Media Silent on Pipe Bomber's Leftism

May 9, 2002 7:07 AM

Media Silent on Pipe Bomber's Leftism So newsmax says The same media establishment that is quick to label right-wing extremists refuses to call admitted pipe bomber Luke John Helder a left-wing extremist.
I did a little (very little) digging, and they might have something there, more below.
posted by Blake (52 comments total)

And don’t interpret this as in any way showing my view points, it’s just an interesting subject. I did a little digging in Lexis (database of most every big news source) and came up with the following connections. Results are capped at 1000 for me, so some results all I got back was “more than 1000”. Draw your own conclusions, or maybe try the same search using Moreover.

right-wing extremists +1000
left-wing extremists 237

right-wing, Timothy McVeigh 244
right-wing extremist AND Timothy McVeigh 34

Randy Weaver +1000
Randy Weaver AND right-wing 108

Unabomber +1000
Unabomber AND left-wing 36

John Helder 28
John Helder AND left-wing 0
posted by Blake at 7:07 AM on May 9, 2002

To call this guy an extremist of any stripe would be an insult to extremists everywhere.

but seldom or never referred to Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski or the violent anti-globalization marchers, etc., as left-wing extremists.

When did Kaczynski become left-wing? Political affiliations and ideologies are difficult enough for sane people to understand, This writer shouldn't assume that nutjobs have a firm grip on the subject.
posted by jonmc at 7:13 AM on May 9, 2002

Yeah, who wants to dignify these maniacs with "left wing", "right wing" or "extremist"? They're mentally ill attention-seekers.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:20 AM on May 9, 2002

To me this story wasn't about the "extremists" themselves, but more about "The media establishment" that does the labeling.
posted by Blake at 7:24 AM on May 9, 2002

How is he left wing? He's anti-government to the extreme. That wouldn't fit very well with the Naderites.

Vaca
posted by vaca at 7:30 AM on May 9, 2002

To call this guy an extremist of any stripe would be an insult to extremists everywhere.

Tell me about it. This kid liked Nirvana, for chrissakes. If he'd been wearing a Crass patch when he was arrested, maybe Newsmax'd be onto something here.

Seriously though, how is this kid a left-wing extremist? He's antigovernment and promarijuana. Sounds like a crackpot libertarian to me.
posted by cowboy_sally at 7:33 AM on May 9, 2002

Wait, hold on, something's gone awry...you're reading a Newsmax "article."
posted by solistrato at 7:37 AM on May 9, 2002

If he'd been wearing a Crass patch when he was arrested, maybe Newsmax'd be onto something here.

I think you're on to something, cowboy_sally. I'm gonna put on my Replacements shirt and kill somebody. With any luck their back catalog will have gone platinum by nightfall and Paul Westerberg will be interviewed on 20/20.
posted by jonmc at 7:39 AM on May 9, 2002

Re your word search -- I'm just guessing, but perhaps it's just that there are other labels for "left-wing extremist" that are in more common usage? "Radical" has the same connotation, and sounds much more familiar. (So does "crackpot libertarian" or "punk rock art student," for that matter.)
posted by ook at 7:43 AM on May 9, 2002

He's anti-government to the extreme. That wouldn't fit very well with the Naderites.

Extremists on both fringes hate the government.
posted by rcade at 7:48 AM on May 9, 2002

He seems like a dumbass art student more than a leftist extremist. Even though your average dumbass art student probably thinks of themselves as the latter, they're mostly just dumbasses.
posted by evanizer at 8:02 AM on May 9, 2002

It's very difficult to seriously attach a political affiliation to someone who creates bomb-pattern smiley faces.
posted by talos at 8:07 AM on May 9, 2002

It's very difficult to give credibility to a site so shrill (of which, I must admit, I have never heard before):

Sounding like Al Gore or John Kerry, he whines that "the icebergs are melting, and precious earth is heating up."

Somehow his fear of "global warming" didn't prevent him from using one of those awful internal-combusion engines to drive hundreds of miles (alone! without car pooling! never once taking the bus!) on his reign of terror.

I suppose Newsmax would like to claim that Al Gore is a left-wing extremist?
posted by gohlkus at 8:14 AM on May 9, 2002

I have to agree with what David Chess wrote on the subject a few days ago:

"The teevee and the radio keep referring to the notes from the mailbox bomber as 'anti-government messages'. This is not an anti-government message; this is an 'I'm a total schizo' message. This is not a person who objects to the government on political or social grounds; this is a person who gets messages from his teeth."

posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:34 AM on May 9, 2002

Take a look at his own words:

- "there is NO SUCH THING AS DEATH"
- "Technology and complexity will NEVER satisfy your desire of avoiding suffering"
- "I'm doing this because I care, and have hope in you people."

Death as an illusion, worldly existence as suffering, and action from compassion: This guy was a radical Buddhistic extremist. The US must now attack India for harboring known Buddhist leaders.
posted by eatitlive at 8:38 AM on May 9, 2002

It's the tin-can theory of politics. Go far enough left and you come to the same point as going far enough right. Everyone that sits at this point is a sociopath. This is like asking if Hitler was far-Right or Stalin was far-Left.
posted by n9 at 8:45 AM on May 9, 2002

I think there are two things going on here

1) The media displays no sensitivity whatsoever to the nuances of anything right of center. They typically mix everyone from Libertarians to Nazi as "right wing."

2) When some crazy nutter does something horrible and professes any beliefs that lean to right of center, he's immediately labeled "right-wing". When the shoe is on the other foot (see the recent assassination in Holland), the media trip over themselves to ether avoid mentioning the nutjob's political affiliation or they describe it very nuanced terms to avoid painting all lefties as bad. Why is the right not accorded this same sensitivity?
posted by nobody_knose at 8:53 AM on May 9, 2002

"Why is the right not accorded this same sensitivity?"

I don't have an answer for you but might I suggest you ask Rush or O'Reilly or Snow or Saffire or Hannity or Novak ...you get the idea?? This Left Wing Biased Media thing is really getting out of control, especially on AM talk radio and Faux News!!
posted by nofundy at 9:21 AM on May 9, 2002

nofun: Everyone you mentioned is a commentator of some sort, so there is no objectivity implied. News reporters, however, are in a different class and claim to be objective.
posted by nobody_knose at 9:31 AM on May 9, 2002

I remember the media refering to anyone fighting the G7 meeting in Canada as radical or extremist.
posted by drezdn at 9:34 AM on May 9, 2002

while I admit that to a certain extent some of the things that are mentioned by nobody_knose do happen, I don't quite buy it. Part of the reason that "right-wing nutjobs" like timothy mcVeigh, randy weaver, et al. were labeled right-wing by the media is because they belonged to a larger group that had an explicitly radical right-wing agenda, if this guy had been involved in a larger group with a left-wing agenda, I'd suspect that they'd pull out their "radical left-wing nutjob" adjectives and use them quite, umm... liberally.
posted by jnthnjng at 9:37 AM on May 9, 2002

if this guy had been involved in a larger group with a left-wing agenda, I'd suspect that they'd pull out their "radical left-wing nutjob" adjectives

ok, then why is the media tip-tiptoeing around the way they label the Dutch vegan-killer?
posted by nobody_knose at 9:46 AM on May 9, 2002

He's also a HETEROsexual ... I don't see the media pickingup on that angle ... damn hetero-extremists.

He's also in a BAND .... damn musical extremists.

He's also MALE ... damn male extremists.

I bet he watched TV, drove a car and used the phone too ... damn capitalist consumer extremists.

and on and on ...
posted by Dillenger69 at 10:43 AM on May 9, 2002

The media, more like, pretends that the right does not exist as it is the right that is and speaks for the corporate media. There is only the media's way of covering a story or the other way. In other words, high profit-grossing sensationalism. People, companies or organizations whose sole purpose is to turn a buck for themselves and shareholders are going to be, by default, pro GOP, which the GOP is in turn, usually more pro-corporate. No news there (for the media to cover).

Furthermore, newsmax is a website populated and read by extremists. They're just engaged in some baseless schadenfreude that they're expecting their readership to glom onto. It's all about maintaining a climate of hate and distrust of fellow countrymen in the minds of John Q Republican, who himself, doesn't even benefit from having his very own corporate welfare-giving representatives in office. Kinda like the old rusted out '87 Ford Tempos that still bear their George W Bush for President stickers. There is no middleground or debate at sites like newsmax. Rightwing elitist led shell-games that us working class sheep are to unquestioningly march into lockstep with rules.
posted by crasspastor at 11:57 AM on May 9, 2002

Dillenger69: Your point would make a lot more sense if his rambling "manifesto" had covered sexual preference, gender or music. From what I recall, it didn't.

He did however, mention the environment and what sounded like some kind of weird anti-globalization anxiety -- two issues of major interest to the left lately.
posted by nobody_knose at 12:27 PM on May 9, 2002

People, companies or organizations whose sole purpose is to turn a buck for themselves and shareholders are going to be, by default, pro GOP, which the GOP is in turn, usually more pro-corporate. No news there (for the media to cover).

Yeah Stanley Gold, Ted Turner, Michael Eisner, David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, Jon Corzine, and Tim Gill among others are all big fans of the GOP. Please check your assumptions.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:34 PM on May 9, 2002

crasspastor: NewsMax is not the issue here. The issue is the fact that the media softballs stuff that is damaging to the left and holds all conservatives accountable for the actions of fringe crackpots.

According to the media, the "extreme right," covers everybody from libertarian agnostics like me to bible-thumping populists like Buchanan to nutter goofballs like McVeigh. What the hell do those three groups have in common other than they aren't on the left? Very little, yet we are all thrown in the same pot by the media. It's not fair, it's not correct and it is worth discussion.
posted by nobody_knose at 12:39 PM on May 9, 2002

Skallas: You're really missing the point. HE'S CRAZY. It's looks like he's just a kooky college-age kid who may have done 'cid a couple too many times. We get that.

The point is, though, that his crackpot manifesto contained at least two hot button items for the left. It is clear that some leftist ideas informed and (possibly) inspired his actions.

Is that the left's fault? Of course not.

So, what can do we do with that? Not much, really, but I think if you're honest with yourself, you'd admit that if he was referencing "right wing" touchstones for his manifesto, we would be hearing ad infinitum about how he was a "sad product of rightwing extremism" right about now.

I mean, seriously, all squabbling aside, can’t you admit that much?
posted by nobody_knose at 1:33 PM on May 9, 2002

nobody_knose:
The media whether you think it is liberal or conservative often uses glittering generalizations to desribe anyone who's ideas don't fit into the parameters of acceptable debate in our society. This includes those on the right, the left or anyone who does not fit into the ideological mold that those who wield the most political and economic power have.

By focussing on and arguing about the details of how the media presents information via arguments like; the media is biased against this or the media is biased against that. We are being led towards discussions that essentially disempower all of us, which prevents or stymies people from discussing problems in the real world this, therefore prevents any motivation or movement to make substantial structural changes in the system.



IMO, the mainstream corporate media is biased against everyone but the ideas and interests that benefit them or those who advertise on their outlets. I have found this to include biases against "left wing" ideas and "right wing" ideas.

IMO, this also includes the media outlets funded by conservatives, possibly one named Richard Mellon Scaife- called Newsmax.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:47 PM on May 9, 2002

I made a mistake in my comment above. The propaganda technique that the maisntream corporate media often employs is called: name calling. Not glittering generalizations.

Duh i feel so stupid:-)
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:09 PM on May 9, 2002

make no mistake - even indulging in a discussion of luke helder's politics is playing into the hands of the evildoers in washington. associated press today marvelled that the guy "just didn't seem like a typical domestic terrorist" (paraphrased). no speculation that perhaps he isn't, just the gently planted implication that these days, anybody could turn out to be a terrorist - after all, look at luke helder. luke has been labeled a domestic terrorist by faceless disembodied 'officials' at the fbi, his perception as a domestic terrorist is important to the administration because the presence of domestic terrorism is needed to fuel the fires of thier war, and to give this ludicrous notion any credence whatsoever is to act as a lackey for dubya and his ilk. this is a confused kid with a recent-onset mental problem. but he'll almost certainly not be treated like one.
posted by quonsar at 4:04 PM on May 9, 2002

this is a confused kid with a recent-onset mental problem. but he'll almost certainly not be treated like one.

Hopefully he won't be trated like one. Hopefully he'll be treated like a criminal and locked away for a very long time.

Aren't you missing some sort of WTO/Peace/Anti-Starbucks protest by taking the time to comment here, quonsar?
posted by evanizer at 4:22 PM on May 9, 2002

I think there's a larger point here that is being ignored. It does not matter whether the press labels someone as a right- or left-wing extremist, because the positions overlap. The media, by dismissing people like Helder, Kaczynski, and McVeigh as crackpots, and leaving it at that, dismiss their arguments as extremist and irrational, and as such fail to facilitate any real understanding of their actions.

Gore Vidal has made some progress in revealing the thoughts behind McVeigh's actions. McVeigh, an intelligent man, had concerns about government power and the loss of citizens' rights, some of which are only starting to be debated in the mainstream, though still superficially.

The Unabomber Manifesto itself lists legitimate concerns about how the pace of technology is too fast for public debate, analysis, or control. Simply put, the more we screw around with genetics and the ecosystem, the more likely we are to fuck it all up, especially when profits come first. But, as we've heard, Kaczynski is someone who used to be extremely intelligent; now he's just insane.

Helder's case is interesting in that he is a sign of where we are going. If his mailbox notes serve as any indication, he doesn't have a sure grasp on what he is fighting (or fighting for), but he has a glimpse of it. Compare this to McVeigh and Kaczynski, who spent years with their beliefs before doing something so violent. Turn on a television and you see the world this 21-year-old has been immersed in: human life isn't so valuable; violence is an answer; in fact, violence is pretty damn funny. If we dismiss his acts as just those of an insane person, we're only going to be surprised when we see it happen again and again.

It's a traumatic process you go through when you realize that, despite is benefits, American democracy is a sham; that the last vestiges of power by the people disappeared long ago; that the rights of corporations far outweigh the rights of individuals; that indeed 99% of us in the U.S. live our lives on a treadmill designed to benefit the remaining 1%; that the choice of political parties is only a choice of labels; and, finally, that most people just don't care--they just want to see who wins on Survivor.

You read, study, analyze, try to make sense of it, and people think you're crazy for asking questions. The media won't talk about it. Some people can accept this and go on, some people turn on the TV and try to forget, and some people do what they can to help. Some can't handle it, and feel that the only voice they have is violence.
posted by troybob at 5:25 PM on May 9, 2002

And sometimes people are just fucking crazy.

Jeff Dahmer may have never played catch with his dad, but that still doesn't mean it's okay to eat people.

Millions of kids are picked on in school, yet the Columbine twits decide to kill innocent kids. Do you seriously want to dissect the motivation behind twits of such a caliber?

And the anti-corporate thing is so old and tired, it's like the conservatives and their damned "family values". Most people are pragmatic. They work for corporations, and depend on them for a living. They don't want them ruining their lives, but they're smart enough to see their importance to our economy.

Ken Lay is a malodorous fuckwit who should be in jail forever, but you know - a lot of those people who worked for Enron were just putting food on the table and didn't put on "evil corporate devil horns" on their way to work.
posted by owillis at 6:37 PM on May 9, 2002

Owillis:
Why is this "anti-corporate thing" so tired?
Why shouldn't people question whatever they feel like questioning?
Why?

Are you suggesting we should just all shut up and eat our dinner?

Please allow me to make a suggestion:
Why don't we we look at the foundation our system is built on and see if we can create something better for ourselves and those who will inherit the earth after us?

If you think this is a dumb idea owillis or anyone else who thinks it is "so tired" as if everything is a trend or fad. Please give me one *good reason* why those who have the desire to act meaningfully beyond stuffing their faces and buying the latest gadgets should stop questioning and acting meaningfully in the way they see fit?
posted by yertledaturtle at 7:08 PM on May 9, 2002

Aren't you missing some sort of WTO/Peace/Anti-Starbucks protest by taking the time to comment here, quonsar?
aren't you missing some sort of fascist s&m orgy by taking the time to comment here, evanizer? perhaps you could amuse yourself beating some mental patients with whips and chains?
posted by quonsar at 8:21 PM on May 9, 2002

quonsar. if luke is convicted or has confessed he is a domestic terrorist and will be lucky to NOT recieve the highest penelty. But he will. His mental instability is little defence. he knew what he was doing. they have people to determine this. your a passionate chap, but read more quonsar, read more...the Bath bombings...? the 1000s of smaller bombings around this country in the last 100 years.
This kid is an example of pure selfish desire run amok. And if someone had died, he would go the way of skinny tim Mcviegh.

"his perception as a domestic terrorist is important to the administration because the presence of domestic terrorism is needed to fuel the fires of thier war."

heres a hint for you. when BIG SAM rolls he dont call you, he dont call me, he dont even need to ask congress.

perception is not the fuel. It's hardly a spark.
posted by clavdivs at 8:53 PM on May 9, 2002

Why is this "anti-corporate thing" so tired?

Because 9 times out of 10 its part of some big theory about how if America just chose "X" social system (usually some derivative of socialism) we would have peace and harmony, buying our vegetarian foods from organic farms as we bike to and fro, between our solar-powered homes and poetry readings from Ani Difranco while we read our alterna-zines about the yodeling tribesmen of Papua New Guinea.

Ok, I may have exagerrated a little.

But the truth of the matter is, question whatever you want. Just don't be surprised when America shrugs and goes "eh". Don't expect the teeming masses to rise up in revolution with their eyes suddenly open to the oppresion of "the man". We've played this game before, and unless there's a wacky globe-shattering crisis (The Depression, WW2, Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam) America likes to chill out in blissfull complacency. We've seen the other economic systems rise and fall, and while it is a far way from perfect - this capitalist/socialism interbreeding has done us pretty well. It will tweak now and then (more money for the military when the Republicans are in control, more money for welfare when Democrats are in control - it's coming out of our tax bills either way), but I fail to see much of a powerful social movement in Ralph Nader's 2.6 million votes - when even crazy Ross Perot got 19million, and actually started a third party (which imploded itself).

So yes, decry "corporate rule" as much you want - but don't be surprised when us mindless corporate drones get up Monday morning to feed our families and ourselves.
posted by owillis at 9:22 PM on May 9, 2002

Owillis,
Do you speak for America?

Did I call you a mindless corporate drone?

I have worked for large corporations before. You seem to think that those who are opposed to corporations dominating everything don't work or something?
You don't think I have to work and feed my family and myself ? You make alot of assumptions Owillis.
I know that you aren't that mentally lazy, so please do me a favor and stop acting like you know shit you know nothing about. You don't know me. You don't know what i do. Your assumtpion that you are the only one who has to get up on Monday and feed his/her family is insulting.


I am surpirised by very little. I also can't predict the future so I have no idea how people will respond. Some people agree with me some don't some are willing to take action others are not. It's no skin off my ass. I am not trying to earn brownie points here.


I am an American as much as you are . I have worked for large corporations. I blissfully ignore things at times. In fact tonite I watched Basketball because I love sports.

However I also have some pretty strong views about corporations controlling everything and governing us.

I also believe that being an American is alot more than vegging out in front of the TV and putting blinders on.

You see America to me is built on questioning and pushing and expanding the boundaries of thought and discovery. Not complacency and apathy and putting our head in the sand when we see a problem. America is the land of the problem solver, the maverick, the anti-authoritorian, the freedom fighter, and the entrepeneur. It is the land of eschewing comfort in order to make progress in all areas of human endeavour

You see owillis, in the school I went to they emphasized the History of the U.S. and the fact that we are representative Republic/ Democracy. They didn't say our chosen form of governance was Corporate plutocracy.

So it's in my bones and engraved on my brain. I believe that one can enjoy life and be against certain aspects of our society that restrict our freedom, endanger our health and use clever legal tricks and hide behind a corporation to scam us out of our hard earned money.
That one can offer new visions against the resistance of those whose minds are caught in the entropy of the eat, sleep, work, watch tv, shop and sleep cycle.



Just because "YOU FAIL to see" the results of various movements for change it doesn't mean that there hasn't been any. I Could make the argument that just the opposite has occured but I am to tired to do that right now.
History takes time anyway and it's not over yet.
It took Martin Luther King Jr. years to develop the civil rights movement. it didn't hapopen over night.


You no what else Owillis? I have hundreds of friends and an extended family of hundreds. They listen to me and agree on alot of things I talk and write about. You know what else Owillis? They are Americans. So don't think that you speak for America because you don't.

Speak for yourself..

Oh also please don't put into quotes things i never said as a derisive attack on my character.
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:37 PM on May 9, 2002

Millions of kids are picked on in school, yet the Columbine twits decide to kill innocent kids. Do you seriously want to dissect the motivation behind twits of such a caliber?

No. I think we should completely ignore it. That way it will be all the more dramatic the next time it happens. We can act shocked all over again.

...a lot of those people who worked for Enron were just putting food on the table and didn't put on "evil corporate devil horns" on their way to work.

Yes, but as in many corporations, the employees are the first dumped (or dumped on) for the sake of profits. I can't imagine many of those out of work and who lost their retirement accounts have much appreciation for the system at this point.

So yes, decry "corporate rule" as much you want - but don't be surprised when us mindless corporate drones get up Monday morning to feed our families and ourselves.

It's pretty much what most of us are doing. But why bitch so much when someone asks if there is a better way?
posted by troybob at 10:42 PM on May 9, 2002

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow...
posted by nobody_knose at 10:43 PM on May 9, 2002

yertledaturtle: in your pursuit of the ultimate masturbatory comment, which I give you an 8.4/10 (well done), you've completely missed the point owillis was trying to present. The irony of your comment was that you were the one being presumptuous; owillis was simply rationalizing.

No one is telling you to stop questioning what you see. No one is telling you to do/not do anything. The "anti-corporate" banner is as original and fresh as "anti-SUV", the jesus fish with the darwin feet, and bush-bashing. Say the banner all you want, but prepare to represent yourself. Bullshit banners are for the idiot public who enjoy phrases like "compassionate conservative" and "i created the internet."
posted by BlueTrain at 10:59 PM on May 9, 2002

Blue train,

What banner? I asked a question of owillis. I asked why he said what he said about the "anti- corporate" sentiment.

HE went on to assume, in his next comment, how Americans will respond to the sentiment's expressed and he then he assumed that those who have problems with corporations governing don't have to work at corporations like he is does. He also calls himself "corporate drone" a term i never used. I don't think that of him. I don't even know the guy. So he creates a couple of strawmen and knocks them down. To me this is intellectually lazy.

HE also assumed that most people are comfortable as he is. Just because our blend of capitalism and socialism works for him it doesn't mean it works for a large number of people on the planet. It works fairly well for me as well but I have eyes, I have ears, I can see there is alot broken with the way we relate to each and the world and alot of it has to do, I believe with extremely rigid constructs that dominate most of our domains of existance, the corporate construct is one of them.

as for freshness Bluefish.
AFAIC Bluefish there is nothing fresh in this world. I have been around the block too many times for most things to be "fresh". But then again my moral, cultural, political, religious and social beliefs are not commodities or loafs of bread. So I don't care if they are fresh. I am not trying to win a popularity contest.

Another quibbble I have is when people use banner phrases like "the idiotic public". What the hell is the "idiotic public?" What does that mean. Perhaps it is you who must represent and support your banner that the;"public is idiotic". Then again aren't you a member of the public?




Also I hope you don't enter conversations with people you don't know with insults as you have just done with me.

Just imagine it. You walk up to me and owillis at a cafe after overhearing us talking and you say to me; " that was interesting are you pursuing the; ultimate masturbatory comment". and you then go on to say "if I were you I would give you an 8 out of 10".

How would you react to a person who insulted you like this that you didn't know?

Would you ?
A) Punch him in the face
B) Not respond
C) Call him an asshole
D) Ask why he felt compelled to insult you rather than address the argument with a rational retort point by point.



I usually choose B.
This time I have chosen D. So I am asking you now. Why the insult BlueTrain?
Did I insult you? How about a point by point retort of the substance of all of the arguments i have presented on this thread?
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:14 AM on May 10, 2002

Additionally, Blutrain, If i knew you or you were already participating in the conversation earlier I would probably have chosen
E) Laugh at your sarcastic joke at my expense.

But the previous conditions were not met so i chose
D)
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:18 AM on May 10, 2002

News reporters, however, are in a different class and claim to be objective.

Then you're agreeing, nobody knose, with nofundy in a sense, that Fox News is all comment, no reporting.

So yes, decry "corporate rule" as much you want - but don't be surprised when us mindless corporate drones get up Monday morning to feed our families and ourselves.

That 6 corporations have a strangehold on TV, recorded music, movies, publishing, newspapers means nothing to you, owillis? Oh, I forgot--you think sponsored in part by a grant from Ford, Archer Daniels Midlands and General Electric, McLaughlin Group, One on One with John McLaughlin, Tony Brown's Journal, the Nightly Business Report, Adam Smith's Money World, Wall Street Week PBS is a little too far to the left.
posted by y2karl at 3:07 AM on May 10, 2002

y2karl: Uh, "faux news" isn't worthy of a reply. Besides, the only reason fox stands out to y'all is that it isn't parroting the line of the other nets, and that seems to really, really, really drive you guys c-r-a-z-y.

God, for all the talk of being inclusive and considering all viewpoints, y'all sure get riled up when someone says something you don't like. Like Ice-T said, "Freedom of Speech…Just watch what you say."
posted by nobody_knose at 8:18 AM on May 10, 2002

Nobody_knose: Is it always a violation of free speech when someone doesn't agree with you? I must've overlooked that part of the Bill of Rights.

Yertle: Your assumtpion that you are the only one who has to get up on Monday and feed his/her family is insulting.

He didn't say that. Owillis just acknowledged, as I like to do from time to time, that in spite of our good intentions a lot of us are cogs in this corporate world the anti-globalization crowd is railing against. It's the biggest obstacle towards any effort to change the role of corporations in the U.S. When so many of us are relying on them for a job or investing in them to earn retirement income and college funds for our children, any effort to rein in corporations is going to meet with strong resistance.

P.s. You don't need to use HTML in your comments to start new paragraphs.
posted by rcade at 8:48 AM on May 10, 2002

Rcade;

I understand that most of us are cogs in the machine.

IT is possible to change this though.
Slowly but surely. I am changing my habits. Whenever possible I buy from local merchants and manufacturers etc...

I think if all of us did even a little bit we could make the world less cog like.

I don't use HTML to start new paragraphs. I just put alot of space between my paragraphs. It makes it easier for me to read. thanks for the suggestion though :-)
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:55 AM on May 10, 2002

You were the one making assumptions.

I hate working for a corporation, my dream and plan is to whittle my time away hoarding millions I make for myself and not for spending the rest of my life in some cubicle.

I didn't even say corporations were wonderful paragons of love and harmony juice. And I'm glad when people point them out. I don't speak for America (though I'm willing and able, Cap'n America!), but I'm pointing out evidence. Talk all you want about corporate rule, but as I said - be prepared for an uninterested :sigh:

Your assumtpion that you are the only one who has to get up on Monday and feed his/her family is insulting.

I don't even have a family to feed! Just myself and the world's cutest dog....


That 6 corporations have a strangehold on TV, recorded music, movies, publishing, newspapers means nothing to you, owillis?

And where'd you pull that from? I've been against mega-mergers like AOL/TW forever, I think Michael Powell is a monopoly-maker like we've never seen before. I'm very against media consolidation. But most people could give a shit, which is my point.
posted by owillis at 3:37 PM on May 10, 2002

point taken then, owillis.

Nobody knose--you rebel you, agreeing with 99 out of 10 crank talk show hosts and quoting Ice-T, to boot. Boy, we just can't handle freethinkers around here, I guess.

Oh wait, that's a coporate commodity now anyways--rebellion--which I realized anew back when ABC put a backwards baseball cap on their logo for their long gone Saturday cartoon block.
posted by y2karl at 10:10 PM on May 10, 2002

I wouldn't get too worked up about the media mega mergers, owillis. the thing about free markets is, if an idea doesn't produce shareholder value, it's not gonna be around for long. most of the giants just don't make that much sense financially. I expect to see big media stocking up on the slim-fast soon...
posted by nobody_knose at 10:19 PM on May 10, 2002

More evidence that big media's "omnipotence" is being way overplayed can be found here...
posted by nobody_knose at 8:20 AM on May 14, 2002