(np) big O, say it isn't so...

Tue Mar 27 11:10:18 CDT 2012

There is much that any real politician may want, but must not say at the
risk of becoming ineffective, e.g. unelectable.  If Obama does not beat his
Republican opponent, things won't simply remain as bad as they are; they'll
become so much worse for so long that we may never get back to where we
now.  Morrison's "We want the world, and we want it now" sounds great, but
it by the time we get the world, it will be a ruined one if we don't slow
that ruination by keeping our worst elements out of power.

AsB4,
٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
Henry Mu
http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> I'm not looking for purity. I 'm looking for practicality. Th planet has a
> real fever caused by CO2 caused global warming. Both parties ignore that
> fact and pursue full scale extraction of fossil fuels. Both seem fully
> committed to resource wars of the cruelest kind. I have listed many times
> the congruence of policies and the furtherance of surveillance, suppression
> of whisleblowers  and drone tech under Obama. These facts have gone
> undisputed and the only response has been political "practicality". There
> is no instant solution, Only the building of a new political force that
> excites a large base of voters can do this.  If Obama got everything he
> says he wants, every single thing, we would still be on a direct course for
> global environmental and social and economic catastrophe. That is not
> practical.
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 11:45 AM, David Morris wrote:
>
> > I'm with you, Henry.  It was this same kind of political purity
> > narcissism that led Ralph Nader to hand over the presidency to W. in
> > 2000, thus subjecting the world to all of the Bush/Cheney horrors we
> > still are reeling from.
> >
> > David Morris
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Henry M <scuffling at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'm a practical man.  What do you propose as a political strategy in
> 2012 that won't marginalize the majority of people, including women,
> non-Christians, and alien residents?  Do you really believe that the
> duoploy is a monopoly?  If not, then are you willing to put the USA, and as
> a consequence the rest of the world, through the hell of a conservative
> misanthropoly just to not be wrong in supporting a far from ideal Democratic
> >> party?
> >>
> >> The truth is less important than actual effects in people's lives.
> >> Suggesting otherwise is about as eltitist as you can get, no matter
> which
> >> side of political spectrum one says it from.
> >>
> >>
> >> AsB4,
> >> ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
> >> Henry Mu
> >> http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> But can you really expect to be seen as an independent "objective"
> >>> evaluator of the quality of journalism , when you attack certain news
> >>> organizations, not on the basis of evidence or  reasoned
> generalizations but
> >>> by name calling  and acting as though journalists and social critics
> are
> >>> supposed to independently bring political change. The core of
> everything
> >>> political you write, as far as I can see,  is not a set of political or
> >>> social goals and values but an extreme defensiveness of Obama that
> >>> undermines your attempt to assume the role of moderate objectiveness.
> >>>
> >>> Also I can recall at least one example of news later established as
> >>> factual which was reported by NPR moths after DN. That was the story
> of Dick
> >>> Cheney's "Office of Special Plans".  I don't have time to wrack my
> memory or
> >>> do research, but one can also look at the NYT Judy Miller propaganda as
> >>> something challenged and investigated by DN and others but not brought
> into
> >>> serious examination until the damage was done. Now  as regards
> objectivity,
> >>> you can note that I have not supported Obama since his election. I
> voted for
> >>> him with modest but genuine hope, but am clearly on the record in my
> >>> sometimes extreme criticism and mockery. But my displeasure with Obama
> is
> >>> based on the exact same political, moral and  ecological objections I
> had to
> >>> Bush and the Republicans.
> >>>
> >>> I understand the fears concerning the likes of Gingrich Santorum and
> >>> Romney, but to me they are far outweighed by the threat of a continued
> >>> duopoly controlled by corporate killers. The lesser of evils approach
> is
> >>> pure self-deception, a band aid on a bomb victim.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 26, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Henry M wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Beg to differ.  Between NPR, NYT, MSNBC, and other centrist
> >>>> heavyweights, most of those stories were covered at the same time, or
> >>>> immediately following, the boutique outlets.  I know, because I'd
> read of
> >>>> something in friends message that was from a source that I wouldn't
> do even
> >>>> a good a job fact-checking and double-checking their reporters'
> pieces as
> >>>> the mainstream press, and I'd find the same news, often with deeper,
> less
> >>>> partisan background, in the mainstream press.
> >>>>
> >>>> The mainstream press is castigated by the left AND the right.  That
> >>>> doesn't sound very censored to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> AsB4,
> >>>> ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
> >>>> Henry Mu
> >>>> http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Michael Bailey
> >>>> <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The mainstream American press isn't exactly uncritical of Obama and
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> wars.  What is the current explanation (that does not hammer Occam's
> >>>>> Razor
> >>>>> into paranoid oblivion) for why they don't have this story?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> these guys are really cool:
> >>>> http://www.projectcensored.org/
> >>>>
> >>>> they put out a book every year full of stories overlooked by the media
> >>>> -- really juicy stuff, well-documented, good reportage...
> >>>>
> >>>> as to why, well, c'mon Henry --
> >>>> I'd be the last to hate on the mainstream press, I love my papers
> >>>>
> >>>> but a) they can't cover everything
> >>>> b) they can't alienate their advertisers
> >>>> c) their ownership tends to be conservative and hooked in to a certain
> >>>> worldview which informs their editorial policy
> >>>> d) malefactors increasingly have legal departments, and courts judge
> >>>> in their favor all too often
> >>>>
> >>>> (
> http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/
> )
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> they didn't cover the 2000 election theft, Greg Palast had to go to
> >>>> England to report the systematic fraud in fake "felons", which would
> >>>> have been plenty to save the day
> >>>>
> >>>> they banded up against Mark Webb to gainsay his CIA-cocaine connection
> >>>> story which CIA FOIA gleanings tend to bear out
> >>>>
> >>>> they lined up behind Bush's Iraq lies
> >>>>
> >>>> and so forth
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120327/28abec4e/attachment.html>