Saturday, November 05, 2005

Healing the Wounds




In a recent editorial, Mark Hyman calls on Americans to thank Vietnam veterans as part of the upcoming Operation Welcome Home, an event organized to recognize the service and sacrifice of those who served in America’s longest war. The event will include a parade, reunions, and gatherings, most held in Las Vegas, the center of Operation Welcome Home. Hyman adds, “For your part, simply thank a Vietnam veteran for his [sic] service.”

I couldn’t agree more. Too often, veterans of the Vietnam War have been tainted by feelings about the war itself and the political and military decision-makers who waged the war. No matter what you might feel about the motivations for getting involved in Vietnam or the way the war was carried out, all of us can agree that those who served deserve sincere thanks and honor for heeding the call to service.

Perhaps because he didn’t have time in his allotted two minutes, or he felt it so self-evident it didn’t need mentioning, Hyman didn’t include the obvious addition to his request to honor Vietnam veterans. In an effort to continue in this spirit of healing the wounds that once divided us, I’d like to devote this space to laying out what Hyman didn’t have a chance to add in his brief statement.

For your part, simply thank Vietnam veterans for their service . . . unless you disagree with their political stance. In that case, do as many of the following as possible:

Slander them
publicly by suggesting that medals they earned for heroism in combat were unearned.

Imply that they committed murder by shooting a wounded teenager in the back during a firefight, even if it means ignoring the testimony of people who were actually there.

Suggest that they had
their military records falsified in order to win medals.

Mock their service by claiming they got a medal for being
wounded by food.

Publicly accuse them of being un-American for
voicing their opinions on the war in which they served.

Despite their military service (and subsequent public lives in government),
accuse them of being self-serving and unpatriotic.

Ignore any amount of
factual information, no matter how vast, that shows they served honorably and bravely, basing your attacks on “evidence” provided by people who weren’t witness to the events in question and who have political axes to grind.

Accuse them of
breaking their military oath by speaking their minds.

Insinuate that they
participated in criminal acts

Attack their wives/husbands.

If you’re lucky enough to be an executive for a national media conglomerate, use your pull to get
discredited propaganda aired on your stations for the purpose of damaging the veterans’ careers. Label this propaganda as “news.”

If any reporter at your national media conglomerate suggests that perhaps
propaganda shouldn’t be labeled as news, fire his Edward-R.-Murrow-Wannabe tuchus. Then sue him a year and a half later out of spite.

Get into bed with
any groups that are helping out in the slandering, no matter how discredited their claims. Do this even if it means lying on national television about connections between groups that you are directly doing business with and those that have been discredited.

Let the healing begin.

And that’s The Counterpoint.

Hyman Index: 2.60

43 Comments:

At 8:24 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

More slime from Ted. This is the VERY thing I've been talking about...You generalize, twist, manipulate, throw mud..

In this example you apply Hyman's very direct objections to Kerry and attempt to apply them in blanket fashion to all vets who object to the war.

You cry foul on your blog, and then you go and do the very same thing you've bitched about.

Pathetic.

-------------
(Enter arrogant, holier-than-thou, untouchable response here)

 
At 8:25 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

What would our founding fathers think of their country today?

It seems the government is into everything we do these days, their presence is felt from sunrise to sunset and yes, even as we sleep. Everywhere you look, there’s the government looking over your shoulder or telling you how to conduct your life. We have government run schools; government run health care; government run utility companies; government run airports; government run retirement; government run unemployment benefits and ‘workforce development’ programs; government run grocery benefits; government run small business start ups; government run insurance programs; government run tuition assistance; government run golf courses, government run hotels, government run housing; government run bill payment programs and the list goes on.

Is this the Soviet Union or the United States?

And if that kind of intervention isn’t enough, here’s another list; the government doesn’t want you to have individual property rights; the government doesn’t want you to be able to pray in a public school; the government doesn’t want you to see a Ten Commandments plaque in a public square; the government doesn’t want you to say, “Merry Christmas” during the celebration of Christ’s birthday, a national holiday. That list too, can go on with many more like examples.

Is this the same country our forefathers founded? Correct me if I’m wrong, but people didn’t leave Europe back in the day and create a new country only to re-create what they left – a government looking over their shoulder, asking for money, and telling them how to live their lives.

And oh, you know what trying to make the government into a do-all, cash cow did to the Soviet Union right?

 
At 8:32 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Liberals changing their story for political convenience:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/stacks/democrat.member.html

Check it out, I dare you. The quotes of your leaders are very real.

And if you respond with, "They didn't have the same intelligence as the White House," then you're as pathetic and sad as they are.

 
At 8:37 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."


Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002


"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country

Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998


"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

John Kerry > October 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

 
At 9:18 PM, Blogger Ted Remington said...

Spin, I appreciate you stopping by my blog an a nearly hourly basis. Your enthusiasm is admirable. But I think we'll all get more out of the exchange if you stop to reflect a bit before writing. I'm not quite following your first post, but it seems that you're not understanding of the piece: I'm only going after Hyman. I'm not applying anything to all vets. Perhaps other readers can let me know if I wasn't clear on this--maybe it's me. But the point being made here is that Hyman likes to talk about honoring veterans, but he spent an entire week or two in September of last year attacking John Kerry not for his positions on the issues, but by trying to smear his exemplary service. Given that, Hyman wearing the mantle of defender of the honor of all Vietnam vets is more than a bit dopey (at least in my opinion). That was my point. Do you think Hyman was right to attack Kerry's service? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

tjr

 
At 9:32 PM, Blogger Ted Remington said...

Oh, I almost forgot. Spin might be interested in the following link (word of advice: go to the site and click on the video to get the words from the horses mouths rather than just read teh transcript--it's more fun that way).

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

A tip of the cap to Al Franken for pointing out this site in his new book.

tjr

 
At 3:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ted, do you think 'Sick-From-Spinning' really believes that weak false rhetoric, lies and alleged quotes taken out of context are going to influence anyone who reads this web log?

Sickofspin should be able to deduce that he is in way over his head here, and those reading this blog are not the glazed-over-eyes right-wing sheeple who have fallen in lock-step with the Neo-Fascists who have seized control of our government and the media, and who use Hyman and the army of so-called conservative talking heads to reinforce the brainwashing and propaganda flow that Republicans feed their base.

His poor but aggressive and insistent use of straw-men and transference is almost more than I can stand. I find myself considering, maybe we should let this one go. But, then I must admit that Sickofspin is a very representative sample of the species.

Do you think Sickofspin understands that if Bill Clinton had thought Saddam to be an eminent threat to America or the world, he could have waged this illegal and immoral pre-emptive war back in 1998 when this merry band of draft-dodging, chickenhawk Neo-Cons were planning and pushing for it?

The letter below is not too long so I am attaching it. Check out the date and the names of those who signed it.



Thanks Ted, and keep bustin' Hyman.

Mike B. in SC

P.S. In response to Sickofspin's question of "What would our founding fathers think of their country today?" - I have to respond with the quote from the Portland Oregonian - "Other than telling us how to live, work, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives."


----------------------------------------------------

By: Bremner Bird and Fortune

Copied below is a transcript of the letter sent by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) to President Bill Clinton, in Jan 1998.


January 26, 1998

To: The Honorable William J. Clinton, President of the United States, Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.

In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat.

We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.

That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months.

As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections.

Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished.

Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production.

The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets.

As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East.

It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.

As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.

The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing.

In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.

Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater.

We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.

In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country.

If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams

Richard L. Armitage

William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner

John Bolton

Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama

Robert Kagan

Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol

Richard Perle

Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld

William Schneider, Jr.

Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R.

James Woolsey

Robert B. Zoellick

 
At 9:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go Ted!! I appreciate the time and energy it takes to review and respond to the point. A "hymanite" -- who would have thought? Keep up the good work.

 
At 10:15 AM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Ted pretended that his anti-Hyman prose (below) was meant only for Hyman vs. Kerry:

"For your part, simply thank Vietnam veterans for their service . . . unless you disagree with their political stance. In that case, do as many of the following as possible:

Slander them publicly by suggesting that medals they earned for heroism in combat were unearned.

Imply that they committed murder by shooting a wounded teenager in the back during a firefight, even if it means ignoring the testimony of people who were actually there."

The response rambles on with factual distortions and constant references to 'they' and 'their' throughout in attempt to inappropriately put all Vets who object to the war as hated by Hyman.

Ted, you may be able to pull the wool over the eyes of your choir, however I know full well you intentional made such blanket statements, in order to broaden your attack on Hyman. You manipulated and broadened the field of hate, and some of your readers sadly, lap it up. Your play was irresponsible.

Hyman's attack was directed specifically at Kerry, thus, your response should also have been referenced only to Kerry, not 'they' and 'them'. Implying Hyman perhaps treats all Vets who object to the war the same as he did with Kerry was a lame trick on your part. Um, you tried to 'school' me on grammar in a past response did you not? Check the mirror 'teach'.

 
At 10:18 AM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Mike B.,

I've noticed that whenever you get backed into a corner, you totally ignore the substance of a response and attempt to re-direct.

And you're looking down your nose at me?

LOL!

 
At 10:20 AM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

democrat comments 'taken out of context' my ass. Is that all the better you folks can do?

You folks just can't stand having the truth thrown in your face.

I haven't seen so much liberal back-pedaling and tap-dancing (from other than elected leftists) in quite awhile.

The entertainment value is excellent!

 
At 11:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sickofspin--

Just so I'm totally clear... you think that Sinclair Broadcasting had "very drect objections" to John Kerry for reasons other than his political beliefs, as Ted has suggested?

And once again... a person simply can't claim to be "sick of spin," then turn around and cite Rush Limbaugh as a source for information. I mean, that should be obvious.

And since you're suggesting that Ted's reasoning is flawed and his rhetoric is unconvincing, perhaps you'd like to give us specific examples of the "factual distortions" and "back-pedaling" that upsets you so much. And suggesting that Ted is writing about any veteran other than John Kerry in this piece doesn't count; anyone with even half a brain realized that Ted was not claiming that Hyman slanders all Democratic veterans, but was instead focusing on Sinclair's shameful activities during the most recent presidential election. Pretending otherwise is simply spinning, and we all hate that.

Bradley

 
At 11:59 AM, Anonymous Sickofpsin said...

Bradley you're an incompetent boob (stated in SNL fashion)....

Just because I pulled the quotes exposing your leaders for they hypocrites they are from Rush's site does not mean the quotes do not exist, nor were they displayed somehow with spin and/or otherwise taken out of context. The quotes are what they are. The 'back-pedaling' re-direct, and other crap you folks are guilty of is exactly what YOU tried to do with your 'out of context' claim and the quotes must somehow be wrong because Rush pointed them out...... Either demonstrate the quotes were in fact taken out of context or keep yer trap shut. You've got nothing.

 
At 12:02 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Ted did in fact try to parlay his response from being Hyman vs. Kerry to Hyman vs. all war objecting vets.

I accurately pointed that out, and you folks are in willful denial. You simply can't deal with the truth.

Review Ted's original post, it's there in black and white. It's not my reading comprehension that's in question, it's your blind and willful kool-aid ignorance for Ted that is.

 
At 12:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey there, Sick Of Spin (SOS),

Glad to hear of a true patriot concerned about government intrusion.

I guess SOS is horrified about today's Washington Post article about how the FBI has been gathering data on 30,000 normal American citizens under the Patriot Act. Chuck Hagel has already expressed his concern (on ABC's This Week).

So, SOS, are you alarmed about this, or will you simply support it because its a Republican initiative?

Sign me, SOSOS

 
At 12:20 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

The book, Unfit for Command, is based on recollections from dozens of veterans who served in the same naval unit as Mr Kerry, including crewmen on small patrol craft under his direct command.

Remember Kerry's, Christmas in Cambodia claims?

 
At 12:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sickofspin--

I'm pretty sure I've been remarkably restrained and polite in my responses to your poorly-articulated and intellectually-bankrupt rantings. However, it's pretty obvious you're not interested in actually having a conversation with people you disagree with, and that you're not interested in persuading or being persuaded yourself.

I have a younger sister. When we argued as kids, she was a master of ignoring any point I made and simply repeating anything I said back at me in a shrill, annoying, "baby-talk voice." In one sense, it was effective-- she wanted to get on my nerves, and she did. But we certainly never resolved our differences or came to a better understanding of each other as a result of these arguments. All that came from these exchanges was more anger, and more divisiveness.

Spinmasters like you-- and your "sources"-- take the idea of "baby-talk voice mocking" and apply it to political discussions, and I think it really hurts our country. You clearly don't understand the issues you are writing about, so you try to deflect the points your opponents make through name-calling and ad hominem attacks. And as far as your "reading comprhension" skills go... I don't know if you deliberately twist what other people say to build strawman arguments or if you are genuinely too dim to understand the complex arguments of others, but either way, there's no reason for anyone to listen to you. You're either a liar or you're tragically misinformed.

On a final note, I have no idea why you think anyone should talk about the quotes you and Rush have provided. This was a conversation about Mark Hyman, John Kerry, and Viet Nam. But yes, the quotes were taken out of context; yes, you and Rush Limbaugh both clearly have an agenda that has nothing to do with pursuing an objective sense of truth; yes, the Democrats were wrong to support the war; yes, I believe those Democrats were misled by this administration; yes, sometimes Democrats-- like all other human beings-- are inconsistent; no, this has nothing to do with Mark Hyman smearing a decorated war hero.

Bradley

 
At 12:34 PM, Blogger Rill O'Beilly said...

Dear Ted,

My condolences to you in having to attempt to "converse" with someone who seems incapable of, well, conversation.

Sick of Spin is more than anyting else, an indicator of the sad shape that political discourse has taken.

In the interest of brevity, I might suggest we refer to Sick Of Spin simply as SOS.

Has an appropriate ring, doesn't it?

 
At 12:38 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Sign me, SOSOS - You attempted to re-direct with a Patriot Act insertion. This was done as a shoot the messenger ploy, an attempt to discredit, you hoped to find some inconsistency in argument on my part. Why would you do that? Because you couldn't come to grips with rebutting directly and with substance, any of my responses.
For the record, like most anything in life, the Patriot Act has some good, some bad in it. I object to some portions of the Act, but I also object to folks like you pretending the Patriot Act is inherently evil and should be totally scrapped. How about just striking portions of it, and focusing on the strengths of the Act instead? Nah, that makes to much sense right? That doesn't allow YOU to be partisan!!!!!

 
At 12:41 PM, Blogger Rill O'Beilly said...

Dear Blog People,

I would like to propose that we continue to engage in SOS's "conversation". Yes, he is rather annoying, as he is given to labels, diatribes, and other low-ball techniques.

But he IS interesting, isn't he? Don't you wonder:

- Exactly what is his philosophy?

On the one hand, he worries about the Founding Fathers and their projected disgust about government intrusion, and then just as quickly, he'll go "na-na-na" (with ears in fingers) when some earnest person notes that the Chimpy McFlightsuit has overseen a terribly failed foreign adventure, has never vetoed humongous pork, and has shepherded loss of civil liberties (you know, little things like domestic spying, torture, loss of due process, deceit, etc.)

So I say, let's engage SOS. Perhaps it'll keep him off the street (one might suspect someone as angry as he might engage in acts of road rage).

It's our patriotic duty to keep SOS glued to his keyboard!

 
At 12:44 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Rill O'Beilly,

Wow, in your very first response I've read of you, you accuse me of not being to participate in conversation. Is this how you define conversation, by personally attacking someone right off the bat?

You guys are indeed entertaining.

 
At 12:45 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Bradley,

Ok, debate 101 - just HOW were the quotes taken out of context?

 
At 12:45 PM, Blogger Rill O'Beilly said...

Dear Blog People,

From reading Ted's blog, I realize that I might be guilty of plagiarism!

As I don't want to be the target of Mark Hyman and his wrecking crew, I must acknowlege that it was an anonymous blogger who suggested calling Sickofspin by the short-hand, SOS.

Sorry about the lack of due credit in my earlier post!

 
At 12:51 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

At 11:41 AM, Rill O'Beilly said...
Dear Blog People,

I would like to propose that we continue to engage in SOS's "conversation". Yes, he is rather annoying, as he is given to labels, diatribes, and other low-ball techniques.

But he IS interesting, isn't he? Don't you wonder:

- Exactly what is his philosophy?

On the one hand, he worries about the Founding Fathers and their projected disgust about government intrusion, and then just as quickly, he'll go "na-na-na" (with ears in fingers) when some earnest person notes that the Chimpy McFlightsuit has overseen a terribly failed foreign adventure, has never vetoed humongous pork, and has shepherded loss of civil liberties (you know, little things like domestic spying, torture, loss of due process, deceit, etc.)

So I say, let's engage SOS. Perhaps it'll keep him off the street (one might suspect someone as angry as he might engage in acts of road rage).

It's our patriotic duty to keep SOS glued to his keyboard!

---------

In other words, you folks prefer personal attack instead of properly refuting my responses. And for the record I've done anything BUT do the na-na-na fingers in the ears thing. Quite frankly, I contend just the opposite is true. You folks are in denial. You refuse to acknowledge the truth. I'm only annoying because I'm effective - I expose your agenda, your manipulations, your distortions and it pisses you off.

 
At 12:53 PM, Blogger Rill O'Beilly said...

Methinks SOS doth protest too much!

You can dish out all sort of garbage...

...wouldn't you expect a little back?

Isn't that what your friends in the Right Wing Media do to all sorts of people? Take Bill O'Reilly, for example. One of the angriest. Simply a bully... with a lot of Total Radiated Power

 
At 12:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Folks,

Is SOS running out of steam?

Has he lost interest in us?

This is too sad!

Please SOS, keep it coming.

Please!

You are performing an an act of public service to us all.

Please! More! Please!

 
At 1:15 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

At 11:58 AM, Anonymous said...
Folks,

Is SOS running out of steam?

Has he lost interest in us?

This is too sad!

Please SOS, keep it coming.

Please!

You are performing an an act of public service to us all.

Please! More! Please!
-------

Me thinks you lack substance and don't really know how to respond with actually substance.....

Please! More! Please!

 
At 1:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SOS,

Sorry for the lack of substance.

Here's a question for you (with some intro material)...

From reading your blog entries, you seem angry and upset at all (or most) who try to participate here.

My question is: What is your purpose? You're on a left-leaning blog site! So, you step into "enemy" territory with mean words, sarcasm, bungee stretches of logic, and simple disrepect.

I look back at your back and forth with TEd and you seldome actually respond to him. But you see nothing wrong with long diatribes.


So, what's your purpose? I'd think you'd want to persuade people of your views. But it seems you just want to anger people.




What's up with that? Do you normally address people in that tone?

Do you have any non-right leaning friends? Do you actually try to listen to them?

I'm just wondering. And my point to my questions is this: What is your purpose? To argue or to persuade?

 
At 3:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ted pretended that his anti-Hyman prose (below) was meant only for Hyman vs. Kerry...."

but it WAS meant only for hyman vs. kerry. that's the substance of the post, and ted re-afirmed this for us.

so why spin, if you're so sick of it?

KEvron

 
At 5:08 PM, Anonymous Lance said...

Wow-- it's quite clear both from context and the links themselves that Ted was mocking Hyman regarding Kerry. Sure, Ted could have been more obvious, but that lessens the effect of the irony in Hymans request to honor vets even though he, when it served him politically, was all too happy to smear a vet (largely with lies).

 
At 5:21 PM, Anonymous hyman's turtle said...

sos,
you earlier questioned assertion that we we're lied into war. i then suggested cheney's "no doubt" comments were a good example of a manipulation of intelligence, aftreall, there was indeed plenty of doubt about the intel we had. now, per today's new york times:
A high al-Qaida official in U.S. custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained al-Qaida members to use biological and chemical weapons... [Colin] Powell relied heavily on accounts provided by Libi as the foundation for his speech to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003...
don't you think we're owed an explanation?

 
At 5:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

speaking of hymens, mine's the consistency of beef jerky!

HArriet MIers

 
At 6:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello, fellow bloggers,

Wow, what an exchange between Mr. Sickofspin and other bloggers.

While perhaps a little entertaining, it's also disturbing, and ultimately, sad.

Mr. SOS came in, told various people they were full of crap, but, oddly, utterly failed to provide any coherent set of beliefs or values. It doesn't make sense. As another blogger asked... what's his purpose? Aside from pissing people off, what is his larger goal?

With Mark Hyman and the Sinclair crowd, its easier to figure out motives: create a dictatorial style of broadcast media in which the Very Wealthy buy up stations and spout off their pet views, every single day. So much for the public's airwaves. Now we have elitist hypocrites, like Mr. Hyman.


But back to SOS. Know Thine Enemy is an important dictum, and in Mr. SOS, we can see how true that is. God help us, though.

Trying to get at the nuts-and-bolts of Mr. SOS is difficult, because he leaves more trash in his wake than things to really think about. And that's the tragedy of the New Right (and for that matter, some on the left). There is no dialog, no real back and forth, no desire to know each other better. Just hate talk.

This is scary. While Mr. SOS engages in slash-and-burn, it just further alienates EVERYONE. You can't help but think that Mr. SOS's life must be devoid of growth or understanding of civics and current events... so little real dialog occurs. He must go to bed each night angry and frustrated.

It's all too common. It is the language of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and others. Perhaps the public is starting to notice the pattern: confronted with ideas they cannot refute, Fox and friends engage in name calling or worse. Just look at our pal Mark Hyman, one of the biggest hypocrites (support vietnam vets, but it's okay to trash trash trash John Kerry... BORING).

 
At 8:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think SOS is actually Bill O'Really from the "Nose Pin Zone", and he is here trying to save the "Merry Christmas" expression from being removed from the English language by the nasty liberals.

Mike B. in SC

 
At 10:01 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Wow, you folks are so eager with the analysis of a person who doesn't share you views, so eager that you totally and willfully ignore the issues presented in challenge to you.....

Imagine that....

You are all SO shoot the messenger!

Entertaining!

Talk about do as I say and not as I do.....

 
At 10:18 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Anonymous claimed:

'Mr. SOS came in, told various people they were full of crap, but, oddly, utterly failed to provide any coherent set of beliefs or values.'

FALSE. I've provided a number of challenges, most remain largely remain unanswered/unaddressed and you all know it. I've provided links, quotes, challenging questions, an alternate perspective, and most all of you, with exception to Ted, have blatantly ignored the substance of my responses. Ted may spin, but at least he lives up to his counterpoint name. Debate 101 - at least mention the topic brought up/challenges issued.

You choir boys seem to be afraid to respond in a direct manner, you go for the personal attack in lieu of substance. Don't get me wrong, personal attack is fine as long as you can also provide some substance along with it, however you boys just don't.

One individual in here pretends the liberal quotes I provided were taken out of context, however he refuses to demonstrate how so. Another claim pretends that because a reference was derived from a certain source, that it somehow and automatically taints that reference - refusing to take on the merits of the reference. Never mind the source wasn't demonstrated just why it should be dismissed. Challenged to take on points directly, most all of you have simply refused - you do anything BUT refute points contrary to your position. True rebuttal means nothing to you.

Read your posts, go into denial - you folks have done absolutely nothing to address the substance, the alternative position I have indeed provided in this venue.

Here's an in-your-face example:

Anonymous wrote...
'Ted, do you think 'Sick-From-Spinning' really believes that weak false rhetoric, lies and alleged quotes taken out of context...'

Hey bonehead, what lies, what was taken out of context? SPECIFY, SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Oh, and hey - the group reviewing this is loving it!

Thanks guys!

 
At 10:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. SOS,

As you are the Self Proclaimed No Spin Person here, could you PLEASE answer some questions about your beliefs that are directly relevant to this blog? You've managed NOT to answer several queries.

My gosh, at least Ted was man enough to directly and point-by-point address your list of alleged mis-truths of Ted's. Why can't you do the same?

So...

- Do you think it's okay for Mark Hyman to personally attack individuals (such as what he's done to Ted) simply on the basis of contrary views?

More generally, what the heck is the PURPOSE of your visit here?

To just nay say and cast others as jerks (yes, you're good at that) is one thing (cheap) or do you actually stand for a set of values?

You're always on the offensive, so all I can tell is that you don't like anyone you blog with.

Why not put up some of YOUR values to the test, instead of just ranting against others?

 
At 10:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Ted,

I've been reading your blog for the last hour or so and it is good. It is clear that this requires considerable work and research. I particularly like how you annotate your statements with reputable website references. Kudos!

Unfortunately, we get the Selfrighteous One (M.H.) here in St. Louis. He's a bit to stomach. Thanks for taking him on. I guess when you buy up a bunch of stations, that give you the "right" to slander???

I have to ask, who is this sickofspin guy (i'm assuming a guy)? He seems rather angry. Here's my fave statement of his:

"Ted didn't make ANY valid points. I refuted each one by one and you did nothing whatsoever to 'counterpoint' them (pun intended). Hollow arguments and hot air, that's all you folks have and pretend that speculation is fact."

Wow, so saying something makes it so. I wish I were thinner, richer, and handsome.

Oh good Lord, this sort of perception (of how SOS somehow vanquished you) is a bit scary. He plops down some web addresses, calls you "arrogant", your efforts "slime" etc., etc., and thinks that that sort of babbling wins arguments?

Then again, look at the crew in the White House: Karl (smear-any-enemy) Rove, Scooter (take a bullet for the Veep) Libby, Dick (the torture-monger) Cheney, Scott (Lie to the public) McClelland.

My gosh, what a crowd. Even some of my Republican friends are apologizing!

Anyway, you might want to watch out for SOS; he seems a bit unhinged.

 
At 11:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sickofspin [sic]--

I'm pretty sure that you're the one who brought personal attacks into these conversations. And I haven't seen you actually say anything of substance yet.

It's entirely possible I'm misunderstanding you, and you actually do have a serious point to make. The problem with having grammar skills as poor as yours is that it does leave you vulnerable to misinterpretation. However, your argument began with the vague accusation that Ted's argument was "slime." You say that Ted generalized, twisted, and manipulated, but you did nothing to prove your point. Simply saying this is the case does not make it so. Anyone who passed freshman composition with a C- or better should know that.

From there, we get this sentence: "In this example you apply Hyman's very direct objections to Kerry and attempt to apply them in blanket fashion to all vets who object to the war." This is entirely senseless; it might have something to do with the (unintentional?) repetition of the word "apply." I don't know. All I know is that I have to try to figure out what you mean because you've expressed yourself so poorly. I think you're saying that Ted has accused Hyman of hating all veterans who wound up objecting to the war in Viet Nam. If you honestly believe that's what Ted was articulating, then you've misunderstood what he wrote by taking him too literally. The rest of us were pretty certain that Ted was talking about Sinclair's work with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the STOLEN HONOR documentary. Ted has even said this was the case. If those of us on the left wanted to convince people that Hyman hated all veterans who wound up hating the war, I think we would say just that.

From there, you go into this pseudo-populist rant about "big government" apropos of nothing Ted had originally posted. Yes, yes-- we get it. Government's too big. You don't like government-funded schools, health care, unemployment benefits, etc. However, most of us in America are in favor of some government presence in our lives. I'm glad we have schools, highways, and medical research facilities. I don't find those things intrusive at all (as opposed to, say, the Patriot Act), and I'm glad that I live in a country that values them. Quite frankly, I'd be willing to bet that you enjoy the benefits of our government's spending priorities every day, whether you realize it or not. But you're right-- it's much easier to just say something simple-minded like "The United States is turning into The Soviet Union," as ridiculous and untrue as it may be.

From there, you provided a bunch of quotes from Democrats who believed Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and/or needed to be removed from power. Nobody knows why you did that, as far as I can tell-- you provided no argument to go along with your "evidence," so I'm forced to try to figure out what your point was. I guess it's that liberals are hypocritical when it comes to Iraq? Like, we used to want to invade, but we changed our minds because... I don't know... Toby Keith thought it was a good idea? Whatever your reasoning, the quotes you provide are largely pointless. Some come from six or seven years ago, well before Hans Blix and the U.N. Weapons Inspectors began their search for WMDs in Iraq. Others were more recent, and reflected the obvious misunderstandings that the administration's flawed intelligence created. All the same, as I said before, those Democrats who supported the war with Iraq were wrong. Plain and simple.

And, yes, I will always maintain that pulling quotes from partisan propaganda websites in order to bolster your own argument is ridiculous. Would you take me seriously if all of my information came from www.michaelmoore.com? I'm guessing not. But again, that's not my main problem with your reliance on "spin" websites for your information. The only reason this keeps coming up is because your name suggests that you are, well, sick of spin. But your sources for your information are devoted to "spinning." I mean, you have to see why that's funny, right? You actually love spin, but you say that you're sick of it.

Look, I don't hate you, and I don't think you deserve to be on the receiving end of any personal attacks, despite the fact that you engage in them yourself. I'm in favor of a more civilized debate, as I think I suggested in my previous response. But you haven't really offered up any sort of thoughtful critique of anything, from what I've seen. You offer lots of vitriolic attacks, you make accusations, and you misrepresent the arguments of others, and then you complain that no one is addressing the substance of your argument. If you want to be taken seriously and treated with respect, I would suggest that you work on articulating yourself more clearly, stay focused on the argument at hand, and-- above all else-- treat others with the respect you want for yourself.

Bradley

 
At 11:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Bradley,

Hi!

I think you're taking this SOS guy too seriously. He is impervious to logic (be a great staffer in the WH!)

Check out his sickofspin blog, you'll get the picture. He's gotten way more action criticizing people here on Ted's blog than on his own blog. Seems like Ted should charge him rent or an advertising fee (I'm sure SOS would appreciate the entrepeneurial spirit).

SOS seems to really need an audience, preferably one to beat up on (sound like any other windbags we see on TV and hear on the radio?)

I think it's great to try to engage people with differing views, but SOS is deaf. As you said, he thinks that by saying a thing is so, that makes it so.

Don't you think it's frightening how our school systems have failed?

 
At 11:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The exchanges between SOS and Ted and Bradley make clear why BushCo is in office inspite of (1)not winning in 2000 and (2) being completely and utterly incompetent.

Bradley and Ted attempt to use "logic" and "facts" on SOS, but to no avail. Meanwhile, SOS simply proclaims. Just like BushCo. Look at the string of nonsense BushCo has promoted, from invading Iraq to a completely failed Social Security "reform" to wanting to turn our great country into one that officially (yes, officially) practices torture.

So, Liberals and Centrists (don't take much to be a Liberal these days!), it's hard to engage people like SOS and BushCo, they simply steamroll over fact and then spin things any which way they please.

Yeah, that night-shift at Abu Ghraib, they were nasty weren't they? Let's court-martial THEM and let What's-wrong-with-standing-for-8-hours Rumsfeld keep his job. Incredible. Incredible incompentence.

What really pisses me off, though, is that the whole lot are chickenhawks. Cheney had "other priorities". Wolfowitz passed, Rush (the drug addict) missed out and ol' Sonny Boy was somewhere down south, missing duty and checking off the "please don't send me to Vietnam" box. Some heros.

Real heros, like Sen. McCain, have to fight the likes of deferrment-meister Cheney so that we don't descend further into the United States of Torture.

So that's the secret of SOS and the BushCo crowd: Ignore fact, ignore morality, ignore anything that's in your way. (And buy up a bunch of TV stations so you can spread your propaganda).



Anyway, I digress.

But you can see why the Republicans will beat the Dems...
they fight dirty. REALLY REALLY DIRTY (the gloves are off!!!)

 
At 2:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As many of the regular readers of this blog may have noticed, I do not shy away from using the "F-word" (Fascist) when I refer to the ex-cheerleader, draft-dodging, dry-drunk (W) in the White House, and his merry band of reverse-Robin Hood, Neo-Con chickenhawks who have fraudulently seized and maintained control of our government for nearly five years now, and plunged this nation into an illegal and immoral war of imperialism and American world domination.

No, I don't use the fascist label as a derogatory term, it is simply the most accurate way to describe the WHIGS (White House Iraq Group Shills) and what they are doing to America. As Sinclair Lewis said, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Fascism is Corporatism and both deny the American people the right to govern themselves. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of the government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power."

And that my friends, is exactly where America finds itself today after a series of bad Supreme Court rulings granting corporations even more rights than people, and with each new Justice he appoints to the court, the situation grows ever more grim. Corporations are writing the laws to protect themselves from litigation and insure profits at the expense of individual rights of the people.

As for the perpetual War-On-Terrorism, or as Shrub, the Idiot-In-Chief calls it, the War-On-Terra (earth), I think he takes the latter meaning both socially and environmentally, James Madison said, "In war, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections



These 14 defining characteristics are described in much more detail at -

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

If you have not already visited his site, I would suggest that you check out Mark Frankenberg's site and his book - "Just Say No to Fascism". The Link is -

http://www.justsaynotofascism.com/

Thanks, and keep bustin' Hyman and all the other Neo-Fascists!


Mike B. in SC

P.S. SOS, it is a lie when you say "the government doesn’t want you to be able to pray in a public school", and it is also a lie when you say, "the government doesn’t want you to say, “Merry Christmas” during the celebration of Christ’s birthday, a national holiday." And if you are going to use quotes from government officials in your argument, do what Ted does and give a link to the full text.

Thanks

 
At 2:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bradley,

I must commend you for your civility in dealing with SOS. Truly an admirable quality, particuarly given his demonstrated inability to reason.

Interesting point you made about SOS's complaint about how our country is becoming like the Soviet Union.

Yes, we now have our secret gulag of torture camps. Yes, we now have kept hundreds locked up without charge or due process. Yes we have intelligence "sexed up" in order to create a client state. Yes, we have the most secretive administration in decades. And yes, we have a manipulative media (Sinclair) that will try to destroy real war heroes (Sen. McCain is frequently attacked by Hyman) while the Chickenhawk Administration can play "let's make a mess of things".

So, gee, I have to agree with SOS... We ARE becoming more like the Soviet Union.

But as is typical, ol foaming SOS got the reason wrong...

It's all thanks to President Cheney and his President.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.