Yep, because a state-owned media outlet is obviously is the paragon of journalism as long as its blasting America and hosting conspiracy theorists. Amirite?
Seriously, the New York Times sucks, but the willingness of Wenzel, Rockwell, etc. to rely on a media outlet owned and operated by a semi-authoritarian state just defies logic until you realize they don't actually hate the state, just the one that defeated the Confederacy.
I think it's the whole "question our dear leaders, after all they are simply fallible self motivated people" thing they seem to like. Of course the RT probably has different reasons for doing this, duh. If the 4th estate in this country were better at asking the hard questions...good thing we have sites like EPJ!
Anon is trolling. Anyone who spends 10 minutes reading LRC or EPJJ can see they hate the state, be it the USSA or the former USSR. We just love to see them exposed, and exposing the crimes of the other.
Eric, I agree that NYT fails to "question our dear leaders" far too often, but it does occasionally happen. For instance, it was NYT that broke the story about Bush's warrantless wiretapping in 2005. That said, while the Times is far too sycophantic and deferential, RT is an owned and operated propaganda arm of the Kremlin. The difference is fundamental.
Heath, I don't buy it. Wenzel, Rockwell, Walter Block, Daniel McAdams... they go out of there way on a regular basis to explain away, or actually defend, the actions of multiple authoritarian governments as long as they can pretend that government is standing up to, or a supposed victim of, American imperialism. American foreign policy is often dangerous, aggressive, and deadly. We should all criticize it. Defending authoritarian statists to do so is not necessary and, in fact, anti-liberatarian.
Eric, the entire existence of the Confederacy was based on keeping other human beings, individuals, in bondage. If that's not as "big and as... energetic..." as the current American state I don't know what the hell is...
Anon, you are right about the confederacy: Taxing southern states to subsidize northern business elite was a sort of bondage, probably based on a laughable interpretation of the commerce clause of the US Constitution. Here is something interesting:
Section 8.3 of the Confederate Constitution grants the power to the Confederate Congress
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the pill-pose of furnishing lights, beacon, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors, all the removing of obstructions in river navigation, in all which cases, such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay the Costs, and expenses thereof:"
But maybe more obviously relevant to your comment are sections 9.1 and 9.2:
"1.The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. 2.Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy."
Do yours, and read about the many connections and cooperations that have existed and probably still exist between major media companies and the US spy/military state. So, technically they aren't owned by the government...yes, but sometimes its a distinction without a difference, nowatimeen?
ahhh but if the people who own or manages the NYT are part of an elite that run the government then don't be surprised to find they might ...run in tandem.
The Federal Reserve isn't opened by the federal government, either.
The NYT has a long, dirty history of employing people on the Department of War payroll, involvement with the CIA (see Operation Mockingbird), downplaying the Holocaust, and best of all, covering up Stalin's mass starvation:
USA need to stop the aggression against Russia Crimea was not invaded it Democraticly Voted to return to Russia? As will the eastern Regions USA can not keep supporting a Fascist Take over of Ukraine?
Yep, because a state-owned media outlet is obviously is the paragon of journalism as long as its blasting America and hosting conspiracy theorists. Amirite?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, the New York Times sucks, but the willingness of Wenzel, Rockwell, etc. to rely on a media outlet owned and operated by a semi-authoritarian state just defies logic until you realize they don't actually hate the state, just the one that defeated the Confederacy.
I think it's the whole "question our dear leaders, after all they are simply fallible self motivated people" thing they seem to like. Of course the RT probably has different reasons for doing this, duh. If the 4th estate in this country were better at asking the hard questions...good thing we have sites like EPJ!
DeleteOh yea, May the south rise again! Ha.
DeleteI suspect you will find they do hate the State, all States and maybe, had it survived into the present day,even the Confederacy.
DeleteMaybe if it had gotten as big and as... energetic... as our current one, you are probably right.
DeleteAnon is trolling. Anyone who spends 10 minutes reading LRC or EPJJ can see they hate the state, be it the USSA or the former USSR. We just love to see them exposed, and exposing the crimes of the other.
DeleteEric, I agree that NYT fails to "question our dear leaders" far too often, but it does occasionally happen. For instance, it was NYT that broke the story about Bush's warrantless wiretapping in 2005. That said, while the Times is far too sycophantic and deferential, RT is an owned and operated propaganda arm of the Kremlin. The difference is fundamental.
DeleteHeath, I don't buy it. Wenzel, Rockwell, Walter Block, Daniel McAdams... they go out of there way on a regular basis to explain away, or actually defend, the actions of multiple authoritarian governments as long as they can pretend that government is standing up to, or a supposed victim of, American imperialism. American foreign policy is often dangerous, aggressive, and deadly. We should all criticize it. Defending authoritarian statists to do so is not necessary and, in fact, anti-liberatarian.
Eric, the entire existence of the Confederacy was based on keeping other human beings, individuals, in bondage. If that's not as "big and as... energetic..." as the current American state I don't know what the hell is...
DeleteAnon, you are right about the confederacy: Taxing southern states to subsidize northern business elite was a sort of bondage, probably based on a laughable interpretation of the commerce clause of the US Constitution. Here is something interesting:
DeleteSection 8.3 of the Confederate Constitution grants the power to the Confederate Congress
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the pill-pose of furnishing lights, beacon, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors, all the removing of obstructions in river navigation, in all which cases, such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay the Costs, and expenses thereof:"
But maybe more obviously relevant to your comment are sections 9.1 and 9.2:
"1.The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2.Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy."
Do your homework: NYT isn't owned by the US Government.
ReplyDeleteDo yours, and read about the many connections and cooperations that have existed and probably still exist between major media companies and the US spy/military state. So, technically they aren't owned by the government...yes, but sometimes its a distinction without a difference, nowatimeen?
Deleteahhh but if the people who own or manages the NYT are part of an elite that run the government then don't be surprised to find they might ...run in tandem.
DeleteThe Federal Reserve isn't opened by the federal government, either.
DeleteThe NYT has a long, dirty history of employing people on the Department of War payroll, involvement with the CIA (see Operation Mockingbird), downplaying the Holocaust, and best of all, covering up Stalin's mass starvation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times#Failure_to_report_famine_in_Ukraine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
And of course, they employ Paul Krugman, former White House employee and arch-Keynesian.
I'm sure they went to the same schools and walk their doggies in the same neighborhoods, yes.
DeleteAnon hasn't grasped the concept of fascism. It is controlled (and parasitically controls) the state.
DeleteUSA need to stop the aggression against Russia Crimea was not invaded it Democraticly Voted to return to Russia?
ReplyDeleteAs will the eastern Regions USA can not keep supporting a Fascist Take over of Ukraine?