Media Bias

[elwoodblues]

I was wondering what others think about the decision to cancel (or more accurately, switch the network of) the Reagan mini-series. I am personally of mixed feelings about this one.

Some of the more well-publicized items in the script suggest a bias on the part of the writers. The cancellation of the series suggests a right-wing bias of the network, not a left-wing one. I would imagine that if there was a documentary of Clinton that used similar inflamatory language that was cancelled there would be cries of left-wing bias.

Overall, I think a lot of the criticism was blown way out of proportion. One thing that I heard/read over and over was that Reagan never said xyz when referring to portions of the script detailing private conversations. This seems to be a holow criticism of a docu-drama. Any time a docu-drama goes "behind closed doors" the writers don't have a trancript to work off of.

I'm curious to see what others think.

[Wake up CALL]

I believe the problem is that it was being touted as an accurate interpretation of events. The network having now acknowledged that it is far from accurate has moved it to showtime where people expect a movie to be just that a movie or as you put it well a docudrama.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

There was a blatant attempt to cast Reagan in a bad light by adding dialog that suggested he held the opinion that people with AIDS "deserved it." There is absolutely no evidence he felt this way. The backlash was already occurring and the network decided it wasn't woth the hassle.

[Boris]

If the mini-series distorted events like say, Bowling for Columbine, or that Oliver Stone movie about the JFK assasinantion, then I think it was a good idea to scrap it.

If the issue was simply that it didn't kiss Reagan's ass then shame on ABC.

[ACPlayer]

The real question is should an "artistic" endeavor be cancelled due to pressure from some powerful group. If the piece was crap CBS would have lost the ratings sweeps period and justifiably so.

[BruceZ]

The cancellation of the series suggests a right-wing bias of the network, not a left-wing one.

Right-wing bias?? It was cancelled because CBS would have lost a ton of money from sponsors due to public outcry and an organized boycot. Much of the pressure to cancel it came from O'Reilly. 50,000 people wrote in to his website to cancel it. The fact that it was made at all indicates a left-wing bias by CBS. The actors/actresses and screenwriter were all well-known flaming liberals.

[elwoodblues]

If there had been an inflamatory documentary written by well-known conservatives starring well-known conservatives that was inflamatory toward Clinton, I can only imagine the outcry of liberal-bias if the network cancelled the program even if there was outside political pressure.

[ QUOTE ]
The actors/actresses and screenwriter were all well-known flaming liberals.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the fact that the actors/actresses are "well-known flaming liberals" have to do with anything? Other than Brolin, which of the other actors are well-known flaming liberals? I don't even think that there are any other "well-known" actors in the show...I looked at the cast and only recognized Brolin's name.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The real question is should an "artistic" endeavor be cancelled due to pressure from some powerful group.

Television is primarilty a business endeavor. CBS judged that the series would cost them money and made a business decision.

[elwoodblues]

That's my take on it too. It was a business decision. With television and other media, people vote with their pocket books --- if you don't like it, don't watch it.

[ACPlayer]

THat is what happened. CBS knuckled to political pressure backed up by economic threats (sort of like what the NAACP did to Georgia over the confed flag).

So, to ask the question again--- what is your view about "artistic" endeavors being axed due to political pressures as opposed to airing the damn thing and seeing if it falls flat on its face.

[Rushmore]

I think Bruce was trying to say that the fact that it was produced at all would indicate left-leaning on the part of everyone involved (the majority of whom are, actually, notoriously zealous left-wing types).

The fact that it was moved to cable is not in any way evidence of a "right-wing bias." It is evidence of a business decision made in response to pressure from the right, who didn't feel the piece would be objective or reasonable, and who therefore organized a potential boycott based on the potential lies the producers might have told. It was clearly stated time after time that if they managed to broadcast an objective piece, there would be no boycott.

This is not evidence of a right-wing bias. This is evidence that the right has influence when threatening the wallets of those on the left who have something at stake.

If Bill O'Reilly were to go into television production tomorrow to do a teledrama about the life of Bill Clinton (voraciously adored left-wing icon, just as Reagan is to the right), would anyone assume he'd be "fair and balanced?" Of course not. We already know he has an agenda.

Just as those involved in the Reagan piece had already made their views known time and again.

[nicky g]

"Bill Clinton (voraciously adored left-wing icon, just as Reagan is to the right)"

There is something really wrong with the world when Bill Clinton is considered a left-wing icon. An icon to Democrats maybe. But he was about as left-wing as Tony Blair's right testicle.

[BruceZ]

What does the fact that the actors/actresses are "well-known flaming liberals" have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with the final product. The screenwriter had Reagan using profanity and saying things about homosexuals that he never said. The actress that played Nancy Reagan played her caricature like Mommy Dearest. Someone said it would be like doing a movie about the Clintons written by Rush Limbaugh, and starring Dennis Miller and Ann Coulter.

[Rushmore]

There's no reason to pick all of this fly sh*t out of the pepper. There's another, more germane issue.

The issue is simply that Reagan is/was an ICON to the American Right. Not a "figure," not a "character," not "an integral part." He doesn't need a pedestal. He hovers above. He has been deified.

While this might be ludicrous to some (myself included), it does not diminish the fact that you had people whose views are diametrically opposed to His own producing a piece about His life.

Let's put it this way: there are a lot of people who believe the current Pope to be one of the most destructive men who have lived in this century. Should these people produce a show about the Pope, ostensibly presented as an objective docudrama?

If they were to do this, would they be shocked at the pre-emptive backlash?

If they were, they'd be imbeciles.

[adios]

"There is something really wrong with the world when Bill Clinton is considered a left-wing icon."

I don't think he's really considered a left wing icon. My understanding is that he's more or less behind the Clark decision to run for president to maintain the idea of being able to have an electable candidate due to their centrist positions. Clinton was definitely not a tax and spend liberal. It appears that the Democrats will nominate a tax and spend liberal for the 2004 election though.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Should these people produce a show about the Pope, ostensibly presented as an objective docudrama?


[/ QUOTE ]
This was never marketed as an objective docudrama. It was always presented as being somewhat controversial...they wouldn't have scheduled it during sweeps had it been anything but controversial.

[andyfox]

"a movie about the Clintons written by Rush Limbaugh, and
starring Dennis Miller and Ann Coulter."

Now you're talking. That, I'd pay to see. With Monica Lewinsky appearing as herself. And Frankie Munz as Chelsea.

I think it would be the highest rated show in television history.

[Rushmore]

So, then, uh, we're surprised by the controversy created by the intentionally controversial television program? And we're further surprised by the fact that a group of people who might have been offended by said intentionally controversial television program have acted in such a way to disrupt broadcast of same? And then, we are surprised by the fact that the successful threat of boycott of the controversial television program has led to its being relegated to cable, due to the business decision of businessmen?

OK. Now I understand.

[andyfox]

Has James Brolin made his political views known? I haven't heard his voice on any political issues. One can, I suppose, assume that his views are similar to his wife's, but our current Republican governor-to-be in California has a famous wife who is a Kennedy, so maybe that assumption is not a fair one to make.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

what is your view about "artistic" endeavors being axed due to political pressures as opposed to airing the damn thing and seeing if it falls flat on its face.

Are you asking me to make a generalization? OK. I think *any* private business is free to determine what its products will be based upon their perception of how the marketplace will react. Also, the sponsors are free to either advertise, or refuse to advertise, for whatever reason they choose.

Now if what you mean is how do I feel about the government pressuring a network not to run a show, that's a different question. That's censorship, and the network should say "screw you."

[elwoodblues]

No, I'm not surprised at all that there is a conversy. I am surprised that the network responded in the way that they did. I'm also a little surprised at the extent to which this is being criticized before it has even aired.

[Wake up CALL]

I found an amusing article while searching fo an answer to your question about Brolin and Streisand Andy.

Little Tiny Lies (http://www.littletinylies.com/archives/001322.html)

[Rushmore]

The fact that the intentionally-controversial television program precipitated an unexpected response would be testimony to its controversial nature.

[elwoodblues]

I don't think we're disagreeing here...All I'm saying is that I'm surprised that the network pulled the intentionally-controversial show because it generated controversy.

[Chris Alger]

This story isn't about liberal or conservative bias but the right's obsession with political correctness. In this case they won, but it's an unusual case dealing with an icon of ignorant flag-wavers, people that watch O'Reilly. They're subject to manipulation, and in this case were manipulated into supporting this thing.

But it's an abberation. Networks don't spend $9 million on something that hasn't already passed a bunch of PC hurdles. CBS just got blindsided when the right decided to raise the bar.

The whole liberal bias thing is a canard. Study after study (including one that came out today about the BBC's war reporting) shows not only the absence of "liberal bias," but of extreme deference and subservience to external power, notably the government's.

[Utah]

I love fox news and O'Reilly. I think you might be the one who is easily manipulated. Where do you get your news? Do you even watch O'Reilly - of course not, because if you had you would know that O'Reilly said not to be a stupid idiot and judge the show before you see it. He did say that if CBS was attributing lines to Reagan that were completely made up and defamitory - CBS was in trouble. He also said that it was malicious to attacking a dying president.

Where is your problem with this? Oh yeah, thats right, the liberals hate fox because they can't get away with the crap that they have gotten away with for 50 years. They hate it because they have lost their stranglehold on the media and it has killed their party at the polls.

You have to be a fool to believe their is not a bias in the media. All you have to do is look at the headlines each day. For example, yesterday Foxnews leads with the story that the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee plan to launch a probe to inflict maximum public damage on the republicans and to time the probe with the election. They also plan to "use" the republican chairmen in their plan because he has been open and willing to work with the democrats. To me, this is a huge story and it damn near borders on treason.

So big is the story, that NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, LAT, NTY did not have it on the web homepage. In fact, most didn't carry it at all. I believe only CBS had the story and it was buried. I guarantee you that if it was reversed and the Republicans who were engaged is such a despicable act, it would have been the lead story of all the publications listed above.

[BruceZ]

This story isn't about liberal or conservative bias but the right's obsession with political correctness. In this case they won, but it's an unusual case dealing with an icon of ignorant flag-wavers, people that watch O'Reilly. They're subject to manipulation, and in this case were manipulated into supporting this thing.

Well you started out right. This story isn't about liberal or conservative bias. It is about an historically inaccurate piece of trash being passed off as historical fact, and one that should be rejected by thinking liberals and conservatives alike. That you fail to recognize this provides yet another piece of crystal clear evidence that your judgment in these matters has absolutely no credibility or objectivity whatsoever. NONE. But of course we already knew that. And you try to pass yourself off as a big authority on history and politics, while belittling other's views as ignorant and uninformed. Your whole outlook is hypocritical, and a complete joke, Chris Alger.

This has nothing to do with political correctness; it has to do with historical correctness. Political correctness is not a conservative phenomenon, but a liberal one. It is a fixation with the way minorities, immigrants, women, homosexuals, and so forth are spoken of. Basically it means we don't call a spade a spade anymore, we introduce a new language of euphemisms to sanitize all speech which might possibly offend someone, we remove any reference to God from public discourse, so that no persons of diverse religious backgrounds ever feel left out, and criminal behavior is blamed on society, so that no one has to be made to take responsibility for their own actions.


The whole liberal bias thing is a canard. Study after study (including one that came out today about the BBC's war reporting) shows not only the absence of "liberal bias," but of extreme deference and subservience to external power, notably the government's.

I'm obviously pissing in the wind trying to educate you, but let me point you to a couple things that might help you start to think about this in the right way. Here is a link to an interview with Bernie Goldberg (http://clickit.go2net.com/search?cid=290790&site=srch&area=is.clicktracking& shape=link&cp=info.foxnws&rawto=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102162,00.html), a former CBS correspondent, and author of a new book Media Arrogance. In it he shows how all elite journalists come from the same school of journalism, all think alike, and how they are threatened by Fox which provides a completely different yet completely valid perspective.

[BruceZ]

That's right, and O'Reilly encouraged the boycott.org guy to hold off until he had an opportunity to see the movie.

[Chris Alger]

"an historically inaccurate piece of trash being passed off as historical fact"

Nonsense, of course, because the PC-obsessed rightists wouldn't be placated with a disclaimer that not every word spoken in this "docudrama" is "historical fact," as if anyone but an idiot would need reminding. They'd only be satisfied with myth-reinforcing stuff. And of course the right is obsessed with PC. You said people with whom you disagree about some things ought to be shot. Quite a bit more "PC" than trying to get people to say "African-American." I mean, look at the right wing obsession with things like flag burning, the pledge of allegiance, loyalty oaths. They're crazed by the need for ideological conformity, as all the ranting and raving you're doing in your post reveals.

The Goldberg book is a joke for dumb guys, riddled full of holes by Alterman's book. It's almost entirely anecdotal and doesn't even begin to address the serious research on external media influences.

[Chris Alger]

Getting to the bottom of the most spectacular manipulation of intelligence in U.S. history "borders on treason" because it will embarrass the Republicans.

That's what you get from an O'Reilly watcher.

[Utah]

Here is your boy Alterman, getting his ass completely kicked in a 3 part debate. Funny, if there is so much analytical evidence why does he cite nothing? I have also included David Frum's review of the debate and a link to a media bias tracking side.

Also, for kicks, why dont you explain the bias I saw on the news yesterday?

The Debates:
debate round 1 (http://www.nationalreview.com/debates/debates020503.asp)
Round 2 (http://www.nationalreview.com/debates/debates020603.asp)
Round 3 (http://www.nationalreview.com/debates/debates020703.asp)

media bias site (http://www.mrc.org/)
Note that the president od CBS thought the movie was bias


David Frum's Review
am sure I am not the only reader who thought that Brent Bozell wiped the floor with Eric Alterman in last week’s three-round NRO debate over media bias. In fact, Alterman’s argument was so amazingly feeble that it leads one to question why he bothered with it at all. To sum up the six posts:

1) Alterman praises his own book and then quotes a couple of conservatives denying that they think liberal media bias is real or important.

2) Bozell points out that there is abundant empirical evidence of bias and presents a couple of damning examples.

3) Alterman praises himself some more and then accuses Bozell of prejudice against homosexuals.

4) Bozell presents more empirical evidence of media bias.

5) Alterman at last offers one solitary concrete argument for his contention that conservatives exercise immense media power: In October 2001, ABC News President David Westin told a Columbia Journalism School class that he had “no opinion” whether the Pentagon was a legitimate target for attack by America’s enemies. Many people objected to this remark, and Westin apologized. Alterman says he found this "capitulation" "dispiriting."

6) Bozell refrained from scoring the obvious debater’s point here: “Do you, Eric Alterman, truly mean to concede that it is ‘conservative’ to be anti-terrorist and ‘liberal’ to be agnostic about terrorism? Maybe you and Anne Coulter have more in common than you think.” Instead, Bozell calmly concluded that he had offered evidence to prove his point and Alterman had offered none. Game, set, and match to Bozell - and a pretty convincing demonstration to those of us who have not yet read Alterman’s book that we need not bother

[Utah]

Ah..again..you miss the point..probably because you dont get unbiased news. go read the story. Bet you cant find it where you get your news (since I doubt its listed on ww.democrattalkingpointsforthosewhodontreadthenews .com).

Some democrats were not at getting to the bottom of the information failures and prewar intelligence problems. They were trying to use the intelligence committee to blast the Republicans and inflict political damage. They were contimplating using the republican leader as a dupe since he was truly interested in addressing the intelligence failures and he was thus willing to work with the Democrats. That is a incredibly destructive thing to do, it weakens the intelligence committee, and puts the country at danger. You can't have those kind of politics in that committee. But of course, Democrats couldn't give a rats ass about security of this country. I have yet to see a democrat put forth a national security plan (other than some babbling about engaging the impotent United Nation). If there is one, please point me to it.

Have you ever actually watched O'Reilly?

[BruceZ]

"an historically inaccurate piece of trash being passed off as historical fact"

Nonsense

NO, not nonsense. That's exactly what it is, no one who has examined it disagrees with this. Wake up!


And of course the right is obsessed with PC.

Political correctness is a liberal concept, god damn it!!! What the hell are you babbling about? Are you smoking pot?


You said people with whom you disagree about some things ought to be shot.

I said what????? You are smoking pot.


I mean, look at the right wing obsession with things like flag burning, the pledge of allegiance, loyalty oaths.

That's not politically correct!!! The "politically correct" position on these issues is to ban the pledge, and allow flag burning!


The Goldberg book is a joke for dumb guys

Well I suggest you get started on it right away then!

[BruceZ]

I think in Chris we have a perfect example of why the democrats are just about finished as a relevant political force in this country.

[Chris Alger]

I guess you're unable to actually read Alternman's book or do your own analysis of the debate.

Anyway, here's an example of what Bozell calls "drop dead" unfair liberal bias that permeates every inch of the media: An 8-year-old lead-in from Rather that "The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor." Is the statement essentially true? Were the Republicans precluded from airing their reasons? Bozell can't say, nor does his website when it flagged the passage earlier.

So if the story was true and if the Republicans got their say, what's unfair about it? Nothing, of course, it simply reminds people of something that's controversial about Gingrich's agenda. In keeping with the totalitarian mentality that drives the nonsense about liberal bias, any phrase or word that can remind people of something that's divisive or unpopular with the conservative agenda is unacceptable. What conservatives call unfair bias includes any remotely negative or even characterization of what Republicans or conservatives say, meaning that the only fair treatments for conservatives would be limited to (1) praise or (2) silence. What about anti-liberal criticism or controversy? That, of course, is okay. That's why nobody with half a brain takes Bozell seriously.

The other "empircal" examples are more of the same: Bernard Shaw dared describe a Quayle speech as "petulent" (was it? Bozell can't say), CNN failing to jump all over a remark by Jesse Jackson, and Time claiming that Buchanan's famous "taking back the streets" speech that helped elect Clinton sounded like a call to race war (because it did).

The rest of Bozell's evidence is the usual irrelevant nonsequitur about "reporters" being more liberal than average Americans proving that the content of the media must therefore unfairly reflect a "bias." As for the "empircal studies" on his website, it's the usual collection of context-ripped quotes that reflect in any remote manner some liberal notion or criticize anything the Republicans like.

Now, try finding some real social science, scholarship, that supports the "liberal bias" myth. It doesn't exist.

[Chris Alger]

"blast[ing] the Republicans" to "inflict political damage" is "a [sic] incredibly destructive thing to do" and "puts the country at danger."

Note that the inquiry will either hurt or help the Republicans by showing intelligence manipulation or lack thereof. The GOP response gives us a pretty good idea of what would happen if the inquiry proceeded, but put that aside. Since you obviously don't think that proof that Bush acted truthfully and reasonably is bad, you must mean that the unfavorable truths are bad.

What I've been saying all along: right-wingers are Saddamites (whoa, I like that) that prefer cheap propaganda to unpleasant truths, hate partisan politics (unless they're doing it) and believe that everyone should line up behind the El Maximo as long as he's a Republican. Or get be executed, as Bruce prefers. And anyone who objects to this as undemocratic is being "unfair."

[Chris Alger]

"no one who has examined it disagrees with this"

I disagree with it. Where's the evidence that the phrases about which the right objects were passed off as "historic fact" instead ot he usual docudrama filler?

PC is a right-wing term for liberals when they behave like right-wingers. It's making a fetish out of symbols and phrases to the point of compelling people to use or respect them when they don't believe it's necessary or appropriate. Right wingers do it all the time, as in the examples I gave that you don't refute.

"You said people with whom you disagree about some things ought to be shot.

I said what????? You are smoking pot."

You said that people that burn the flag should be executed as traitors because such expressions of dissent "give aid and comfort to the enemy." Therefore, you think that expressions of dissent (unless, presumably, they're ones you agree with) are punishable by death, just like Saddam does.

"The "politically correct" position on these issues is to ban the pledge, and allow flag burning!"

You're just defining "politically correct" as "libertarian" or "liberal." That's not what a sensible person would think it means. Of course, nobody has ever argued for "banning" the pledge of allegiance, the issue is whether the state can compel children to recite it in school. That you equate this with "banning the pledge" is another example of your hysterical right-wing PC.

[BruceZ]

I guess you're unable to actually read Alternman's book or do your own analysis of the debate.

Did you read Goldberg's book for dumb guys? Or did you just take other people's word that it was for "dumb guys".

[Chris Alger]

That one I read. Standing in the bookstore.

[BruceZ]

I disagree with it.

You haven't seen the movie or it's trailer, so you are not qualified to disagree with it. Selected people were able to view a 7 minute trailer, and they all agree it was terrible, liberals and conservatives alike. Even the president of CBS agrees that it is biased. There is no issue here, Chris. The issue was decided in the way that these kinds of issues ought to be decided in a capitalistic free market society. People vote with their wallets. The only issue being made is by the hysterical whinny liberals like yourself, because your side didn't win.


Where's the evidence that the phrases about which the right objects were passed off as "historic fact" instead ot he usual docudrama filler?

The whole thing was being touted as historically accurate. Nobody would care if this was supposed to be a comedy. There are plenty of comedy shows that depict presidents in all kinds of ridiculous ways. When they questioned the screenwriter about the statements he had Reagan saying, like "those who live in sin will die in sin", he admitted that he had no evidence that he ever said that. Then they portrayed Nancy Reagan like Mommy Dearest, slapping their daughter around while the president looked on. Complete nonsense. Too over the top even for a Saturday Night Live sketch. Yet you defend it. You will defend anything anti-conservative, no matter what its merits, and this just goes to prove that.


PC is a right-wing term for liberals when they behave like right-wingers. It's making a fetish out of symbols and phrases to the point of compelling people to use or respect them when they don't believe it's necessary or appropriate. Right wingers do it all the time, as in the examples I gave that you don't refute.

I strongly disagree. PC has absolutely nothing to do with the "right-wing". It is a liberal concept from start to finish, and PC positions are always liberal positions.


You're just defining "politically correct" as "libertarian" or "liberal." That's not what a sensible person would think it means.

I'm not defining it as libertarian or liberal, I'm telling you that the concept of PC is a liberal concept, and the positions which are classified as PC are always liberal positions, and there are very few sensible people would disagree with me. You don't seem to understand what PC means, and that's an element of your ideology, not mine.


Of course, nobody has ever argued for "banning" the pledge of allegiance, the issue is whether the state can compel children to recite it in school. That you equate this with "banning the pledge" is another example of your hysterical right-wing PC.

You don't understand this issue, so I will explain it to you. The pledge of allegiance contains the words "under God". There is no such thing as a pledge of allegiance without the words "under God". The issue that was raised by the liberal PC crowd is that this pledge, with these words, should be banned all together. The issue was never whether kids could be compelled to say it. Kids have always had a right not to say it, and that right was never in dispute. Every day in this country, a certain number of kids refrain from saying the pledge, and that has been going on for years with no problem. But now the PC crowd thinks that these kids should not even have to have this pressure placed on them to be different, or to be exposed to a pledge with the words "under God", because that discriminates against them on the basis of religion, and the pledge should be banned all together unless those words are removed from the pledge, which is the same as saying that the existing pledge be banned, and a new pledge introduced. Hence the issue is referred to as "banning the pledge".

Now I personally don't care if these two words are retained or taken away, and I'm certainly not acting "hysterical" about it. The PC liberals are acting hysterical over this issue by the mere fact that we are spending even one second arguing about it, when we have so many real problems to solve. If that doesn't define hysterical, I don't know what else does. Hysterical is invariably a characteristic of PC liberals, not level-headed, right thinking Americans.


You said that people that burn the flag should be executed as traitors because such expressions of dissent "give aid and comfort to the enemy."

I said absolutely no such thing. Go back and read it again, and show me where I said that. I specifically stated that I even oppose the death penalty. What I stated earlier was that by my interpretation of the law, flag burning in certain circumstances could be construed as giving comfort to the enemy, which is treason punishable by death. Whether I thought they should be executed or not was irrelevant. My most recent statement was that flag burning cannot be viewed as an act of treason, because as others showed, treason requires "adherence to the enemy". Hence this issue is now closed.

[Cyrus]

"I said absolutely no such thing. Go back and read it again, and show me where I said that. I specifically stated that I even oppose the death penalty.
What I stated earlier was that by my interpretation of the law, flag burning in certain circumstances could be construed as giving comfort to the enemy, which is treason punishable by death. Whether I thought they should be executed or not was irrelevant.
My most recent statement was that flag burning cannot be viewed as an act of treason, because as others showed, treason requires "adherence to the enemy". Hence this issue [I would very much like to see] now closed."

Your furious backpedalling can't save the day, Bruce. But it is, as always, a hilarious sight.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
You said that people that burn the flag should be executed as traitors because such expressions of dissent "give aid and comfort to the enemy."

I said absolutely no such thing. Go back and read it again, and show me where I said that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your words follow:

[ QUOTE ]
“Those citizens that you mistakenly refer to as "Americans" have blood on their hands. They contribute to the prolonging of hostilities, and they are partly responsible for the deaths of Americans. Their actions give aid and comfort to the enemy in times of war. I do not understand why such acts do not qualify as treason, punishable by death.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"I showed how certain forms of protest give aid and comfort to the enemy, and under our current laws, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in times of war is an act of treason punishable by death. We did not declare war in Iraq, but other acts which help the enemy would still be classified as treason punishable by death, such as the cleric in Gitmo who was caught passing information.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
“It disturbed me when I realized that these acts being committed could be considered treasonous, and that they are not being punished as such.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
“[S]o far not a one of you has told me why, if certain actions can be shown to clearly give psychological comfort to the enemy, causing him to persist in a war effort where he otherwise would not, why that is not, by the very words of our constitution, treason punishable by death.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Although the above relate to flag-burning, you almost made it clear to non-flag-burning Cyrus that he was guilty of the same because of his "dissension," which you argued helped kill some U.S. invaders. The point you emphasized was not burning the flag but the comfort an enemy might obtain if Americans disagree with policy during an undeclared, inherently perpetual "war on terror."

At one point, you retreated from the obvious implications of your statements above:

[ QUOTE ]
“I am not saying that I support the execution of flag burners. I don't even support the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

But in the next two sentences you reversed it again:

[ QUOTE ]
"On the other hand, I would sooner see flag burners executed than even murderers. That's just because it's easier to prove, and my primary problem with the death penalty is that it executes innocent citizens.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you say you've reversed course again. If I understand you, your current position is in the negative, based on your understanding of the phrase "adherence to the enemy."

Forgive me for not following all the twists of this difficult, complex subject of whether Americans who criticize government war policy should all be slaughtered.

Everything else you wrote in the post above is the usual undocumented, unresponsive junk.

P.S. The cleric at Gitmo, Captain James "Yousef" Yee, was not charged with treason or passing information on to anyone. He was charged charged with "disobeying orders for improperly handling classified information," based on his "taking classified information home and wrongly transporting classified information." The stuff about treason was probably something you heard in the "liberal media."
CBS (http://216.239.57.104/custom?q=cache:ZXDJplvwMLsJ:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/20/attack/main574345.shtml+gitmo+chaplain&hl=en&ie=UTF-8), 10/10/3

[MMMMMM]

Chris, I followed the twists and turns as you listed them above, and I really don't see where he said what you claimed he said. Also, I should think a lawyer could make this out nearly effortlessly. And pardon me for asking, but I'm curious: is this the sort of tactic you employ in court?

By the way I don't think dissenters should be executed.

If you're going to paraphrase someone, I think you really should try harder to represent what they said more accurately.

[Utah]

Hey at least Bozell sights examples that can be analyzed. That is a huge step up from Alterman. In the three articles can you point to a single fact, study, or evidence cited by Alterman? I certainly didn't see any.

As for reading his book - it the jackass cant provide a single fact in 3 articles there is clearly no need to read his book.

[Rushmore]

See, I would have been surprised if it HAD aired.

But I see your point.

[BruceZ]

Thank you. I'm convinced he would get lost in the twists and turns of a paper bag. Hey Chris, don't ever plan on being a patent lawyer. Fortunately, I think you normally have to be an engineer first, so that would preclude you. Forever.

Maybe it's my experience with patent language that allows me to think and word things very precisely, and to assume that others perceive the same subtle distinctions between claims that I do, I don't know. I do know that my writing is far more precise than Chris' reading of my writing.

I don't know how I can make it much plainer than what Chris already listed, and then failed himself to understand.

I claimed:

a) that flag burners give aid and comfort to the enemy,

b) that giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason,

c) that treason is punishable by death,

d) that I don't believe in the death penalty (no contradiction to c of course)

e) that I'd sooner see flag burners executed than murderers (no contradiction to d of course)

f) that due to new information, flag burning is not treason because it lacks "adherence to the enemy". This statement is compatible with all previous statements, and serves to explain why flag burning does not lead to prosecution for treason, a claim which was never made in any of the above statements. So there was never any backtracking, even with the inclusion of this statement which closed the issue.

One reason Chris was confused is that statement 'f' was actually the most recent, so the "reversals" which he claimed are a result of a faulty timeline which he constructed for these claims. Perry Mason he's not.

As for the other "undocumented junk" in my post, this is typical of Chris to resort to trying to be a lawyer and demanding documentation where it suits him, despite his completely failing the bar in the above demonstration. When you are not precise and complete, he will demand precision and completeness. When you are precise and complete, he will fail to understand, either intentionally, or due to being unable to think well, or to a combination of both.

My statements were anything but unresponsive, as I was careful to respond to each of his points directly and sequentially. Of course, everything I stated in my responses is common knowledge to the average informed indivdual, but he'll have to be more specific about which things he is ignorant of, and then I can try to address his special needs.

[Chris Alger]

Alterman's short (500-word) article includes a link to his website about the book. In reproduced Appendix 2, (http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/apndx_2.htm) you'll find a revealing study by Geoffrey Nunberg of the Center for the Study of Language and Information at
Stanford University and its department of linguistics. Recall that one of Goldberg's central assertions is that conservatives are constantly tagged with their label, while liberals aren't, which Goldberg insists is the liberal media's way of protraying what's really liberal as merely average or normal. Of course, Goldberg's evidence is scant.

Nunberg, OTOH,
<ul type="square"> subjected Bernard Goldberg’s argument to a database search comprising articles from thirty of the nation’s top newspapers. For comparison purposes, he chose five liberals and five conservatives. On the liberal side were Senators Boxer, Wellstone, Harkin, and Kennedy, and Representative Barney Frank. On the conservative side were Senators Lott and Helms, John Ashcroft, and Representatives Dick Armey and Tom Delay. Nunberg found, after eliminating extraneous mentions, “the average liberal legislator has a thirty percent greater likelihood of being identified with a partisan label than the average conservative does.” Barney Frank was described as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as Dick Armey was described as a conservative; Barbara Boxer, twice as often as Trent Lott. Not even Jesse Helms can win this competition. Paul Wellstone is accompanied by the word “liberal” in excess of twenty percent more often than Helms is called a “conservative.”

Nunberg was surprised by his own results. To double-check his methodology, he did the same study using just three newspapers often accused of spouting a liberal bias: The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. The proportions did not change. Nor did they change when the question was applied to politically outspoken actors. Goldberg argues, "it's not unusual to identify certain actors, like Tom Selleck or Bruce Willis, as conservatives. But Barbra Streisand or Rob Reiner. . . are just Barbra Streisand and Rob Reiner." Wrong, again. Nunberg finds that Streisand and Reiner are nearly five times as likely to be labeled by their politics as Selleck and Willis. Warren Beatty is labeled more frequently than Arnold Schwarzenegger. Norman Lear even manages to out-label NRA president Charlton Heston.

Regarding legal experts, we find exactly the same pattern. Contra Bernard Goldberg, Lawrence Tribe and Robert Bork, it turns out, are labeled equivalently. But John Paul Stevens gets the liberal label more often than William Rehnquist, or Clarence Thomas get the conservative one. When it comes to pundits, we see more of the same. It is apparently more newsworthy that Michael Kinsley is a liberal than that George F. Will is a conservative. The labeling of political organizations further disproves what’s left of Goldberg’s phony claim. Americans for Democratic Action sees itself labeled with greater frequency than does Young Americans for Freedom does, and nearly three times as often as the National Association of Scholars.

The table below, constructed in its entirety by Nunberg, contains the results of a search done on the words "liberal" and "conservative" within five words of the names of prominent politicians, public figures, and organizations -- a method that picks out the labeling of political views with better than 85% accuracy. Except where indicated, all searches were done on the Dialog "papersmj" database, which includes the texts of about thirty newspapers, including including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, The Boston Globe, the Miami Herald, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, and numerous others. The method and results are discussed further below in Nunberg’s notes that I have reproduced here. [/list]

See also Examining the “Liberal Media” Claim, Journalists’ Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage (http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html), by David Croteau of the Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Sociology and Anthropology, (concluding (1) on select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public; (2) journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation; (3) the minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues); Chomsky &amp; Herman, Manufacturing Consent (New York 1988) (describing and testing the "propaganda model" for mass media coverage of selected major stories); Myth: The U.S. Has a Liberal Media (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm) (and sources cited therein); Study of Bias or Biased Study, The Lichter Method and Attack on PBS Documentaries (http://www.fair.org/reports/lichter-memo.html), FAIR Research Memo 5/14/92. Also look at the works of Parenti, Bagdikian, Chomsky and Herman (individually), or any of the studies cited at FAIR, or just look at all the articles under a "liberal media bias" web search. Then compare this stuff to the anecdotal flotsam on the AIM or Media Research Center Websites. Reading nearly everything here would take less than a month.

[Chris Alger]

If you had made any argument I could probably accuse you of quibbling, which is what lawyers do when they can only think of technical reasons for a disagreement.

Taking everything in context, Bruce either stated or strongly implied several times that all flag burners derserved the death penalty for treason, using arguments that he applied with equal logic to all war protestors. However, he said that this was merely his interpretation of the law and not a personal one. On the other hand, he left his personal views ambiguous by stating that the reason he opposed the death penalty didn't to his argument about death for war protestors. So I think my interpretation is more than justified.

[Chris Alger]

Clumsy dodge: you deliberately omitted your claim that the reason you opposed to death penalty didn't apply to flag burning cases. This was before you went on your repeated tirade about flag burners and war dissenters deserving the death penalty as a matter of law (if not your own preference). It's no better than saying "I don't believe that people from X are inferior," then going on in post after post how you don't understand how anyone could avoid believing that people from X are inferior, then pointing to the initial disclaimer to defend yourself from anti-X racism. Cute trick, but transparent.

[BruceZ]

Horrible, horrible logic. If this is what passes for logic in the courtroom, it's no wonder that so many innocent men are being fried.


This was before you went on your repeated tirade about flag burners and war dissenters deserving the death penalty as a matter of law

I already laid out for you, as clear as day, that the one statement I never made was that flag burners should be prosecuted for treason, much less that they should be given the death penalty.


you deliberately omitted your claim that the reason you opposed to death penalty didn't apply to flag burning cases.
This statement was omitted because it is does not imply, and is not related to, the statement which you speciously attributed to me. What I said was that I would sooner see flag burners executed than murderers because my opposition to the death penalty doesn't apply to flag burning cases. Of course that in no way implies that a) flag burners should be prosecuted for treason under the law b) I want flag burners to be prosecuted for treason c) flag burners should be executed under the law d) I want flag burners to be executed. You just jumped to a whole slew of unsubstantiated conclusions. By your logic, if I say I'd rather cut off my right arm than lose my eyesight, you'd conclude that I want my right arm cut off, and that it should be cut off under the law. You're a very dangerous fellow.

[MMMMMM]

Saying they deserve the death penalty is NOT the same as saying they should be executed. Heck even a guy who is opposed to all capital punishment might say the Green River killer deserves the death penalty--but shouldn't be executed.

I really suggest you rethink this.

[elwoodblues]

Bruce --

Just to aid in clarification, how do you define PC? I would think that a fair definition would be something like trying to change one's words/actions so as to either: 1) diminish the extent to which the words themselves are hurtful/mischaracterizing or 2) over time change the thoughts/feelings behind the words/actions.

By this definition (unless you can provide a better one) both liberals and conservatives are guilty of political correctness (conservatives have just succeeded in making the term stick to liberals more so than the other way around).

Conservative Examples of Political Correctness:
* On a large scale, the claim that the media are biased because they label conservatives as such --- e.g. the claim that you will see the dastardly phrase "the conservative commentator" before the name Rush Limbaugh.
* The outcry that militia groups are labelled "right wing" because it associates other, more mainstream conservatives, with them.
* Previous threads on this board showing that people want to be able to have White groups without being labelled as racist
* People who bemoan flag burning because it will offend those who fought for this country
* People who argue against the Reagan documentary because it is offensive

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
b) that giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason,

[/ QUOTE ]
You've got half the equation right. Treason is both giving aid and comfort and adhereing the our enemies

[elwoodblues]

This reminds me of someone who might question the meaning of the word "is"

[elwoodblues]

I should have said that you only have 1/3 of the equation right (the comfort part)...no aid, no adherence

[andyfox]

"Saying they deserve the death penalty is NOT the same as saying they should be executed."

I'm trying hard, really M, to understand the difference here. If I say someone deserves a raise, isn't it the same thing as saying she should get one?

[BruceZ]

I say comfort is aid, so I'll take 2/3.

Also, do you need both aid AND comfort? Isn't aid enough? I think we need to examine the meaning of the word "and". Logically, I think it should be OR here.

[elwoodblues]

The constitution says Aid and Comfort...A general rule of construction is that they don't use superfluous language. If Aid was the same as Comfort they would have just used the word Aid.

"That depends on the meanding of the word 'and'"

[BruceZ]

"That depends on the meanding of the word 'and'"

I just went back and added that.

I think there have been examples of treason where there was aid but no comfort.

[BruceZ]

I disagree. None of your examples are PC. Fair or not, usage of PC makes it a term that can only be associated with liberal causes.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
think there have been examples of treason where there was aid but no comfort

[/ QUOTE ]

And I think that is a bastardization of the plain language of the Constitution and the federal treason statute. The founders would have used the word OR if they meant either one; instead the founders used the word AND

[elwoodblues]

So how would you define the phrase???

It sounds like you are calling for a Politically Correct usage of the phrase Politically Correct --- now my head is spinning.

[BruceZ]

If I say someone deserves a raise, isn't it the same thing as saying she should get one?

Of course not.

Deserve means to be worthy of. She can be worthy, but tough times may preclude her actually getting one.

Also, note that I never said anyone deserved the death penalty.

[BruceZ]

Good thing we use legal precedent to interpret the constitution.

Giving plans for nuclear weapons to the soviets is clearly treason, whether it is comfort or not.

I can't really think of any aid that doesn't also provide comfort.

'And' is often used between two words of the constitution to provide additional clarity of meaning, not to demand that two independent conditions be met.

[BruceZ]

I have given a working definition with examples above. John Cole can tell you that definitions are formed by popular usage.

[elwoodblues]

So your definition is: see my examples; or PC is whatever I say it is.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
'And' is often used between two words of the constitution to provide additional clarity of meaning

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps (though no examples are jumping to my mind).

[BruceZ]

No, my definition is the clear definition I provided, in addition to the supporting examples from common usage.

[BruceZ]

How about "cruel and unusual punishment". I guess by your interpretation, it's OK to have punishments that are cruel or unusual, just so long as they are not both.

[Rushmore]

Is it possible that what is being said is that by the law as it exists in any given jurisdiction, one might "deserve" the death penalty, yet be exempted from an objective observer's notion that he "should" be executed?

I certainly hope that we haven't wasted all of this virtual space and cerebral exertion on this point.

[BruceZ]

It's cerebral exercise, kind of like pushing pieces of iron up and down, not useful in itself, but still beneficial.

[elwoodblues]

A couple of quotes from some supreme court cases that suggest you need both:

To state a claim under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, a party must prove not only that the challenged conduct was both cruel and unusual, but also that it constitutes punishment

Nor would it be unreasonable to conclude that it would be both cruel and unusual to punish overtime parking by life imprisonment

This approach is dictated both by the language of the Amendment--which proscribes only those punishments that are both "cruel and unusual "...

[BruceZ]

Yet this clause eliminated certain cruel punishments that were not unusual at the time in England.

I guess those who argue that the electric chair should be outlawed due to victim suffering, being internally burned alive, sometimes even catching on fire and so forth, are not correct since there this cruelty is not unconstitutional, and this punishment is certainly not unusual.

[Chris Alger]

One can certainly make such distinctions if they're relevant to some point. However, what he said was this:

"It disturbed me when I realized that these acts [flag burning, etc.] being committed could be considered treasonous, and that they are not being punished as such”

and

“I do not understand why such acts do not qualify as treason, punishable by death.”

Now he's trying to get off the hook by saying that he did not expressly say that such people "should be executed."

It's called equivocating: drawing hypertechnical distinctions to worm out of the apparent meaning of what was said; lying by pretending to say something different through the use of words of apparently equivalent meaning.

[BruceZ]

"It disturbed me when I realized that these acts [flag burning, etc.] being committed could be considered treasonous, and that they are not being punished as such”

This statement says that I was disturbed when I realized (past tense, and falsely as we now know) an apparent inconsistency in the enforcement of the law. This is completely different from saying I think flag burners should be executed. I also said "could be considered treasonous". I didn't say it was definitely considered treason by me. I didn't know for sure if it was or not at that point. Some people considered the recent attacks against Bush to be treasonous. You also left out the rest of this quote which said "I wish I was not right". Clearly this shows I do not want to prosecute these people for treason. I was seeking information here, and I was playing the devil's advocate to do it.


“I do not understand why such acts do not qualify as treason, punishable by death.”[/i]

The key words here are "I do not understand why". It is clear from these discussions that I am seeking information.


lying by pretending to say something different through the use of words of apparently equivalent meaning.

I never lied, and I don't appreciate being called a liar just because you don't know how to read. If you were here I'd have to bloody your nose for that. The words have "apparently equivalent meaning" only to you.

[Cyrus]

BruceZ &gt; "If you were here I'd have to bloody your nose for that."

Kurnson &gt; "If he were in the same room with me, trust me he'd be more polite."

I think you fellas are on tilt. Loosen belt. Deep breaths. Press thumbs gently against your eyes for a minute.

(You close the eyes first, Bruce! What the.)

[Chris Alger]

"I never lied, and I don't appreciate being called a liar just because you don't know how to read."

The issue of your being a liar was resolved a while back when I caught you lying about an "exact quote" you claimed was the source for Cal Thomas's calumny against various Arabs. I note that you'd also tried to weasel out of that one in comically clumsy fashion for which I fear you are becoming renowned.

Here, for example, you now claim that saying you were "disturbed" that flag burners weren't "being punished" by death could not possibly be interpreted as an endorsement for executing flag burners, but merely your citizen's concern for "an apparent inconsistency in the enforcement of the law." Yet you also now admit to being utterly uninformed about treason law and are abviously uninformed about the history of its enforcement (e.g., less than 40 prosecutions in 200+ years, none for dissent or its expression under current first amendment jurisprudence). Which means that the "apparent inconsistency" you discerned was also something you just made up. My what a tangled web we weave ....

"If you were here I'd have to bloody your nose for that."

I would consider myself lucky if you didn't feel compelled to execute me out of concern for perceived inconsistencies in the law against argument.

"Some people considered the recent attacks against Bush to be treasonous."

I presume you mean O'Reilly. Everyone has heard of "people" like this. It's just a little sickening to have to acknowledge they're out there trying to destroy what's right and decent about America.

[ACPlayer]

Its called lying. No wonder he likes Bush the master at equivocating, squirming and just plain dishonesty. In comparison to these two, Clinton is a Saint.

BZ may know mathematics (the jury is still out on that) but he sure cant add 2 and 2.

[BruceZ]

The issue of your being a liar was resolved a while back when I caught you lying about an "exact quote" you claimed was the source for Cal Thomas's calumny against various Arabs. I note that you'd also tried to weasel out of that one in comically clumsy fashion for which I fear you are becoming renowned.

That was another example of a misunderstanding on your part, where I was referring to something different than you assumed, and for which you either failed or refused to understand after ample explanation from me. Even a person of below average intelligence would have understood the confusion there in a couple of posts and been done with it, yet you required the thread to drag on for over a dozen posts in a comically obtuse fashion for which you are renowned, culminating in an exhaustively unambigous explication by me, and you still appear to not understand it even now. What does that say about you?


Here, for example, you now claim that saying you were "disturbed" that flag burners weren't "being punished" by death could not possibly be interpreted as an endorsement for executing flag burners, but merely your citizen's concern for "an apparent inconsistency in the enforcement of the law." Yet you also now admit to being utterly uninformed about treason law and are abviously uninformed about the history of its enforcement

No, I said I was disturbed when I realized that something could be interpreted as treason, and not be enforced as such. Note the use of past tense (disturbed, realized) subjunctive (could meaning might be) and passive voice (be considered).

I have proven that there are no lies in either of these instances. I appreciate that you are well versed in methods of lying, the word "lawyer" being almost the same as "liar" in both sound and practice; however, as an engineer and scientist I am instilled with high standards of integrity with regards to the truth and the expression of truth through precise words and symbols. You see, in my field, lies, half-truths, deception, and distortions of the truth are negative things to be avoided, rather than tools of my trade. Where you endeavor to introduce confusion, ambiguity, and to hijack the meanings of other's words, I act to make the truth as clear and unambiguous as possible, and for this I am rather well known. I expect this is why we don't get along, as in this regard we are opposite.

I presume you mean O'Reilly. Everyone has heard of "people" like this.

No, actually it was someone else who said it was either treason or its close cousin.[/i]


It's just a little sickening to have to acknowledge they're out there trying to destroy what's right and decent about America.

So let me get this straight. Those who execute their right of free speech and dissent by saying certain things are close to treason are trying to destroy what is good and great about America, and those who actually commit the acts which are described as close to treason are making America great.

[BruceZ]

Its called lying. No wonder he likes Bush the master at equivocating, squirming and just plain dishonesty. In comparison to these two, Clinton is a Saint.

BZ may know mathematics (the jury is still out on that) but he sure cant add 2 and 2.


You are as unqualified to evaluate a logical argument as you are inept at using the binomial distribution or figuring the outs for a runner runner flush. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif It doesn't surprise me that your jury is permanently hung.

If I were you, I wouldn't be criticizing anyone on this board when it comes to thinking ability. You pretty much disqualified your opinions from any serious consideration when you stated that a certain poster was "usually right", after I just finished posting exhaustive proofs for every single conflict he ever had with me up to that point showing he was clearly in error, and every one since also, though I stopped posting rebutals long ago. Not that I expected you to understand them. They are no doubt over your head like most everything else.

[BruceZ]

So, to ask the question again--- what is your view about "artistic" endeavors being axed due to political pressures as opposed to airing the damn thing and seeing if it falls flat on its face.

Yeah, networks should be forced to put on shows which offend the public, and then suffer rating hits and lose millions of dollars. They shouldn't be able to make decisions in advance from a business standpoint based on consumer demand. No business should be permitted to do that. Food companies should have to put out nasty tasting food, clothing companies should sell ugly clothes, and auto makers should sell unpopular cars.

Good thinking.

[Cyrus]

I see ad hominem attacks in practically every thread of this forum but rarely do I get the chance to see an attack on the other person's profession !

Bruce Z to Chris Alger :
"You are well versed in methods of lying, the word "lawyer" being almost the same as "liar" in both sound and practice; however, as an engineer and scientist [sic] I am instilled with high standards of integrity with regards to the truth and the expression of truth through precise words and symbols. You see, in my field, lies, half-truths, deception, and distortions of the truth are negative things to be avoided, rather than tools of my trade. Where you endeavor to introduce confusion, ambiguity, and to hijack the meanings of other's words, I act to make the truth as clear and unambiguous as possible."

Thanks, Bruce, that was one precious sighting. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

"You pretty much disqualified your opinions from any serious consideration when you stated that [Cyrus] was "usually right", after I just finished posting exhaustive proofs for every single conflict he ever had with me up to that point showing he was clearly in error, and every one since also."

I will not shake you out of the stupor of that delusionary trance. If you get your kicks by imagining that a battle lost is a battle won, live and let live, I always say. I am just glad you didn't claim again that you proved your political points mathematically!

You'd nearly killed me with that 'un last time around. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"I stopped posting rebuttals long ago."

The attitude you adopted towards my posts ("I will never respond to you again") is clearly indicative of your thinking and logical prowess : It is a losing strategy. Or, as you're so fond of saying (often inconsequenetially), it is a self-weighing strategy.

There's no need to explain to you why. You already know you have blundered royally -- from the pressure in your veins and the color under your collar.

Take care. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Chris Alger]

"So let me get this straight. Those who execute their right of free speech and dissent by saying certain things are close to treason are trying to destroy what is good and great about America, and those who actually commit the acts which are described as close to treason are making America great."

No, because mere dissent regarding war policy can never "be close to treason" but is highly protected speech under the first amendment. This is so because its execise is vital to the proper functioning of government, including and probably especially during wartime. Any attempt to prosecute a war protestor for "treason" would be subject to the most exacting scrutiny.

How exacting? The constitution not only protects advocacy that might give "aid and comfort" to an enemy during wartime, even by those who passionately support that enemy, it protects advocacy of violent revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. government itself, except in extremely rare cases when the Brandenburg test is met. Under Brandenburg, no state or federal law can punish "advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." 'The mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.' A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). In short, advocacy of war resistance is absolutely protected even when it causes the war to be lost unless (1) the advocate intends to cause not merely illegal but "imminent" illegal acts and (2) the speech is likely to cause them. Without proving both prongs, the prosecution will fail.

As a result, the federal courts have repeatedly and, in modern times, unanimously struck down attempts to punish war protestors, including wartime flag burners. These restrictions have not changed a bit even though antiwar dissent during Vietnam played a key role in the U.S. losing that war. If anything, they are more firmly ingranined in U.S. jurisprudence.

Note that treason is not actually defined under Article III but expressly limited, the only crime to receive such treatment in the constitution itself. Yet Article III doesn't supply the only restrictions of the government's ability to punish "treason." That ability is further limited by the first amendment and other constitutional rights.

In short, nobody with half a brain thinks that protesting the war is "treason" or punishable under any other state or federal statute in the U.S. If you don't understand why this is necessary and vital, and why those that exercise it are performing public service, read this primer (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-evolokh020703.asp) from that bastion of flag-burning sedition, The National Review, attacking an editorial more or less embracing your viewpoint in Murdoch's New York Sun.

[Chris Alger]

1. Hilarious "[sic]." I once had a real scientist tell me what he thought about engineers and my Dad (an aerospace engineer) pretty much agreed that that was the general attitude.

2. "I am instilled with high standards of integrity with regards to the truth and the expression of truth through precise words and symbols." Just like that other engineer, Yasser Arafat.

[Cyrus]

(sarcastically:) "Networks should be forced to put on shows which offend the public, and then suffer rating hits and lose millions of dollars. They shouldn't be able to make decisions in advance from a business standpoint based on consumer demand. No business should be permitted to do that. Food companies should have to put out nasty tasting food, clothing companies should sell ugly clothes, and auto makers should sell unpopular cars."

You are implying that media companies are no different than any other business, in trying to mazimize their profits, and this is a correct assessment of the situation. However, we should question whether this is a good situation we find ourselves in.

To help us in this thinking, we should extend that business logic to the realm of political debate.

Assume that the media networks, in order to maximize income and profitability, identify the most popular beliefs in politics and concern themselves only with them. (Niche markets for "unpopular political opinion" would still exist but the issue is about significantly large media businesses, such as the top 4 US broadscasters.) We would end up with political "debates" which would not be debates at all!

The measure of a medium's integrity is measured by its commitment to alternative to "the mainstream" (and alternating) viewpoints in just about everything, including art and politics, and not just presenting "the mainstream", aka the most popular position. In this endeavor, our era's focus on the bottom line over everything else is problematic -- for the medium's objective itself, by definition. But this is one problem that has no easy solution, although I could timidly bring up the case for BBC.

--Cyrus

PS : It's noteworthy, in this context, that the public's appetite and taste for the new, the imaginative, the daring, the innovative, the opposite, are systematically under-rated from the media businesses' perspective. We know this to be a fact from the many insights we have about the way of strategic and managerial decisions are taken in media outlets, film studios, etc. The people there, in general, try to stay on the beaten path.

[John Cole]

Bruce,

Please stop using the subjunctive and the passive; it's too confusing. BTW, you could get all this over with a direct answer to one question. Would you like to see people who burn flags while the country is at war executed? Yes or no answer only.

John

[John Cole]

Bruce,

Given the flap and furor over the production, it would be a ratings hit. The networks abhor contoversy, especially if that controversy will mean the loss of advertising dollars. So, what do we get? We get stuff that makes us happy. Watch the Jessica Lynch movie; I'll venture that most people will feel pretty darn good about themselves when its over--and that's the point.

Great artistic works will often satisfy our formal expectations, and we find ourselves gratified when this happens. Yet great art often discomfits the viewer or reader; television cannot, with few exceptions, risk this.

John

[ACPlayer]

Your proof was nonsense and the source of much mocking laughter.

Cheers

[adios]

"Overall, I think a lot of the criticism was blown way out of proportion. One thing that I heard/read over and over was that Reagan never said xyz when referring to portions of the script detailing private conversations. This seems to be a holow criticism of a docu-drama. Any time a docu-drama goes "behind closed doors" the writers don't have a trancript to work off of."

I think a lot of pressure was brought to bare on the potential sponsors of the docu-drama in question. The potential sponsers decided that there was little upside in sponsoring such a show so they decided not to advertise for it. No sponsors, no profit. If CBS could have made enough money off of the show they would have put it on the air. Is there something wrong with bringing pressure on the sponsors of a show in this manner? I don't think so. Is there something wrong with CBS being motivated by profit? I don't think so. If the sponsors have the conviction of jello so be it, it's their money. It's not like the docu-drama is going on the scrap heap. Notice I don't necessarily agree with the what I believe was the decision of the potential sponsors of the show.

[brad]

from what i recall reagan saying something like gays got what they deserved (aids) was pretty accurate description of far (and mid cause far right still says that) right view on aids in early 80's.

[elwoodblues]

I don't mean to be splitting hairs here, but the fact that we didn't carry over certain pubishments in place at the time in England is not evidence that they were not carried over because they violated the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Constitution. Maybe we just didn't want to have those types of punishments in our new system. Are you aware of any cases eliminating a certain punishment on these grounds???

[ QUOTE ]
I guess those who argue that the electric chair should be outlawed due to victim suffering, being internally burned alive, sometimes even catching on fire and so forth, are not correct since there this cruelty is not unconstitutional, and this punishment is certainly not unusual.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a perfect example of a punishment that is certainly cruel, but not unusual (though it is becoming so over time) and is therefore constitutional. The converse of this was the recent Supreme Court case about executing the "mentally retarded." There, the court looked at evolving community standards and determined that executing "mentally retarded" individuals was cruel and unusual punishment (when the court found that it was not just 13 years earlier). The court wrote:

"Presumably for these reasons, in the 13 years since we decided Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), the American public, legislators, scholars, and judges have deliberated over the question whether the death penalty should ever be imposed on a mentally retarded criminal. The consensus reflected in those deliberations informs our answer to the question presented by this case: whether such executions are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. "

[elwoodblues]

Another case that I found...authored by Justice Scalia:
[ QUOTE ]
Despite this familiarity, the drafters of the Declaration of Rights did not explicitly prohibit "disproportionate" or "excessive" punishments. Instead, they prohibited punishments that were "cruell and unusuall." The Solem Court simply assumed, with no analysis, that the one included the other. [i.e. that Crule included Unusual and vice versa]. As a textual matter, of course, it does not: a disproportionate punishment can perhaps always be considered "cruel," but it will not always be (as the text also requires) "unusual."

[/ QUOTE ]

[brad]

if im not mistaken the 'unusual' part means

everybody has to get about same punishment.

say king doesnt like person B, he cant just say, hey, lets stake him to an anthill as a means of execution.

but of course king (england) can exectue whoever he wants.

[Gamblor]

AP's report on world terror (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/ap/20031109/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_explosion_glance_2)

Are we to believe that suicide bombings, shootings, and missiles fired into Israeli civilian towns are not terrorist acts?

For an actual list of terrorist attacks, try this Major Terrorist attacks since Oslo (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Terrorism/TerrorAttacks.html)

Note these are only the major ones.