Unfortunately, Bush put some good wood on his crack at it too. He can read a speech; I'll give him that. Damn, these Machiavellian politicos are sly like foxes. Just more evidence of what I've been saying, 'it's all about semantics.' And ya can't win that game. Whoever controls the media controls the mind.
bush truly believes that what he's doing is the right thing for the Coutnry. but he's been nothing more than a puppet for the last five years. the administration is controlling everything. and it really doesn't matter if i think they've produced dick or not. they've presented their agenda and image very methodically from day one, so that the public/media will quibble over the semantics that are printed for the press. whoever controls the media controls... the media obviously has no problem with this relationship. why would it bite the hand that feeds it? we don't see how dangerously impotent our culture really is in all of this until a majority of anachronistic thinkers have the majority such as the case now. personally, i think this country has only worked up to the majority level of a teenager. i think the whole culture is pathetic and i've said so on many, many occasions but what the hell do i know. nobody is serious about change. if it's not self-help trends for the rich, it's anarchical soapboxing.
Whether wood, dick or bush, the assessment by anonymous above that "[Bush] can read a speech; I'll give him that" highlights a lack of discernment in delivering speeches. That is, to "read a speech" is not the same as to convey a message to an audience.
Stammering, studdering and spouting off tortured neologisms, dubbya is virtually funtionally illerate when it comes to speech making. I'll let you feret out the "Bushisms" on the web for yourself to evince this point.
Wizard, here’s another example: did you notice the word "radicalism" in the speech bush read to the American public last night? An effective and subtle hint/reminder that dissidence and questioning of authority will not be tolerated. Machivellian rhetoric and carefully measured semantics tailored for a highly polarized media spectacle. in a one on one analysis everyone would agree that the term "radical" can easily be manipulated and should not be thrown around and linked with this so-called "war on terror." they could have easily described our enemies as "extremists" or several other more accurate descriptions. It’s certainly been done before but only in lesser arenas. were not the founding fathers radicals against the British? why not say "dangerous radicals" or some other word juxtoposition?! I’ll tell you why – because there are good radicals, PEACE RADICALS and that just doesn’t cut the mustard in big-time, power politics.
1. Semantically, this administration is playing a shell game with the American people. When Bush, Cheney et al. are talking about radical, it cuts both ways; Are they talking about Jihadists, or the American Left, the point being, of course, that we are expected to conflate the two so that the goals of one are equivalent to the goals of the other. Any juxtaposition, as you suggest, is in fact too precise, too "gray area" to be of any use to them politically/ideologically.
Then, of course, there's the "pot-kettle": Radical is precisely what these NeoCons are...ask any Goldwater Conservative.
2. What does the Peace Radical do, then?
We start from a rational discussion, something that has been ostracized from the public discourse (actually, rationalism has), because the left position, the green position, is inherently rational.
Having said that, the country has moved so irrationally far right that any position to the left, even if its actually centrist, gets painted as "extremist". Unfortunately, our lot, then is a waiting game, but the day will come, once people realize how controlled by private interests they really are. I feel those baby steps approaching with every obvious and thoroughly predictable policy BushCo makes, and they know it, because they know that most Americans don't really want the same things as them.
When people like Olbermann speak out like this, it is significant, because it is an attempt at rational discourse and a legitimate criticism that many feel. Everytime someone like Olbermann makes someone think, we are nearing a point in which we can talk about what the real issues are.
And remember: If a capitalist state apparatus like big media feeds off of money and ratings, its pursuit of this will be its undoing.
Speaking Truth to Power is always sexy, aways newsworthy...
Wiz, a brief response to this: "We start from a rational discussion, something that has been ostracized from the public discourse (actually, rationalism has), because the left position, the green position, is inherently rational."
Unfortunately, Bush put some good wood on his crack at it too. He can read a speech; I'll give him that. Damn, these Machiavellian politicos are sly like foxes. Just more evidence of what I've been saying, 'it's all about semantics.' And ya can't win that game. Whoever controls the media controls the mind.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't you agree that the wood Bush puts on it is the same as it was five years ago, and he's produced dick.
ReplyDeletebush truly believes that what he's doing is the right thing for the Coutnry. but he's been nothing more than a puppet for the last five years. the administration is controlling everything. and it really doesn't matter if i think they've produced dick or not. they've presented their agenda and image very methodically from day one, so that the public/media will quibble over the semantics that are printed for the press. whoever controls the media controls... the media obviously has no problem with this relationship. why would it bite the hand that feeds it? we don't see how dangerously impotent our culture really is in all of this until a majority of anachronistic thinkers have the majority such as the case now. personally, i think this country has only worked up to the majority level of a teenager. i think the whole culture is pathetic and i've said so on many, many occasions but what the hell do i know. nobody is serious about change. if it's not self-help trends for the rich, it's anarchical soapboxing.
ReplyDeleteWhether wood, dick or bush, the assessment by anonymous above that "[Bush] can read a speech; I'll give him that" highlights a lack of discernment in delivering speeches. That is, to "read a speech" is not the same as to convey a message to an audience.
ReplyDeleteStammering, studdering and spouting off tortured neologisms, dubbya is virtually funtionally illerate when it comes to speech making. I'll let you feret out the "Bushisms" on the web for yourself to evince this point.
-Charles
Wizard, here’s another example: did you notice the word "radicalism" in the speech bush read to the American public last night? An effective and subtle hint/reminder that dissidence and questioning of authority will not be tolerated. Machivellian rhetoric and carefully measured semantics tailored for a highly polarized media spectacle. in a one on one analysis everyone would agree that the term "radical" can easily be manipulated and should not be thrown around and linked with this so-called "war on terror." they could have easily described our enemies as "extremists" or several other more accurate descriptions. It’s certainly been done before but only in lesser arenas. were not the founding fathers radicals against the British? why not say "dangerous radicals" or some other word juxtoposition?! I’ll tell you why – because there are good radicals, PEACE RADICALS and that just doesn’t cut the mustard in big-time, power politics.
ReplyDeletewow, good timing, eh Chuck? Chuck, for the last time, bush is a figure head. who doesn't know he's a functioning illiterate?
ReplyDelete"I'll let you feret out the "Bushisms" on the web for yourself to evince this point." - you lost me here -
I agree with you on a couple of points:
ReplyDelete1. Semantically, this administration is playing a shell game with the American people. When Bush, Cheney et al. are talking about radical, it cuts both ways; Are they talking about Jihadists, or the American Left, the point being, of course, that we are expected to conflate the two so that the goals of one are equivalent to the goals of the other. Any juxtaposition, as you suggest, is in fact too precise, too "gray area" to be of any use to them politically/ideologically.
Then, of course, there's the "pot-kettle": Radical is precisely what these NeoCons are...ask any Goldwater Conservative.
2. What does the Peace Radical do, then?
We start from a rational discussion, something that has been ostracized from the public discourse (actually, rationalism has), because the left position, the green position, is inherently rational.
Having said that, the country has moved so irrationally far right that any position to the left, even if its actually centrist, gets painted as "extremist". Unfortunately, our lot, then is a waiting game, but the day will come, once people realize how controlled by private interests they really are. I feel those baby steps approaching with every obvious and thoroughly predictable policy BushCo makes, and they know it, because they know that most Americans don't really want the same things as them.
When people like Olbermann speak out like this, it is significant, because it is an attempt at rational discourse and a legitimate criticism that many feel. Everytime someone like Olbermann makes someone think, we are nearing a point in which we can talk about what the real issues are.
And remember: If a capitalist state apparatus like big media feeds off of money and ratings, its pursuit of this will be its undoing.
Speaking Truth to Power is always sexy, aways newsworthy...
Wiz, a brief response to this:
ReplyDelete"We start from a rational discussion, something that has been ostracized from the public discourse (actually, rationalism has), because the left position, the green position, is inherently rational."
You don't take the green position do you?
I believe in alot of the same things as the Greens, though I don't think we're anywhere close to being able make it happen, as things stand now.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to edge that along, though.