From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Would you like bacon with your waffles? (was: Re: Gary Trudeau)
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:59:05 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

jacksonk@pleiades.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:

>In article <bill.724358444@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>>zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:

>   [regarding Trudeau's <ahem> alleged bias]

>>I'm hardly convinced.  First, a fictional television reporter who's
>>supposedly in the position of impartial reporting belies that be
>>screaming Guilty Guilty Guilty.

>huh?

Make that: "belies that BY" and it makes a bit more sense.

>> This is slightly exaggerated from
>>the common everyday occurrence where the press does decide that 
>>someone is obviously guilty, and stories are carried accordingly,
>>with that not too hard to discern that slant (remember how obvious
>>the slant was against Saddam Hussein during the gulf war?).

>Hmm, so even though this man invaded, plundered, pillaged, murdered,
>raped, etc. the press shouldn't judge him?  Are we waiting for a
>jury to decide this matter?  You must be careful not to project our
>domestic justice system onto international situations.  Perhaps you're
>just disappointed that those with whom you disagree with on policy
>did something right?  The amount of nitpicking done on this subject
>shows the obvious resentment that we fought a justified war and
>the detractors of American policy couldn't find anything substantive
>to demonstrate the "obvious" evil inherent in U.S. policy.

You've got a creative mind.

>>If it has to do with countless covered-up charges against the
>>Reagan-Bush administration, Congressional corruption, etc, it
>>could reflect the frustration of a reporter over seeing good
>>investigative work trashed again and again.

>Hmm, I'm not aware of charges being brought against administration
>officials which were not made public, but then again, I wouldn't
>know if they did that, would I? 

Yep, if you don't read it in the paper or hear it on the radio, you're
not likely to know.  But just because charges are covered-up does
not mean it's a complete success - the Iraq and Iran affairs are
(or appear to be) examples of this.  If charges are not investigated,
though, they do die.

> I take it that you mean covered-up
>actions for which they were brought up on charges?  But wait a minute,
>are you not making unproven claims by saying this?  Is this not what
>you were complaining about the media with Saddam Hussein?

No, my complaint with the media was how eager they were to fill
in the blanks provided by the government.  Saddam (bad), George (good),
etc.  I have no beef with the military.  They were given a job, they
did it (as well as they were allowed to).

>Observations :

>1. Mr. Eldridge indicates that the media was biased against Saddam
>   Hussein when we watch his forces invade and do horrible things
>   on camera.  Somehow it's not OK to malign the name of this ruthless
>   dictator by calling him a "ruthless dictator."

Which horrible things did you see his forces do on camera?
And frankly, I think the news is mostly for reporting what's happening,
not supplying all the emotional responses we're supposed to make.
Obviously reporters are human too, so emotion does come out, but
I do not expect it as the centerpiece of their reports.  There are
ruthless dictators the world over, many worse than Hussein, and
most reports on them would not have been as filled with the
emotion that ones on Hussein provided.

>2. Mr. Eldridge asserts that these witchhunts started by Democraps
>   to "get" Reagan, Bush, and anyone else who dared disagree with them
>   on POLICY (!!!) were _GOOD_ investigative work when time and again
>   these special prosecutors have brought unprovable charges forth to
>   grasp at straws.

Get this through your fucking head: most of the charges in the Iran
case WERE PROVED, and WERE CONVINCING to a jury.  Oliver North's 
testimony proved it.  Just because this protected testimony was
not allowed in trials does not mean the testimony was bullshit.
North, Poindexter and George all had cases dismissed because the
testimony was protected, not because there was no proof.  The fault
goes both to Congress, for granting the immunity for testifying in
the first place, and to Bush/Reagan for covering up the charges
as well as they could.  Walsh has done a good job with both hands
tied behind his back.

Now about Iraq, read Safire's (a Nixon conservative) column.

>3. Mr. Eldridge further asserts that since the <ahem> unbiased reporters
>   could so obviously see that administration officials were guilty of
>   these charges even though the due process of the US legal system had
>   cleared them (failed to prove them guilty => innocent) they were
>   justified in judging these officials guilty and indicating so in their
>   media coverage.

Well which is it? You defend reporters when they report against Hussein,
and suddenly they're biased when reporting against Bush or Reagan?
And your (failed to prove them guilty => innocent) is bullshit.
If I hack apart your head and the police find the meat-cleaver
in an illegal search, would I be innocent just because the case
gets thrown out?

>Is it me or do these statements seem to fail logically?  Perhaps Mr.
>Eldridge uses liberal logic, that would explain it.

Yes, that could explain it.  Also the possibility that you can't
follow a train of thought would explain it.  Now go get your
quarter and decide.

>>And do you think Bush didn't pronounce Noriega guilty ahead of
>>time?

>Was Noriega given due process once he was in this country?

Very questionable.  He was denied access to all CIA documents
for one thing, and there are other infiringements, such as the
government tapping his phone calls to his lawyer while in jail.

>> Wasn't it Manson who held up a paper at his trial, which
>>stated in bold letters "Nixon declares Manson guilty"?

>Oh, Charles Manson -- another victim!  Oh my heart bleeds for him!
>;^)

I wasn't defending Manson, I was noting a pretrial guilty verdict
by a head-of-state.

>>Ahhh, but I'm arguing against a vague example.

>And very poorly, I might add.


>> Who was guilty?

>Only the conservatives, in your opinion.  You'd have Manson walking the
>streets, Noriega pumping drugs into our country and making life difficult
>for us in Central America, and Saddam Hussein enjoying his kingship over
>the majority of OPEC's production.  Pardon me if I don't jump on the
>bandwagon with you.

Pretty evil guy, aren't I?

>>What was the reference?  What seemed humorous about the
>>column, and what was over the line?

>I think it would be humorous, but in an ironic way -- the opposite of
>what Trudeau intended.  I think it would show his obvious bias and
>disdain for the justice process ONLY when it doesn't serve his interests.

You, of course, are fair and cool-headed across the political spectrum.

>>Get specific.  You made a pretty rash charge.

>Bahh!!  I think it's as specific as it needs to be to make the point.

Well, piss-off then.  That's as specific as I need to be to
make my point, then.

>The charge, IMHO, is substantiated by his arguments.  Your arguments,
>on the other hand seem to waffle all over the place.  Would you like
>bacon with your waffles?
>-- 

Oh God, someone who thinks of Bush as a political humorist.
Yep, you agree with his views, so ipso facto his arguments
don't need substantiation be concrete details.  

Let me paraphrase the original post, which stated basically that
Trudeau had made vicious, unfounded criminal attacks against the
last two administrations, and was only out of jail because of 
the First Amendment as leniently applied to the press.  I asked
for ONE example of an unfounded criminal attack, and got a vague
recollection about a reporter saying "But in my opinion, he's
GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY".  I don't even know WHO was supposed
to be guilty:  Hitler? Brutus?  Reagan?  Toto?  And you have
the gall to say "IMHO, is substantiated by his arguments."

Your opinion is shit. End of discussion.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh