American Conservative -- No Endorsement

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:53 pm

That's funny!!! Here in Canada, we don't have any "anti-US rhetoric" other than watching the news (i.e dying Iraqis, suffering Palestinians, fat Republicans all patting each other on the back). Our government and business people are shitting themselves right now that Canadians are becoming too anti-American (especially as to how it will effect trade and commerce). There was a lot of anti-Canadianism in the US because we refused to go to Iraq.


No, there wasn't. GORT. 'Anti-Canadianism' was barely a blip. Anti-France-ism was the order of the day.

If your news gave you antoher impression, it was exaggerating. If it *only* shows dying Iraqis (and blames that *only* on US actions), suffering Palestinians (but not victims of Hamas), 'fat republicans patting ech other on the back' (but not other Americans, neither fat nor republican, worried about what's happening here) , then I'd say your news reporting is no better than ours.

We also weren't too happy that one of your yahoo pilots killed four of our soldiers in Afghanistan (and got off scott-free) in an unfriendly fire incident.

We do get most American news broadcasts and are appallled at how soft they've been on Bush. Of course, you don't see half the shit we see on CBC (Canadian news) and the BBC from Fallujah after one of your "precise" missiles hits a target of .......... women and children.


Actually, I, and many others here, I'm sure, get both those services on cable. I particularly enjoy the BBC perspective, and applaud their willinglness to go in-depth --something now unheard of here on TV news -- but I'd hardly call it rigorously unbiased.

Again, you provide an easy target for the American right, and only a sort of empty, self-destroying comfort to the left, with this sort of rhetoric. That is the reality of it, as far as I can tell.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Gee Oh Are Tea
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: Fallujah, Ontario

Postby Gee Oh Are Tea » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:04 am

OK, I'll try to respond in a reasonable, calm fashion (kudos to you because your posts truly are well-reasoned).

The anti-Canadianism I refer to happened mostly in border locations (Buffalo, Detroit, Washington State) where Canadians were verbally abused for "not being our friends in our time of need" and vandalism of Canadian-plated vehicles. There was also a lot of mockery in the right-wing media ("yellow-bellied socialists").

I'm aware that there is as strong, non-rhetoric based movement against the current Administration. Perhaps the rest of the world doesn't appreciate or can't quantify that effort. What I do know, is that if Bush wins, the reaction here will be along the lines of: "Are Americans that stupid?" (the blanket condemnation that is unfair to those who voted against him) and "Why did the Democrats nominate such a weak candidate as Kerry when this election was there for the taking?".

I completely disagree about your view of news coverage about the Palestinians. Every time there is a suicide bomb against Israeli targets, we see the carnage and we hear who was behind it. When the Israelis assasinate a member of Hamas, we hear about it and see the resultant strike. What we don't see enough of - as in Iraq - is the civilian toll of Israeli attacks. I watch all the major US network news plus CNN (and Fox News when my pirated DirecTV was working) and these conflicts are made to look "super clean". Americans know that Palestinian suicide bombers have killed Israeli civilians. How many of them know that three times the number of Palestinian civilians have died than Israeli civilians in the latest Intifadeh? How many Americans are aware of the number of civilian deaths in Iraq? Why are Kerry and the Democrats afraid to indicate the non-American human toll in Iraq? (I'm guessing because it looks like a "shot" at US troops and the military).

As far as "dying Iraqis" go, unlike in the US news, we see victims of both "insurgents" (the majority) and American imprecise bombing (a lesser number). It's funny how CNN this morning reported that the US government has paid out $1.9 million to "victims" (and their families) in Najaf (I'm assuming non-insurgents). Yet, not surprisingly, I haven't actually seen the US networks broadcast the original actions that led to these payments (as in bomb meant for Point A hits Point X).

Of course, I would be an easy target for the American right simply because from what I've read and heard from the right-wing media in the US, their views are much like Bush's campaign (it's all about the U.S. and screw the rest of the world, and a discussion of issues is irrelevant when you're fightin' those damn terrists (sic)). By the way, "foreigners" are aware of but don't really care about things like "factcheck.org" because the facts are most relevant to US voters who may or may not choose to ignore them (depending on how they vote). This may sound pompous but we non-Americans know the facts (as we did long before Sept 11). Hopefully enough Americans in key states will care for the facts next Tuesday.

Cliff

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:12 am

Gee Oh Are Tea wrote:How many of them know that three times the number of Palestinian civilians have died than Israeli civilians in the latest Intifadeh?

I didn't know that. But I am curious as to how they define a Palestinian "civilian"...due to the nature of an Intifadeh, I'm thinking there's a large gray area in that definition.
Dob
-------------------
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

Gee Oh Are Tea
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: Fallujah, Ontario

Postby Gee Oh Are Tea » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:52 am

Dob wrote: But I am curious as to how they define a Palestinian "civilian"...due to the nature of an Intifadeh, I'm thinking there's a large gray area in that definition.


You are correct. Certainly, in fairness to the Israelis, they do not bomb civilians indiscriminately. However, given the tight packing of the refugee camps in Gaza, they have to know that to take out two Hamas guys that you are likely to take out (possibly) ten non-Hamas members, including women and children.

My argument is not a numerical one but one that advances the reasoning that the US media is not willing to show a real PR-hurting image when it comes to both the Israelis and the US in Iraq similar to the "burning from napalm girl" in Viet Nam (she lives in Canada now). And we see plenty of these images on Canadian TV news (the national broadcaster, CBC, is considered "anti-Semitic" by Jewish groups for its balanced (IMHO) coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Or how about the kid in Iraq who had most of his limbs blown off and lost all of his family in a US bombing? We saw a lot of him because he was supposed to be taken in by a Canadian family but has now ended up in England. I can't recall seeing much of him on US television (even 60 minutes, 20/20 or Oprah).

Cliff

User avatar
dudelsack
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:51 pm

Postby dudelsack » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:12 am

Gee Oh Are Tea wrote:What I do know, is that if Bush wins, the reaction here will be along the lines of: "Are Americans that stupid?" (the blanket condemnation that is unfair to those who voted against him) and "Why did the Democrats nominate such a weak candidate as Kerry when this election was there for the taking?".



Butting in (sorry!):
Both of these reactions are pretty ridiculous - the first is unfair to the 50% of America that aren't 'that stupid,' and the second misunderstands completely how the primary process works in America. It's not like a bunch of DNC wonks sat in a room and said "Let's take this Kerry guy." He won primaries. Ergo, he's the nominee.

Now, if you have a problem with him winning primaries, that's fine, but he won, as Yogi Berra might say in an alternate universe, because nobody beat him. He came from behind and with virtually no national name recognition to win those primaries.

Now, if you have a problem with the slate of primary candidates, and/or a basic problem with Kerry's electability - I ask you merely, "who's better," and why didn't they run, if they're better? Tom Daschle? Dick Gephardt? I don't think either of those names strikes fear in the heart of anyone Republican.

I also dispute that this election was 'there for the taking.' With America as divided as it is today, not even a theoretically perfect Democratic candidate would win in a landslide.

I would also suggest that all "foreigners" do not know all the facts. For example, how the US electoral process works and/or why exactly Joe Bucktooth McGillicuddy from Podunk, Iowa votes and bleeds Republican, against his own economic self-interest.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:25 am

dudelsack wrote:It's not like a bunch of DNC wonks sat in a room and said "Let's take this Kerry guy." He won primaries. Ergo, he's the nominee.


Getting back to Mr. Hunte's take on the media, to say the primary coverage was "fair" would be somewhat misleading, IMO. Dean went into things posed to take it all. But after a slow start and his "scream" session ("look how angry he is, oh my god!!!"), the media seemed to latch on to Kerry.

I can't say if there were any "backroom discussions" on who to favor in the primaries or not, but I think you'll have a hard time telling me the coverage wasn't skewed.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:58 am

Now, if you have a problem with the slate of primary candidates, and/or a basic problem with Kerry's electability - I ask you merely, "who's better," and why didn't they run, if they're better?


Would *you* want to be President for the next four years, given what you'd be inheriting?

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
dudelsack
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:51 pm

Postby dudelsack » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:01 pm

lukpac wrote:
dudelsack wrote:It's not like a bunch of DNC wonks sat in a room and said "Let's take this Kerry guy." He won primaries. Ergo, he's the nominee.


Getting back to Mr. Hunte's take on the media, to say the primary coverage was "fair" would be somewhat misleading, IMO. Dean went into things posed to take it all. But after a slow start and his "scream" session ("look how angry he is, oh my god!!!"), the media seemed to latch on to Kerry.

I can't say if there were any "backroom discussions" on who to favor in the primaries or not, but I think you'll have a hard time telling me the coverage wasn't skewed.


That's fair, and I don't live in an early primary state to be able to tell you otherwise. NYT was as you describe. A question, asked without prejudice, though: has a national newspaper ever given equal coverage to all primary candidates? Seems to me there's always been a favorite, subject to change.

User avatar
dudelsack
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:51 pm

Postby dudelsack » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:04 pm

Rspaight wrote:
Now, if you have a problem with the slate of primary candidates, and/or a basic problem with Kerry's electability - I ask you merely, "who's better," and why didn't they run, if they're better?


Would *you* want to be President for the next four years, given what you'd be inheriting?

Ryan


Would *you* want have a chance to be known as the President that ended the evil Bush reign and restored America's faith in her national institutions? I would. And I'm not nearly as legacy-conscious as most of these pols. Same reason why Bill Clinton wished desperately that he were still President during 9/11...

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:06 pm

I completely disagree about your view of news coverage about the Palestinians.



?

Here's what I wrote:
If your news gave you antoher impression, it was exaggerating. If it *only* shows dying Iraqis (and blames that *only* on US actions), suffering Palestinians (but not victims of Hamas), 'fat republicans patting ech other on the back' (but not other Americans, neither fat nor republican, worried about what's happening here) , then I'd say your news reporting is no better than ours.


So it looks to me like you are replying to an imaginary post. My actual phrasing was entirely conditional, merely saying that *if* a news POV skews the opposite of US news, it's still skewed. Hardly a controversial proposition. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict was used as one of several examples of news that *could* be skewed, all derived directly from your original post.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Gee Oh Are Tea
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: Fallujah, Ontario

Postby Gee Oh Are Tea » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:16 pm

dudelsack wrote:
Butting in (sorry!):
Both of these reactions are pretty ridiculous - the first is unfair to the 50% of America that aren't 'that stupid,' and the second misunderstands completely how the primary process works in America. It's not like a bunch of DNC wonks sat in a room and said "Let's take this Kerry guy." He won primaries. Ergo, he's the nominee.

I also dispute that this election was 'there for the taking.' With America as divided as it is today, not even a theoretically perfect Democratic candidate would win in a landslide.

I would also suggest that all "foreigners" do not know all the facts. For example, how the US electoral process works and/or why exactly Joe Bucktooth McGillicuddy from Podunk, Iowa votes and bleeds Republican, against his own economic self-interest.


I agree with almost everything that you're saying!! It is unfair but that's how non-Americans will see it because the democratic process will elect Bush (therefore a blight on ALL Americans - as I said, grossly unfair).

From watching the debates and the general campaigning, the Democrats (mainly due to Kerry's supposed shortcomings) have not hit on all the things wrong with Bush. Under international law, this war IS illegal. But there seems to be a fear in mentioning that. The US has become a political pariah but again, I only hear a softened version of that. So, yes, I think the Democrats could have done better (I don't know who, so maybe I'm being plain silly) but there's been too much focus on Kerry, when you have a huge target in Bush. And I'm talking about the "undecideds" that could have been secured sooner not the confirmed patriot Republicans.

When I say we know the facts, I refer not to domestic US politics but why the US has been detested in the world (long before 9-11), as in Iran-Contra, propping up the Israeli occupation, the dubious bombing of Sudan, etc. With proper diplomacy and a more balanced foreign policy, I think 9-11 (and everything following) could have been avoided. Call me naive, but 9-11 was not about "evil" or "freedom" but about a number of other grievances that people may have had against the US (hitherto the fear of really answering "Why do they hate us?").

Cliff

Gee Oh Are Tea
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: Fallujah, Ontario

Postby Gee Oh Are Tea » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:25 pm

krabapple wrote:
So it looks to me like you are replying to an imaginary post. My actual phrasing was entirely conditional, merely saying that *if* a news POV skews the opposite of US news, it's still skewed. Hardly a controversial proposition. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict was used as one of several examples of news that *could* be skewed, all derived directly from your original post.


OK, so I'm saying that your supposition is not with merit (i.e it's not that way!!). Jeez, I feel like I'm debating with a lawyer who's tearing my testimony apart. Let's hear some viewpoints and less semantics. :)

I will say that given the influence of Jewish people in the media (which, by the way, is not some anti-Semetic stereotype), it is highly unlikely (even here in Canada) to see a viewpoint skewed toward the Palestinians. As I stated, the CBC here in Canada has been slated by Israel's supporters just for being closer to the middle and not just forwarding the position of "Israel as victim of terror" (as is done entirely so in the US).

Cliff