[threadbear]

Henry K. Liu has written a couple of essays here that deserve perusal. I read a lot of left versus right stuff on this board. It's fair up to a point, but past that you're just supporting one team or another in the same baseball league.

The neocons get blasted for presenting a more honest and ugly face to the world, but neoliberals, are as much of a driving force behind the trashing of the world, based on a very narrow interpretation of free market and free trade philosophy.

If I have to suffer through one more republican rant, I'm going to scream. It's like these people are walking up and down the street with a sandwich board on, advertizing "I don't read" and then dispensing philosophy about what's wrong with the world. Then they start jabbering on about Clinton being evil, and the neo-cons being great. It's like being dragged into a tard-fest. If you don't read, please don't respond to this post.

Henry Liu--Asia Times

Financial-capital growth is to be served at the expense of human-capital growth. Sound money, undiluted by inflation, is to be achieved by keeping wages low through structural unemployment. Pockets of poverty in the periphery are the necessary price for prosperous centers. Such dogmas grant unemployment and poverty, conditions of economic disaster, undeserved conceptual respectability. State intervention has come to focus mainly on reducing the market power of labor in favor of capital in a blatantly predatory market mechanism.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj01.html

[marek]

I have come to the conclusion that the conservative-liberal distinction has to a large extent become irrelevant. Of course, to the unaware majority of the population, "issues" consist of the presence or absence of gun control, etc. Neither side of the (narrowly defined, in the US anyway) political spectrum is willing to address potential resource wars, the worsening current account deficit, the pathetically low saving rate (and the consequent dependence on Chinese financial capital), the criminality of "disappearing" government money (HUD, DOD among others) and other pressing issues. To me, the two-party system has become degenerate.

[AlCzervik]

As scary as it is, I have been agreeing lately with a lot of what Pat Buchanan says on the issue of U.S. imperialism. Threadbear, perhaps Republicans will take note if they see that such a traditionally staunch "conservative" as Pat Buchanan is criticizing U.S. foreign policy. Anyway, this is an article which essentially sums up what he said on Meet the Press this morning.
Is Bush Misdiagnosing The Malady?
Here is the Meet the Press transcript.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6954712/

[threadbear]

I've heard Pat Buchanan and he is sounding scarily sympatico. You've got that right.
Marek, The two party system has definitely become a theatrical device. Hell, Bush and Kerry are just actors, when you think about it.

[maverickdoc]

I've heard Pat Buchanan and he is sounding scarily sympatico. You've got that right.
Marek, The two party system has definitely become a theatrical device. Hell, Bush and Kerry are just actors, when you think about it.

How did Buchanan scare you?

[threadbear]

Buchanan is a bit of a demagogue. (Hope I spelled that right, after being such a snob about people who don't read)

That's a bit scary to me. He seems to me to be socially conservative to the point of being back in the middle ages and yet he says a lot of the right things, in other areas. Given a choice between Buchanan and Bush, I'd take Buchanan, but it would turn into a much different looking world, particularly for Canadians.

His stance on free trade, like Lou Dobbs, appears to be just common sense, but I worry what the immediate impact would be on the US and the world, if rigid protectionism was enacted --too quickly.

[Specop_007]

Food for thought, although I can say theres certainly no suprises there.

Click

[Ludi]

"Liberal media" - Ha ha ha!

[Macsporan]

Get a life, Specop: preferably in the army defending your country against the Muslim Terror.

Explain to us all why you haven't joined up yet.

It never ceases to amuse.

[NEOPO]

Yes it is hard to be unbiased and thats what we want from our reporters isnt it?

To be unbiased and really kinda not human.
We want news reporting machines but when we get them we will only believe that the machines have been hacked!!!!

And if these folks are normally liberal does that make it wrong?

Perhaps by seeing all the news all the time its easy for them to see just how idiotic the right and even the left has been.

Are you a christian/catholic Spe???
If so I would love to wax long on the subject with you.
I will warn you though that I am armed to the fucking teeth with knowledge from my experiences with the comparative study of religion - self study that is - as only one can learn the truth from within.

Are you against abortion Spe?
I have that personal story of abortion which i am sure that you have read.
Even after all that I still support a womans right to choose.
Its logic man not my preconceived notion of whats right - pure and simple logic.

Are you for tax cuts for the rich and do you believe in "trickle down" economics Spe?
I would equally like to discuss the ills of reagenism and bushism if you have time.
We can draw upon vast records,charts and data to see exactly what each side has done when in office.

In the end I am neither republican nor democrat.
Neither liberal nor conservative.

I dont know why I even ask you anything as its clear how you feel by the stupid shit you post.
If I was like the many I would have you on ignore yet I cannot bring myself to do it...... as I know......... ignorance is not bliss.

[Heineken]

Specop: There is a liberal media, but it is tiny. In reality, five giant corporations control 95% of the news received by the American sheeple. So really we have a corporate media. You can, I hope, realize who the corporate media serve. Today's Americans receive as filtered and distorted a view of what's really going on as the citizens of the former Soviet Empire did.

Early every morning, the corporate media receive their marching orders on the "themes of the day" from the White House Office of Misinformation.

"Liberal media" is just another meaningless propaganda label.

For a clue, read "The Sorrows of Empire," by former CIA analyst Chalmers Johnson.

[Jack]

Interesting point, Specop.

Since the public gets much of their information through the media filter, their perceptions will be distorted accordingly. This will probably result in calls for governmental subsidies to mitigate the effects of Peak Oil on the poor, thus delaying demand destruction.

So, it may well imply a deferred hard-crash scenario. Still, optimist that I am, I'm keeping my doomer level at 5.25.

[Ketzl]

Spec_Cop's URL is to a Media Research Center poll about how the media is biased towards liberalism because a lot of people in media are liberals.

Could it be that the Media Research Center's polls are biased towards conservatism because the MRC was founded specifically to find liberal bias in the media?

About the Media Research Center

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed Media Research Center (MRC).

Pot, kettle.

[seahorse]

Reagonomics? Trickle Down? The common man knows that the only thing that "trickles down" is shit. Shit rolls downhill, not money.

"liberal" is just a word without context. For example, Limbaugh does not believe in peak oil, SpecOp does. So, Limbaugh would call SpecOp a "liberal" because only the environmental wackos believe the "liberal media hype" of peak oil.

[Carlhole]

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free

1 : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
2 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
3 a : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.

[linlithgowoil]

Even after all that I still support a womans right to choose.

Its all warm and cuddly when you call it that isnt it? Its almost like treating abortion as some kind of 'consumer lifestyle choice' that you bleeding heart liberals are always frothing at the mouth about.

I find it fascinating how people who support abortion go out of their way to make sure they do not refer to the baby as a person, simply because they can't see them yet. Therefore, 1 day before birth people who support abortion do not think the baby is a person/human yet. Its laughable really isnt it? And it reveals a darker underlying truth that gnaws away at abortion supporters... they KNOW its wrong, and they KNOW that an innocent child has been murdered, but as long as they refer to the child as a foetus (little one), then its ok. Style over substance as usual. Lets just ignore the fact that a lot of women have terrible feelings of guilt after the event... why would that be? You know why it is... they have just murdered their own child who was relying on their mother to safely carry them for 9 months, the Child didnt do anything and didnt ask to be created, at least give them the respect they deserve.

[Ketzl]

Oh goody, now it's an abortion debate.

[Teclo]

specop would love north korean style news presenting. its not liberal at all

[deconstructionist]

Oh goody, now it's an abortion debate.

yeah, really... let's not go there...

Who owns the media. Many reporters may be liberal. Some editors may be liberal too. However, editors report to higher ups in the company who report to higher and higher ups until eventually you get to, as has been mentioned, one of 5 corporate boards... Not to mention, the mainstream news media--be it radio, TV, or print--is first and foremost a medium to sell advertising space... I think in calling the media liberal (and then linking to a study by an organization that was trying to come to that conclusion before they even started their research) shows that you have underestimated how far left the left really is... You want truly left-leaning media?

www.gnn.tv
www.democracynow.org
www.alternet.org (not even that far left)
www.indymedia.org
there are many many more. THESE are left leaning. the corporate news media is NOT.

--------------

i hardly see how this topic fits in current events. more like off-topic to me...

[ubercrap]

Have you ever thought that the type of people interested in journalism as a career are more likely to be "liberal", whatever the hell that is?