Folks told me I should try and send my “Chicago” parody to Al Franken at Air America Radio.
First I tried to create an account at their website, which was repeatedly stymied as assurances of a confirming e-mail proved empty. When the e-mail with the special “unlocking” code finally showed up, I went back to the website, entered the code, and was send three times to a page that said, “You shouldn’t have been sent to this page.” Swear to God, that’s what it said.
Finally, managing to make that all work, I went to the “Contact us” section. There it said they could be e-mailed, or be sent snail mail, or be reached via Fax. I tried e-mail about six times. It wouldn’t go through. It either told me to fill out the “comments” section, which I had but it didn’t seem to realize it, or it would remove the topic line and then tell me I had to fill in the topic line. Fax? Nice notion. If there was a fax number there, I couldn’t find it. Which leaves snail mail, but I doubt I want to bother with it.
I tried to e-mail them about how crappy their website was. That wouldn’t go through either.
Which all works out, I guess, because my radio doesn’t pick up 1190 anyway, lord knows I tried.
Yeah, I bet Rush is just shaking in his boots.
PAD
• 
“squealing like Ned Beatty at a West Virginian cookout when they did it.”
Of course, that’s another line that undoubtedly draws blank stares from your students.
I had a moment like that during the MST3K movie. There’s the chisel-jawed hunky scientist hero type, and his weaselly assistant. Weaselly assistant goes to the door to get a package, signs for it, and walks it back in. As he does, we hear Crow say,
“Oh, boy! My Niels Bohr swimsuit calendar!”
Lisa chuckles. I’m dissolving into a small puddle and almost on the floor.
The rest of the theater wonders what the hëll is wrong with me.
TWL
Jerome Maida: If you reread the actual paragraph (you know, instead of reading something into it) the “three days later” refers to the feature article that started “His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.” She WAS accusing them of condescension.
Luigi Novi: And didn
Oh, and btw, I get 1190 on my Walkman perfectly clear in Jersey, just across the Hudson River.
Per the Drudge Report, it looks like our friends at Air America are in a little trouble. They’ve bounced a check, owe someone $1 million, and are off the air in Los Angeles and Chicago. Apparently, the Chicago station was kind of taken off by force, with someone kicking the Air America employee out the door, switching to a Spanish broadcast, and locking the door.
I didn’t think this thing was going anywhere, but I’m shocked that it’s having trouble so early.
Bwahahahaha!
I hope Al Gore finally does get his liberal news channel set up so we can watch that fall apart too.
Yep, for those who may not feel comfortable with matt Drudge as a sole source (understandably so)the New York Post and Chicago Tribune have also done stories in the past week about the liberal radio network already being unplugged in a dispute over bills.
Yep, Air America – which was obviously desperately desired by so many, NOT! – was abruptly yanked off the air in Los Angeles and chicago yesterday amid claims of “shakedowns” and downright thievery.
It was pulled from Multicultural Broadcasting’s L.A. and Chicago stations in a nasty dispute over leased-time payments.
“They bounced a check today”, Multicultural Broadcasting’s owner Arthur Liu said, “It’s a default. They have paid only a very small portion of what they owe us.
Liu also claimd that Air America is two months behind on a security deposit for both stations.
So now what are those who actually find Al Franken amusing enough to listen to for a couple hours a day – all five of you – going to do?
Sorry if i’m taking glee in this. I just find Franken and those who hang on his every word and believe every word he says to be incredibly annoying. Heck, I have more respect for Michael Moore – who at least puts himself out there, refuses to blindly support the Democratic party because he no longer feels it reflects or promotes his beliefs and won’t support them simply because the Republican party is supposedly worse – and James Carville – who actually works hard to get the ideas of his candidates and his party out – than I do Franken, who is basically a clown regurgitating Democratic talking points while being asked to be taken seriously. The fact that so many people find his book “Lies” to be the oracle of truth is both amusing and frightening at the same time.
sorry jerome.
Since friday, its come out that multicultural radio, who Air america was leasing space from, had a staunch republican owner. the owner sold airtime he had already sold to air america to a spanish station. when he was called upon it, he locked air america out of their chicago offices in retaliation. however, air america was able to prove that they were not behind in payments, and that they were locked out in unfair business practices, and able to get a temporary restraining order against liu, the owner, to get them back on the air.
over the course of the thursday and friday in which this was playing out, they not only got back on the air, they got a second station in chicago to carry them, and then picked up 15 new affiliates. all this served to do was bring attention and publicity back to air america.
so, theyre kin of stronger than ever after this.
Finally, I found this on a website. It’s Ann Coulter responding to the alleged “lies” attributed to her by Franken’s book.
ANN COULTER RESPONSE TO INTERVIEW QUESTIONS OF EDWARD NAWAOTKA FOR PUBLISHER’S WEEKLY
QUESTION: FRANKEN CLAIMS THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS FALSEHOODS IN YOUR BOOK, ESPECIALLY BURIED IN THE FOOTNOTES…WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ERRORS, YOU, THE PUBLISHER, OR BOTH?
Coulter: I see we’re off to a good start! In your interview with Al Franken, after suggesting that some readers may want franken to run for president, you ask him hardball questions like:
-“It’s got to be a little grating to see your book on the same New York Times bestseler list as the Ann Coulter book.”
-“You fact checked Ann Coulter’s book and found a lot of inconsistencies, outright lies and quotes that are taken out of context. Who is responsible for those kinds of errors, the authors or the editors?”
– “How should bookselers deal with this?”
You ask me questions like these:
– “Who is ultimately responsible for the errors (in your book), you, the publisher, or both?”
– “What gives – was this an honest mistake or malfeasance as he suggests?”
– “Why all the name calling?”
Apparently, Ed, it never occured to you that Franken’s allegations of errors in my book – or “outright lies” as you put it – are false.
It’s interesting that the most devastating examples of my alleged “lies” keep changing. As soon as one is disproved, I’m asked to respond to another. This is behavior normally associated with tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists. One crackpot argument after another is shot down – but the conspiracy theorists just move on to the next crackpot argument without pause or reconsideration. Certainly without apology.
So before responding to the two aleged “lies” you cite from Franken – the source of all wisdom – I shall run through a few of the alleged “lies” from Franken’s book that I have already been asked to respond to – and whic have now been dropped by the Coulter hysterics as they barrel ahead to the next inane charge.
FRANKEN’S VERY FIRST CHARGE AGAINST ME IS THAT I TOLD A REPORTER FROM THE OBSERVER THAT I WAS “FRIENDLY” WITH FRANKEN, WHEN IN FACT, WE ARE NOT “FRIENDLY”.
Needless to say, I never claimed to be friendly with Al Franken. Inasmuch as i hardly know Franken, a normal person might have looked at that and realized the reporter misunderstood me. But apparently, Franken thinks he has a pretty cool name to drop – the oddest case of reverse name-dropping I’ve ever heard of.
I don’t hear about this “lie” so much anymore.
FRANKEN HYSTERICALLY ACCUSES ME OF “LYING” FOR CALING MY “ENDNOTES” “FOOTNOTES” IN INTERVIEWS ON MY BOOK.
Yes, notes at the end of a book are technically “endnotes”, not “footnotes”. Franken will have to take his case up with the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post – all of which referred to my 780 endnotes as FOOTNOTES. Also God, for inventing the concept of “colloquial speech”.
I don’t hear so much about this “lie” anymore.
FRANKEN CLAIMS I COMPLAIN THAT CONSERVATIVES DON’T GET ON TV ENOUGH.
Inasmuch as I am on TV a lot, this would be a hilarious point. Too bad I never said it. My book “Slander”, which franken seems to have gone over with a fine-toothed comb – would ave been a good place to make that point if i wanted to make it. “Slander” contains an entire chapter on the media, and yet I never claim that conservatives are not on TV enough. What i say is: “Democrats in the media are editors, national correspondents, news anchors and reporters. Republicans are “from the right” polemicists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth.”
By the way, I also say: “The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage isseemingly impossible for liberals to grasp.” Franken’s absurd description of my point proves it.
I haven’t heard so much about this “lie” anymore.
I CLAIM EVAN THOMAS’S FATHER WAS THE SOCIALIST PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, NORMAN THOMAS.
Franken drones on and on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Even Thomas’s father – without saying that he was Evan’s GRANDFATHER. This was one of five inconsequential errors quickly corrected in Slander – nd cited one million times by liberals as a “LIE”. Confusing father with grandfather is a mistake. Franken’s deliberate implication that there was no relationship whatsoever between Norman and evan Thomas is intentional dishonesty.
I haven’t heard so much about this “lie” anymore.
I INCORRECTLY CLAIMED DALE EARNHARDT’S DEATH WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NYT THE DAY AFTER HIS DEATH.
In my three bestselling books – making the case for a president’s impeachment, arguing that Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot, and detailing 50 years of trachery by the Democratic Party – this is the only vaguely substantive error the Ann Coulter hysterics have been able to produce, corrected soon after publication.
CONGRATULATIONS LIBERALS!
The Columbia Journalism Review was crowing about this great victory over Ann Coulter a year ago. A search of “coulter” and “earnhardt” on Google turns up over 1,000 hits. Now Franken dedicates another two pages in his book to it. I believe this triump of theirs has been sufficiently revisited by now. At least I didn’t miss the Ukrainian famine (like) Pulitzer prize winning New York Times reporter Walter Duranty.
I don’t hear so much about this “lie” anymore.
FRAZIER MOORE, A FANTASIST FOR THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, WROTE AN ARTICLE ACCUSINF ME OF USING “ROUTINELY SLOPPY” RESEARCH AND “CONTRIVED” FACTS. LIKE YOU, THE AP FANTASIST TREATS RANKEN AS THE SOURCE OF ALL WISDOM, CITING ONE KILLER EXAMPLE FROM FRANKEN:
“Here’s one: On pages 265-266, Coulter blasts New York Times writer Thomas Friedman fpr oposing racial profiling in a December 2001 column. She quotes (and credits) several passages that seem to back up her complaint. But it turns out that Coulter misappropriated Friedman’s words in a way that has nothing to do with racial profiling or anything else addressed in his column, as anyone who reads it will discover. His column actually drew the less-than-startling conclusion that a new age of terrorism threatens our personal safety and free society.”
This is what is known as “bicycle accident reporting”. I defy anyone to explain what head-injury boy is trying to convey in his crucial, accusatory sentence: “Coulter misappropriated Friedman’s words in a way that as nothing to do with racial profiling or anything else addressed in his column.”
Huh? The AP could throw a deck of cards out the window and wait to see who picks up the four of clubs to find someone who writes better than Frazier Moore.
But as long as I’m already breaking my rule about not responding to meritless, overwrought attacks, I’ll go for broke and break my rule about not responding to gibberish. Aparently, head-injury-boy here is very upset about how i characterize a Friedman column and it has something or other to do with racial profiling.
In the column at issue, titled “Fly Naked”, Friedma spends 6 of 10 paragraphs discussing airport security after 9-11 and concludes that flying naked is the only solution, because, “It’s much more civilized tha racial profiling.” I wrote: ‘New York Times columnist Thomas friedman sniffed that racial profiling was not “civilized”.
I’m really trying to grasp the lie in that statement, but I don’t see it.
Incidentally, contrary to head-injury-boy’s characterization, only four paragraphs at the end of the Friedman column discuss “personal safety and our free society” – as anyone who reads it will discover!” I salute the AP’s unorthodox afirmative action program, but they might want to assign reporters who are not developmentally disabled to write the articles accusing me of “sloppy” research and “contrived” facts.
I haven’t heard much about this “lie” since the AP article came out and normal people took the trouble to look up Friedman’s column and post it on the internet.
Drudge is hardly a credible source for gossip, let alone actual news. I don’t call him the Dumpster Diver for nothing…
Wildcat
Adam Schwartz,
If they were being screwed and got that fixed, more power to them. I still feel tere is very little market for liberal radio. If there was, there would have been some success stories by now.
As far as “they’re stronger than ever”, well, they’ve been on the air less than three weeks, so what does that really say, exactly?
Also, if it takes scandal to make people aware they’re on the air, well then they’re in even bigger trouble than I thought.
[i]”I still feel tere is very little market for liberal radio.”[/i]
“Conservative” radio has a market of, what, 30% of the population at best? The rest of the country tunes out because from our POV, talk radio tends to be negative and hate-filled. For whatever reason, station managers have been blind to that other 70%, or at least the large portion of that that aren’t satisfied with NPR. That’s hardly a “little market.”
[i]”If there was, there would have been some success stories by now.”[i]
Randi Rhodes was #1 in her market — during Rush’s time slot. Clear Channel hired her away, gave her a different air time, and vowed to *never* syndicate her. She continues to host the #1 show in that market in South Florida, across the board.
Mike Malloy was #1 across all demographics as well, at WLS in Chicago, pulling higer ratings than anyone else, even at his own station, including Rush and Laura. ABC fired him because they didn’t like his politics. His new employer, IA America, failed not because of it’s own viewpoint, but because it’s owners (the UAW) were abject failures at promoting *any* radio format.
There are others in other markets that are faring well. You don’t hear about them mainly because the people who own and run the networks tend to lean right and don’t *want* to promote a viewpoint that contradicts their own, even if it *is* profitable.
Wildcat
“I still feel tere is very little market for liberal radio.”
“Conservative” radio has a market of, what, 30% of the population at best? The rest of the country tunes out because from our POV, talk radio tends to be negative and hate-filled. For whatever reason, station managers have been blind to that other 70%, or at least the large portion of that that aren’t satisfied with NPR. That’s hardly a “little market.”
“If there was, there would have been some success stories by now.”
Randi Rhodes was #1 in her market — during Rush’s time slot. Clear Channel hired her away, gave her a different air time, and vowed to *never* syndicate her. She continues to host the #1 show in that market in South Florida, across the board.
Mike Malloy was #1 across all demographics as well, at WLS in Chicago, pulling higer ratings than anyone else, even at his own station, including Rush and Laura. ABC fired him because they didn’t like his politics. His new employer, IA America, failed not because of it’s own viewpoint, but because it’s owners (the UAW) were abject failures at promoting *any* radio format.
There are others in other markets that are faring well. You don’t hear about them mainly because the people who own and run the networks tend to lean right and don’t *want* to promote a viewpoint that contradicts their own, even if it *is* profitable.
Wildcat
Mods — please delete the *first* of my duplicate posts (and this as well) — I hit the wrong button somewhere. 😛
Wildcat,
First, you claim that coservative talk radio serves “30% of the market” at best. Heck, shrink that to 15% to exclude children and the rest of the country that doesn’t vote, anf that’s still 45 million people. And if the other alleged 70% really wanted liberal talk radio, there would be a success story to fill thre gap
Wildcat,
Two more things :
1.) The people who own the networks lean right? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight! We can have a full-fledged ebate about this. But for now, let’s say i feel you are mistaken.
2.) Even if the heads of networks WERE right-leaning, you really are suggesting a cut-their-nose-off-to-spite-their-face attitude being prevalent if you really feel they would forgo profits for ANT reason. That is what they are in business for!
Take Rupert Murdoch. He is described by those who know him as liberal. His network, FOX, has produced irreverent fare ranging from “The Simpsons” to “Married With Children”. Yet when he bought The New York Post, he realized that what was killing it (and The New York Daily News, which along with the Post filed for bankruptcy in the ’90s) was that it was serving the same liberal-leaning readers as the Daily News, The New York Times, Newsday and The Village Voice. NO ONE was offering a point of view that was more to the right. He did so – not because of ideology -but because it was good business. He started FOX News for the same reason – to offer a different point of view and serve viewers who were unhappy with the liberal leanings of CNN, Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, etc.
Successful businesspeople don’t look down at the opportunity to make a profit.
Wildcat,
I also find it almost amusing that you refer to talk-radio as “negative and hate-filled”. Why? Because you don’t like what they say. I can give you some examples from Philly talk-show hosts that would have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like s–tcanned if they said analagous things. Which is probably a big reason “local liberal legends” don’t become nationwide success stories.
Further, I don’t recall a Republican president blaming a national tragedy on liberal talk show hosts, like President Clinton did in the aftermath of the oklahoma city bombing, when he practically accused rush limbaugh of being the chief culprit.
Clinton unleashed all the typical liberal curse words for conservatives. He blamed “loud and angry voices” heard “over the airwaves in America” that were making people “paranoid” and spreading “hate”. Clinton couldn’t have been more specific if he had referred to “that guy Al Franken called a big fat idiot.”
It was perfectly clear for example to Dan Rather, who said, “President Clinton named no names, but made it clear who’s talking that talk.” it was also aparently clear to Bryant Gumbel, who made the very same point on the “Today” show. Gumbel said: The bombing in Oklahoma city has focused renewed attention on the rhetoric that’s been coming from the right…Right-wing talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Bob Grant, Oliver north, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan and others take to the air every day with basically the same format: detail a problem, blaming the government or a group, and invite invective from like-minded people. never do most of the radio hosts encourage outright violence, but the extent to which their attitudes may embolden and encourage some extremists has clearly become an issue.”
In a story in the Roanoke Times & World News titled “Conservatives Should own Up to Their Share Of The Blame”, Peter S. Fosl compared “Rush limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and other conservative media personalities” to “the hutu broadcasters who urged on Rwandan militias in their deadly business.”
What was that about hate-filled?
Randi Rhodes was #1 in her market — during Rush’s time slot. Clear Channel hired her away, gave her a different air time, and vowed to *never* syndicate her. She continues to host the #1 show in that market in South Florida, across the board.
Uh, Wildcat…the point of getting into radio is syndication. Were it me, and my station vowed to NEVER syndicate me, come contract time, I’d flee at TOP SPEED. I don’t think I’d call being a #1 show in a distressed market like South Florida much to crow about either, but your mileage may vary…
Also, if it takes scandal to make people aware they’re on the air, well then they’re in even bigger trouble than I thought.
Well, it’s called a “scandal” for good reason.
You know, like Halliburton stealing millions from the American people being scandal.
Too bad that one still hasn’t gotten enough attnetion.
You know I love the way that so many liberals are soooo obsessed over Halliburton, yet then ignore the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, in which the almighty U.N. not only looked the other way at Saddam taking money meant to be used for food and medicine and other humanitarian needs meant for the Iraqi people but many of it’s members, including France – those paragons of virtue, especially if the virtue is appeasement and/or hypocrisy – and Russia. Oh and Kofi “Iraq is a country I can do business with – Annan and/or his son.
The fact that they were getting money in a scheme that was literally taking food out of Iraqis’ (while coddling a dictator) mouths wouldn’t have ANYTHING to do with Chirac’s and Putin’s and Annan’s fierce opposition to the war, would it?
No,because that would totally obliterate the argument that we need ta “permission slip” from the all-holy U.N. to do anything and the approval of our all-important “allies”.
Maybe that’s why it hasn’t been reported more. We want to make sure they like us.
So we’ll harp on the ONE instance of halliburton overcharging instead.
Hey, it’s no fun to bash Saddam, France, Russia, Annan, or the corrupt United Nations for taking food out of babies’ mouths.
It’s so much more fun obviously for the liberal media to bash the U.S. and the Bush administration.
Hey, it’s no fun to bash Saddam, France, Russia, Annan, or the corrupt United Nations for taking food out of babies’ mouths.
Actually, there’s been quite alot of bashing of the French all around.
You can tell how bad it’s gotten by the amount of whining their gov’t has been doing the past few months.
But then, I don’t think the oil-for-food program was mentioned once during the “diplomacy” leading up to the war in Iraq.
It was obviously a non-issue to the administration, along with everything else.
Actually, Craig, it was a non-issue because it did not come to light until after the invasion when the details were found in Iraqi records.
Jerome, with all due respect, if you use the term “permission slip” or “all-holy U.N.” one more dámņ time I’m going to find you and thwack you on the nose with a thesaurus.
You’re having fun here cackling away with your straw men, but I’d like you, just this once, to find even one instance where I, or Karen, or Craig, or even anyone in the so-called “liberal media” you so decry, has used either of the above phrases in a serious way.
I can’t speak for Craig or Karen, but I’m not fond of the oil-for-food situation at all. I am, however, perfectly willing to admit that the U.N. is flawed. Everything is flawed — every person, every leader, every institution. Of course there’s occasional corruption. Of course nobody acts as a perfect individual at all times.
The idea of the U.N. is a solid one and one I’ll back to the hilt. The reality rarely lives up to the ideal, of course.
Unlike you, it seems, I can say that without thinking it somehow invalidates my whole argument. It’s the current administration that never admits error, never admits to second thoughts, never takes any position than “we’re always right and you’re unpatriotic dangerous fools for thinking otherwise.” Those of us hoping for a change of administrations don’t think our side’s remotely perfect — just an overwhelming improvement.
The only public individual who’s claimed this is about a “permission slip” is the flightsuit-in-chief you’re so fond of parroting.
Could you give it a rest now?
TWL, feeling a tad exasperated at one-note arguments
Besides, I thought Dubya was claiming UN Resolution 1441 gave him the “permission slip” you’re saying he didn’t need, from “the all-holy UN”? Or do we only remember that one when it’s convenient to recall our alliances and treaties, and ignore it when we’re posturing in Reaganesque cowboy fashion, claiming it’s all about the “War on Terror”?
Take Rupert Murdoch. He is described by those who know him as liberal.
Vast majority of his campaign contributions were to Republicans from 2000-2004 (85-90%). He’s given some amounts to Kerry and to Markey (though I believe Markey is a leading figure in the telecommunications committee).
Contributions to Specter, McCain, Sunnunu, the Republican National State Elections Committee, etc. are not that much of hallmark for a liberal.
The idea of the U.N. is a solid one and one I’ll back to the hilt.
To me, the UN is nothing more than a forum for debate on the world level.
They have no power, no authority, and they aren’t willing to get their hands dirty.
To me, the UN is nothing more than a forum for debate on the world level. They have no power, no authority, and they aren’t willing to get their hands dirty.
And yet, if anyone ever tries to give them authority or power, or if they ever consider getting their hands dirty, militia groups start screaming about loss of national sovereignty, “world government!” and black helicopters. (And that’s not to mention the fundamentalists who believe a world government is written in stone in Revelation as a major sign of the apocalypse.)
Seems a bit of a no-win scenario for ’em. If they try to act, nations get paranoid; if they decide not to, they’re dismissed as irrelevant.
Where’s a John Sheridan when you need one? 🙂
TWL
And yet, if anyone ever tries to give them authority or power, or if they ever consider getting their hands dirty, militia groups start screaming about loss of national sovereignty, “world government!” and black helicopters.
You mean like the United States does? 🙂
The EU seems to be having some success, although they don’t have the military to do anything.
Seems a bit of a no-win scenario for ’em.
Again, I think it hinges alot on our gov’t playing nice and fair.
It’s something the Bush Administration hasn’t done and doesn’t intend to do from the look of things.
Tim,
With all due respect, if you feel exasperated over my citing “permission slips” and calling the U.N. “all holy”, how do you think I feel, for the past year:
1.) Listening to people who have nothing else to say – Karen, Craig and yourself and many posters here excluded – use the phrase/slogan “No Blood for Oil” and “No War For Oil” when many have stated it would be a lot easier politically to simply
a.) Make a deal with Russia or the rest of OPEC or, heck, even drill more in Texas or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to get more oil. (I don’t support drilling in the ANWR, by the way. We would lose too much for what we could possibly gain.) Heck, WE could have made a secret deal with saddam, and that still would be a heck of a lot less risky politically – and weigh a lot less on the Administration’s conscience than sending our sons and daughters off to war.
b.)Hear virtually every single Democratic candidate and Hillary Clinton and Walter Cronkite and on and on never elaborate on what is wrong with the policy, but just state that “we need to work with the United Nations”. Edwards was just saying that the other day. Kerry has not offered a visionary alternate plan on Iraq, just that “the United Nations should be involved.”
You know, I would have more respect for people making these arguments if they said something like “acting unilaterally goes against not only 225+ years of foreign policy but everything this country is supposed to stand for.”
That is an important, credible and thought-provoking argument. It’s why I struggled with this all the months leading up to our actual invasion a year ago. I knew the evidence wasn’t 100% obvious for WMD, and i knew if we did strike preemptively in this instance, there would be no turning back. Not just in the near future but ever. But then I weighed that against the credibility of people like Powell and the possible consequences if we did not act. People who know me were wondering why I was so silent on the matter. They all expected me to be going “Rah!Rah! Go Bush! God Bless USA! And I had to remind them that this wasn’t a football game, and that I was very torn over what we should do.
c.) Hear about how the U.N. represents an ideal. Well, we do too, don’t we? yet the same people who seem to have no faith in the Administration – or even America in general – are willing to give the U.N. the benefit of the doubt and allow decisions about our security to be made by others. as you said, you can always vote out Bush, and put Kerry, Nader or whoever you want in his place if you don’t agree with U.S. policy. You have control. How do you make your voice heard if we eventually do cede our sovereignty to the U.N.?
And while ir may represent an ideal, the reality is WAY different. Even BEFORE the current scandal, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan called the U.N. “a theater of the absurd, a decomposing corpse and an insane asylum”. And jeane kirkpatrick characterized it as “nothing more than the executive committee of the Third World dictatorships”.
Why do people feel more strongly that this corrupt body has more a chance of working than the administration’s plans for the Mideast? One has proven to be a failure for decades.
d.) Hear about Halliburton at every turn, yet someone very intelligent who I respect when asked about the Oil-For-Food Scandal said she had not heard about it. Neither is right. But the oil-for-food scandal is as if money given to the red cross were being diverted to someone like Donald Trump. The idea that the institution and purpose are supposed to be moral and noble is what makes it so sick and disgusting.
But Craig even showed a lack of understanding of the situation by saying the scandal wasn’t the reason stated for going there.
No, because it would not have been uncovered if we did not invade, for one thing.
And again, the Administration has been bashed for its motives relentlessly. At least partially because France and Russia did not support us. The fact that they may have had ulterior motives themselves which involve benefitting from the betrayal of others should be at least equally disturbing. Yet very few are even mentioning it. Not even Fox is giving it that much attention.
That’s all.
Tim,
With all due respect, if you feel exasperated over my citing “permission slips” and calling the U.N. “all holy”, how do you think I feel, for the past year:
(much deleted)
That’s not the issue, and it’s to some extent dishonest for you to try and make it such.
Sure, you’re perfectly justified in objecting to one or another argument, as vociferously as you see fit.
My point, which I believe I made fairly clearly last time, is that the “permission slips” phrase — not just the argument, but THAT EXACT PHRASE — is about all that you’ve posted here in the last week.
[Shatner]
It. Gets. Tiresome.
[/Shatner]
You’re also being somewhat disingenuous here because the arguments you’re citing as ones that exasperate you are NOT ones we’ve been routinely making — you even go out of your way to say “many posters here excluded”.
I, on the other hand, am talking explicitly about points YOU are making over and over and over. There’s a distinct lack of symmetry here.
In other words — if you start making more varied arguments that show some indication of listening to what we actually say, I’ll be happy to listen. Until then, you’re basically just on an endless rant, and that’s not something I find particularly conducive to conversation no matter whether I agree with the points made or not. (As an example, about a dozen threads back I explicitly pointed out that you were avoiding a whole ton of questions, and you said “okay, I’ll addressed them” and then went off on another unrelated rant and never did anything of the kind. That’s not behavior that makes people want to continue talking with you.)
Out of courtesy, however, I’ll address those of your points I think are relevant in another post in a little while. (I’m running off to a meeting shortly, so it may be a bit.)
TWL
Okay … back now. As promised, I wanted to address some of Jerome’s questions.
#1 — given that I don’t believe I’ve ever used the phrase “No Blood/War for Oil”, I’ll let someone else to whom it IS applicable answer.
#2 —
Hear virtually every single Democratic candidate and Hillary Clinton and Walter Cronkite and on and on never elaborate on what is wrong with the policy, but just state that “we need to work with the United Nations”. Edwards was just saying that the other day. Kerry has not offered a visionary alternate plan on Iraq, just that “the United Nations should be involved.”
How many alternate plans did George W. Bush have in April of 2000? I think you’re asking for something unrealistic here — seven months before the election, candidates rarely if ever have detailed plans, visionary or otherwise. The last person I can think of who did have an overwhelmingly detailed plan was Clinton’s economic plan in ’92, and last I checked that didn’t go far to impress you.
At the moment, the operative argument from Kerry et al. is “we did this so unilaterally that we’ve pìššëd øff all our allies.” I think that’s a valid debating point, and while I agree that we should hear arguments of what they’d do instead, I don’t know that we should be expecting to hear them right now.
(Besides, I’d also postulate that were Kerry to offer a detailed plan now, he’d be accused of not supporting the president in a time of war, not letting politics end at the water’s edge and all that. Not necessarily by you, but that argument’s certainly been made before on both sides.)
In an ideal world, any given debate would be about nothing but that. Debate #1 — what to do about Iraq, with as many details as possible. Debate #2 — detailed economic plans. Debate #3 — detailed ideas about Al-Qaeda and terrorism. Etc. etc. I don’t think there’s even one chance in a million that we’ll get that series of substantive debates, but it’s what I’d like to see.
As an aside — Cronkite? The man’s been out of public life for two decades except for the occasional newspaper column. Why mention him? (I know, I know, he’s a liberal gasbag who singlehandedly demoralized 200 million people during Vietnam, or so you’ve argued. That doesn’t mean he’s got influence now, even if I accepted your point.)
You know, I would have more respect for people making these arguments if they said something like “acting unilaterally goes against not only 225+ years of foreign policy but everything this country is supposed to stand for.”
I have made that argument, here and elsewhere. I made it about the war. I made it about the Patriot Act. I made it about Ashcroft’s theocracy-in-training.
I agree with you that it’s an important argument. I maintain it’s one that’s being made, here and elsewhere.
Frankly, the argument was pretty well stated by Bush himself back in 2000, when he said in one of the debates that we should be a humble nation and not an arrogant one. He was absolutely dead on, and I wish he’d listened to that later on.
Even without arguments based on principles, however, arrogant unilateralism is seriously flawed on practical grounds as well. No civilization remains top dog on the planet forever. Rome fell. The British Empire faded. So, eventually, will we — and if we’ve been doing nothing with our power but throwing our weight around and swaggering, there will be nations lined up three deep to kick us once we’re down. Simple prudence suggests that maybe we should try a different approach than the one we’ve got.
#3:
Hear about how the U.N. represents an ideal. Well, we do too, don’t we?
Not in the same sense that I mean it, no. Frankly, I don’t think a two-party representative system is an ideal form of government: I’d prefer a well-informed Athenian democracy, myself.
My saying that the UN represents an ideal, however, is in no way trying to give it or any institution the benefit of the doubt. In some ways, it’s a flowery way of saying I’m an internationalist — but overall, what it’s saying is that I think a single, unified world government with different nationalities acting in common cause is a more stable, more open, and more long-lasting one than a set of nation-states struggling for dominance.
As a result, yes, I have a substantial bias in favor of building and supporting long-term alliances, and against unilateral action in the face of overwhelming opposition. It’s a bias that can be superseded under the right conditions, but given two otherwise equal actions I’ll take the multilateral one over the unilateral one every time.
That’s what I meant by the UN representing an ideal. I said nothing about its current structure, its current leadership, or its current policies, and I apologize if you were led to believe otherwise.
as you said, you can always vote out Bush, and put Kerry, Nader or whoever you want in his place if you don’t agree with U.S. policy. You have control. How do you make your voice heard if we eventually do cede our sovereignty to the U.N.?
I’ve already ceded my personal sovereignty in having a government that can control my actions in any way whatsoever. As for national sovereignty … frankly, I’d like us to move away from it. Nationalism, particularly the hyper-patriotic kind, creates a lot more problems than it resolves.
Thus, I frankly don’t have any concerns about having my voice heard. I think a well-run UN is at least as likely to listen to an average citizen’s concerns than a well-run federal government — and the current administration is not exactly fostering my faith in either.
#4 — given that I believe I’ve mentioned Halliburton once in the past six months, this isn’t my question. Someone else can address your exasperation at this one.
There, now. Reasoned? Substantive? I hope so.
TWL
Tim,
Reasoned? Substantive? Definitely.
I have to run. More to follow.