If you're too dense to understand why it was necessary to leave it as main frontpage story for Sept. 11th, then don't bother commenting on it. CP is not left by your definition. Your left is impotent, ineffective and irrelevant. It doesn't accomplish anything, because it's afraid to be deemed unpatriotic. Picking obvious targets and cycling the same old tired material just makes you look like a typical flaming liberal, while the right is finding ways to further their agenda effectively. Surely you could have picked up something more important to rant about on this tragic day.
"Ah, This Left"
No, that's food for thought for people who refuse to be treated like sheep and accept every annoying cliché mainstream media feeds the population.
What disgusts me is the fact that people with same type of reasoning and tolerance inadvertently green lighted the war in Iraq, Patriot Act and every other illogical and damaging action by the government. Whatever you do, don't question. Just talk about the comparatively irrelevant issues such as Medicare in 2030, affirmative action and 10 commandments in courtrooms. 9/11 Never Forget! Global War on Terrorism! Lets Roll!
remember the old joke about "philosophers prove that-p" where someone (Kripke?) says something like "your counterexample misconstrues my argument, because my argument was intended to have no counterexamples"?
It's not your left, because your left is ineffective. My left, though, is intended to be powerful and relevant, so clearly we're talking about different things.
Right. Take the village-atheist tack, and wonder why people get mad.
Good to see you back, Fontana. Was wondering where you'd gone.
When I wrote, "Ah, This Left," I meant it as a reference to the (one would have hoped) chimerical "Left" that's the favorite target of the Instapunditeers. Not so chimerical, it turns out.
I would like to say that Insty is still unfair to pretend that's the real "Left," but it turns out he's being encouraged in that regard as well.
Only because I care that people take the truth of that article seriously do I criticize CounterPunch for running it today.
What does the factual truth contained within article have to do with CP providing a sharp contrast which exposes the hypocritical government actions through journalism? Yes, it's not-so-subtle, but it grabs attention of the reader. Isn't it the goal of every political journalist, blogger or author to be taken seriously?
We're seeing a commonly accepted practice in journalism by this webzine to provoke thought and dialogue. (hell, the name is Counterpunch.org). We've been fed the "Never Forget" line each and every day for the last 2 years, yet people in this nation have forgotten (or were never aware in the first place) of events and factors which (in)directly contributed to this event.
Maybe we're not connecting here, but I'd like you to clarify the exact reason why you're dissatisfied with CP. Is it because publishing this piece, CP wasn't sensitive to the victims and families respectively? Internet is a global medium, and sadly not everyone sees 9/11 as a day of mourning exclusive to Americans.
I would side with your argument have they published a feel-good story in appreciation of dutch beer. Otherwise, it's striking.
Paul Street also covered Chilean events of 9/11 on Znet. Last paragraph pretty much summarizes my thoughts on this issue.
Tell me, on this day, who is the audience for that piece?
The usual suspects, I would suppose. Counterpunch isn't CNN by any stretch of imagination. I doubt any of Instapundit's audience even visits that site.
Maybe we're not connecting here, but I'd like you to clarify the exact reason why you're dissatisfied with CP.
Thanks for the reasonable response, I appreciate it.
I'm angry that CP so misjudges the mood of the public. Anyone who isn't already convinced that what happened in Chile in 1973 is just as important as what happened here in 2001 will only take offense at that fact that CounterPunch ran the Chile story.
One of the difficult lessons of political effectiveness is that you have to modulate your message, not according to how right you are, but according to how your audience is disposed to hear you.
And keep in mind that only one person needs to go to the site, email the link to Instapundit and voila, the "Left" can be villianized one more time.
So, why am I upset? Because people need to know what their government has done and I want them to be receptive when they hear it. Provocations like CounterPunch's decision to run the article today sell magazines to their target audience, but only set back the larger cause.
I'm angry that CP so misjudges the mood of the public. Anyone who isn't already convinced that what happened in Chile in 1973 is just as important as what happened here in 2001 will only take offense at that fact that CounterPunch ran the Chile story.
I guess Economist is also comprised of dirty bleeding-heart libbies who are insensitive to the whole 9/11 WTC event.
And keep in mind that only one person needs to go to the site, email the link to Instapundit and voila, the "Left" can be villianized one more time.
Why does anyone give a flying f*ck what Instapundit thinks? He's just a guy with a blog that's feeding into this rhetorical 'never forget' circlejerk.
Liberalism is not a religion. Left is not comprised of Michael Moore look-alikes. If anyone makes a blanket statement, such as "X is what left is all about", just demonstrates their ignorance. Following such statements the author should be quickly dismissed.
So, why am I upset? Because people need to know what their government has done and I want them to be receptive when they hear it. Provocations like CounterPunch's decision to run the article today sell magazines to their target audience, but only set back the larger cause.
See Paul Street, see Economist, etc. CP is not your run-of-the-mill webzine. They're stances are little bit more extreme and raw. Caution, usually practiced by Eric Alterman, et. al is not their line of business.
They cater to the pissed off crowd who don't even associate themselves with Democrats. It's fine by me.
Just a few points and then feel free to have the last word.
Re the Economist piece: dated September 4. I'm not saying don't bring up Chile and I'm not saying don't make comparisons. I'm saying: not today.
Re why care about Insty: you and I seem to differ on how much attention to pay to those who disagree with us. Insty is, by my lights, just a tad to the right of center in this country. Nevermind his traffic (which is considerable); he's more important as a representative of the audience I think we should have in mind. You can "dismiss" the "ignorant," but you'll need those people behind you if you want to get anything done.
I think you're right when you say of CP that they cater to the pissed off crowd who don't even associate themselves with Democrats. That is, of course, their prerogative. But, as someone who thinks of himself as "left," I'm not willing to let them become the standard-bearer and I'll take them to task when I think they're hurting causes that are important to me.
Here's a tip for you: Read the Article.
If you're too dense to understand why it was necessary to leave it as main frontpage story for Sept. 11th, then don't bother commenting on it. CP is not left by your definition. Your left is impotent, ineffective and irrelevant. It doesn't accomplish anything, because it's afraid to be deemed unpatriotic. Picking obvious targets and cycling the same old tired material just makes you look like a typical flaming liberal, while the right is finding ways to further their agenda effectively. Surely you could have picked up something more important to rant about on this tragic day.
No, that's food for thought for people who refuse to be treated like sheep and accept every annoying cliché mainstream media feeds the population.
What disgusts me is the fact that people with same type of reasoning and tolerance inadvertently green lighted the war in Iraq, Patriot Act and every other illogical and damaging action by the government. Whatever you do, don't question. Just talk about the comparatively irrelevant issues such as Medicare in 2030, affirmative action and 10 commandments in courtrooms. 9/11 Never Forget! Global War on Terrorism! Lets Roll!
Posted by cioxx | Link to this comment | 09-11-03 2:29 PM
Only because I care that people take the truth of that article seriously do I criticize CounterPunch for running it today.
Tell me, on this day, who is the audience for that piece?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-11-03 2:37 PM
remember the old joke about "philosophers prove that-p" where someone (Kripke?) says something like "your counterexample misconstrues my argument, because my argument was intended to have no counterexamples"?
It's not your left, because your left is ineffective. My left, though, is intended to be powerful and relevant, so clearly we're talking about different things.
Right. Take the village-atheist tack, and wonder why people get mad.
Posted by Fontana Labs | Link to this comment | 09-11-03 2:52 PM
Good to see you back, Fontana. Was wondering where you'd gone.
When I wrote, "Ah, This Left," I meant it as a reference to the (one would have hoped) chimerical "Left" that's the favorite target of the Instapunditeers. Not so chimerical, it turns out.
I would like to say that Insty is still unfair to pretend that's the real "Left," but it turns out he's being encouraged in that regard as well.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-11-03 3:04 PM
What does the factual truth contained within article have to do with CP providing a sharp contrast which exposes the hypocritical government actions through journalism? Yes, it's not-so-subtle, but it grabs attention of the reader. Isn't it the goal of every political journalist, blogger or author to be taken seriously?
We're seeing a commonly accepted practice in journalism by this webzine to provoke thought and dialogue. (hell, the name is Counterpunch.org). We've been fed the "Never Forget" line each and every day for the last 2 years, yet people in this nation have forgotten (or were never aware in the first place) of events and factors which (in)directly contributed to this event.
Maybe we're not connecting here, but I'd like you to clarify the exact reason why you're dissatisfied with CP. Is it because publishing this piece, CP wasn't sensitive to the victims and families respectively? Internet is a global medium, and sadly not everyone sees 9/11 as a day of mourning exclusive to Americans.
I would side with your argument have they published a feel-good story in appreciation of dutch beer. Otherwise, it's striking.
Paul Street also covered Chilean events of 9/11 on Znet. Last paragraph pretty much summarizes my thoughts on this issue.
The usual suspects, I would suppose. Counterpunch isn't CNN by any stretch of imagination. I doubt any of Instapundit's audience even visits that site.
Posted by cioxx | Link to this comment | 09-11-03 3:23 PM
Maybe we're not connecting here, but I'd like you to clarify the exact reason why you're dissatisfied with CP.
Thanks for the reasonable response, I appreciate it.
I'm angry that CP so misjudges the mood of the public. Anyone who isn't already convinced that what happened in Chile in 1973 is just as important as what happened here in 2001 will only take offense at that fact that CounterPunch ran the Chile story.
One of the difficult lessons of political effectiveness is that you have to modulate your message, not according to how right you are, but according to how your audience is disposed to hear you.
And keep in mind that only one person needs to go to the site, email the link to Instapundit and voila, the "Left" can be villianized one more time.
So, why am I upset? Because people need to know what their government has done and I want them to be receptive when they hear it. Provocations like CounterPunch's decision to run the article today sell magazines to their target audience, but only set back the larger cause.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-11-03 3:44 PM
I guess Economist is also comprised of dirty bleeding-heart libbies who are insensitive to the whole 9/11 WTC event.
Economist.com article link
Why does anyone give a flying f*ck what Instapundit thinks? He's just a guy with a blog that's feeding into this rhetorical 'never forget' circlejerk.
Liberalism is not a religion. Left is not comprised of Michael Moore look-alikes. If anyone makes a blanket statement, such as "X is what left is all about", just demonstrates their ignorance. Following such statements the author should be quickly dismissed.
See Paul Street, see Economist, etc. CP is not your run-of-the-mill webzine. They're stances are little bit more extreme and raw. Caution, usually practiced by Eric Alterman, et. al is not their line of business.
They cater to the pissed off crowd who don't even associate themselves with Democrats. It's fine by me.
Posted by cioxx | Link to this comment | 09-11-03 3:59 PM
Just a few points and then feel free to have the last word.
Re the Economist piece: dated September 4. I'm not saying don't bring up Chile and I'm not saying don't make comparisons. I'm saying: not today.
Re why care about Insty: you and I seem to differ on how much attention to pay to those who disagree with us. Insty is, by my lights, just a tad to the right of center in this country. Nevermind his traffic (which is considerable); he's more important as a representative of the audience I think we should have in mind. You can "dismiss" the "ignorant," but you'll need those people behind you if you want to get anything done.
I think you're right when you say of CP that they cater to the pissed off crowd who don't even associate themselves with Democrats. That is, of course, their prerogative. But, as someone who thinks of himself as "left," I'm not willing to let them become the standard-bearer and I'll take them to task when I think they're hurting causes that are important to me.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-11-03 4:12 PM