Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Thug politics in the USA

14:31 / 12.07.03

Today 7/12 the Bush administration came out and said to drop the controversy and questioning of his state of the union address on Iraq trying to procure uranium from Africa (Niger).

This got me to thinking; the Bush administration has done quite well with this thug mentality. Some other examples include Paul Wolfowitz basically saying that all the reasons given for going to war with Iraq really were not the reasons, the US did it for humanitarian reasons, (which is the best reasons to go to war with Iraq). Of course this came out when no WMD's were found, the uranium story was show to be a forgery, and the momentum and the war was slowing up.

Also before Bush became president he was asked about doing cocaine, he response, "none of your business." Never hind Clinton took so much heat for smoking pot, yeah yeah he didn't "inhale".

Lastly Estrada the judicial nominee U.S. appellate court judge in Washington, D.C just says nothing and Republicans and Bush say so what?

Are their anymore instances? Please post if you know any. Tax cut, environment, etc.

I applaud; yes applaud the way the Bush administration has been playing power (thug) politics. Hell the approval rating is slipping, but is still great and they have the tax cut and more. Kudos to them for fighting. Better than a politician who sits on the ground with his thumbs up his as like Al Gore and just expects to be handed the Presidency. I think the some of the Republicans are right when they say we only have one party the Republican Party.

Bush and the Republicans actually fought for it when it was up in the air and won, they just wanted it more.

Still this "just drop it" mentality on immensely important issues (well not the cocaine one) is very worrisome, especially because so few have picked up on this or care.

Thug Prez LIEEF!!

15:19 / 12.07.03

I'm having a hard time understanding you with your tongue in your cheek.

The lack of claws of the press is the main problem. It has little to do with Bush's ironclad resolve and everything to do with the media not pursuing the questions that should be asked. Why that is, I have no idea. I'm not comfortable with the idea that the press has been reined in by the corporations that own them. It's a cop-out answer near as I can tell and runs counter to the fact that any news outlet survives and thrives on controversy and thus ratings. Corporations are not immune to bickering and waging war against one another, especially propagandic war. Unfortunately I'm at a complete lost why the vigor of anti-Clinton diatribes aren't equal with the new management.

The irony is that just yesterday an ABC poll seemed to indicate mild grumblings and a growing tide of resentment is growing among US citizens over the conflict in Iraq. 50% of the people feel that it's not being handled well at all. And the more Nixon-esque dodging this government dishes out, the more that will fuel the fire of inquiry from your average Joe.

16:11 / 12.07.03

"why the vigor of anti-Clinton diatribes aren't equal with the new management"

See that is part of it, this all stuff that could easily be spun by the Dems for their own political gain. But the Dems have no energy and the same with the Dem on the street.

The whole "thug" theme is from Aaron McGruder of the Boondocks comic strip in a speech he gave. By thug I mean, the pres just says go away, it is not important, or it is not your business. McGruder is probably the only one asking good questions in the media today.

While I am irritated with Bush I do love great politics and he certainly is doing a great job at keeping criticism down and support up. Perhaps everyone is still in the "rally round the flag mode."

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

19:11 / 12.07.03

I think it is because the White House has been so effective in equating criticism of them with being "UnAmerican", and the fact that they have Clear Channel, Faux News, MSNBC trying to be Faux News and a growing majority of newspapers and TV stations that are blatant in their Pro-Conservative bent. Combine that with the natural Liberal tendency for compromise and helping people, and you get a deadly combination for rational, informed discourse.

I think the fact that Ann Coulter can do a book about rehabbing the image of Joe McCarthy and not be laughed at for being crazier than a pet coon shows just how far the media has fallen in love with Conservative money.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

13:34 / 14.07.03

Interesting, because from over here I thought the American media was slowly rediscovering that Watergate spirit, questioning the Government and not taking the condescending bullshit that Ari Fleischer was sloshing out. I thought the 'unPatriotic' defence was beginning to break down and not work any more. Is this not the case?

*

17:34 / 14.07.03

There's been an undercurrent of distrust in certain media outlets, and it is growing. That said, those news sources which are taking this seriously seem to be print sources, and not the mainstream ones. I have never seen a tv news anchor present anything other than a "jolly good fellow" view of our beloved leader, except when having one of the "dangerous radicals" on the show in order to refute their fals ideas. I think good predictions can be made about what people believe based on where they get their news. Those who rely on Faux, MSNBC, CNN, or Clear Channel to exclusion tend to think the prez is the best thing since sliced cheese and those who say otherwise are few in number, dangerous radicals, and unenlightened. Those who get their news from print sources at least see the occasional editorial, political satire cartoon, or letter to the editor which contradicts the party line, and some even read independent papers. Those who find additional sources on the web are likely to develop any number of opinions, but at least will be practiced at disbelieving entirely ridiculous claims.

When Strom Thurmond died, I saw an article online-- I forget which source it was ultimately from-- headed something like "Thurmond remembered as adaptable, force for change". The fact that it was run at all tells me something about the crap people will swallow, or at least the crap the media thinks people will swallow. But even Faux et al. are having difficulty choking down this line. One day people will look up and realize the worldview they've accepted from the media doesn't fit the available evidence.

15:00 / 15.07.03

See the Washington Post article on Ari Fleischer, "No Fading Into the Sunset" for more on no answer answers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55846-2003Jul14.html?nav=hptop_tb

15:40 / 15.07.03

"I think the burden is on those people who think [Saddam Hussein] didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are." - Fleischer, on July 9.

You'll be missed, Ari.

15:57 / 15.07.03

and some nice double think - Show us where these things you say don't exist are and well believe you.

*

18:05 / 15.07.03

These people need the fior of God put into them, that's what.

(/gaelic pun)

The Fifth Columnist

22:58 / 15.07.03

"Thug mentality" is one way to put it...."Military junta" might be more precise. Bush's entire presidency has been based on lies and intimidation, starting with the Florida election.
Why doesn't the media do more? Leaving aside the question of whether corporate media is in the business of informing the public or selling ads ----
How would the media get people to rationally contemplate, on the basis of objective evidence, whether or not their leaders are deliberately decieveing them for their own ends -- which ends are not only in direct conflict with the public good, but harmful to the future of the U.S. itself?
You can't even bring this subject up without appearing to be a crazed, black-helicopter chasing, Illuminati-fearing conspiracy nut. ... or, perhaps, a crazed, WTO-fearing member of the anti-globalist Intifada....which is fine if you are one of those, but the kiss of death to journalists who must appear to be fair and balanced - and Normal - people in order to be taken seriously. American democracy - like any other belief system - rests on certain unquestioned assumptions...one of which is that the process itself is not (or only slightly) susceptible to fraud and/or manipulation.
But at this point, the behavior of the Bush Klavern has become so outrageous that people around the country are overcoming their natural reluctance to admit that the system's not working -- and saying (some of them publicly) that the current administration operates almost exclusively through lies, deceit and force. It's simply too blatant for the public to ignore.

And if you think this is Thug Politics so far...well, you better hope Bush's approval rating doesn't dip down below 40% between now and 2004. We'll find the WMD's in Iraq then...oh yes...dug up by a Halliburton Co. bulldozer.

*

01:25 / 16.07.03

You can't even bring this subject up without appearing to be a crazed, black-helicopter chasing, Illuminati-fearing conspiracy nut.....which is fine if you are one of those, but the kiss of death to journalists who must appear to be fair and balanced - and Normal - people in order to be taken seriously.

The trouble is, much of the responsibility for this restrictive atmosphere rests with the mainstream media, who have been representing people who ask these kinds of questions as crazed, black-helicopter chasing, Illuminati-fearing conspiracy nuts since before the War on Stuff We Don't Like And Stuff ever properly began. Perhaps they've been doing this because at some level they realize the stability of the nation rests on people's unquestioning acceptance of the rightness of the system, and they too fear the consequences of unrest, or perhaps because they've been strongarmed by the Men in Grey.

The number of people questioning is on the rise. The number of questions is on the rise. The volume of the questions murmuring just below the threshold of the complacent ones' hearing is on the rise. The tremors are now perceptible to sensitive people, psychics, children, and pets. A strategically-placed bundle of dynamite near the epicenter could still prevent the Big One-- but not for much longer. I'd say around 2004 we'll know if the Big One's gonna hit, or if it's been staved off for another four years or so.

10:17 / 16.07.03

On the subject of the mainstream mediainteresting article in the Guardian Weekend points out that Phil Donahue's "liberal" show on MSNBC was cancelled not because of poor ratings, but out of fear (by NBC) of appearing too "anti-war":

At MSNBC, a cable TV news network, meanwhile, a six-month experiment to develop a liberal programme featuring Phil Donahue ended just before the war began, when Donahue's show was cancelled and replaced with a programme titled Countdown: Iraq. Although the network cited poor ratings as the reason for dumping Donahue, the New York Times reported that Donahue "was actually attracting more viewers than any other programme on MSNBC, even the channel's signature prime-time programme, Hardball with Chris Matthews". Further insight into the network's thinking appears in an internal NBC report leaked to AllYourTV.com, a website that covers the television industry. The NBC report recommended axing Donahue because he presented a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war ... He seems to delight in presenting guests who are antiwar, anti-Bush and sceptical of the administration's motives." It went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity".

13:31 / 16.07.03

Another big part of the problem is the access game, and the ruthless way the Bush regime are playing it. To get the good stories you have to have well-placed sources. The downside is that the "highly-placed intelligence offical" has their own agenda in leaking the info and the reporter's skills atrophy and he/she becomes dependent on that source. And if the reporter does a story the source doesn't like, those leaks can dry up.

A second angle of access is the Hollyood one. "Exclusive" interviews with the big players are subject to approval by a press oficer who monitors prospective interviewers closely. The result, journalistic blowjobs, is annoying in showbiz but disturbing in politics.

So the more famous the reporter, the less useful he or she becomes. Robert Fisk from the Independent is worth any ten Christiane Amanpours, at least because he works ten times as hard.

15:12 / 16.07.03

This is starting to bust out right inside the Beltway, too.

Here's a 12 page speech delivered by Rep Ron Paul (L,TX) on the house floor on the 1th of this month:
NeoConned by State Terrorists Michael Ledeen, PNAC
by REP. RON PAUL

The modern-day, limited-government movement has been co-opted.

The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government.

There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington.

Political party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated.

The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who ís really in charge?

If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

Someone is responsible, and it ís important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going.

Full speech: http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=90&contentid=888&page=2

Ron Paul, like Heinz 57 and Fred Rogers, is from Pittsburgh, lending one more bit of credence to the theory that ALL good things come from the Burgh ;-)

I know of quite a few Conservative Christian types who voted for Büsh out of fear of Gore and who are now very outspoken critics of the regime.

But, if you want to know what regular people are thinking about, listen to the comics and the musicians.

11:26 / 18.07.03

The trouble is, much of the responsibility for this restrictive atmosphere rests with the mainstream media

The mainstream media don't do the investigation thing, they rely on releases and handouts. The few investigative journalists around are pretty much self-motivated - if they can get a paper to give them support, great, but it's not the routine.

Investigative journalism is expensive and doesn't seem to have a particularly good investment/return ratio for media companies. However, it doesn't look good to say "we're not looking too deeply into this because it would cost too much and you bastards wouldn't pay for it". Therefore, it's in their interests to portray anything that questions and researches too deeply as not real news. If someone else is prepared to give it to them for free, fine, but they're not going into it themselves. They're just big bloggers.

12:15 / 18.07.03

They're just big bloggers.

Hmmm I find this observation very interesting especially in the light of certain journalists and media outlets low regard for blogging - Dare i hope that if mainstream media sources continue to prove themselves chronically incapable of investigation based news that bloggers might end up picking up the slack?

*

12:31 / 18.07.03

Trouble with bloggers is, most of them are not trained. I know this is a good thing in some respects-- they're not conditioned to take handouts from official sources. But on the other hand, a lot of things which would be understood by a journalist who had experience in the field would go overlooked or misconstrued by an inexperienced individual. Not all, naturally. I know some bloggers are realy excellent sources. The best document and link everything they cite, and keep copies for when the sites are pulled. But the friend of mine whom I'd really like to see doing this can't, because he is an investigative reporter (freelance at the mo, I believe) and wouldn't last two days if he came out with a blog on controversial subject matter.

Best thing-- get Mr. Hunter S. Thompson to set up an online study course for amateur investigative reporting bloggers. It would lead to entertaining writing, that's for damn sure.

16:37 / 18.07.03

Well, I'm exaggerating of course, but the point I'm trying to make is that the media relies more and more on reporting what other people say. If a newspaper gets all its foreign news from AP and Reuters (which is not unusual from what I can see in the US) that's not very far from a blogger picking stories from AP and Reuters.

On some issues they might actually do some investigation, if it's easy - say, if there's a tornado they might send a camera crew down to film some trailers and people saying "yeah, it was really bad". But you wouldn't really notice if that was just stock footage.

Take something like the Patriot Act. None of the mainstream sources showed evidence of someone having read through that and looked at the possible consequences - they waited for statements from the ACLU or the Democrats (*pfft*), which they could then put alongside rebuttals from the administration for a nice "balanced" story.

Or the Iraq war: with a few exceptions, coverage was repeating Pentagon statements, though to be fair it now appears that a few journalists who've been hanging out there a long time are actually starting to talk to soldiers and civilians occasionally. Maybe they're bored.

I understand that it's not practical for a media source to thoroughly investigate everything themselves, hire their own pathologists etc, and they have to rely on some other sources. But I think the blogosphere is... well, I was going to say a metaphor for the media circle-jerk but it's not even a metaphor, it's practically the same thing. Bloggers blog from other bloggers just like papers print stories on what other papers are saying; feedback increases until it drowns out anything there was in the first place. It's just faster online.