>>I suppose for the same reason that O'Reilly and Hannity >>are roaming the airwaves making fools of themselves for >>the benefit of Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal.
Touche =o) But then as far as Messers O'Reilly and Hannity might be `simple men` in the eyes of Messers Chomsky and Vidal (i.e. 2+2 can equal anything between 4 and 8) In Rev JJ's world 2+2 can equal anything from 4 to 973.27
For the record, I respect both Chomsky and Vidal as thinkers and writers - and, yes, they are too strong for even the redoubtable O'Reilly (!) I've also seen them in interviews a number of times. The only thing that leaves me concerned is the way that (like the British evolutionist Prof. Richard Dawkins if he ever got to meet Jesus Christ) if Trotsky (or whoever was their `messiah`) turned up in the studio and contradicted them, they'd keep fighting their corner till they conceded that although "yes, we pioneered the school of thought, because you're in TV you know more than we do"
All cynicism aside though - a few weeks ago, Gore Vidal wrote quite an illuminating op-ed column for the London Independent about his views of the next four years of government. I can't recall his angle, because I'm listening to a Cockburn CD - but would you (or anyone else) like me to submit the highlights to the forum so there's something of depth for us to get into?
>>I've never been able to develop a taste for federal >>harrassment.
Not that I forsee that happening to the aforestated men, it might be worth keeping in mind that the new administration doesn't *neccesarily* have to drag the country back to more tense eras and they have people they can concern themselves with who perhaps deserve a taste some of the said harrassment.
After the Chavez debacle, is it safe to assume that we've not heard the last of the Clinton-loyal `inside-jobs`? When you see Hispanic women being (politically) whacked in that way, it might be easy to conclude how much the old boys want to draw blood.
Perhaps it goes back to my assertions about Rev JJ, too. If Linda Chavez was also a big advocate of keeping the poverty-mentality's and slave-mentality's alive and well in the minorities - perhaps they would have let her be and tried to prove that Cheney isn't an American citizen. When a hispanic woman stands up and says something to the extent of "I don't care where you come from, if you're willing to dig in hard and work like all the rest of us - you can be all you want to be" Why is that such a threat?
Aside from all your prophecies about how we're on a highway to hell, surely it's only a good thing that the only minority in Bush's cabinet are white men? Clinton talked a damn good game about making a cabinet that "looked like America" but GWB has done it.
Apologies if those generalisations grate, but I think you can see what I'm driving at. You'll also see where I'm coming from if you're trying to get your luggage from the rollers at Harlingen Airport in a hurry. I recommend you and anyone who reads this to take a thermos of good coffee, a deckchair and a copy of `Finnegans Wake` and then *maybe* you'll be hailing a cab within an hour or two with the thought that "Richard was right you know" (in short, if they changed the ground crew for the entire cast of the Muppets you wouldn't notice much!)
>>There's a wonderful book called "Manufacturing Consent" >>that takes a look at the "liberal bias" in media,
>>particularly your hated New York Times.
Thanks for the tip - I'll check it out soonish. I'm in the UK at the moment, so perhaps an edifying exercise on my return would be to get that book and study how the networks/news people present stories and see if I can find some hard evidence of a "liberal bias" for myself.
If you'd prefer not to appear on the talk shows, would you consider doing a "Warhol"? Find a lookalike and send them head to head with Horowitz and from the comfort of your home you can see him bought down a peg or two?!?!
Thanks for your patience,
Richard Smith
PS - Was your father German, David? I was reading the back of `Triage` and want to get my facts straight. (My wife's from Berlin and she finds the premise of `Triage` a refreshing change...)
and the only time that I think something can be branded as futile is when nothing changes. If reasoned dialogue happens and one or both sides decide to move ground, edify their opinions or consider other possibilities then it's a totally valid exercise.
Continuing Our Engaging If Futile Debate - Pt 2
R
richard
(view)
>>I suppose for the same reason that O'Reilly and Hannity >>are roaming the airwaves making fools of themselves for >>the benefit of Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal.
Touche =o) But then as far as Messers O'Reilly and Hannity might be `simple men` in the eyes of Messers Chomsky and Vidal (i.e. 2+2 can equal anything between 4 and 8) In Rev JJ's world 2+2 can equal anything from 4 to 973.27
For the record, I respect both Chomsky and Vidal as thinkers and writers - and, yes, they are too strong for even the redoubtable O'Reilly (!) I've also seen them in interviews a number of times. The only thing that leaves me concerned is the way that (like the British evolutionist Prof. Richard Dawkins if he ever got to meet Jesus Christ) if Trotsky (or whoever was their `messiah`) turned up in the studio and contradicted them, they'd keep fighting their corner till they conceded that although "yes, we pioneered the school of thought, because you're in TV you know more than we do"
All cynicism aside though - a few weeks ago, Gore Vidal wrote quite an illuminating op-ed column for the London Independent about his views of the next four years of government. I can't recall his angle, because I'm listening to a Cockburn CD - but would you (or anyone else) like me to submit the highlights to the forum so there's something of depth for us to get into?
>>I've never been able to develop a taste for federal >>harrassment.
Not that I forsee that happening to the aforestated men, it might be worth keeping in mind that the new administration doesn't *neccesarily* have to drag the country back to more tense eras and they have people they can concern themselves with who perhaps deserve a taste some of the said harrassment.
After the Chavez debacle, is it safe to assume that we've not heard the last of the Clinton-loyal `inside-jobs`? When you see Hispanic women being (politically) whacked in that way, it might be easy to conclude how much the old boys want to draw blood.
Perhaps it goes back to my assertions about Rev JJ, too. If Linda Chavez was also a big advocate of keeping the poverty-mentality's and slave-mentality's alive and well in the minorities - perhaps they would have let her be and tried to prove that Cheney isn't an American citizen. When a hispanic woman stands up and says something to the extent of "I don't care where you come from, if you're willing to dig in hard and work like all the rest of us - you can be all you want to be" Why is that such a threat?
Aside from all your prophecies about how we're on a highway to hell, surely it's only a good thing that the only minority in Bush's cabinet are white men? Clinton talked a damn good game about making a cabinet that "looked like America" but GWB has done it.
Apologies if those generalisations grate, but I think you can see what I'm driving at. You'll also see where I'm coming from if you're trying to get your luggage from the rollers at Harlingen Airport in a hurry. I recommend you and anyone who reads this to take a thermos of good coffee, a deckchair and a copy of `Finnegans Wake` and then *maybe* you'll be hailing a cab within an hour or two with the thought that "Richard was right you know" (in short, if they changed the ground crew for the entire cast of the Muppets you wouldn't notice much!)
>>There's a wonderful book called "Manufacturing Consent" >>that takes a look at the "liberal bias" in media,
>>particularly your hated New York Times.
Thanks for the tip - I'll check it out soonish. I'm in the UK at the moment, so perhaps an edifying exercise on my return would be to get that book and study how the networks/news people present stories and see if I can find some hard evidence of a "liberal bias" for myself.
If you'd prefer not to appear on the talk shows, would you consider doing a "Warhol"? Find a lookalike and send them head to head with Horowitz and from the comfort of your home you can see him bought down a peg or two?!?!
Thanks for your patience,
Richard Smith
PS - Was your father German, David? I was reading the back of `Triage` and want to get my facts straight. (My wife's from Berlin and she finds the premise of `Triage` a refreshing change...)
and the only time that I think something can be branded as futile is when nothing changes. If reasoned dialogue happens and one or both sides decide to move ground, edify their opinions or consider other possibilities then it's a totally valid exercise.
Touche =o) But then as far as Messers O'Reilly and Hannity might be `simple men` in the eyes of Messers Chomsky and Vidal (i.e. 2+2 can equal anything between 4 and 8) In Rev JJ's world 2+2 can equal anything from 4 to 973.27
For the record, I respect both Chomsky and Vidal as thinkers and writers - and, yes, they are too strong for even the redoubtable O'Reilly (!) I've also seen them in interviews a number of times. The only thing that leaves me concerned is the way that (like the British evolutionist Prof. Richard Dawkins if he ever got to meet Jesus Christ) if Trotsky (or whoever was their `messiah`) turned up in the studio and contradicted them, they'd keep fighting their corner till they conceded that although "yes, we pioneered the school of thought, because you're in TV you know more than we do"
All cynicism aside though - a few weeks ago, Gore Vidal wrote quite an illuminating op-ed column for the London Independent about his views of the next four years of government. I can't recall his angle, because I'm listening to a Cockburn CD - but would you (or anyone else) like me to submit the highlights to the forum so there's something of depth for us to get into?
>>I've never been able to develop a taste for federal >>harrassment.
Not that I forsee that happening to the aforestated men, it might be worth keeping in mind that the new administration doesn't *neccesarily* have to drag the country back to more tense eras and they have people they can concern themselves with who perhaps deserve a taste some of the said harrassment.
After the Chavez debacle, is it safe to assume that we've not heard the last of the Clinton-loyal `inside-jobs`? When you see Hispanic women being (politically) whacked in that way, it might be easy to conclude how much the old boys want to draw blood.
Perhaps it goes back to my assertions about Rev JJ, too. If Linda Chavez was also a big advocate of keeping the poverty-mentality's and slave-mentality's alive and well in the minorities - perhaps they would have let her be and tried to prove that Cheney isn't an American citizen. When a hispanic woman stands up and says something to the extent of "I don't care where you come from, if you're willing to dig in hard and work like all the rest of us - you can be all you want to be" Why is that such a threat?
Aside from all your prophecies about how we're on a highway to hell, surely it's only a good thing that the only minority in Bush's cabinet are white men? Clinton talked a damn good game about making a cabinet that "looked like America" but GWB has done it.
Apologies if those generalisations grate, but I think you can see what I'm driving at. You'll also see where I'm coming from if you're trying to get your luggage from the rollers at Harlingen Airport in a hurry. I recommend you and anyone who reads this to take a thermos of good coffee, a deckchair and a copy of `Finnegans Wake` and then *maybe* you'll be hailing a cab within an hour or two with the thought that "Richard was right you know" (in short, if they changed the ground crew for the entire cast of the Muppets you wouldn't notice much!)
>>There's a wonderful book called "Manufacturing Consent" >>that takes a look at the "liberal bias" in media,
>>particularly your hated New York Times.
Thanks for the tip - I'll check it out soonish. I'm in the UK at the moment, so perhaps an edifying exercise on my return would be to get that book and study how the networks/news people present stories and see if I can find some hard evidence of a "liberal bias" for myself.
If you'd prefer not to appear on the talk shows, would you consider doing a "Warhol"? Find a lookalike and send them head to head with Horowitz and from the comfort of your home you can see him bought down a peg or two?!?!
Thanks for your patience,
Richard Smith
PS - Was your father German, David? I was reading the back of `Triage` and want to get my facts straight. (My wife's from Berlin and she finds the premise of `Triage` a refreshing change...)
and the only time that I think something can be branded as futile is when nothing changes. If reasoned dialogue happens and one or both sides decide to move ground, edify their opinions or consider other possibilities then it's a totally valid exercise.
