Friday, January 21, 2011

Hyperbole, Obsolete

Jon Stewart made one of the most brilliant points EVER last night. He said (and, yes, this was in direct response to Congressman Cohen comparing Republican talking-points on heath-care to Joseph Goebbels' great lie) that, if in fact this country ever does have to contend with an actual evil again (from its very OWN leaders, I'm saying); an Ahmadinejad, a Pol Pot, a Saddam Hussein, a Pinochet, a D'Aubuisson, a Milosevic, an Idi Amin, a Talat/Pasha, a Stalin, a Mussolini, a God-damned frigging Hitler, FOR CHRIST!, we just flat-out won't have an appropriate word for it now - this, folks, in that damned if we haven't already used up the filler of our foul/more loaded terms on lesser evil.......Pretty exemplary food for thought, no?


Rusty Shackleford said...

I've always found it quizical why liberals so freely use Nazi references. Could it be a bit Freudian?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

If I had a nickle for every time that Bush was compared to Hitler/conservatives referred to as the "Reich Wing", I would in fact be very wealthy.......But, yes, it does work both ways, Russ. Mr. Obama has also been markedly demonized.

w-dervish said...

If the fascist shoe fits...

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You don't know what fascism is, wd. Try living for a while over in North Korea.

w-dervish said...

Fascism is the merger of corporate and state interests, which is what the Republicans are all about. North Korea is a dictatorship. Maybe it's you who doesn't know what fascism is?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Once again you've fallen prey to dichotomous thinking. Communism and fascism aren't at all on opposite ends of the continuum. In many ways they're the same. And if you look at the North Korean regime, it has MANY of the characteristics of fascism; a)it's radical, b) it's authoritarian/oppressive, c) it's nationalistic, d) it rejects individualism, e) it's a single-party state, f) it's militaristic, g) it purports to have a merit-based elitism, h) it opposes modernity, i) it's violent, j) the command structure strives to be charismatic.......And, while, yes, corporatist interests often permeate these regimes, it isn't always the case - Nazism, for example.

Sue said...

Liberals use Nazi references?? Rusty darling, check out the teabagger rally signs!

Beach Bum said...

I have to agree with WD and Sue on this one Will. While the republicans are NOT practicing actual fascism there are clearly under currents of it in some factions.

What tipped the balance for me was Teabagger elements who brought assault weapons to political rallies. If you read a little history Brown Shirts started with not to dissimilar tactics.

anonymous said...

Communism and fascism aren't at all on opposite ends of the continuum.

Umm will, HISTORY begs to differ;

Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were the most famous fascist dictators in history,

All three fought against Communism tooth and nail,

In fact thew Spanish civil war was between the fascists led by Franco, backed by Germany and Italy against the communists.

The very real political battles late 20's early 30's in Germany was actually between the Nazis Lead by Hitler and the Communists/Socialists.

Hindenburg might have been president however the reichstag was split between the Nazis and Left leaning parties. Violence used by the SA against the left leaning parties during this turbulent period in Germany's history, lays bare the lies of the right in this country that the two are interchangeable.

After the Jewish people the next largest number of people actually killed in Nazi Germany were communists, not to mention how Hitler treated the Russians (both civilian and captured military) because they were communists.

In fact American Industrialists like Henry Ford and the head of GM were for Hitler in the 30's PRECIOUSLY because of his anti-communist rhetoric, as were other European Industrialists.

Only when he tried to dominate ALL of Europe did they turn against him.

Historical FACT;

Communism and fascism are at all on opposite ends of the continuum.

They might exploit very similar means to achieve their political ends, HOWEVER their political ends are politically diametrically opposed, no matter how illiterate the right wing and others try to be about this very real dichotomy.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'm not a fan of the tea party, either, double b (they're good at saying what they're against - but precious little positive). I just wish that my fellow critics could use some different terminology here and eliminate words such as Nazi and fascist, and names such as Hitler and Goebbels. It isn't at all helpful, in my opinion......P.S. We don't have to agree on everything, double b. As long as we agree on the chickies, everything else is gravy.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Anonymous, I said that in MANY ways they're the same - not that they were identical......There are actually differing theories on this. Yes, there's the continuum theory - a straight line in which the 2 ideologies are seen as polar opposites. Then there's the circle theory (I don't know if it's actually called that) - a theory which says that, despite the differing goals of these 2 systems, that straight line at some point gets bent and the 2 eventually meet (this, in that they share such traits as authoritarianism, statism/a rejection of the individual, one party rule, etc.).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

P.S. You can add Joe Kennedy Sr. (fired from his Ambassadorship to England by FDR) to that list of pro-Hitler Americans.

anonymous said...

in that they share such traits as authoritarianism, statism/a rejection of the individual, one party rule,

Actually corporatism is exactly that, rejects the individual for the corp. Places corporate interests ahead of human interests, profit over people if you will.

Seems the right wings VERY pro corporate political stance is what you are complaining about here will.

anonymous said...

Because in the end a very small elite controlling corporations and wall street banks end up with most of the money(which they already have), and because of Supreme court decisions which equate money with speech and give corps rights of people, real political power, which they cannot lose in death like people must. True corp power doesn't die it evolves between corporate interests, but lives on none the less. Hence a return the the old aristocracy of Europe but using corporate linage instead of human blood lines to control and transfer power. Since 1980 the path to this outcome has been a main goal of the right wing moneyed interests, IE US Chamber of Commerce, Club for Growth, Koch brothers ET AL. They have come quite close to actually achieving their goals also. Fox news is just a propaganda front in this mission, like the astro-turf movements Koch ET AL use. They talk about freedom which is actually what they are stealing all the time with pro corporate-anti consumer(IE middle class) power actions.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Your (and the others) criticisms of the Republican party certainly have validity. I would just argue (as I believe Mr. Stewart was as well) that there's a substantial degree of difference between John Boehner, say, and Pinochet, Mussolini, etc..

anonymous said...

Remember Boehner is just a convenient front man, IE he was the top dog in congress when the C of C, Fox, Rush and Koch began their propaganda campaign in 2008 after Obama won. Boehner is like Bush Jr was a nice face and voice to keep the MSM and professional; pundits busy, Cheney during Bush's fiasco was the real intellectual and operational power, like the power brokers plan 2012 and beyond.

When the time comes Boehner might be allowed to remain Speaker of the House a symbolic position in comparison to the power held by the executive which is what the right wing is actually working for;

IE Rush's comments he hopes Obama fails (even before Obama formally took the reigns of power) and McConnell's statement the republicans goal #1 is defeating Obama, NOT helping Americans dig their way out the largest economic hole since the great depression.
A hole which resulted from the right wing policies followed since the supposed revolution in 1980.

Just like the republican policies from 1920-1929 resulted in the great depression. Sorry but those polices help the very wealthy elite and hurt everyone below them. Which explains why the very wealthy have done quite well since 1980, but the rest of the country is barely treading water economically, and with the latest hit to their position are set to start sinking below their relative real position they had in 1980.

The attacks on the Depression Era safety net is just another way to make sure the elite keep the most while the rest of US citizenry deals with the problems, economic ET AL.

The unequal screeching of the moderate policies being socialists supposed from Obama and the democrats, vs the very demonstrable pro corporate policies of the GOP make me question why some claim to be so non partisan when they want to try and equate the two. No where is any proposed policy socialistic, let alone communistic, which means NO communists exists nor attempted by one side while the very real linking of corporate power with a political party pushing those goals is the essence of facsism. Small wonder the Chamber of commerce Koch Brothers, Fox News and GOP are all on the same talking point page day after day isn't it?

But nothing like it exists on the left, or center left which is where Obama and the Democratic party really lives; IE why the press reports how dissatisfied the bloggisphere of the left is with how Obama has governed.

Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich are the closest we have to left wing and they are far from Trotsky or Mao in an honest assessment of political frameworks.

The honest left represented by Norm Chomsky and Ralph Nader (no where near Trotsky either)aren't even allowed legitimacy by the right leaning corporate owned MSM.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Scaring me, man.

w-dervish said...

Too much truth for you to handle, Will?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

No, I'm just waiting for the black helicopters and President Sanders.

Voltron said...

Harland Sanders?

Rusty Shackleford said...

Looks like someone is off their meds.

anonymous said...


no one;

not will with his non sequitur,

nor voltron with his doubling down on will's non sequitur;

nor rusty with his ad hominem attack even tried to dispute the FACTS,

none of them,


Rusty Shackleford said...

Perhaps some day it will dawn on you that your rants are too idiotic to warrant any response.

But you really should get back on the meds.

anonymous said...

Not rants rusty but actual facts;

or do you deny the majority of the MSM outlets are owned by corporations,

Fox News owned by News Corp, Rupert Murdoch's corp.

NBC ET AL owned by GE but being bought by Comcast;

ABC owned by Disney;

CBS owned BY CBS Corp, a re-branding Of Viacom, with Sumner Redstone, owner of National Amusements, is CBS's majority shareholder & serves as Chairman, still in control. PS Sumner also owns the cut down version of Viacom, so more smoke and mirrors then any change of real ownership here.

CNN is owned by parent company Time Warner.

Or do you want to deny the history of Europe 1925-1935?

Do you want to actually deny the Chamber of Commerce, Koch Brothers, Fox News and GOP are all on the same talking point page day after day?

Like how much free press coverage the tea party has gotten from Fox News, and of course money from the Koch brothers through their front groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity, both groups founded and funded by Koch money.

Come on Glen Beck goes to meetings where the Koch Brothers, along with other very rich corp heads help format the strategy, which both Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas attend.

Are you wanting to claim that Norm Chomsky gets the same face time let alone respect somebody like Andrew Breitbart, Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins, Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter.

Are you claiming any thing on the left of center exists?

Like AEI did for the Bush admin?

Funny with Bush and Cheney gone they aren't the go to guys anymore.

How about some specifics instead of your usual ad hominum one liners?

PS the over blown TWO "new black panthers" from Philly don't count no matter how much Fox ET Al hump that dog.

Or is your whole act fact free?

Rusty Shackleford said...

What worries most of us is that people like you are actually walking among us without any attendents or markings.

anonymous said...

Still a fact free act eh rusty?

What is the matter too much of a liberal bias in facts for you?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Chomsky and Nader are clearly interesting (though, no, I'm not entire sure that I would use the term, honest, to describe the former) but, I'm telling you, you try putting guys like that on television and 90% of the clickers will turn to another channel.......As for this whole thing about the mainstream media (as typefied by the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS News, NBC News, NPR, Newsweek, etc.) favoring the right, I really think that we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I mean, sure, they're owned by corporations and all, but the reporters themselves are overwhelmingly Democratic leaning. Now, if you want to widen the definition of what it means to be a Conservative (as Eric Alterman did in that silly book of his)......

anonymous said...

Sorry will but as usual you posit something with NO facts to back it up.

The NYT was the go to place for the Bush Fiasco in their run up to an illegal invasion;

Judith Miller anyone?

Washington Post ET AL were just as bad,

Same thing with the ACORN lies created out of very edited video by the right wing liar James O'Keefe then peddled by Fox news, which was picked up WITH NO real investigations by those sources you seem to think are left leaning.

Sorry but the product they put up for public consumption is certainly not left leaning at all, so your attempt at positing that a person's unproven affiliation is what the corporate approved production which is released is lacks proof.

Try actually looking at the product not the messenger like rusty does all the time.

anonymous said...

(as Eric Alterman did in that silly book of his)

Seems you are the one with a very noticeable bias here will.

You again make a statement with NO facts to back it up.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You're cherry-picking. The vast number of stories (such as that hit-piece about McCain having an affair, the blatant bias in favor Obama during the election, Dan Rather doing summersaults when he initially proclaimed Gore the victor, etc., etc.) that these agencies put out markedly favor Democrats.......CNN, them I consider pretty fair.

anonymous said...

Funny will, you provide three assertions from your point of view, instead of actual verifiable facts, something most people on the right do also most of the time.


anonymous said...

Like how much money News Corp gave to the GOP and or to the Chamber of Commerce, which BTW was running a very pro GOP campaign this year, coordinated with major GOP players.

How about the free press Fox news is the future GOP presidential candidates when they have then ON THE PAYROLL?

Or the 24/7 campaign in 2009-10 for the tea party? Free press, and most of the time sending corespondents not only to cover but be live speakers.

News Corp's best-known personalities accomplish this by working hand in glove with the like-minded ideologues at Americans for Prosperity. Fox News hosts, along with Stephen Moore and fellow Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, are regular speakers at conferences sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. At the group's 2009 RightOnline conference, a third of the plenary speakers were News Corp writers and pundits, including Moore and Fund, as well as Jim Pinkerton and Michelle Malkin, who were paid Fox commentators at the time. Fox News personality John Stossel spoke against health-care reform at three rallies sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, while Sean Hannity, host of a prime-time Fox News show, live-broadcast Americans for Prosperity's 2009 Tax Day protest in Atlanta -- and the network preempted regular programming to present it. Moore and Fund also shill for the foundation's anti-regulatory "worker education" project, known as Prosperity101.


BTW there are no "liberal" orgs like these;

National Journalism Center

Founded by M. Stanton Evans, more than 1,600 alumni have graduated from NJC’s 12-week training sessions. We estimate some 900 of these work in media and media-related positions at organizations such as The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, C-SPAN, Time, Newsweek, New Yorker, Harper’s, Esquire, National Geographic, Readers’ Digest, Wired, George, Details, Stuff, Forbes, AP, UPI, Dow Jones Newswire, Bloomberg News Service, Copley News Service, Knight Ridder News Service, and hundreds more. including Anne Coulter

from the right wing pro GOP Young America's Foundation own webpage.


The Leadership Institute

The Leadership Institute’s mission is to increase the number and effectiveness of conservative activists and leaders in the public policy process.
Notable grads;

Karl Rove

Grover Norquist: President, Americans for Tax Reform

Ralph Reed: former Executive Director Christian Coalition

Funny but it seems a much more pronounced right leaning attempt to control the media, and since corporations OWN the media, it seem disingenuous to say the lean against their actual owners.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I don't think that I've ever argued that Fox News wasn't biased toward the right. They absolutely ARE and I've criticized them for it.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

There have been 11 surveys since 1962 - each of them asking mainstream journalists if they considered themselves liberal or conservative. Each time the vast % of them said that they considered themselves liberal. In 1971 it was 53-17%. In 1976 it was 59-18%. In 1985 it was 55-17%. In 1996 it was 61-9%. And in 2004 it was 34-7% (58% saying that they were "moderate".......Also, in 1982, Cal St. LA reported that 50% of journalists voted for Carter in 1980, 25% for Reagan, and 24% for Anderson. A similar study in 1985 (the LA Times) showed that 58% of journalists voted for Mondale in 1984, 26% for Reagan. NOW, one could argue that this only proves that journalists are smarter than the public. But that would beg the question, now wouldn't it.

Rusty Shackleford said...

Mouse,I'm trying to understand the point you are trying to make here so please tell me if I'm going in the wrong direction.

I gather you're saying all media,because they are owned by what you call "corporations" are constantly feeding the masses a consistant rightwing message.Is that what you're saying? If it is I think you're a bit off base.You mention some conservative groups and it seems you have a real issue with the Koch brothers and the Chamber.Thats all well and good,its america where you are more then welcome to your opinion.I just find it a bit quizical you fail to make any mention of,Media Matters,George Soros or the massive ammounts of monies donated by unions to the dems...must have slipped your mind.You make constant reference to Fox News but also fail to mention MSNBC or say David Gregory,Brian Williams,Katie,Dan Rather,Maddow,Schultz,Matthews.Yes they all work in some way for the evil "corporations" but still manage to get their left leaning message across,but here I think you dont feel they lean left,or in your opinion far enough left.
You also seem to think there should be a Chomsky network of some sort.I'm sure you would agree the vast majority of americans just outright reject Chomsky views,I mean they were popular in Moscow about 40 years ago but kind of a joke this day and age.
Liberals tried with Air America,but the fact is no one listened.They had a good idea,but it resulted in a 24/7 hate Bush screech session and people tuned out.
There is a solution for you.You could put together a "corporation" of your own,get some investors,get a license from the FCC and start a far left network.Hell,its america,land of the free,home of the can still make it here...damn man even that dweeb that started Facebook made....I'm confident you could succeed.

w-dervish said...

I listened to Air America every day. The reason AA failed isn't because there is no audience for Liberal talk radio. Most of the personalities from AA are still around.

Thom Hartmann (who was carried by AA for awhile, but jumped ship before they dissolved) has grown his audience (I should know because I am a podcast subscriber, a service I PAY for).

The Right citing AA as evidence that "nobody listened" is utter nonsense. AA didn't have a Rupert Murdoch type willing to lose money for years and years before turning a profit (as was the case with Fox News -- which lost tens of millions for YEARS before becoming profitable).

It was also poorly managed -- a fact that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people want to listen.

Rusty Shackleford said...

No one asked your opinion.

Rusty Shackleford said...

Air America:per WD

Under capitalized

Poorly managed

No customer's

Yep,liberals sure do know a lot about running a business.Air America...a perfect business school example of failure.

anonymous said...

No one asked your opinion.

How interesting, a right wing STFU to somebody using their first amendment rights

anonymous said...

I gather you're saying all media,because they are owned by what you call "corporations" are constantly feeding the masses a consistant rightwing message.

Yes but not why you posit.

What they actually do is move the 50 yard line in politics about 25 yards to the right so the supposed center in US political ideas discussed in tilted very far right BEFORE any acceptable discussion happens on the corporate owned MSM.

Also how coordinated the entire push the media to the right has been with both overt attempts like National Journalism Center and the Leadership Institute, training people to lean hard right, and Fox news Clear Channel ET AL pushing the right wing point of view. At the same time the untrue claim of a liberal bias in the media covertly pushes the idea conservatives are being unfairly treated.

The whole idea of liberal bias came from the idea reporting FACTS which looked unfavorable to the right especially the whole Nixon unconstitutional crime spree, and the truth about the fiasco in Vietnam instead of accepting the real facts that Nixon committed serious crimes and so did the US government during the whole Vietnam fiasco from the 1950's forward. Not to mention how it illegally attacked people who were deemed unAmerican, because they refused to accept the lies of Jim Crow or the fiasco in Vietnam as being good things.

Sorry but their is NO liberal bias in the MSM like talk radio and Fox news shows a very pronounced right wing bias.

It is one of the lies of the right.

BTW the bias is institutional, so it comes from the top down like all institutional bias do, not from the bottom up like will's assertions of individual viewpoints affect editorial control which they don't.

The rest of your rant seems self serving instead of actually addressing the FACTS. You spin off into some "do it yourself" delusional thinking instead of talking about WHAT ACTUALLY EXISTS.

Rusty Shackleford said...

Yes mouse,your typical response.Rather then dispute the facts you revert to the tried and true liberal tactic of rock throwing.How predictable.Tisk,tisk.

anonymous said...

NOW, one could argue that this only proves that journalists are smarter than the public. But that would beg the question, now wouldn't it.

Actually I would hope the people who are hired to investigate the news and provide it is smarter then the audience they are supposed to inform, at least about their jobs and the supposed facts they report on.

anonymous said...

No rocks just facts which for you might seem to be rocks .

Rusty Shackleford said...

Just what "facts" are in your incoherent ramblings? I'm guessing they are what you feebly consider "facts." Here's a news one else does....just you...all by yourself.

O.K. now,your mom wants you to turn your computer off,say your prayers and go to sleep.

anonymous said...

It is not rock throwing to state a fact that from a political standpoint, their is NO real fully left viwewpoint presented on the MSM and what they claim is left is actually center left while the far right gets acceptance and legitimacy from the corporate owned networks even MSNBC. It was actually worse after President Obama won, because the Koch funded astro turf movement was pushed very hard given much free press from a news reporting standpoint even to the point Glen Becks orchestrated and freely publicized stage show in Washington got much more press and coverage then a LARGER rally held by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Or the amount of stage managing especially by Fox to keep the Koch funded astro-turf movements in the limelight pushing a meme a large grass roots movement when in fact it was stage crafted astro turf Koch funded groups creating news for propaganda purposes. for well over a year so that people who are fed this political viewpoint daily would accept it because it was reported as news.

anonymous said...

O.K. now,your mom wants you to turn your computer off,say your prayers and go to sleep.

Sorry but my mother died last spring rusty so that non sequitur is just plain off base.

Rusty Shackleford said...

Damn sparky,all you're harping on is Fox do realize their total audience is less then 5% of all TV viewers? You do know that...dont you?

Rusty Shackleford said...

And,in the future dont call your opinions them what they are...your opinions.At least make an attempt at honesty.

Rusty Shackleford said...

O.K.,I'm are dismissed.

anonymous said...

O.K.,I'm are dismissed.

Sorry but you do not have the right or authority to do so,

and the facts I have stated are facts just because you do no THINK so you cannot dismiss them with out any PROOF IE facts to dispute what I posted.

Typical right wing spin try to refute facts with totally unsubstituted statements.

anonymous said...

But it is nice to see your attempt to claim victory and run away because you cannot factually refute what I posted.