanded. But I have said, and I believe, that potentially we have in this country a free enterprise system of radio and television which is superior to any other. But to achieve its promise, it must be both free and enterprising. There is no suggestion here that networks or individual stations should operate as philanthropies. But I can find nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Communications Act which says that they must increase their net profits each year, lest the Republic collapse. I do not suggest that news and information should be subsidized by foundations or private subscriptions. I am aware that the networks have expended, and are expending, very considerable sums of money on public affairs programs from which they cannot hope to receive any financial reward. I have had the privilege at CBS of presiding over a considerable number of such programs. I testify, and am able to stand here and say, that I have never had a program turned down by my superiors because of the money it would cost.

But we all know that you cannot reach the potential maximum audience in marginal time with a sustaining program. This is so because so many stations on the network--any network--will decline to carry it. Every licensee who applies for a grant to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity makes certain promises as to what he will do in terms of program content. Many recipients of licenses have, in blunt language, welshed on those promises. The money-making machine somehow blunts their memories. The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the F.C.C. But in the view of many this would come perilously close to supervision of program content by a federal agency.

So it seems that we cannot rely on philanthropic support or foundation subsidies; we cannot follow the "sustaining route"--the networks cannot pay all the freight--and the F.C.C. cannot or will not discipline those who abuse the facilities that belong to the public. What, then, is the answer? Do we merely stay in our comfortable nests, concluding that the obligation of these instruments has been discharged when we work at the job of informing the public for a minimum of time? Or do we believe that the preservation of the Republic is a seven-day-a-week job, demanding more awareness, better skills and more perseverance than we have yet contemplated.

I am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything; by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Heywood Broun once said, "No body politic is healthy until it begins to itch." I would like television to produce some itching pills rather than this endless outpouring of tranquilizers. It can be done. Maybe it won't be, but it could. Let us not shoot the wrong piano player. Do not be deluded into believing that the titular heads of the networks control what appears on their networks. They all have better taste. All are responsible to stockholders, and in my experience all are honorable men. But they must schedule what they can sell in the public market.

And this brings us to the nub of the question. In one sense it rather revolves around the phrase heard frequently along Madison Avenue: The Corporate Image. I am not precisely sure what this phrase means, but I would imagine that it reflects a desire on the part of the corporations who pay the advertising bills to have the public image, or believe that they are not merely bodies with no souls, panting in pursuit of elusive dollars. They would like us to believe that they can distinguish between the public good and the private or corporate gain. So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour's television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologist will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or "letting the public decide."

I refuse to believe that the presidents and chairmen of the boards of these big corporations want their corporate image to consist exclusively of a solemn voice in an echo chamber, or a pretty girl opening the door of a refrigerator, or a horse that talks. They want something better, and on occasion some of them have demonstrated it. But most of the men whose legal and moral responsibility it is to spend the stockholders' money for advertising are removed from the realities of the mass media by five, six, or a dozen contraceptive layers of vice-presidents, public relations counsel and advertising agencies. Their business is to sell goods, and the competition is pretty tough.

But this nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future. If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail. But we are handicapping ourselves needlessly.

Let us have a little competition. Not only in selling soap, cigarettes and automobiles, but in informing a troubled, apprehensive but receptive public. Why should not each of the 20 or 30 big corporations which dominate radio and television decide that they will give up one or two of their regularly scheduled programs each year, turn the time over to the networks and say in effect: "This is a tiny tithe, just a little bit of our profits. On this particular night we aren't going to try to sell cigarettes or automobiles; this is merely a gesture to indicate our belief in the importance of ideas." The networks should, and I think would, pay for the cost of producing the program. The advertiser, the sponsor, would get name credit but would have nothing to do with the content of the program. Would this blemish the corporate image? Would the stockholders object? I think not. For if the premise upon which our pluralistic society rests, which as I understand it is that if the people are given sufficient undiluted information, they will then somehow, even after long, sober second thoughts, reach the right decision--if that premise is wrong, then not only the corporate image but the corporations are done for.

There used to be an old phrase in this country, employed when someone talked too much. It was: "Go hire a hall." Under this proposal the sponsor would have hired the hall; he has bought the time; the local station operator, no matter how indifferent, is going to carry the program-he has to. Then it's up to the networks to fill the hall. I am not here talking about editorializing but about straightaway exposition as direct, unadorned and impartial as falliable human beings can make it. Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations? This method would also provide real competition between the networks as to which could outdo the others in the palatable presentation of information. It would provide an outlet for the young men of skill, and there are some even of dedication, who would like to do something other than devise methods of insulating while selling.

There may be other and simpler methods of utilizing these instruments of radio and television in the interests of a free society. But I know of none that could be so easily accomplished inside the framework of the existing commercial system. I don't know how you would measure the success or failure of a given program. And it would be hard to prove the magnitude of the benefit accruing to the corporation which gave up one night of a variety or quiz show in order that the network might marshal its skills to do a thorough-going job on the present status of NATO, or plans for controlling nuclear tests. But I would reckon that the president, and indeed the majority of shareholders of the corporation who sponsored such a venture, would feel just a little bit better about the corporation and the country.

It may be that the present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflect the political, economic and social climate in which they flourish. That is the reason ours differ from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said--I think it was Max Eastman--that "that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers." I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporation that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small traction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure--exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.

>> ^dbarry3:
>> ^gwiz665:
^Well then, good sir, show your work. How would you show good/bad in morality? Some issues are certainly more easy than others, murder is always wrong, and such, but other issues are not something to be decided out of any kind of fear, because fear is inherently a personal, egoistical thing. I recoil from flames, because I don't want to get burned. My empathy with others (relate their responses to my own) leads me to help others away from flames as well. As soon as a subject reaches a certain complexity, fear stops (should stop) being a motivator and something else should take over, such as weighing pro/con, looking at something from different angles and so on.
I am not afraid of my government, but I am afraid of a tiger.
or is it?

You are more afraid of a tiger than your government? At least the tiger gets it over with quickly and simply.
When I speak of fear I am not talking about a lunatic paranoia (e.g. Glenn Beck). The concept of a "fearing" man does not fit well in our society's image of what a man should be. There is nothing wrong with the values of courage and bravery, but only a fool claims to live by the popular slogan "No Fear." Fear serves a purpose, but the fool regards it as nothing more than an antiquated response that should not be considered. Same can be said for pain. I remember hearing about a book that spoke on the benefits of pain (if anyone knows of this book please post it). The author spoke about a rare disorder in which individuals do not experience physical pain, and how this can cause for grave difficulties in life (e.g. a person chewing off their own tongue because they could without feeling the pain associated with it). You are completely right in stating that wise consider life by accounting for various factors at play. But without fear we are likely to miscalculate ourselves in relation to the risk associated with the item in question. For instance, Neville Chamberlain demonstrated a lack of appropriate fear for what Nazi Germany was capable of when he promoted a policy of appeasement. So all this to point out that fear is not a response that should be disregarded and labeled as being entirely useless. To do so is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and completely misunderstand the human condition.


I think you are missing my point. Fear is a factor in life, certainly, like pain it is a gut response to something, like a loud noise, fire, tigers. Fear is evolutionarily lodged deep within is, because it has helped the individuals survive. The "feel no pain" disorder is a terrible one, and people usually die young because of it. A life without fear, might not be so great either.

I would make a distinction between "fear", as in terror, scared of, something that involves a real present danger to your person, and the more loose intimidation of governments, of being a social outcast, of one nation invading another. This is not fear, this is a rational response. You think about it, you don't feel it.

And in general, doing something for fear of the consequences if you don't, is a bad reason, in my opinion. I don't do my homework, because otherwise my teacher will be mad at me, I do them because I've made a conscious decision to learn. My reason for not killing a person is certainly not just fear of the police killing me right back, it's because I don't think killing is good in and of itself. And so on.

I would fear a tiger damn well more than any government.

>> ^gwiz665:
^Well then, good sir, show your work. How would you show good/bad in morality? Some issues are certainly more easy than others, murder is always wrong, and such, but other issues are not something to be decided out of any kind of fear, because fear is inherently a personal, egoistical thing. I recoil from flames, because I don't want to get burned. My empathy with others (relate their responses to my own) leads me to help others away from flames as well. As soon as a subject reaches a certain complexity, fear stops (should stop) being a motivator and something else should take over, such as weighing pro/con, looking at something from different angles and so on.
I am not afraid of my government, but I am afraid of a tiger.
or is it?


You are more afraid of a tiger than your government? At least the tiger gets it over with quickly and simply.

When I speak of fear I am not talking about a lunatic paranoia (e.g. Glenn Beck). The concept of a "fearing" man does not fit well in our society's image of what a man should be. There is nothing wrong with the values of courage and bravery, but only a fool claims to live by the popular slogan "No Fear." Fear serves a purpose, but the fool regards it as nothing more than an antiquated response that should not be considered. Same can be said for pain. I remember hearing about a book that spoke on the benefits of pain (if anyone knows of this book please post it). The author spoke about a rare disorder in which individuals do not experience physical pain, and how this can cause for grave difficulties in life (e.g. a person chewing off their own tongue because they could without feeling the pain associated with it). You are completely right in stating that wise consider life by accounting for various factors at play. But without fear we are likely to miscalculate ourselves in relation to the risk associated with the item in question. For instance, Neville Chamberlain demonstrated a lack of appropriate fear for what Nazi Germany was capable of when he promoted a policy of appeasement. So all this to point out that fear is not a response that should be disregarded and labeled as being entirely useless. To do so is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and completely misunderstand the human condition.

Then some uppity black man talks about stuff like dignity, peace, empathy, pride, geneva conventions, and not killing people

His policies are what people object to, not skin melanin. There are more ways to approach 'peace' than the neolib world view accepts. Carter is a neolib, has a NPP, and his weak policies all but created modern world terrorism via Iran. Reagan was a hawk who ended the cold war through Brinkmanship & arms buildups. A Dove that created violence, and a Hawk that established peace... Clearly this whole 'peace' thing is a bit more complicated myopically pursuing neolib policies of unilateral disarmament. Peace is a cycle of pressure, buildup, and release - and the "Nevile Chamberlain" school of appeasement merely prolongs the 'buildup' stage and makes the 'release' more problematic.

If you don't like being mixed in with all those various conservative groups, you shouldn't allow them to act like they speak for the entire block of conservatives as they yell and shout.

"Shouldn't allow?" I'm afraid that my belief in Freedom of Speech makes that kind of approach unfeasible. The real issue here is one where people like myself who are fiscal conservatives are the antithesis of BOTH major US political parties. What we true conservatives want would END the free lunch. NEITHER party wants that to happen. The vast bulk of American voters are fiscal conservatives who want smaller government, balanced budgets, less spending, & lower taxes. Sadly, all we end up with are left wing liberal extremist tax & spenders like Bush & Obama.

But the fact remains, there were no tea party gatherings under Bush.

The objections were there. Even you acknowledge it. The national attention was more consumed with Iraq war protesting. I'm an unaffiliated voter, and I didn't vote Republican so my objections had little weight I deem. Most voters are sheep who join a "big party" and they are too consumed with cheering on their 'team' than caring whether their team is a bunch of self-serving jackasses. It is very similar to the tunnel vision fanboi-ism rampant in modern US sports. "Kobe Bryant is a rapist? M'eh - who cares as long as he wins games..." Sigh.

Because whatever you can say about Barack Obama, he hasn't done ANY damage to the Constitution that wasn't done by dozens of men before him. And to hear people throwing the Constitution around now just rings hollow.

If people who were howling about the Constitution under Bush were also howling about it now, then there would at least be consistency. To hear neolibs howl about the constitution under Bush but fall silent now - as you say - "rings hollow".

Also, one last point, if you think Liberals get their arguments from any one place, that sadly proves you have little information about liberals as a group

Neolib talking points come from a variety of musicians, but the song is always the exact same song. Similarly, right wing talking points come from from way more sources than just Limbaugh & Beck but the message is almost identical.

Say what you will about Republicans, they are ALWAYS... ALWAYS on point, and they take no goddamn prisoners.

I'd say your opinion of the Republican party's unity is somewhat exaggerated. There are innumerable factions in the GOP. The Democrat as I see it is far more efficient about corralling in thier 'mavericks'. This whole health care debate has only gotten this far because of the extremist fringe Democrats stomping on the necks of the moderates.

You're probably a fucking liar, and if you're not, you're still a fucking idiot if you think Iraq is better off now.

And, no, forcing them to sign long-term contracts with corporations for inflated prices is not doing them any good.

An angry little tirade? Yes, because I've gone over this a thousand times with a thousand different idiots, and you are the proverbial straw on my back.

The question is why you are so eager to help private oil companies steal something that rightfully belongs to the Iraqi people?

I guess it's because you care about them so much.

Or more likely you've been effectively brainwashed, and it's doubtful there was much brain there to begin with.

"Maybe Neville Chamberlain was right in how he handled Hitler and to follow that example we should have just let Saddam take Kuwait as well."

You compared Saddam to Hitler. Oh, you're fucking brilliant.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^bcglorf:
The Middle East has nearly 60% of the planet's oil reserves. If none of them have privatized their oil, wouldn't that make the privatized oil companies the underdogs?
Oh, nevermind, that just detracts from the simple answers people seem to want.
Iraq has oil. America is a corporation run by oil companies. America invaded Iraq to steal it's oil. Thank goodness it's that simple and no more thinking or complexity needs to be considered. baa, baa, baa.
No, we did it to save the 6.5 million Kurds out of the kindness of our hearts. And we only had to kill a million Iraqi's and turn another three million into refugees to do it.
And now we're only telling Iraq to either sign very long term leases with private oil companies who expect over ten times the going rate for extracting that oil, or we won't give them the $120 billion dollars we promised them to help rebuild their country after we bombed it back to the stone ages.
Oil companies the underdogs? Keep clutching at straws you racist war monger.



Whats ironic is that you and others who make comments like this seem not to have cared a whit about what was happening to Iraqis and Kurds whilst under Saddam. Aside from the issue of "stealing" oil or whatever the case may be I challenge anyone to say that Iraqis and Kurds lived great lives under Saddam. Americans went in there stirred the Hornets nest and now are trying to make lemonade out of lemons. If it works (still a long road) then it will be one of the greatest things ever but if it doesnt (with the help of people who are blinded by their indignance) then it will be a disaster. Point is....no saddam is good stuff. But perhaps people like you are removed and immersed enough in your pacifist dreamland to not have cared about the wives, sisters and daughters who were regularly stolen and raped while their siginficant others were fed feet first into wood-chipers by Saddams sons. I suppose the gasing of thousands of Kurds was awesome too so long as we weren't "stealing" oil. As long as its not close to home right? Maybe Neville Chamberlain was right in how he handled Hitler and to follow that example we should have just let Saddam take Kuwait as well.

Well I guess Americans could have just sanctioned Saddam into compliance. Seems to work great so long as the UN gets involved right? Maybe he would have slowed down with the mass graves, the torturing of families and other potential non-compliants and the utilization of what was the 3rd largest army in the world. I agree with your thought-process....as long as the slaughtering of thousands is kept in house and perpetrated by the local tyrant then we should never...under any circumstances....interfere. The loss of lives is never acceptable especially when made in the name of other less fortunate people. And asking for any sort of compesation in return, in whatever form, is always a big no-no as well.

many folks have called ol' Pablo an asshole-he was Italian, male, wealthy, and got more young poontang than Wilt Chamberlain

That was the best speech Neville Chamberlain has given yet!

Muslim radicals are working for a better world, a world with no Jews, Israel or United States.

If so given, "Palestinians", a people that didn't exist before 1948, will turn their new State into a missile launch pad aimed at Israel.