Re: Telling It Like It Is

1

Bill Moyers really is a great journalist.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:15 PM
horizontal rule
2

I soooo loooove Bill Moyers.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
3

"Super patriots"?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
4

Wow. Thanks for posting that.


Posted by: dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
5

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.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
6

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.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:28 PM
horizontal rule
7

I am reminded of this worthy post of yore.

(But did it really get no comments?)


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:31 PM
horizontal rule
8

The commenters sucked back then.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:36 PM
horizontal rule
9

So you deleted their comments?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:36 PM
horizontal rule
10

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).


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:41 PM
horizontal rule
11

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.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:44 PM
horizontal rule
12

There's a job waiting for you at Powerline.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:45 PM
horizontal rule
13

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:54 PM
horizontal rule
14

I thought everything bad about America started with George W. Bush?


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 9:58 PM
horizontal rule
15

A bastard from a long line of bastards is no less a bastard, Gaijin. As your family can attest.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:06 PM
horizontal rule
16

9: I think he deleted the commenters. Mwahahaha.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:08 PM
horizontal rule
17

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?


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:19 PM
horizontal rule
18

Oh, goodness, let's not do this. After all, talking about anyone's mother's infidelities only reminds Ben of his own early traumas.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:25 PM
horizontal rule
19

Seemed a little off-sides to me, but what do I know?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:27 PM
horizontal rule
20

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.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:28 PM
horizontal rule
21

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?


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:30 PM
horizontal rule
22

18: Ben is really Eric Cartman?


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:31 PM
horizontal rule
23

22: Are you surprised?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:32 PM
horizontal rule
24

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.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:33 PM
horizontal rule
25

She was young; she needed the money.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:34 PM
horizontal rule
26

25: Your mother's a hermaphroditic crack whore?


Posted by: pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:36 PM
horizontal rule
27

Deep down, aren't we all?


Posted by: Matt F | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:38 PM
horizontal rule
28

Shut up, hooker

can I say that?


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:42 PM
horizontal rule
29

Dishonestly, I've slept with ben, and we cuddled. He was very sweet.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:43 PM
horizontal rule
30

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.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:46 PM
horizontal rule
31

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.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:55 PM
horizontal rule
32

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?


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:55 PM
horizontal rule
33

Seriously, you gotta develop a thick skin to survive out here.


Posted by: A Series of Tubes | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 10:57 PM
horizontal rule
34

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.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 11:03 PM
horizontal rule
35

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 11:04 PM
horizontal rule
36

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 11:13 PM
horizontal rule
37

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.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 11:25 PM
horizontal rule
38

20 seems right, because, you know.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 11:36 PM
horizontal rule
39

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?


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 11:37 PM
horizontal rule
40

I don't really trust anything that takes less than an hour to present.

We'll all speak more slowly in the future.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 11:39 PM
horizontal rule
41

Could you type that again, Ogged? But more slowly this time.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 11:41 PM
horizontal rule
42

I've been known to bite when impatient.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 11:44 PM
horizontal rule
43

The Impatient Bites: not a bad band name; noted.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 11:46 PM
horizontal rule
44

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.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 02-11-07 11:48 PM
horizontal rule
45

I've been known to bite when impatient.

As Chopper can attest?


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 12:28 AM
horizontal rule
46

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.


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 1:12 AM
horizontal rule
47

Dang, that was kind of an analogy, wasn't it.


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 1:19 AM
horizontal rule
48

Hamilton is banned!


Posted by: pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 1:23 AM
horizontal rule
49

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?


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 4:14 AM
horizontal rule
50

Omigod, the Second Nun's Prologue is about Ydelnesse! God that would fit.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 4:26 AM
horizontal rule
51

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.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 5:49 AM
horizontal rule
52

It's a deliberate, nasty, and cowardly attack not only on me, but on my mother and father.

A classic non-denial denial.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 6:06 AM
horizontal rule
53

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.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 7:04 AM
horizontal rule
54

I am a Gaijin Biker, you insensitive clods.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 7:15 AM
horizontal rule
55

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
56

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 8:35 AM
horizontal rule
57

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.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
58

Ah, a well-judged jab then.


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
59

Fabulous video. I watched it again about two weeks ago.

It should be required viewing prior to being able to vote.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 10:02 AM
horizontal rule
60

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.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
61

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
62

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.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
63

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.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 12:39 PM
horizontal rule
64

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 12:43 PM
horizontal rule
65

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
66

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.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
67

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?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
68

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
69

"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.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
70

I think text's attempt to cover up his role in the Kennedy assassination is just despicable.


Posted by: Walt | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
71

67: Well, I believe it. Maybe I'm naive, but it wouldn't be the first time.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 8:04 PM
horizontal rule
72

JFK deserved it, after what he said about my dear mum.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
73

B's talking to herself again.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
74

not like me. I'm talking to my audience.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
75

Why did your mum kill our Lord?


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 9:42 PM
horizontal rule
76

Why did your mum kill our Lord?


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-12-07 9:43 PM
horizontal rule
77

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.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 02-13-07 7:23 AM
horizontal rule
78

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.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 02-13-07 7:31 AM
horizontal rule
79

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?


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-13-07 7:39 AM
horizontal rule
80

Does anyone else here agree with me that ~!-->text

That was my impression.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 02-13-07 8:00 AM
horizontal rule
81

It was a rhetorical question, gswift.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-13-07 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
82

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-13-07 9:02 AM
horizontal rule