http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/29/democracy/index.html

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/29/democracy/index.html

First I'll concede the article in it's entirety raised some valid points, although I took exception to at least one matter stated as fact that is off the mark. But, if this thread is about the comment Fleischer made regarding the behavior of Americans, I think it is a bit of a leap to tie that to the censoring of the American media. I actually watched the press briefing, and there was a lot of that dead horsing beating/repetitive question thing going on (about this AND Jesse Jackson). I took his remarks to mean "this isn't the time to be rude" as a response to what were hideous remarks by Mahr, without pointing fingers. It did not sound as if he said "watch what you say, or the CIA will get you".........they are vastly different concepts. BTW, I would have to have that man's job, it would be very difficult for me not to tell people to shut the hell up the 10th time a question was asked, especially since reporters tend to get more sarcastic and snide as the press conference progresses.

What an overreaction by Salon.com! No one in the government is doing anything to silence anyone. Just this weekend, a thousand or so anti-war protesters held a rally in Washington, D. C. A few hundred marched here in L. A. in front of the federal building freely making their inane chants of "1,2,3,4. We don't want your racist war". (What's "racist" about protecting the most diverse country in the world, I don't get but...). No one was telling these people to "watch what they say".
Of course the man who shouted "Death to Americans" and "I want to kill all Americans", aboard an Air Canada flight from LAX last week, should have "watched what he said". He is currently in custody.

What Salon calls a herd-like mentality, others call a real, unrehearsed, unforced, uncoerced sense of national unity and purpose. What Salon really can't stand is that Americans support President Bush's handling of the situation by overwhelming majorities. So they pick up on this one small comment and try to make something sinister out of it for purely political reasons.

It is unfortunate a White House spokesperson is so ready to warn people off expressing their opinion, and show little faith in our system. In a free marketplace of ideas, those ideas ought to be competing on their merits alone and not how pleasing they are to the government's ears. Clearly, this is not the sentiment currently being expressed by Fleischer. The folks who edited the transcript of his comments ironically felt that "this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." (Who says irony is dead? We're manufacturing it daily.)

I also disagree with the newspapers which have declined to release the results of their investigations. If, indeed, that information is no longer as important as it might have been prior to 9/11/01 - should not their readers decide? I think their decision is more out of fear, or out of business interest rather than an attempt at journalism. Their decision to withold the information now almost feels like perhaps they never saw it as useful or important, merely as a way to sell papers.

-JP

Originally posted by drmomentum
It is unfortunate a White House spokesperson is so ready to warn people off expressing their opinion, and show little faith in our system. In a free marketplace of ideas, those ideas ought to be competing on their merits alone and not how pleasing they are to the government's ears. Clearly, this is not the sentiment currently being expressed by Fleischer. The folks who edited the transcript of his comments ironically felt that "this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." (Who says irony is dead? We're manufacturing it daily.)

-JP

He really wasn't "so ready". His response came after numerous questions on the issue (I got the impression this wasn't the first press conference that matter had been brought up). In my opinion this falls under the headline of created news (in the same manner as when the headline blasted "Rumsfeld Consider Nukes" after answering the question of his intended use "with we aren't ruling anything out"). I am all for a free press, but we have to understand the process of the briefings. They ask the same question repeatedly, in diffrent forms, in order to get a response they can them jump all over and analyze. The same thing happened that day with the Jesse Jackson issue. They were trying to get him to say "no he can't go" or "yes he can" and so then they could run with the story of Jesse encouraged, or Jesse forbidden. It is just the manner of the beast, of course I found it much more amusing during the Clinton years.

Actually several ideas have been standing on their own merits lately, but many people on the far left just aren't liking them. Sear's and Fed Ex dropped their spots of Politcally Incorrect because of viewer response. Peter Jennings got blasted by numerous viewers and had to back down his questioning of Bush's activity on the 11th. The government isn't censoring shows, public outcry is demanding a certain view to be promoted. Which is the free marketplace at work holding up ideas. Those that don't like those ideas can dimish them by calling it a herd mentality, but at least temporarily we are a 90% united country.

What Bill did on Politically Incorrect really wasn't that bad - it was an honest examination of the English language. Giving your life for a cause in which you believe is pretty courageous, not cowardly, while sending missles to targets so far away they may as well be video game targets isn't very brave. Bill just said what William Safire said in the New York Times Magazine in his On Language column 9/23/01... Bill just has a bigger audience, I guess.

mj

public outcry is demanding a certain view to be promoted. Which is the free marketplace at work holding up ideas“Herd mentality”, “public outcry”, “mob rule”...the euphemisms for conformity are numerous indeed.

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
“Herd mentality”, “public outcry”, “mob rule”...the euphemisms for conformity are numerous indeed.

Free speech only applies to dissenting views? Right now people are raw and are reacting in a fairly uniform manner. Bill Mahr probably could have said what he said 4 weeks after the tragedy without much comment.

Rest assured, I'm confident things will be back to "normal" in six months. Terry McAufflie and James Carville will be let out of their respective cages, Tom Dashcle will return to sitting on legislation that has already made it through the House (education, energy) to avoid giving President Bush a victory, radical enviromentalists will again play fast and loose with the facts (MORE arsenic????) and pudits who just don't like Bush, but don't really have a beef that will fly, will start questioning his intelligence, just for the fun of insulting him. The right will start to loudly question Clinton's policies that might have contributed to the attacks and Senator Torricelli will be roasted for his pushing legislation in the mid 90's that crippled the CIA. I'm sure some hapless Congressman will indulge himself in an inappropriate relationship and will be fodder for the news for weeks. Right now people apparently don't want to hear it and are generally seeking a unified voice. Things will change. Bush Sr. had an 89 approval rating in 91, right after the Gulf War and was voted out in 92.

Free speech only applies to dissenting views?Where exactly did anyone say that?

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
Where exactly did anyone say that?

Sorry if I "misunderestimated"you, but I took your comparing public outcry and mob rule to be commentary on public opinion impacting the slant of news.

Originally posted by CeeJay62


He really wasn't "so ready". His response came after numerous questions on the issue (I got the impression this wasn't the first press conference that matter had been brought up).

So it took a few times answering the questions before he gave us a glimpse into either his thinking or that of the administration. No matter how long it took for him to decide to bring us in on his point of view, we still only get a vaguely ominous pronouncement about watching what you say that seems more fit for some movie about a witness testifying against the mob.

Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say but I will fight to defend your right to say it?" Now it's been replaced with "You'd better take that back, watch what you say in the future and go home to hang a flag."

-JP

Originally posted by drmomentum


Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say but I will fight to defend your right to say it?" Now it's been replaced with "You'd better take that back, watch what you say in the future and go home to hang a flag."

-JP
That isn't an exact quote.

All I can say is I was watching it, and the thought that was going through my mind was why don't you quit trying to be polite and just say now isn't the time to talk like an ass.
Just my impression though.

Don't forget, while we are a unified nation at present, we are about to launch a military attack to defend our collective right to talk like an ass. Trying to peg silencing of free speech on a comment by a Press Secretary sounds like a story in search of a place to land.

Unfortunately, the calls for herd-like conformity are on the rise. In the last week, self-appointed sheep dogs from across the political spectrum have begun yapping at our heels, pushing us to all think alike and move in the same direction.


I take this article an as extreme over-reaction to Fleischer's statement. Aside from Fleischer, who are these "self-appointed sheep dogs"? We haven't all told each other we're 90% behind retaliation - the media has told us that we are.) How much of the "herd-like" conformity is actually perception influenced by the media?

I do see a lot of conformity around me - there's almost a sense of peer pressure to wave flags, put ribbons on cars, etc. But those are personal choices, based perhaps on pressure from other citizens - not a result of a push from the government.

Originally posted by CeeJay62
All I can say is I was watching it, and the thought that was going through my mind was why don't you quit trying to be polite and just say now isn't the time to talk like an ass.

Apparently time was not a factor when tents and camel's asses were the subject matter.

-JP

The TV news I watch has a wide divergence of views on the best approach to countering terrorism. Heck, Reuters news service isn't even going to use the term "terrorism" saying that one person's terrorist is another person's "freedom fighter".

Reports are that even within the cabinet there are a divergence of views on whether to go after Saddam Hussein or not.

I think Salon is overblowing this whole thing for political purposes.

Originally posted by drmomentum


Apparently time was not a factor when tents and camel's asses were the subject matter.

-JP

If you are speaking about GWB's quote it was closer to

"When I take action I won't drop a 2 million dollar missle on a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt, it will be decisive"

The source is a Howard Finenman article on MSNBC.com

I thought that was a great quote, but then I'm quite fond of straight talk.

It’s purely hypothetical, but if President Clinton’s (or, in a parallel universe, President Gore’s) press secretary mentioned that Americans “need to watch what they say” and that comment was then excised from the official transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010926-5.html#BillMaher-Comments) of the press briefing, would that be quietly accepted? Would National Journal (http://nationalreview.com/) be expressing extreme over-reaction if they wrote up the story?

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
Would National Journal (http://nationalreview.com/) be expressing extreme over-reaction if they wrote up the story?

The National Review would probably be okay, but you can count on www.newsmax.com making a big, messy deal out of it all.
Still wouldn't be a valid argument :)

Originally posted by CeeJay62
I thought that was a great quote, but then I'm quite fond of straight talk.

You're having trouble convincing me.

-JP

Originally posted by drmomentum


You're having trouble convincing me.

-JP

Although I doubt I have ever convinced you (or ever could for that matter) of anything, I'll bite. Convinced you of what?

That I liked the quote?

That the quote is different than what Mahr said? That's easy, Bush didn't call the military cowards, or compare them unfavorably to terrorists that killed thousands of people.

That Arie Fleischer isn't a creepy flag waver with criminal intent towards free speech? I gave that one my best shot, only time will tell now. We'll have to see if the FBI, CIA and KGB show up on his doorstep to know for sure.

Originally posted by CeeJay62
Although I doubt I have ever convinced you (or ever could for that matter) of anything, I'll bite. Convinced you of what?7

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not convinced that you're fond of straight talk.

-JP

There's so much wrong with Talbot's rubbishing article - wrong factually, legally, historically, and logically - that it's not worth my time ($75 an hour even on the cheap rate) to shred it here.

I will content myself with two points. The First Amendment applies to government action. Only. Solely. Period. It's no more The Dark Fascist Night of Censorship for any group of private citizens, any advertiser, any press baron, any poker club, to close ranks around one set of views than it is The DFN of C for me to chose to write an opinion on a work by John Keegan and decline to write one on the vaporings of a Sontag or a Chomsky.

Secondly, to members of one of those groups and poker clubs who've closed ranks around one set of views - i.e., some of those ad sinisitra - I would beg them to remember that scornfully flaunting a 'minority' viewpoint, playing martyr, disdainfully dismissing the common herd, is not necessarily the outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible Grace, it is not necessarily a Proof of Virtue and Election. Quite painfully often, the sophisticated leftish minority's viewpoint is a minority viewpoint because it's dead wrong. Yes, they rashly laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Marconi, they laughed at the Wright Brothers ... but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. The Left tends to forget that.

Originally posted by drmomentum


I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not convinced that you're fond of straight talk.

-JP


Since I'm not interested in debating my personality/character traits in a public forum I suppose I'll have to leave you with your illusions ;)

Herd mentality? Hell of a mixed herd:

Some of the best and most incisive writing about the current crisis - writing and analysis not a few of you will resent, I regret to observe - is coming from National Review on the one hand and The New Republic on the other.

NR has Paul Johnson, David Pryce-Jones, and that distinguished military historian, Victor Davis Hanson; and Deroy Murdock. Mr Murdock is protesting that words matter:

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock092701.shtml

While the Brits give some historical context:

http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/pj101501.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/johnson101501.shtml

and Hanson teaches Strategy 101:

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson092001.shtml

TNR is actually making sense, too:

http://www.tnr.com/100101/kaplan100101.html

http://www.tnr.com/100101/trb100101.html

Even that intellectual abject Christopher Hitchens is showing a glimmer of sense:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=hitchens

Of course, idiots and moral imbeciles remain:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010924-8732695.htm

As herds go, this one appears to have 'hybrid vigor.'

Originally posted by CeeJay62
Since I'm not interested in debating my personality/character traits in a public forum I suppose I'll have to leave you with your illusions ;)

I don't question your character, or your personality. Perhaps I should have asked for your definition of "straight talk" before coming to a conclusion. To me it means an unequivocating, honest statement or expression of opinion (whether I agree with it or not) put plainly and not deceptively.

Examples of non-straight talk:
"I did not have sex with that woman."
"I could have passed the standards applied under the most stringent conditions when my dad was president, a 15-year period."
"We don't know where Osama bin Laden is, so we can't get the message to him."

Examples of straight talk include the president's recent address, and Bill Maher's comments on his show.

I guess my only point is that if straight talk is something to be desired then we should encourage it.

Do I mean that advertisers should not leave the show if they disagree with Maher? It's their decision to do what they want with their money. If they think they can gain customers that way, they are free to do so.

Do I think that we should elevate dissenting opinions (once they have been expressed) to a higher level simply because they are dissenting? I'm not sure what would give a person such an idea. In fact, that couldn't be farther from my belief.

If Fleischer had said "we disagree with Maher" or however they would have wanted to put it, that's wonderful. But a vague warning about care in the use of our free speech is off base.

This has nothing to do with whether I agree with Maher or not. The truth is I'm not sure how I feel about his statements. But I would be just as surprised at Fleischer's statements if he had made them in response to the straight talk that we got from Falwell and Robertson following the tragedy. In the pantheon, perhaps they figure as Abbott and Costello.

-JP

Originally posted by drmomentum


If Fleischer had said "we disagree with Maher" or however they would have wanted to put it, that's wonderful. But a vague warning about care in the use of our free speech is off base.
-JP

Well, damn. There go all those recycled 'Loose Lips Sink Ships' posters.

I'd forgotten what a threat to democracy FDR and his Cabinet really were....

Was “herd mentality” even the central thesis of the article? I first saw a link to the Salon article at CamWorld (http://www.camworld.com). Cam’s one-sentence take on it was “In other words, look out for hidden agendas within the decisions coming out of the Bush Administration.” For me, the most salient part of the article was that Fleischer’s comments seem to have been sanitized for the official transcript to remove his assertion that Americans “need to watch what they say.” Perhaps that’s simply an honest mistake by a careless White House typist. Perhaps. If the transcript is corrected within the next few days, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Herd mentality, hidden agendas, or sanitized history — what the article is about seems to be quite different depending on who reads it.

Originally posted by mshawpyle
Well, damn. There go all those recycled 'Loose Lips Sink Ships' posters.

I suppose they can also foil crusades.

-JP

Right now it appears to be in our national interest to support our less than commanding commander in chief. He is leading us in circumstances that neither he nor any other President ever could have expected, and he deserves some support and freedom from the potshots of political comedians.

He has assembled a team of advisors who are widely respected. I hope that Powell's point of view prevails against the more hawkish members of this team.

At some point the questions as to how best to win the war on terrorism will progress from a debate between Powell and Rumsfeld to a debate within Congress and the press. We have a free country, and true patriots can have many different opinions.

But there is a difference between debate and lampooning.

Is it patriotic to lampoon a leader when our nation desperately needs strong leadership, even if that leader is not the one the comedian (or I) would have chosen?

Originally posted by frazzledspice
Is it patriotic to lampoon a leader when our nation desperately needs strong leadership, even if that leader is not the one the comedian (or I) would have chosen?It’s probably a bit of a stretch to classify Maher as a comedian but I suppose that every King needs a Fool.

Sometimes the Fool is named Touchstone, sometimes Hanussen, sometimes Maher, but the Fool is always with us:

Fool, n. A person who pervades the domain of intellectual speculation and diffuses himself through the channels of moral activity. He is omnific, omniform, omnipercipient, omniscient, omnipotent. He it was who invented letters, printing, the railroad, the steamboat, the telegraph, the platitude, and the circle of the sciences. He created patriotism and taught nations war — founded theology, philosophy, law, medicine, and Chicago. He established monarchical and republican government. He is from everlasting to everlasting — such as creation’s dawn beheld he fooleth now. In the morning of time he sang upon primitive hills, and in the noonday of existence headed the procession of being. His grandmotherly hand has warmly tucked-in the set sun of civilization, and in the twilight he prepares Man’s evening meal of milk-and-morality and turns down the covers of the universal grave. And after the rest of us shall have retired for the night of eternal oblivion he will sit up to write a history of human civilization.
— Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Originally posted by drmomentum



Examples of straight talk include the president's recent address, and Bill Maher's comments on his show.

I guess my only point is that if straight talk is something to be desired then we should encourage it.

-JP

I believed this thread to be about whether or not Fleischer made a veiled threat to the American public, and if there is a mob rule mindset in silencing unpopular opinions (on both sides Maher, Falwall and now the National Review has fired Ann Coulter for a column they deemed over the top that refered to killing Islamic leaders, converting the Muslims to Christianity and swarthy males).

I don't believe the American public needs to pound someone into the ground and ruin their career because of rude or uncalled for remark. I do believe American public has the right to vehemently express their displeasure at the remarks, free speech applies both ways. Maher engaged in straight talk when he called our military cowards and I engaged right back when I said he was a rude jerk. I can appreciate the concept of straight talk but maintain my right to disagree with the ideas put forth.

On a related note: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55454-2001Oct1.html

From Maureen Dowd’s commentary piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/opinion/30DOWD.html): “So I don't need instructions from Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, on the conduct of a good American. Patriotism, it seems, is the last refuge of spinners. Even as the White House preaches tolerance toward Muslims and Sikhs, it is practicing intolerance, signaling that anyone who challenges the leaders of an embattled America is cynical, political and — isn't this the subtext? — unpatriotic. ”