Texas Leads the Country

Too often, though, in though, in the wrong direction.

Comments

[DB]

It is like hearing Bush recently speak of his "philosophy" which requires him to move without considerations for anyone/anything else. I forget on which topic Mr. Bush spoke (perhaps medical business and how putting insurance and quality of life in the hands of individual MDs is best for everyone) but it covered all of his Presidential decisions it seems. So, too, it goes like that with Texas. Such respect for "law" is criminal.

[zero]

if mr chuch were here we'd be talking about the song of the week. these days my head is so full of stuff there's no room for songs.

[Kate]

Sorry zero, I forgot about the next page thing and kept seeing my comment as last. I finally got your response about the scary cougars. (I used to think I'd make a good pioneer. WRONG) Well I'm here now.

[zero]

no worries, kate. glad that you are sticking with it here. you and david. i sure miss so much conversation but at least we can still talk. i wouldn't have made a good pioneer. when i farmed i worked hard and got as dirty as a person can get. but i came in the house to a hot shower and soap and air conditioning (if needed) tv and coca cola. no pioneering for me! i was in TENN for the last several days. all the ducks and geese were intact when i got home this afternoon.

[Kate]

I'm glad to hear that the ducks and geese are doing well.

Did you catch the clip of Hardball where Chris Matthews pressed a radio host on what appeasement means?

[zero]

no, i don't watch chris matthews cause i can't tolerate the blowhard and i can't watch clips online with dialup. so what was good about that exchange, kate?

[Kate]

Crooks and Liars has the rough transcript.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/15/matthews-rips-right-wing-talkie-kevin-james-because-he-doesnt-know-neville-chamberlain/#more-29271

[zero]

that's excellent, kate. a right-winger looking stoopid is always a good time.

[Kate]

I have to give Chris Matthews some credit for standing his ground on this point.

Here's a transcript of him talking to Rachel Maddow on May 16th's Countdown:

MADDOW: The thing that is important here is not just that you had a guest that didn‘t know the historical reference he was parroting. He had obviously either been told to say or thought to was supposed to say. There‘s a real substantive problem with appeasement being this buzz word being thrown around without anybody interrogate what appeasement really means. It‘s become this summary for talking to our enemies, right? That‘s what you were getting at in trying to get a ...

MATTHEWS: The whole mind-set of the last several years, let‘s put it that way, since 2000, has been to shut up critics. If you don‘t like a war policy you get branded with a name. You are unpatriotic. You are a cut and runner, you are an appeaser. You can‘t argue politics in America anymore. You can‘t question power. Because if you question it, you‘re going to be drummed out of acceptable society. You are going to be called an appeaser.

These magic words are used for one purpose, to shut you up, so that they can proceed with the policy. And I think that‘s a real problem. I just was at Washington U. today, Rachel, and I made the point that in a society like ours, arguing over policy, arguing over what our role should be in the world shouldn‘t be unpatriotic or seen as unpatriotic. And many—most cases should be seen as the essence of patriotism. Giving a damn about our policy, what it ought to be, arguing, standing up and having a real debate. We didn‘t have that when we went to war in Iraq. Some, it‘s the media‘s fault. People were intimidated in challenging this president and his war policy. And I think we‘re better off with a hot debate, I think.

MADDOW: Do you think that this is something new? Do you think that this is something specific to our current contemporaneous politics that we‘ve got these buzzwords and bumper sticker slogans, whether it‘s appeasement or fighting over there so we don‘t fight them here or they hate our freedom. Any of these terms. Are they designed to be repeated and not to be interrogated?

MATTHEWS: Well, just look at the way people are basically exterminated or tried to be exterminated. Bill Maher makes a comment which may not have been the right comment, but he was making a point he was trying to make about stand back weaponry compared to people killing themselves. You can argue about the niceties of that. The Dixie Chicks say something about the war and they shouldn‘t have said it overseas, but they said it.

The shutting up of opposition is critical to running a country in an undemocratic way. Let‘s put it that way. So you have buzzwords like appeasers or cut and run and they are used over and over again by the most mindless people. The trouble with them is they tend to work. The dittoheads can use them. Anybody can use them and they seem to have the same effect. They cause people to run from criticism.

MADDOW: I think it‘s not only used as a slur, it‘s also part of the way they advance the agenda. Part of the way politicians now talk about things they want is through slogans that don‘t necessarily make sense. And maybe that‘s always been true in American politics. But when it‘s about war it feels almost criminal to me. I don‘t know.

MATTHEWS: The use of the word WMD, we never heard that phrase, that became a huge phrase in the early part of the decade. WMD because it conflated the idea of the fact that they had chemical and biological weaponry with the idea they had nuclear weaponry. They didn‘t have to say nuclear anymore, just WMD. You can say terrorist conflated what happened to us on 9/11 with the countries we don‘t like like Saddam Hussein. Conflating terms all the time.

That‘s another trick of this language. I‘m not really happy with phrases like “homeland security.” Is there anywhere else we‘d protect beside our homeland? What‘s wrong with just national defense? Oh, because homeland refers to just part of the area we‘re defending. I get it.

[zero]

oh yes, kate. words designed to shut people up. there's two ways to discredit or marginalize them; demonize them or give them no platform to speak. that point bill maher made on his late night abc show after 911 is a good case in point. i saw that show when it aired the first time. then i saw how the statement was edited to make it look like he said something else. and abc cancelled his show after the uproar. the dixie chicks said what they believed and it's their right to speak. what difference does it make where they said it? there's a documentary about them post-statement called, "shut up and sing". it's very interesting. worth the time to watch it. i'm very glad there are citizens who are willing to speak up. and notice that right wingers on fox don't have to back down or quit or apologize for the horrible statements they make. that shows me that who owes the networks really aren't for justice, equality or democracy. they are for having their way, which isn't good for the rest of us peons.

[zero]

ok. i feel totally deserted!

[kate]

Sorry, I checked out of the internet. I'm checking in to say hello.