bleeding heart

Well, people trying to "undermine credibility" of media figures is common to....every single popular political commentator--without exception. I don't see the problem here, and I don't see it as a "free speech" issue. Folks like murphy have more "free speech" than the rest of us; we all have (give or take) the negative right to free speech; if the positive right is taken away through public pressure (as opposed to legal decisions) then there is no speech injustice that has been committed. When the show about ordinary American Muslims was taken off the air, thanks to pressure on the advertisers ("bad" Muslim behavior should be given "equal time" was the spurious argument), that is not a free speech issue. I think it betrays an ugliness and a bigotry (and your argument could go in that direction)...but it's not a free speech issue. A Walmart employee is barred by threat of dismissal if he or she says things publically that the company feels will reflect poorly upon them. Is that a "free speech" issue?

Well, a certain type of behavior seems mostly to attract a certain type of....creatively-handicapped...poster.

Yes, well, the UK government actually seems to agree with this view; unlike their counterparts in the US, Canada, France, et al, the British authorities have actually gone after the newspapers for reporting this stuff: The Guardian, notably, was ordered to destroy harddrives with the information. Of course, a useless endeavor, since info floats through the air, moves through cables, etc; so presumably the authorities meant this a demonstration effect, not unlike wars of aggression against weaker nations, writ small. And while I'm glad that Canada, America etc are not stooping quite to these levels, it does raise some interesting questions about our hypocrisy: that is, if Snowdon, Assange, Greenwald et al are "guilty" of disseminating "dangerous material"....why aren't the NYTimes, Globe and Mail, etc etc guilty of publishing said material? It would appear the Powerful are as stupid and selectively hypocritical as they are dangerous.

How could they "silence" Rex? I'm reminded of Sarah Palin informing us that all the criticisms mounted against her were an attempt to "stifle my freedom of speech."

They're no more trying to silence Murphy than you're trying to silence Suzuki. That is, not at all. Influential public media figures can be forthright; or not. And we can call them on it.

Well, I can sympathize with the disgust at ideological hypocrisy, if that's what you're seeing. I feel the same way every time people talk about how the Western states are morally opposed to terrorism--a preposterous view, shared only and explicitly by Commissars. Terrorists are not morally opposed to terrorism. But at the same time, we have to at least sometimes avoid the tu quoque (we don't have to always do so, as tu quoques are not in every instance illegitimate). In other words, I completely agree that Western governments should be trying to fight and to reduce terrorism...their own complicity in the noxious behavior doesn't change that. And if Suzuki is a dishonest shill, that doesn't mean that Murphy is honest. If everything is cool, it's funny how he neglected to mention that he has a lot to personally gain from his perspective.

The common belief here--which I share, though I'm happy to be proven wrong--is that poster "socialist" is either 1. A right-winger who employs caricatures of what he views as "the left" in order to discredit leftism (much as we once had a "Muslim extremist" here who talked about forcibly converting us, of committing terrorism with his "three strong sons," and so on...an obvious fake in that case); or 2. An actual lefty, who fundamentally believes what he says, but reaches to provocation to elicit responses and arguments. I have little use for either persona, myself.

I do agree, completely, that my response is not perfectly analogous, as I was speaking more to a ideological viewpoint: the idea that our success is built on the backs of hardy entrepreneurship, in some sort of "rugged individualist" myth as a sop to the libertarian impulses we all love and have been spoonfed, as with other children's stories and epic poems. That said, and as implied by Michael Hardner's understandable confusion, I should have been more clear in the obvious distinctions...which you point out.

I'm finding your argument altogether too selectively shape-shifting, edging into tu quoque territory, and then sprinting far beyond even that: On the one hand, you accuse Suzuki of being a shill, dishonestly making money for his ideological stances; Then you suggest we shouldn't criticize Rex, because he and Suzuki are in the same boat; But you also seem to want to have it that Murphy didn't do anything unseemly, at all. So your argument is that Suzuki is just as bad as Murphy...but that Murphy didn't do anything bad?

Well, thanks to all the publicity surrounding the killings of innocents--and there've been a lot--one has to indeed wonder what the methods are. Part of the problem appears to be that they have replaced a lot of human intelligence with computer "intelligence"...for example, killing targets who are carrying certain cell phones. The problem with this, of course, is that cell phones get tossed away, picked up by other people...and so on. now, of course, you can't expect Presidents, military intelligence, the CIA and other such folks to have considered this possibility. Very complicated. But hell, it's only some innocent Afghans, Yemenis, and so on....not important when you're tasked with saving the world from the evil Commu....er, Narco-traffic...I mean terrorists.

I agree. Further, the idea that he simply "agrees with the oil companies" is a non-starter as an argument...of course he does, and that in and of itself is not the issue. The issue is one of disclosure and the perception of a conflict of interest. When the story about the retired Generals speaking on CNN, FOX, ABC news, etc broke several years ago in their robust defense of the Iraq War....the issue wasn't whether their opinions were genuine; the issue was that, first, many of them were in the employ of military contractors directly making money from the war, and second, that they were briefed at the Pentagon with "talking points" before they went on the news shows as "independent analysts." I'd be interested to know if Murphy met with any PR agents to be debriefed on "talking points."

Well, I agree my point is a slight deviation (but only slight); I was speaking to a fundamental (and in fact economic "fundamentalist") myth embedded in the link Tim provided, and which calls the "welfare dependency" theme strongly into question. That is, no country achieves terrific wealth on the strength of some mythic, pulled-by-bootstraps entrepreneurial class. I don't mean they have no influence at all; I mean that they thrive only within a system of gifted monies (incentives, subsidies), of necessary infrastructure, of trade protectionism, and so on. I got from the argument the notion that "foreign aid" stifles entrepreneurship, which might otherwise lead to a more prosperous society; but if so, then why do the domestic policies of entrepreneurially-successful nations behave on the principle that funding, infrastructure et all is necessary to success?....and that this seems to have worked quite well? The issue with foreign aid is its misuse, presumably by powerful domestic forces within the receiving nations. And ok, but that's not the argument being put forth, I don't think, or not all of it. The idea of "welfare dependency" is not a strong argument, and is based on platitudes like "teach a man to fish" rather than on real-world metrics and lived reality.

I agree. This seems to be a rare case, which doesn't mean the whole program need be undermined. Perhaps there could be some sort of cap, just out of principle, though what the cap should be remains an open question.

[edit: a slight problem with the included link, don't know why, but no problem: when you reach the page, hit the "Glenn Greenwald" tab at the top, and the story comes up.] The UK's Government's Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) has won a victory, perhaps only temporarily, from a lower court: they can deem any journalist a "terrorist suspect," and detain them on this note, with precisely zero evidence or information. This is of no surprise in a place like the UK, whose support for press freedoms is notoriously bad. In the 1970s, a reporter named Duncan Campbell was criminally prosecuted simply for reporting on the fact that the GCHQ existed. However, since then, many top secret GCHQ reports have been published in various places, notably by the Guardian, about It is quite clear why they should wish to criminalize any reporting on their activities: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/19/uks-equating-journalism-terrorism-designed-conceal-gchq/

Apparently those Nebraskan family farmers and ranchers are a bunch of lefty "eco-nuts."

I was just gonna say, I need to find that realtor and quick, in case I move again.

Reading tea-leaves is for eco-nuts and commies, and effete British Lords. Real men throw the bones or poke around in entrails to determine the future.

But you don't believe that "the problem lies with the reader." That is, you think that's true for the people who consider the poster an irritant.....but you don't offer the same advice for the poster himself, when he's being criticized. You want it both ways--as when you suggest that trolling is fine...and it's totally subjective....even as you claim that you have been trolled yourself.

Yea, but you may well be right about how you have been "trolled"...or maybe not. As you say, that's your perception. With the other case, it's not a poster's perception; or three posters' perceptions; it's lots. And lots. You're also ignoring the fact that he has admitted it.....gleefully. So that's a slight difference too, donchathink?

Then how do we account for the fact--the truism, really--that the most successful nations (without exception, to my knowledge) achieved their high positions through trade protectionism and public monies....moreso than from the "entrepreneurial spirit," which is next to useless without the means provided by infrastructure and government help? I know that's not foreign aid....but the fundamental principle is not much different, re "entrepreneurship." the fact that the internet was developed largely through American tax dollars doesn't seem to stop a lot of people having gotten independently [sic] wealthy on it.

And no, the farce here is that your defense is based on your political preferences, not on the style of debate. And spare me the "ganging up" bit. there are consequences to being a ridicule troll. Ain't life hard. YOU'RE the one who admonishes us to get a thicker skin, or ignore, or address it how we will. Evidently this doesn't apply to trolls who admit they are here only to antagonize people....but to everyone else.

Again...we're talking about consistent trolling, trolling as the reason for being here, and further, one who has openly and gleefully admitted to it....that it, the primary intention being to anger or upset people. (That's it's usually a failed attempt doesn't alter the intent.) As opposed to people who sometimes engage in behavior that maybe isn't so great...which is most of us. There is a large difference, both in scale and in what is desired for the general discussions.

Thanks for the source-catch, Waldo. If we're going to use Pat Robertson as the "expert" on social issues, Camille Paglia for climate change, or Ezra Levant for, well, sane reality.....none of these discussions will go anywhere.

Context, Betsy, context. You know to whom Guyser was responding...and why. Everyone knows, and everyone knows that Guyser is far more civil (and, frankly, less thin-skinned) than his opponent in this discussion. Why pretend otherwise?

Yeah, but why focus on trivial matters like the Government of Canada....when we're talking the really big boys here...like David Suzuki.