Totured by Bill O'Reilly on the way home

Comments

# William said on August 26, 2004 9:50 PM:

Yep, my sentiments exactly, and that's no spin.... HA! :-)

# William said on August 27, 2004 6:37 AM:

Agreed, except for the socialist-bashing part of course. Here in Holland, Democrat views are mainly considered socialist, with some progressive liberal aspects, while Republican views are considered conservatist liberal with some libertarian aspects. So, I have a slightly different perspective on socialists :) Anti-globalist still remain dumb a33es though :)

Anyway, I hope Americans soon start to realise what a great country they have and how "the land is truly their land". If they then start to realise that the rest of the world no longer thinks so because of what some idiot resident of the White House has done the past 4 years, the future looks bright again. Cowboy tactics don't work on invisible enemies...

# William said on August 27, 2004 7:21 AM:

Wolfgang: I appreciate your comments. Regarding Socialists, I was speaking to the Socialisit movement as a whole not a specific version of it - although a few versions, like Castro's are particularly vile. But I think you may be off a bit on the US issue in that the world hasn't been very fond of us for at least the duration of my life time. We have roughly 300 million people and since the first Bush, neither president has had a real mandate as far as the population goes. But people tend to use wide brushes a lot to describe countries, and Americans do it as much as anyone. Head up to New York City and then go to Charlotte, NC. They are culturally wayyy more different than any two countries you'd like to mention. America is a big place and it's definitely got a lot of diversity on viewpoints. But I think we've caught a lot of flak from many in Europe and elsewhere well before Bush II was president. Even though the Citizen of the World crowd swooned over Clinton, he was met with Protests , and often pretty large ones, just about every time he left the states and wasn't headed to a UN Summit. Terrorists were bombing us since I was a little kid. And a change of presdient isn't going to change that. THe Senate and House really control this country. An often ignored fact is that Congress was pretty much 100% on board on the War of Iraq and just about every other policy that America takes flak for. Bush is popular with about 1/2 the population depending on who's poles you belive, but he wouldn't have power to do much if Congress didn't support him. There's no way he would have sent the troops had not a large majority of Congress ok'd it first. They can say what they want now but there's no doubt about it. And while many will claim they were decieved, the same crowd was willing to authorize Clinton to take out Sadaam as far back as '88. Love him or hate him, Clinton was not what you'd call a Cowboy.

Anyway, I do appreciate your comments.

# William said on August 27, 2004 9:24 AM:

I'm not a fan of politics at all, it's all full of liars and cheats...and I can't believe that people can be so short sighted as to hate you just because you are a Democrat or Republican...I just don't understand how so many people can be duped into thinking that Kerry is evil for this country and Bush is a godsend, or vise versa...WAKE UP people! BOTH parties lie, BOTH parties do wrong things...it's a sad state of affairs when most of the people I talk to are going to vote for Bush or Kerry not because they are the best man to 'run' the US for four years, but because they are the lesser of two evils...and I say 'run' because I believe that the president is pretty much nothing but a figure head. As Bill states 'THe Senate and House really control this country.'.

Another reason why I despise politics is that IMHO most decisions made by the senate and house are made not because they would be good for the American public, but because it's good for their individual political career. For example the Dem's (or Rep's) could come up with a law that would halt all poverty in the US, and the opposing party would strike it down for the simple fact that it was created by the other party...

As for the Swiftboat ads, from what I understand some of the guys in that ad that are disputing what Kerry did in 'nam, but it's been public and military record for the past 30 years that Kerry did do these things. Some of the guys in the ads, who submitted military records that Kerry did do these things, are now saying that he did NOT do these things. So they basically filed false reports to the military. Isn't that illegal in some way?!? (Andy? I'm guessing you would know more than they rest of us.)

It all comes down to don't believe what you hear/read from one source, do some research for yourself and see what both sides are saying about a subject, and decide for yourself...the problem with that is the majority of the country gets their information by watching the nightly news or from gossip around the job place.

# William said on August 27, 2004 9:55 AM:

I normally avoid the "me too" posts, but it was nice to hear someone that's in the same boat I am, even if not 100% sympatico with my own views. I'm officially a card-carrying Libertarian, but no amount of party loyalty could make me vote for a tin-foil hat type like Badnarik. I couldn't vote for Bush because of John Ashcroft and the shenanigans at Gitmo. I couldn't vote for Kerry because I *know* he's going to screw the country as badly as W did, but in his own special way. Nader? There's not enough soap in the world to wash away the shame of voting for Nader.

I'm feeling about as disenfranchised as I ever have since I got the franchise.

And, yes. Bill O'Reilley is a pompous windbag who needs to be put in the old pundit's home for all our sake.

# William said on August 27, 2004 10:16 AM:

Libertarians are the big losers in this election. As always. It seems awfully unfair that the screaming, left-of-the-left-wingers can get such a noble representative in Nader, and even some say in the national party. Those of us who don't want to rape the constitution, however, can't get a word in via the Republican party. And the Libertarian party is a disorganized mess, with an incoherently-extremist platform (esp. on the war).

There are no less than two "social prohibition" amendments to be mentioned in the Republican party platform. One anti-abortion, one anti-gay.

I volunteered for a primary campaign here in NC for a libertarian-cum-Republican lawyer. He was running for the U.S. Congress on a moderate platform, with an anti-marriage amendment, pro-everything-else-Republican stance. And an emphasis on the constitutionality of government. This campaign spent ~$100k, on the primary alone.

The local Republican establishment wouldn't have it. They funded and certified a third candidate to run on exactly the same platform, just to siphon off votes and let the local "village idiot" social-conservative candidate win the primary with a plurality. Nevermind that he has no chance of beating the incumbent in the moderate-to-liberal-leaning district.

The party establishment these days is willing to trample anyone to "energize the base." What I'd like to know is: how much energizing is enough? They're trampling libertarians, proposing constitutional amendments, instituting faith-based charity, etc...these people (the Religious Right) only make up 20% of the party, for crying out loud.

There's not much hope for politics in the next eight years. This demographic split is driving everyone nuts just to get an extra 100 votes here and there.

By the way, have you noticed that the biggest issue facing the American economy has not once been mentioned in this election? That is, the burgeoning consumer household debt. When debt doubles in ten years, but real wages don't, what happens to the consumer sector of the economy as people switch to paying interest instead of buying junk?

I doubt either Kerry or Bush knows what a credit card balance is.

# William said on September 19, 2004 3:02 AM:

When I was in high school, and aired my anti-war left wing views, my fellow students would say, aw, go to Red China.

Well here, I am in Red China.

Tell you frankly, it's not all that different in certain key aspects. There are 8 alternative political parties who exist on sufference of a Communist party...which "allows" people to be capitalists so that it doesn't have to provide them with a safety net.

For example, a member of a rump or "good" Guomindang, as opposed to the "evil" Guomindang is permitted to exist and a leader endowed the art museum here in Shenzhen.

The news is controlled, except for Pearl and ATV from Hong Kong, where people are "allowed" to have views. But at key points it is blacked out.

For example, on July 1 of this year, millions of people demonstrated in near 100 degree heat for democracy. The news was replaced by public service ads.

A documentary was later aired about Deng Xiao P'eng which failed to mention Tianamen square and praised Deng's smoking despite the fact that such praise will cause millions of teens to light up in imitation of Deng.

However, the situation isn't different materially from that in the USA.

In the USA, to begin with, the media is spinning its accounts of the election in favor of Bush.

When the Bush team accomplishes something, no matter how amoral, the news media trumpets it as a genuine accomplishment. Whereas Kerry is represented as flailing ineffectually.

The GOP actually wants the same position as is enjoyed by the CP of China, and to be the effective single party.

The December 2000 election demonstrated this. Congressional staffers, working for House Republicans, formed the nucleus of angry mobs who terrorized election workers into stopping the recount.

The methods of control are much more subtle in the USA. But as such they are that much harder to counteract.

They are embedded in the market place as in the case of talk radio. The business reality is that radio, as a mature industry, cannot attract new listeners to genuinely decent content WITHOUT airing content that would offend powerful players.

For example, a genuine local series on manipulation of water rights in New Mexico would attract listeners but precisely to the extent it revealed genuine facts about local elites, who would then pressure advertisers to cut off the station's air supply, already limited because radio advertising time in a mature industry is a complete commodity available at commodity prices.

Elites local and national in other words can reduce the value of programming with a phone call.

But radio listeners will tune in only for "interesting" content.

This is why the lone commuter to work is a market corralled by radio that attacks, but always selects safe targets to attack such as "Feminazis" or a sort of mythical Jane Fonda, who has long since regretted her support for North Vietnam...although she was mostly right: it takes a special sort of man to kill people from the air.

Bill, if Bush is elected, it's probable that a military draft will be enacted, and the already low level of Social Security payouts for those of us without the foresight to stay with one company will be reduced further by Medicare taxes to pay for other folk's prescription drugs.

America will be attacked on a scale that will make September 11 look like a tea party, and it will be defenseless against the attack because the SAME structure of caring-for-others that gives us public goods also keeps watch against such attacks.

JMW is right. Neither Kerry nor Bush know what a credit card balance is. Bush's dad didn't know what a supermarket scanner does. Furthermore, in White House meetings, the former Treasury secretary William O'Neill testified that the discussants didn't know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.

Why should they? They have exclusive private plans.

People like us have been showing up at 7:00 in the morning and working through lunch, dealing with intellectual issues that would give George Bush a fit, for years.

My view is that we have to decide, once and for all, that our friends are the Wretched of the Earth and not the suits. We've been ambivalent about it too long, for a good reason. We depend, or we think we depend, on the suits for work.

We don't want to "bite the hand that feeds us".

But one of the reasons we tried to become skilled at what we do was in fact to be free men whose skills would make us independent. I suggest that as free men we need not look to Bill O'Reilly, or anyone else, to teach us how to blame our problems on other people.

In the tech bust and while writing my book, I was unemployed. I ran completely out of money even to eat and pay for a roof over my head. I had to humble myself and tell Dan Appleman that I was broke in the course of asking him to pay my advance a few weeks early.

But instead of blaming Feminazis or Jane Fonda for my problems, I "put one foot in front of another". When the Apress advance was couriered to my fleabag hotel, I took it to the office of the issuing bank and proceeded on my merry way, debugging the software, writing the book, and looking for a job.

I wound up in China, because thanks to the remnants of socialism, China's economy is out of phase with respect to the West.

As the other posters know, we cannot look to millionaire pols like either Kerry or Bush to help us. I have a soft spot for Nader because I met the schmoe when I worked at Princeton.

# William said on September 19, 2004 11:28 PM:

Again, I pretty much agree with most of your post. I really do. I'm not exactly pro-Bush by any stretch, I just know what I have with him and Kerry just flat out scares me to death. The only thing I think you are off base on is the media. The American Media is not helping Bush in any way shape or form that I can see. Take the most recent incident with the forged note from Bush's superior. It shows up and is taken as Gospel- well maybe not as Gospel but there were some obvious issues with it that were totally ignored. Take the Swift boat vets - did their 'evidence' get the same free pass that the anti-Bush stuff did? And what about violence done to the people in Abu Ghraib vs. violence that has been done to foreigners in Iraq? Abu Ghraib was a total disgrace to this country and should have been reported on. But that stuff and a lot worse goes on every single day in American prisons and not a word about it. Yet this was the ultimate crime according to the media. Look at how many in the media refuse to call folks terrorists! I'm an Irish Catholic and I've never seen the IRA for instance as Insurgents or anything but murdering thugs. The media candy coats this stuff all of the time and to say that they lean toward Bush is, IMHO, a little off base. Talk Radio only exists b/c its an outlet for people who vehemently disagree with what the mainstream media says. Of course Fox is the notable exception but if there was even remotely a pro-Bush agenda on TV, most talk radio listeners would be watching TV Instead.


<<This is why the lone commuter to work is a market corralled by radio that attacks, but always selects safe targets to attack such as "Feminazis" or a sort of mythical Jane Fonda, who has long since regretted her support for North Vietnam...although she was mostly right: it takes a special sort of man to kill people from the air.>> I wasn't alive back when Jane Fonda came to fame as Hanoi Jane (which is what I hear she was called). But I have heard her recently and I didn't hear her talk about the horrific treatment of women in the Middle East for instance. America has women in the Senate, the House, the President's cabinet, as CEO's of major companies, etc. Don't really see the same under Mullah Muhammad Omar way back when. I actually agree with old school feminisists like Simone de Beauvoir and don't really like Sexism - but I've been to college with a few 'radical' feminists and I found their viewpoints as repugnant as chauvinists. I actually knew one that used to run around advocating mandatory abortions for all male 'fetuses' until institutional sexism was eradicated from America. She also said that it was impossible for a Woman to commit an act of violence against a man. That's kind of whacky thinking and I guess it's probably this type of person that gets stereotyped Feminazi - I don't reallly know.

<<America will be attacked on a scale that will make September 11 look like a tea party, and it will be defenseless against the attack because the SAME structure of caring-for-others that gives us public goods also keeps watch against such attacks.>> I'm not sure I follow you here. We'll get attacked again b/c the government is in charge of keeping us safe?

<<Bill, if Bush is elected, it's probable that a military draft will be enacted, and the already low level of Social Security payouts for those of us without the foresight to stay with one company will be reduced further by Medicare taxes to pay for other folk's prescription drugs. >>
I definitely agree with you on the second one. To be honest, there isn't probably going to be social security for a lot of us paying an a33 load of money into it. It sucks b/c it fixable but that isn't going to happen. If they were to 'fix' it they'd just spend the money elsewhere.

I disagree on the first point though - Bush isn't that powerful of a dude. If he enacted the draft he would be utterly impotent on trying to push through any other issue thereafter and so would all of the Republican party. That would also lead ot a high probability of a power shift in congress. I don't think it's out of benevolence or anything, but I don't think that'll happen out of sheer pragmatism.

<<The GOP actually wants the same position as is enjoyed by the CP of China, and to be the effective single party. >>

So does every party. Politicians like power - there's no monopoly there on either side and this would be a scarry country indeed if that ever happens.

<<The December 2000 election demonstrated this. Congressional staffers, working for House Republicans, formed the nucleus of angry mobs who terrorized election workers into stopping the recount. >> Not in Miami Dade county where I lived. And not in Boca Raton where I worked. I saw a lot of folks out there, mainly media folks and there were WAY too many cameras out there for anyone to have been terrorized. Trust me on this one. Both sides would have loved nothing more than to have some good old fashioned intimidation caught on camera. I can't speak for everywhere in FLA, but I sure didn't see any of it or hear any of it and I was pretty active in local politics so i think I would have heard something.

<<For example, a genuine local series on manipulation of water rights in New Mexico would attract listeners but precisely to the extent it revealed genuine facts about local elites, who would then pressure advertisers to cut off the station's air supply, already limited because radio advertising time in a mature industry is a complete commodity available at commodity prices.>>
I don't doubt what you're saying - I just know nothing about that situation - would love to hear more...

Thanks again Edward, I think you made some good points and got me thinking. I'd really like to hear more on the Water situation you mentioned.