[Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

E. Wayne Johnson ewj at pigs.ag
Sun Aug 16 13:36:40 CDT 2009


Laurie,
Please define "fascist" so that I can understand what you mean when you use
this word.  Orwell said fascist has no meaning at all.  For some 
"fascist" is
a synonym for "authoritarian"--- there are other meanings, and Mussolini
and the Italian economists certainly did not intend for "fascist" to be 
used in
a negative context.  Many of the people I communicate with regularly 
would consider
both Obama and McCain to be fascists.   I suspect that your meaning is 
different.

I have quit using the word fascist myself because I was too oft 
misunderstood.

In China the language changes every few hundred yards in Gen. 11 style.  
I have no problem
with your private definitions of words but if we are to understand each 
other we
must have some definition of terms.

Wayne



On 8/16/2009 11:06 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
> It very well maybe to their interests Carl; but I know from personal
> experience as indicated and supported by the reactions of people to many of
> the positions I take on this and other lists (some of which are made up of
> fellow members of the choir allegedly) that in fact my views tend to be out
> of step with the mass of my fellow citizens.  I do find it difficult to see
> how it would be to the corporate media's interest to convince me that the
> mass of my fellow citizens are proto-fascists; and in point of fact, the
> corporate media deliberately attempts to convince me and others that the
> opposite is the case and true (i.e., the mass of my fellow citizens are
> decent upstanding respectable and responsible human being and are even more
> so than the citizens of any other country; it is the deviant, irresponsible,
> minority of criminal extremists and terrorists that do not accept and
> conform to establishment ways that are the crazies and proto-fascists).
>
> Moreover, I do not believe that the masses are proto-fascist; I think that
> under the surface, they are real live full blown fascists - no "proto" about
> it.  And of course, I recognize that there are and always be some who do not
> fit the characterization.  Some of these may be visibly fascist; and some
> may not be fascist in any way shape or fashion.  My argument is not to what
> degree any given individual fits the characterization; it is a statement as
> to the national character in general as it has revealed itself when push
> comes to shove and some threat or hardship exists.  The "my country right or
> wrong attitude" that underlies everything that this country does and which
> the people tacitly or overtly support for the most part from the very
> beginnings of the country and even before during the colonial period. It is
> the reluctance to stand out from the crowd and take actual steps that put
> one's self and future at risk in order to oppose informal and formal, covert
> and overt, institutional and non-institutional intolerance, bigotry, racism,
> ethnic prejudices, class biases, etc. and support all non-conformity, all
> diversity, the interests and welfare of those who are not like us in ways
> aside from only talk and throwing money at things.
>
> What I am suggesting is that the "Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" and the
> "Ugly American" still exist and still characterize the attitudes, beliefs,
> and values of Americans - elites and masses alike just as they have in the
> past. It is this that supplies the audiences for the talk radio commentators
> like Lou Dobbs, Hannity, Beck, et al of today and the Father Caughlins,
> Walter Winchels, and Drew Pearsons of yesterday and creates the popular
> demand that keeps them on the air and attracts corporate advertisers and
> support.  If they did not have a significantly large audience or demand for
> what they were putting out, the corporate interests would turn their
> attention and support on those that do and engage in using and manipulating
> them for the corporate interests.  To deny or ignore the size and
> pervasiveness of this popular following and demand is to act foolishly.  Not
> to recognize that those who oppose such commentators and what they have to
> say are in the minority and a minority that is not all that effective is
> stupid and possibly delusional.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
> Estabrook
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:26 AM
> To: LAURIE SOLOMON
> Cc: 'Peace-discuss List'
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>
> I think it's to the interest of the corporate media to convince you that
> your
> views are unusual, and that the mass of your fellow citizens are
> proto-fascists.
>
> I don't think they are. I've not infrequently had people say to me, "I agree
> with what you say on News from Neptune, but I thought that I was practically
> the
> only one who thought that way."  --CGE
>
>
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>    
>> Who says I was?  I am sure that I am not totally exempt and what
>>      
> exemptions I
>    
>> have may come from a set of more or less than ordinary - if not unique -
>> biographically determined experience or history.  This history may not
>>      
> have
>    
>> significantly altered the nature of my character but it did effect the
>> content.  In short I hate and am prejudiced against different people than
>> them and maybe most other Americans, my enemies are different than theirs
>>      
> and
>    
>> maybe most other Americans , my fears are different than theirs and maybe
>> most other Americans, etc.
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook
>> [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 9:43 PM To:
>> LAURIE SOLOMON Cc: 'unionyes'; 'Peace-discuss List' Subject: Re:
>> [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>>
>> How were you able to escape these defects?
>>
>>
>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>      
>>> Very simply and to the point the people of the U.S. , for the most part,
>>>        
>> are
>>      
>>> and have been inherently  all the things that Dobbs, Beck, Hannity,
>>>        
>> Limbaugh
>>      
>>> et al stand for. They comprise a natural audience for these commentators
>>>        
>> and
>>      
>>> those like them and, therefore, represent a significant demand for their
>>>        
>> type
>>      
>>> of commentary, which can be denied and ignored at one's own peril.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To elaborate:
>>>
>>> If anything these commentators are catering to the inherent racism,
>>> intolerance,  ethnic bigotry, religious prejudices, social Dawinian
>>>        
>> biases,
>>      
>>> fearfulness, desires for conformity, love of violence, etc. that is part
>>>        
>> and
>>      
>>> parcel of America and its people.  The people already have these traits
>>>        
>> and
>>      
>>> have no need for corporations or the corporate establishment to instill,
>>> encourage, or bring out such attitudes and values since they pre-existed
>>>        
>> the
>>      
>>> rise of corporations in the US and of corporate America.  Hence, they are
>>>        
>> not
>>      
>>> the creatures of corporate power, money or spin.  To be sure,
>>>        
> contemporary
>    
>>> corporations make use of the existence of these attitudes and values for
>>> their own purposes -- often to maintain control over the workings of the
>>> society so that it works in their interests -- whenever possible.
>>>        
> However,
>    
>>> the corporate establishment is not the source of these attitudes and
>>>        
>> values.
>>      
>>> Hence there exists a significantly large native group who hold these and
>>> similar values, beliefs, and attitudes which make up a natural audience
>>>        
>> for
>>      
>>> the Dobbs. Becks et al which create a demand for what Dobbs, beck et al
>>>        
>> are
>>      
>>> giving them.  To deny this or to minimize it is to play ostrich and stick
>>>        
>
>    
>>> one's head in the ground.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* unionyes [mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net] *Sent:* Saturday, August
>>>        
>> 15,
>>      
>>> 2009 8:20 PM *To:* Peace-discuss List; LAURIE SOLOMON *Subject:* Re:
>>> [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And your point Laurie in 50 words or less ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David J.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> P.S. I am NOT trying to be " flippant " or disrespectfull, becaue I
>>>        
> truely
>    
>>> respect your opinion and knowldge ~!
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> *From:* LAURIE SOLOMON<mailto:LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
>>>
>>> *To:* 'unionyes'<mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net>
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 8:12 PM
>>>
>>> *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess that may be where we disagree; I think that there is a tendency
>>>        
> to
>    
>>> give too little credence to the fact that there is this demand and that
>>>        
> it
>    
>>> comes from a significant and large segment of the U.S. public who may be
>>> guided by corporate spin  bought by corporate money but which nonetheless
>>>        
>
>    
>>> represent and embodies some very fundamental values and beliefs that are
>>> actually deeply held by a large number of the American public and masses.
>>>        
>
>    
>>> American racism, ethnic and religious prejudice, cultural biases against
>>> intellectual as opposed to practical education, and fear and hatred of
>>>        
>> new
>>      
>>> immigrants and people from other countries, intolerance, bigotry, and
>>>        
>> demand
>>      
>>> for conformity are somethings that preexisted the rise of corporations in
>>>        
>
>    
>>> America or corporate America.  The corporate establishment with its power
>>>        
>> and
>>      
>>> wealth has been able to use these characteristics of the American public
>>>        
>> to
>>      
>>> their advantage very effectively in modern times; but it is not the
>>>        
>> source,
>>      
>>> cause, or grounds for said attitudes, values, or love of violence toward
>>> other living creatures and properties. As was once said by Stockley
>>> Carmicheal, I believe, "Violence is as American as Apple Pie."  I would
>>>        
>> add
>>      
>>> that so is lawlessness, intolerance, prejudice, conformity, as well as
>>> notions of racial, ethnic, and  religious supremacy, as American as apple
>>>        
>
>    
>>> pie.  They all have roots that pre-date the rise of American corporations
>>>        
>> and
>>      
>>> are part of our cultural and psychological heritage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* unionyes [mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net] *Sent:* Saturday, August
>>>        
>> 15,
>>      
>>> 2009 3:05 PM *To:* LAURIE SOLOMON *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou
>>> Dobbs is dangerous
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not so much that ; Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, etc., have a demand for
>>>        
>
>    
>>> their shows from a large segment of the U.S. public, but instead is a
>>> function of what the corporate advertisers, the rest of corporate america
>>>        
>> and
>>      
>>> the wealthy right-wing foundations want and will pay for !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David J.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> *From:* LAURIE SOLOMON<mailto:LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
>>>
>>> *To:* 'Neil Parthun'<mailto:lennybrucefan at gmail.com>  ;
>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>        
> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>    
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:36 AM
>>>
>>> *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Whether or not one is engaged in censorship in this case appears to
>>>        
> depend
>    
>> on
>>      
>>> one's referent level being addressed.  Your point about Lou Dobbs, the
>>> person, may have some merit vis-à-vis the difference between censorship
>>>        
>> and
>>      
>>> access to the exulted platform of radio&  TV; however if you move the
>>>        
>> level
>>      
>>> of reference up to the radio/TV station level, then one might be seen as
>>> engaging in the censorship of the station and its broadcast content.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While no one guarantees the right to have a nationally televised show, no
>>>        
>> one
>>      
>>> guarantees anyone the right to prevent someone from having such a show
>>>        
> or,
>    
>>> for that matter prevents someone from having such a show.  In the case of
>>>        
>
>    
>>> radio/TV, the air waves allegedly belong to the public to license to
>>>        
>> actors
>>      
>>> for use. The radio/TV stations and networks are among those actors; and
>>> within legally prescribed restrictions they are free to air whatever
>>>        
>> content
>>      
>>> they see fit,  independent of what the public or any portion of the
>>>        
> public
>    
>>> might desire although in this country that decision is driven by the
>>>        
>> market
>>      
>>> (audience share and advertising money).  Obviously, if one wants to alter
>>>        
>> the
>>      
>>> legal restrictions, one needs to go through the process of changing the
>>> legal framework , statutes, and administrative rules pertaining to the
>>> conditions of licensing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If one moves up a level to the ownership and control over the air waves,
>>> which belong legally to the public, then I am afraid that those who wish
>>>        
>> to
>>      
>>> see Dobbs shut down are going to lose for now and in the near future
>>>        
> since
>    
>>> they do not compose a majority of the public -- or enough to force a
>>>        
> change
>    
>> in
>>      
>>> the licensing requirements for the stations and their personnel as to the
>>>        
>
>    
>>> sorts of content that they can air and when.  Like the other right-wing
>>>        
>> talk
>>      
>>> commentators, his station and he appear to have strong national following
>>>        
>
>    
>>> that support and demand him be given air time and are willing to put
>>>        
> their
>    
>>> money where their mouths are.  That cannot be said for the progressives,
>>>        
>> the
>>      
>>> left, or even the moderate reformers.  If they comprised a significantly
>>> large population and if each contributed $5 or $10 each per year for
>>>        
>> purposes
>>      
>>> of buying advertising on the stations that carry Dobbs, they could
>>>        
>> probably
>>      
>>> use that as leverage to get the stations to either reel him and other in
>>>        
>> or
>>      
>>> take them off the air.  But it seems that the progressives, the left,
>>>        
>> liberal
>>      
>>> and moderate reformers would rather hold on to their money  or spend it
>>> elsewhere and exercise their lungs shouting and crying about him and his
>>> content instead.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
>>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Neil
>>>        
>> Parthun
>>      
>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 10:13 PM *To:* C.G.Estabrook *Cc:*
>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou
>>>        
>> Dobbs
>>      
>>> is dangerous
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Banning speech and requesting that such speech does not have a
>>>        
>> hyper-exulted
>>      
>>> platform to amplify it are two very different things.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nobody is saying Lou Dobbs doesn't have a right to say whatever he wants.
>>>        
>> He
>>      
>>> has that right.  However, no person is guaranteed the right to have a
>>> nationally televised show to promote their views and perspectives on any
>>> topic.
>>>
>>> Solidarity,
>>>
>>> -N.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Neil Parthun
>>>
>>> IEA Region 9 Grassroots Political Activist
>>>
>>> Writer/Facilitator for Champaign-Urbana Public i
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Early in life I had learned that if you want something, you had better
>>>        
>> make
>>      
>>> some noise." - Malcolm X
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing
>>>        
> list
>    
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing
>>>        
> list
>    
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>        
>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list
>>      
>
>    
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>      
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090816/c448de5b/attachment.htm


More information about the Peace-discuss mailing list