A refreshing read
February 18, 2003 12:28 PM   Subscribe

A refreshing read With all the bad news and fear in the air lately, I found this article to be hopeful. I hope that merits a post.
posted by sparky (34 comments total)

 
Nope.
posted by gsteff at 12:39 PM on February 18, 2003


is that what metafilter has become? lame. mods?
posted by bokononito at 12:47 PM on February 18, 2003


John Ashcroft, the "Singing Nazi," announced, with Ridge behind him playing second fiddle, that the nation was at Code Orange.

Right, left, or center, I find it impossible to take seriously any commentator who insists on demonizing the opposition. Whatever the author's point, it's lost entirely when this reader runs across language like the above.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:50 PM on February 18, 2003


Sucks much.
posted by signal at 12:50 PM on February 18, 2003


"refreshing" and "hopeful"??? Are we reading the same article?
posted by gyc at 12:50 PM on February 18, 2003


Sparky:this MeTa on Worldnetdaily may explain why people have similar feelings about an article from Counterpunch.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:54 PM on February 18, 2003


i found it to be quite a bit of wishful thinking, even though i agree with the leanings. i do, however, think that demonizing the opposition is a good thing at this point. the bush cabal doesn't play fair, so when they do fall, it's time to take out the garbage, not give it another seat at the table.
posted by irix at 12:57 PM on February 18, 2003


A deceptive and intellectually dishonest way to make a trollishly partisan link. But sparky's done it before.
posted by mcwetboy at 12:57 PM on February 18, 2003


"[Forbidden Insight] (the book for which Madsen wrote the introduction) occasionally suffers from insinuations that outstrip the evidence presented." -- Publisher's Weekly

Madsen is a conspiracy theorist at best.

WMadsen777@aol.com - I never give much credence to anyone with an aol.com e-mail address.
posted by Frank Grimes at 12:59 PM on February 18, 2003


i do, however, think that demonizing the opposition is a good thing at this point.

Because when the going get tough, resort to inflammatory rhetoric? I'm afraid I miss your point.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:00 PM on February 18, 2003


..whatever, yea, yea. (well said, mcwetboy)
posted by Witty at 1:00 PM on February 18, 2003


Thanks Sparky for wasting five minutes of my time on this garbage. FLOWER POWER
posted by Macboy at 1:06 PM on February 18, 2003


I really dislike Bush. I think he's arrogent and deceptive. But, strangely, I dislike inflammatory, emotionally-charged nonsense like this even more. Hearing the antiwar case from articles (and posts) like this actually pushes me closer to trusting the administration.
posted by gsteff at 1:10 PM on February 18, 2003


Because when the going get tough, resort to inflammatory rhetoric?

While I found the link annoying, at least I got a chuckle from that comment. I'll have to remember that for future dicussions. heh
posted by Plunge at 1:11 PM on February 18, 2003


Because when the going get tough, resort to inflammatory rhetoric?

No, because when they are demons, sent here by Satan hisself to establish his dominion over the land, you call them what they are: demons. Thus the use of the word, demonize.
posted by irix at 1:25 PM on February 18, 2003


Didn't you read the bit on the posting page about not rehashing Iraq and Bush Sux on MeFi? I'm curious why you thought this still qualified as an appropriate post.
posted by alms at 1:25 PM on February 18, 2003


The article seems to lean a little.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:52 PM on February 18, 2003


The article is so far left it is indistinguishable from the far right in spirit and tone.
posted by stbalbach at 1:59 PM on February 18, 2003


The article seems to lean a little.
maybe it will fall over on 111.
posted by quonsar at 2:00 PM on February 18, 2003


The Teutonic and fascist-sounding "Homeland Security" term...

As a person of German descent, I dissent.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:03 PM on February 18, 2003


Demonizing your adversaries is about the lowest you can sink in terms of rational debate. No one with any self respect or belief in his cause should demean himself by insulting his opponents.

Sadly, it's incredibly effective when your opponents do it to you. I wish people didn't fall for this kind of tactic, but until they stop doing so, maybe it's smarter to go tit for tat with the other guy. That is, assuming you think the ends justify the means, and the success of your mission (let's say, to stop a war) is worth compromising your principles for a time. Me, I don't know, but it's certainly something to think about.
posted by Hildago at 2:04 PM on February 18, 2003


Lyndon Johnson was the master of this. "Make the son of a bitch deny it" is sadly a great way to keep him from having time to articlulate his own views.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:13 PM on February 18, 2003


I dislike Counterpunch, but that said, it is plain sily to believe that the anti-war folks are going to get Bush to change his mind. In fact, he has already come out and said he will not be swayed by the marches and protests. More to the point: polls still show that as many people are pro-Bush than anti-Bush on the Iraq issue, though there are many who are pro-war but only with UN sanction.
Why? Because the one thing Bush can not handle is to be called a wimp. With 150 thousand troops in the ME, no way is he going to call them home without a war: that too would be political suicide. Bush does what he wants to do. It is, alas, Congress who in a time of "wqr" or "crisis" become the loyal opposition that approves any and all things the president wants. In a word: most in congress have no balls, and sorry about that congress babes.
posted by Postroad at 2:19 PM on February 18, 2003


Slightly biased, slightly. Off topic (if there was one) I've started to notice that the left wing is getting meaner. It seemed to me that most hate/rhetoric came spewing out of the right while the left always wanted to be polite and civil about everything. This, to me, was why right wing radio works and left wing radio practicly doesn't exist: hate is entertaining, peace is boring. I'm not sure what my point is, but hey, I'm not sure what the article's point was either.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:24 PM on February 18, 2003


Whoa. Even I thought that was too left.
posted by LouReedsSon at 2:33 PM on February 18, 2003


heck, even the source server seems to agree...

HTTP Error 408 / 409 - Not acceptable / Resource conflict
posted by milnak at 2:45 PM on February 18, 2003


This, to me, was why right wing radio works and left wing radio practicly doesn't exist: hate is entertaining, peace is boring.

Ah, but if we had a lefty radio show that voiced the same delusions, hysterics, intolerance and pants-wetting as the Counterpunch article, we just might have an overnight media sensation on our hands!
posted by dhoyt at 2:49 PM on February 18, 2003


elwoodwiles is correct, and is the reason i disdain agenda-first screeds like this one, from the right or the left. but then again, crap like this is really just venting to the converted, just old-fashioned pamphleteering.
posted by reality at 2:54 PM on February 18, 2003


Show us the WMD! this guy knows about them
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2244386">
posted by Postroad at 3:03 PM on February 18, 2003


My initial reaction was identical to gyc. Reading the comments, though; there may be something to discuss here.

Is the article entirely to blame, or are people getting tired of the protest message? Look at this thread about the NYC protest. My memory may be fuzzy, but it seems to me that reaction has been evenly split or even slightly against the "protestor" faction for a long time now.

I'm getting to the point myself where I want to tell the protestors to grow up, even as their numbers increase and the U.S. military effort expands. Is this media brainwashing, or is something real happening in our collective social consciousness?
posted by son_of_minya at 3:04 PM on February 18, 2003


Elwood> Not really, to be honest. The left is just as bilious in its rhetoric when it wants to be - pick up an issue of the Spartacist Weekly or its ilk some time. The left has just traditionally favoured the pamphlet or newspaper rather than talk radio, for whatever reason. I think it's more that you're just starting to see that come onto TV now.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 3:09 PM on February 18, 2003


Ah, but if we had a lefty radio show that voiced the same delusions, hysterics, intolerance and pants-wetting as the Counterpunch article, we just might have an overnight media sensation on our hands!


We do, and its not.
posted by Fupped Duck at 3:37 PM on February 18, 2003


...are people getting tired of the protest message?

Funny, son_of_minya, I was wondering if people are getting tired of the war message.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:11 PM on February 18, 2003


Great article. Honestly, it's something I needed to hear. No matter how unrealistic. There was a time, probably around a year ago or so that even Counterpunch wouldn't have published something like this.

Sure it's polarizing. Sure it's probably a bit of wishful thinking. But what would any of us have in the first place weren't it for wishful thinking?

Think too, surely there was a period when the well laid plans of the old guard Nixon and Reagan throwbacks we have in office seemed as much wishful thinking as well. They had an objective and set out on a step by tentative step process to deregulate all, subverting democracy for the benefit of the wealthy and the corporations they own. "Ha Ha!" someone probably told them, "Good Luck". Maybe, maybe not.
posted by crasspastor at 6:49 PM on February 18, 2003


« Older This article concerning the power of suggestion...  |  A Google boondoggle?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments