America Needs More Dissent - NOW
Obviously one of the primary reasons Mr. Alito is a truly awful choice for Supreme Court Justice is that he supports an even more outrageously powerful White House than we are already suffering under. There is plenty of speculation that his hard-core right-wing opinions (clumsily covered up by temporary amnesia during the non-hearings) are just frosting to the cowboy from New England. The real prize should he be confirmed is that he seems to be perfectly content with a change from president to fuhrer. That would make George's day, given how inept he is at even sharing crayons with others, never mind sitting in the room with other opinions besides his own (or Dick's, I should say). And don't you dare suggest that he get involved in trying to find common ground, negotiate, or seek consensus.
Of course he has almost all of the corporate media well-drugged by now to the point where they more or less repeat their lines unthinkingly. The Washington Post ombudswoman's recent silly parrot act was one of those rare events that actually got semi-public attention. That media behavior is not at all the exception though. The NYT editorial noted in my previous post is the exception. With few exceptions these days almost any famous corporate media figure you name engages routinely in propaganda-spreading on behalf of the party-in-power. My list of current events reading has been so long that I haven't yet gotten around to Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?," but any hardworking miner of media these days can pretty well understand where that title came from.
Take for example, just the most recent poppycock from Chris Matthews, a bag of gas trying to pass (pun intended) as a journalist if there ever was one:
The anger over Chris Matthews’ comment that Osama bin Laden in his new video sounds like Michael Moore, and the resulting campaign demanding that Matthews apologize, arises from much more than a single comment, and has little to do with Moore himself. The Matthews smear illustrates the fact that it has become routine in our national political dialogue, and among our nation's journalists, to equate opposition to George Bush with subversiveness, treason, and support for Al Qaeda.
The national media has truly adopted this dissent-quashing dichotomy created by the Bush White House: one is either a follower of George Bush who praises his war and terrorism policies, or one is an enemy of the United States who is on the side of Al Qaeda. That is not hyperbole. This is the manipulative and decidedly un-American view that is re-enforced again and again.
[clip]
This is all part of a broad, ongoing and potent campaign to equate opposition to George Bush with being pro-terrorist, and the origin of this campaign is the Administration itself. Bush himself thus uses the language of treason -- treason -- to instruct us that we are permitted to criticize his policies only on the narrowest grounds and with the utmost respect, otherwise we are guilty of aiding the enemy:
Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas. . . . When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it hurts their morale. In a time of war, we have a responsibility to show that whatever our political differences at home, our nation is united and determined to prevail. . . . So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries.
From the NSA scandal to the war in Iraq, the President and his followers repeatedly accuse those who oppose the President of aiding the terrorists and being on the side of Al Qaeda. And it is this smear – that anyone who opposes Bush is not just weak on national security but literally a supporter of the terrorists – that is the only “argument” which Bush followers have and it’s the only one they’ve needed. They have won two straight national elections wielding this McCarthyite filth and with the 2006 elections approaching, they are bidding for a trifecta:
Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, gave nervous Republicans here a preview on Friday of the party's strategy to maintain its dominance in the fall elections . . . And he left little doubt that in 2006 - as in both nationwide elections since the Sept. 11 attacks - he was intent on making national security the pre-eminent issue.
[clip]
Speaking out, writing letters-to-editor, and agitating in general seem to me as important today as they have been since perhaps the time our nation was founded. We cannot let these would-be-dictators take our freedom and constitionally-based government down.
Of course he has almost all of the corporate media well-drugged by now to the point where they more or less repeat their lines unthinkingly. The Washington Post ombudswoman's recent silly parrot act was one of those rare events that actually got semi-public attention. That media behavior is not at all the exception though. The NYT editorial noted in my previous post is the exception. With few exceptions these days almost any famous corporate media figure you name engages routinely in propaganda-spreading on behalf of the party-in-power. My list of current events reading has been so long that I haven't yet gotten around to Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?," but any hardworking miner of media these days can pretty well understand where that title came from.
Take for example, just the most recent poppycock from Chris Matthews, a bag of gas trying to pass (pun intended) as a journalist if there ever was one:
The anger over Chris Matthews’ comment that Osama bin Laden in his new video sounds like Michael Moore, and the resulting campaign demanding that Matthews apologize, arises from much more than a single comment, and has little to do with Moore himself. The Matthews smear illustrates the fact that it has become routine in our national political dialogue, and among our nation's journalists, to equate opposition to George Bush with subversiveness, treason, and support for Al Qaeda.
The national media has truly adopted this dissent-quashing dichotomy created by the Bush White House: one is either a follower of George Bush who praises his war and terrorism policies, or one is an enemy of the United States who is on the side of Al Qaeda. That is not hyperbole. This is the manipulative and decidedly un-American view that is re-enforced again and again.
[clip]
This is all part of a broad, ongoing and potent campaign to equate opposition to George Bush with being pro-terrorist, and the origin of this campaign is the Administration itself. Bush himself thus uses the language of treason -- treason -- to instruct us that we are permitted to criticize his policies only on the narrowest grounds and with the utmost respect, otherwise we are guilty of aiding the enemy:
Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas. . . . When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it hurts their morale. In a time of war, we have a responsibility to show that whatever our political differences at home, our nation is united and determined to prevail. . . . So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries.
From the NSA scandal to the war in Iraq, the President and his followers repeatedly accuse those who oppose the President of aiding the terrorists and being on the side of Al Qaeda. And it is this smear – that anyone who opposes Bush is not just weak on national security but literally a supporter of the terrorists – that is the only “argument” which Bush followers have and it’s the only one they’ve needed. They have won two straight national elections wielding this McCarthyite filth and with the 2006 elections approaching, they are bidding for a trifecta:
Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, gave nervous Republicans here a preview on Friday of the party's strategy to maintain its dominance in the fall elections . . . And he left little doubt that in 2006 - as in both nationwide elections since the Sept. 11 attacks - he was intent on making national security the pre-eminent issue.
[clip]
Speaking out, writing letters-to-editor, and agitating in general seem to me as important today as they have been since perhaps the time our nation was founded. We cannot let these would-be-dictators take our freedom and constitionally-based government down.
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home