Security, Liberty, and The Bill of Rights

Some (including myself) might even argue that support for the war implies not supporting the current administration.

It saddens me to see you taking the media's word for it on stuff like wiretapping. What happened to the skeptical Josiah I know?

"Taking the media's word for it"?

Nah. Doesn't need to be done. All you need to do is look at what the administration is saying and you should get the creeping heebie-jeebies.

For all its incompetence, the Bush administration has managed to convince the Middle East that it isn't messing around. The reason Iran doesn't have the bomb right now is because they aren't entirely sure Bush won't nuke them. Which is why they're going to wait until he's out of office before trying anything. And though I do think that much of what the administration is doing may well be illegal - even gasp impeachable - I think I'd still take this over any alternatives.

Ya RobU, it isn't about what the media is saying, it's that the current administration is stating right out in the open that they did it and that it was acceptable practice during war time i.e. "we had to do it for national security".

They've got cojones, this administration.

Josiah, I've been saying for a while that the administration isn't as true to the principles of conservatism as they'd like us to believe. It started several years ago with education reform. It's not that I disagree with *everything* they do--like some Chattabloggers--but I'm concerned enough that I am worried about the far reaching effects.

Now for a personal bugbear: what exactly is this sinister catholic entity we're calling "the media"? Does it encompass all people who make livings from journalistic reportage and essaying? Are we supposed to distrust all of them, disregarding their stated views? (Hitchens, for one, has been a staunch and cogent proponant of the lion's share of Bush policies.) If so, where are we supposed to find information that has not been mediated, that has not been sullied by ink-stained hands? When you suppress all writers with a single anathema, you silence the contrarians as well.

Mesh, no we can't trust any of the media. They are all part of the sinister entity.

Mesh, it's nice to see you decorating yourself with the trappings of moral indignation. It's not a particularly convincing look for you, but with time anything is possible.

But I think we can both recognize the value of normative characterizations even where they overlook substantial exceptions. E.g., despite my own noted generosity and agreeability, I am quite comfortable with the stereotype of my genetic forebears as a parsimonious and contentious race.

Everybody knows that small alt-weeklies are uniquely reliable sources of information. It's the Dan Rathers and Maureen Dowds that are - with whatever degree of justification - customarily being vilified when "the media" is charged with endemic dishonesty. And hell, whether they're trustworthy or not, isn't the fun to be had in insulting them a justification of its own?

Julian, fair enough. We all chose our targets for accusations of wearing no clothes, though there may be something to be said for one target having more warrant that another.

Pointing out to the vitriolic Right that they're not looking for some equitable standing in the Media but are seeking a position of ideological primacy, is a task I find myself on occasion enjoying.

Onwards: The current Administration has leveraged years of the Right's undermining of the priviledged position of the Press in a masterful fashion. So much so, that now if the news simply reads Bush's own words they don't believe it because, like RobU pointed out, the Media is biased.

No love lost though, because in true post-mo subjective fashion, I pick and chose my authorities anyway. And I have "The Internets".

Actually, I think the main reason that much of the right {tho' Bush's support even there must be in steep decline, given his 29% approval ratings} is untroubled by reports of the administration's willingness to abridge American liberties is that they have an emotional rather than an intellectual identification with Republicanism. They live in an ahistorical eternal present, and if Hewitt and Limbaugh announce that the 4th Amendment or any other classical element of the American polity has always been of little importance to red-blooded patriots, they accept the claim uncritically.

I'm in complete agreement with you that the "right" is seeking to create its own media hegemony, and they've been quite succcessful, too. Which is why I think it's better to work at extending the term "the media" to include Fox news and talk radio rather than moderating our accusations of bias: the more we recognize that the primary means of advancing in the industry is to sign one of two ideological checklists and tailor one's presentation of the facts accordingly, the more we'll appreciate those rare voices - such as Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan - that are willing to antagonize anyone if a reasoned analysis of the facts requires it.

Far be it from me to discourage prejudices, or to remain indignant when the prospect of alcoholic stupor is less than four hours away. But here Josiah posts a quote from Christopher Hitchens, apropos of reading an entire article by said Mr. Hitchens, and he is immediately excoriated for parroting the Liberal Media. That's just illiterate. Grant me this point, and I'll climb down off my high horse, where I admit I look rather silly.

Also, everybody does not know that small alt-weeklies are uniquely reliable sources of information. You must be joking, right? If you want to seek out a mindless Bolshevist cabal in the media, small alt-weekies are a splendid place to begin. The Pulse may be an exception. But we all know that I am exceptional.

And I'm not going to give you my Jew Gold.

Friends,

"ahistorical eternal present" is an excellent way to characterize their mindset. I'm reminded once of a Bible class I had in the tenth grade: my fundamentalist Bible teacher, a graduate from Tennessee Temple in fact, stated: "Calvin was a heretic and all Calvanists are heretics".

Then, puzzled, I asked him for his definition of "heresy", since that didn't seem to fit with traditional definitions relating to the Orthodox creeds etc.

Naturally, I was summarily removed from the class and given a detention.

This was the same class who discussed, with all conservative full jean skirt & jumpers passion, the many "evidences" that Bill Clinton was the Anti-Christ.

The marriage of Fundamentalist Christianity and the conservative Right seems almost inevitable given their a-historical character: it's like one never ending one night stand. Except without the alcohol and the sex is only ever intended for procreative purposes.

Comrad Mesh! As always, I stand in fervent support of your defense of the "five minutes of Google research before talking" principle. Just don't make it ten.

You have Jew Gold?

Point conceded, Mesh. One of the delightful things about the Hitch - and the true sign of the contrarian - is that he so frequently excites precisely the same Pavlovian responses of fear and loathing in partisans from both sides of the American political debate. Somehow there should be a means of harnessing this power to bridge the gap between the Red and the Blue.

And no, Josiah, Mesh doesn't have Jew Gold, at least not on him. He loaned it out at exorbitant interest to an indigent family of local craftsmen several weeks ago. It's how he finances his evenings at Hoppy's.

It's much harder to support the War and the President than it is to support just the War and not the President, imo. It's rather easy to slam him right now.