Bill Moyers really is a great journalist.
1. I think you have the date wrong--he references "George Bush" in a manner that suggests he's the President, so I think this must be after 1988.
2. I really do think that news organizations are going to have to chose a niche viewpoint. You can be Fox, or you can take what looks to be a fair view from the Blue states, but you can't do both. (I'm not taking a shot at Fox; I assume that the Reds find it fairer than other media.)
3. I do love Bill Moyers.
I think you have the date wrong
At the very beginning of the clip, it says this aired in 1987, but maybe that's wrong.
I am reminded of this worthy post of yore.
(But did it really get no comments?)
I think this must be after 1988.
Ok, it looks like the original segment was re-aired and Moyers' commentary at the end is part of the later re-airing (this is a guess, but I think it's right).
10: Well, now that you have cleared that up, I can take it seriously. Without that, I would have felt obliged to wash it from my mind, given the questions surrounding its manufacture.
There's a job waiting for you at Powerline.
How do we know this isn't Michael Moore pretending to be Bill Moyers in order to make America look bad? Remember, Michael Moore wasn't as fat back then.
I thought everything bad about America started with George W. Bush?
A bastard from a long line of bastards is no less a bastard, Gaijin. As your family can attest.
9: I think he deleted the commenters. Mwahahaha.
Re: #15. So grade-school insults about someone's family and parentage are par for the course here at Unfogged? This is not the use of profanity to express intensity or anger. It's a deliberate, nasty, and cowardly attack not only on me, but on my mother and father.
Does anyone else here agree with me that "text"'s comment is desipicable and inappropriate? Or is it all good as far as you're concerned?
Oh, goodness, let's not do this. After all, talking about anyone's mother's infidelities only reminds Ben of his own early traumas.
Seemed a little off-sides to me, but what do I know?
17: It seems weirdly hostile and out of place to me, but "despicable and inappropriate" seems a little high-faulutin', and "but on my mother and father" is so overblown, given that those sorts of insults are a whole genre of insults, that I don't particularly feel like crowding around in support of you.
17: Absent any other context, I assumed it was a reference to something else, not a straight-out attack on you. If there was no greater context for the remark, then yeah, out of line.
OTOH, I totally don't get where you're coming from with the "par for the course". Since when does text stand for all Unfogged?
I see terribly calumnies lodged against my great-great-great-grand-uncle every day in teh blogs. Joseph probably deserved most of 'em, but...well, okay.
She was young; she needed the money.
25: Your mother's a hermaphroditic crack whore?
Dishonestly, I've slept with ben, and we cuddled. He was very sweet.
Re, "par for the course": If no one else raises an eyebrow at something, then it's de facto acceptable, ordinary behavior -- "par for the course" -- even if not everyone engages in it.
I guess I'm not hip and sophisticated enough to avoid being offended when someone insults my entire family tree.
I guess I'm not hip and sophisticated enough to avoid being offended when someone insults my entire family tree.
I don't think you need to be particularly sophisticated; you just need to be adult enough to realize that none of us know your parents, so any such insults are probably trading in stock characters. The malice is a separate issue.
Re, "par for the course": If no one else raises an eyebrow at something, then it's de facto acceptable, ordinary behavior -- "par for the course" -- even if not everyone engages in it.
Dude, check the timestamps... 13 minutes elapsed from the time text posted his comment 'til you posted yours. Nobody else had *time* to raise an eyebrow.
I guess I'm not hip and sophisticated enough to avoid being offended when someone insults my entire family tree.
You're new to the internets, aren't you?
Seriously, you gotta develop a thick skin to survive out here.
I, for one, as a member, albeit legitimate, of a family not all of whose members were born into wedlock, and whose parents did not subsequently marry, am deeply insulted at text's use of the term "bastard" as an insult. If someone doesn't restrain me, I will be forced to challenge him to a duel.
I blame John Edwards for encouraging this courseness. Internets going all to hell with filthy languages and prisonal invectives and stuff. Also peoples with affected preliteracies and bad Irwin Corey limitations.
Hmm. I cannot defend text''s excess, but upon reading 14 i daresay Gb's was as witless, trite, and hackneyed a rightie dropping as I have had to scrape off a shoe.
I'd say that you weren't helping to smooth the waters, Bob, but then, that's never been your gig.
I for one have just managed to wrangle my computer into viewing this YouTube clip, and while I'm impressed with its leftiness, I can't help hoping that the extended version has a shitload of evidence and logical connectors. I agree, grosso modo, with the shorthand history presented here, but when it comes down to it, I don't really trust anything that takes less than an hour to present.
20 seems right, because, you know.
It's a deliberate, nasty, and cowardly attack not only on me, but on my mother and father.
Christ. Must you pull out the smelling salts at every turn?
I don't really trust anything that takes less than an hour to present.
We'll all speak more slowly in the future.
Could you type that again, Ogged? But more slowly this time.
I've been known to bite when impatient.
The Impatient Bites: not a bad band name; noted.
At "my" current connection speed, it could take as long as 2-4 hours to download the long version of the video. I think I'm going to go to sleep instead. Supposedly the network in this house (which is unusable) is going to get fixed on Tuesday so I'll have to wait to watch until then. I'll try not to bite anyone.
I've been known to bite when impatient.
As Chopper can attest?
Gaijin, 15 was a mere jab, unsubtle, unworthy of text, actually. What we really want to see from you here is a deft and witty rejoinder, devastating in its brilliance. Your 17 is a plea to the refs to stop the fight barely 30 seconds into the round. This would disappoint the audience.
Dang, that was kind of an analogy, wasn't it.
37:Hmmm.....Jm, doth joineth the Crusade of the Lady's Auxiliary of the Order of the Perpetually Bleeding Heart? Wielding the Mace of Magnanimity the Acolyte astride the Charger...
gotta work this up at length, mendicant friars Bros the boil-ridden and Gerraut the Goiter'd, Mace of Magnanimity is good, but I need a g-weapon of generosity with which the distaff crusaders go on the quest to smite the evil ogre of slavering partisanship.
Something. The key would be a pastiche of Prioress and her Tale, catching all the ironies and subtleties in the General Prologue Prioress (scroll down) :the fastidiousness, kindness toward lil animals, the socialized sentiments os ornament of status
On which ther was first write a crowned a,
162: And after amor vincit omnia.
And then the ironies of the Tale, the smug piety and barely repressed cruelty and bloodlust.
The Second Nun's Portrait
163: Another nonne with hire hadde she,
164: That was hir chapeleyne, and preestes thre
I can use this. Preestes thre? Nah, I like mendicant friars
But where would my masterpiece be posted?
Omigod, the Second Nun's Prologue is about Ydelnesse! God that would fit.
17: Surely this can't be teh actual GB, who's been around long enough to know that text's remark is, if not par for the course, definitely not out of the ballpark. If it is him, I bet those pearls he's clutching look great with his leathers.
It's a deliberate, nasty, and cowardly attack not only on me, but on my mother and father.
A classic non-denial denial.
Of course, 14 is a snotty little comment. (Oops. Didn't mean to imply anyone had a runny nose.)
46 gets it exactly right, and the response should be in kind.
I am a Gaijin Biker, you insensitive clods.
GB: You're generally a pleasant guy with a funny blog. But if you've engaged in premarital sex, or wouldn't be horrified to realize that a family member had, it's a little over-the-top to take a comment implicitly calling you a bastard as a serious insult.
This wouldn't be the right time to bring out my Cokie Roberts comparison, I guess.
My son is a bastard, and proud of it as far as I know.
15 was a mere jab, unsubtle, unworthy of text, actually.
This isn't GB's first salty language indignation hootenanny. I'd venture to say that it wasn't a mere jab, but that text has GB's number.
Ah, a well-judged jab then.
Fabulous video. I watched it again about two weeks ago.
It should be required viewing prior to being able to vote.
37: The problem with the term "secret government" is that it implies a degree of coordination and conspiracy that the interlocking network of official functionaries, spies, mercenaries, profiteers, and super-patriots normally cannot muster.
If you set aside the conspiratorial tone, however, the basic facts are undeniable. The CIA and related operators have acted repeatedly to wage war without the consent of the people, including the overthrows of Allende and Mossadeq, and the crazy Iran-Contra scheme. Although there is no formal organization behind these efforts, the same people and agencies appear again and again in these scandals.
One interesting thing about the current war is that we can see both the conspiratorial power of these players and their basic incompetence. They are organized enough to fake a case for war, but not actually competent enough to wage one.
Without using the term "secret government", you can point out that the bipartisan foreign policy elite has been playing musical chairs since 1941 or so, and that none of the big players is scrupulous about dealing honestly with the public. Interventionism, elite decisionmaking, and "tell them whatever you have to tell them" are the common benchmarks.
They are organized enough to fake a case for war, but not actually competent enough to wage one.
As has, in a way, been amply demonstrated by this thread's major digression.
I actually prefer the term "national security complex." Like the military-industrial complex, which it overlaps with, it isn't an official organization, but an old boy network.
62: Indeed. GB, your own puerile snark in 14 is, of course, a model of rational and mature discourse. And Text's response in no way actually addresses the implication of 14. Uh-huh.
Nice attention-grab, though.
Sorry for setting the thread back.
On topic: what do you all think of Moyer's introductory speech about "what if they decided to . . . ?" It bothered me a little. I'm not comfortable with paranoid hypotheticals or the you-can't-trust-the-system talk; it seems to me that that kind of thing leads to, rather than undermines, the faith-in-a-charismatic-leader thing. Hypotheticals should be based at least on probabilities.
I thought it was an allusion to the Kennedy assassination. If you blame the CIA for killing Kennedy, you can link the assassination to the national security complex.
I try not to think about the Kennedy assassination at all, much the same way people avoid thinking about the Israel/Palestine problem.
Right, and maybe it's because I too ignore the Kennedy conspiracy thing, but is there any actual credible evidence that the CIA was involved?
I'm going to regret asking that, aren't I?
The official story is that absolutely no one but Oswald was involved, and almost no one believes that.
Who were the others? Seemingly, if we knew we'd be very upset, so we're being protected.
"It's a deliberate, nasty, and cowardly attack not only on me, but on my mother and father."
I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I'm adequately chastened by this remark that I'd never tell you that I slept with your mother.
And don't put my handle in quotes.
I think text's attempt to cover up his role in the Kennedy assassination is just despicable.
67: Well, I believe it. Maybe I'm naive, but it wouldn't be the first time.
JFK deserved it, after what he said about my dear mum.
not like me. I'm talking to my audience.
Is 71 a deliberate, nasty and cowardly attack, not just on Oswald but on his CIA/KGB/right-wing/Castro-ite/mafia handlers and B's own naivete?
Well that's just par for course around here, I suppose.
For me, Dwight Macdonald's assessment remains definitive: conspiracy theorists have to explain how a conspiracy involving Lee Harvey Oswald, and most do, wouldn't run off the rails almost immediately; he was that unpredictable. I'm convinced Oswald acted alone as always, fired at the president from the School Book Depository, with the Mannlicher-Carcano. This doesn't rule out others acting independently, but the necessary coincidences as to timing seem incredibly far-fetched to me.
So praeteriteo is par for the course here at Unfogged? Does anyone else here agree with me that ~!-->text<--!~'s comment uses a rhetorical device?
Does anyone else here agree with me that ~!-->text
That was my impression.
It was a rhetorical question, gswift.
Dead thread, but please, IDP: Oswald was together enough to kill a US President singlehanded, but not together enough to do so with the help of one or more other people? MacDonald was a funny guy, but pretty erratic.
If someone is assassinated anywhere else in the world, and then almost immediately murdered while in custody by a man who in turn dies in jail, everyone there or here assumes that there was some kind of conspiracy. Assassinations, in fact, are one of the main things that conspiracies do, and both the Lincoln assassination and the Truman attempt were prosecuted as conspiracies. So while I am not sure that it was a conspiracy, and I don't know who the conspiracy involved if there was one, the rushed consensus and flood of ingenious explanations why Oswald had to be a lone wacko don't convince me. I remember well the fear that there was something bigger behind it and also the worry that people would lose confidence in government, or whatever.
I don't even know whether the others a.) got away with it or b.) were quietly done away with off stage. I just don't believe the lone wacko theory.