Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (10262)	1/29/2006 3:18:01 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542056

Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush informationclearinghouse.info By Paul Craig Roberts* 01/29/06 "ICH" -- -- Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information. Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration. Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio are the worst, but with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism, all of the media is affected to some degree. Despite the media's failure, about half the population has managed to discern that the US invasion of Iraq has not made them safer and that the Bush administration's assault on civil liberties is not a necessary component of the war on terror. The problem, thus, lies with the absence of due diligence on the part of the other half of the population. Consider the New York Times/CBS poll. Sixty-four percent of the respondents have concerns about losing civil liberties as a result of anti-terrorism measures put in place by President Bush. Yet, 53 percent approve of spying without obtaining court warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism." Why does any American think that spying without a warrant has any more effect in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Bush is disobeying, requires the executive to obtain from a secret panel of federal judges a warrant for spying on Americans. The purpose of the law is to prevent a president from spying for partisan political reasons. The law permits the president to spy first (for 72 hours) and then come to the court for permission. As the court meets in secret, spying without a warrant is no more effective in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant. Instead of explaining this basic truth, the media has played along with the Bush administration and formulated the question as a trade-off between civil liberties and protection from terrorists. This formulation is false and nonsensical. Why does the media enable the Bush administration to escape accountability for illegal behavior by putting false and misleading choices before the people? The LA Times/Bloomberg poll has equally striking anomalies. Only 43 percent said they approved of Bush's performance as president. But a majority believe Bush's policies have made the US more secure. It is extraordinary that anyone would think Americans are safer as a result of Bush invading two Muslim countries and constantly threatening two more with military attack. The invasions and threats have caused a dramatic swing in Muslim sentiment away from the US. Prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq, a large majority of Muslims had a favorable opinion of America. Now only about 5 percent do. A number of US commanders in Iraq and many Middle East experts have told the American public that the three year-old war in Iraq is serving both to recruit and to train terrorists for al Qaeda, which has grown many times its former size. Moreover, the US military has concluded that al Qaeda has succeeded in having its members elected to the new Iraqi government. We have seen similar developments both in Egypt and in Pakistan. In the recent Egyptian elections, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, despite being suppressed by the Egyptian government, won a large number of seats. In Pakistan elements friendly or neutral toward al Qaeda control about half of the government. In Iraq, Bush's invasion has replaced secular Sunnis with Islamist Shia allied with Iran. And now with the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian election, we see the total failure of Bush's Middle Eastern policy. Bush has succeeded in displacing secular moderates from Middle Eastern governments and replacing them with Islamic extremists. It boggles the mind that this disastrous result makes Americans feel safer! What does it say for democracy that half of the American population is unable to draw a rational conclusion from unambiguous facts? Americans share this disability with the Bush administration. According to news reports, the Bush administration is stunned by the election victory of the radical Islamist Hamas Party, which swept the US-financed Fatah Party from office. Why is the Bush administration astonished? The Bush administration is astonished because it stupidly believes that hundreds of millions of Muslims should be grateful that the US has interfered in their internal affairs for 60 years, setting up colonies and puppet rulers to suppress their aspirations and to achieve, instead, purposes of the US government. Americans need desperately to understand that 95 percent of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the past three years by Bush's invasion of Iraq. Americans need desperately to comprehend that if Bush attacks Iran and Syria, as he intends, terrorism will explode, and American civil liberties will disappear into a thirty year war that will bankrupt the United States. The total lack of rationality and competence in the White House and the inability of half of the US population to acquire and understand information are far larger threats to Americans than terrorism. America has become a rogue nation, flying blind, guided only by ignorance and hubris. A terrible catastrophe awaits. ________________________________ *Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

To: JohnM who wrote (10262)	1/29/2006 3:30:33 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542056

Ted Koppel Pens First Piece as 'NY Times' Columnist--Comes Out Swinging editorandpublisher.com By E&P Staff Published: January 29, 2006 12:45 AM ET NEW YORK - In his first contribution after being named a New York Times columnist, former ABC newsman Ted Koppel declares, "I cannot help but see that the industry in which I have spent my entire adult life is in decline and in distress." Koppel raps the new "calculated subjectivity" and forced empathy of cable news, and adds: "The accusation that television news has a political agenda misses the point. Right now, the main agenda is to give people what they want. It is not partisanship but profitability that shapes what you see." But his view is that journalists "should be telling their viewers what is important, not the other way around. " In a surprise conclusion, he suggests that perhaps rather than aiming news shows at the disinterested younger segment, the networks should focus on serving older consumers who actually are interested in serious news. (Is there a lesson for newspapers here?) The goal for the traditional broadcast networks now "is to identify those segments of the audience considered most desirable by the advertising community and then to cater to them," Koppel writes. "Most television news programs are therefore designed to satisfy the perceived appetites of our audiences. That may be not only acceptable but unavoidable in entertainment; in news, however, it is the journalists who should be telling their viewers what is important, not the other way around. "Indeed, in television news these days, the programs are being shaped to attract, most particularly, 18-to-34-year-old viewers. They, in turn, are presumed to be partly brain-dead — though not so insensible as to be unmoved by the blandishments of sponsors. "Most particularly on cable news, a calculated subjectivity has, indeed, displaced the old-fashioned goal of conveying the news dispassionately. But that, too, has less to do with partisan politics than simple capitalism." Koppel knocks CNN's new emphasis on journalism-by-empathy, and observes: "Even Fox News's product has less to do with ideology and more to do with changing business models... "Now, television news should not become a sort of intellectual broccoli to be jammed down our viewers' unwilling throats. We are obliged to make our offerings as palatable as possible. But there are too many important things happening in the world today to allow the diet to be determined to such a degree by the popular tastes of a relatively narrow and apparently uninterested demographic.... "If the network news divisions cannot be convinced that their future depends on attracting all demographic groups, then perhaps, at least, they can be persuaded to aim for the largest single demographic with the most disposable income — one that may actually have an appetite for serious news. That would seem like a no-brainer."

To: JohnM who wrote (10262)	1/29/2006 10:28:43 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542056

Wish I could just devote my time to reading several books now, John, but I can't squeeze it in....so will have to rely on both/several sides of issues and decide that way, then maybe pick one or two books as it gets closer to election 2006 and 2008. I do pass peruse several SI threads for that reason. No one could read that many newspapers, or books, or magazines, and there is enough variety and degrees of the political spectrum to at least see what is new... Right now am heavy into doing some original research on an unsung large family group with lots of ties in the west and who are ultimately connected to several of the founders of this country. These folks settled and accomplished so much, I'm really surprised their stories haven't been told before, as a book in and of itself. At first, didn't think I had a "pony in the race" and was a bit reluctant to get heavy into it...but something kept nudging me forward! Talking to another researcher today, and had a big AH HA....told her who I'd wish would write the book that must be written.... She said she got chills, and said quietly, "you are so right....he would be perfect for this project." So we'll see. Plus the 101 things I always get involved in, including a wedding for a son in a few weeks... Longwinded, I know, but even though you and I don't agree on some things (Chomsky for instance, and probably not Ramsey Clark nor George Soros either <ggg>), I do appreciate your thoughts. On the last note of mine >> mean knowledgeable in real 'boots on the ground' knowledge << ... I should amend that to say that IF the people who are making policy and other decisions have actually had their boots on the ground by "signing on the dotted line, with their careers in jeporardy if they are wrong"..then of course they would count as "boots on the ground"..... We have WAY too many people in government at all sorts of levels who are there to collect a pay check, who make decisions, and who have absolutely no accountability. This is wrong IMO. Bush or Clinton, or whatever person is President is supposedly responsible for all of the KAZILLION people in the Government AND their actions....(Look at the headlines S2 posts for instance..."Bush does this...Bush flubs that," etc etc).... When we get right down to it, WHO is the person who actually did whatever it was???? THe President takes the fall for all the KAZILLION people working there, and most of those are the 9-5'ers with no accountability. SO IF they work for the Government, as Clarke did, then they should be responsible for what they do (or DON'T do) or say.... just as much as the President and his cabinet, etc. Clarke was in the Clinton Adm, at a high enough level, and should have had more than a little inkling that there was trouble brewing, rather than waiting till 9-11 to say..."oops"