Have all the people who wrote glowing reviews of this book and cited the ACORN travesty as if it were to his CREDIT had waaay too much Kool-Aid? Don't you know the TRUE history of the staging, selective editing and downright fabrication?
Breitbart showed his true LACK of journalistic integrity in the Shirley Sherrod attack.
He's an attention-junkie with an obvious right-wing ideology.
If you like this book, I'd suggest you read Jerome Corsi's hard-hitting "Where's The Birth Certificate?"
Of course your objection was anticipated. But that doesn't mean it WORKS on an rational, intellectual level. The truth is the truth, no matter its source. I don't automatically discredit Fox News, Drudge, Newsmax, WND or whatever right-wing sources are out there, nor do I ignore them.
One should always think CRITICALLY but that doesn't mean one can dismiss dissonant information out of hand and refuse to examine it.
Are you aware, BTW, that Breitbart help launch The Huffington Post in 2005, when Arianna was still conservative? He STILL blogs for them occasionally, although one wonders how long that will last.
The Huffington Post article is authored by Peter Dreier and Christopher R. Martin, both PhDs, college professors, widely published and well-respected.
If you'd looked at their article, you would have seen that they also reference and provide links to profiles of Breitbart at:
Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1974949-1,00.html
The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/05/24/100524fa_fact_mead
I know you'd love to dismiss Media Matters and so would Glenn "The Sky is Falling" Beck, but you CAN'T. If you think they're WRONG, it's up to you to PROVE they are wrong.
Unlike much of what comes from the right, their material is well-sourced and comes complete with links (to reality-based information).
For instance, in the ACORN matter which was the heart of my initial post, they refer to what has already been demonstrated: Breitbart/O'Keefe resorted to distorted editing in their ACORN videos. The California Attorney General and the Brooklyn District attorney (among others) have cleared ACORN of any wrongdoing.
Breitbart is a self-absorbed and perhaps self-deluded egomaniac with ADD. He's intelligent enough -- especially in contrast to some of the right-wingers he hangs with -- but in his enthusiastic self-appointed guerilla mission to "take down the left" he has found it more than a little convenient to disregard the truth. In so doing, he's become "the little boy who cried wolf" and the world would do well to disregard HIM.
He's been exposed at least TWICE already (ACORN and Shirley Sherrod), but he won't go away and won't stop trying. His latest "attack" on bigeducation looks like another distortion. It's a cry for attention....or perhaps a cry for help.
> Frankly, I don't have time to analyze the HuffPo article, your appeals to authority notwithstanding
The "truth" comes out. Thanks for your candor. I can actually understand that, life being so short and all. I'd imagine that if the articles I cited tended to support your position you might FIND the time, but that's human nature and I'm human too.
I note with interest that four out of the five links you provide are from the same source. In contrast to your practice, I DID check them out. "Patterico" is pretty sharp and has a sense of humor -- two big plusses in my book -- but he clearly has an agenda of his own.
This is all good, I would think: Media Matters (and others) trying to keep conservative media honest and Patterico (and others) trying to keep Media Matters honest. Both sides are fallible (make mistakes, perpetrate distortions and are subject to errors of omission and commission). The ongoing give-&-take will hopefully generate as much LIGHT as HEAT.
> So - your reliance on MediaMatters as a source for anything "doesn't mean it WORKS on an rational, intellectual level." (Your words).
I think you've totally missed my point, perhaps deliberately? I said you can't dismiss contentions/assertions simply because of their source. Yet you're still doing it.
> Really, before lecturing me on intellectual honesty you should have some yourself.
Sorry, but you're wrong here. I never said you were being intellectually dishonest. I implied that your arguments attacking the SOURCE were intellectually WEAK.
> They are a George Soros funded hyper-partisan outfit out to attack conservative media figures and causes.
You don't bolster your case my bringing up the Faux News/right-wing bogeyman/strawman George Soros. This often-repeated wild claim is also NOT TRUE*.
MMFA was founded in 2004.
In April 2007, in response to attacks from Drudge, MMFA claimed it had never received any funds from Soros.
* HOWEVER, on Oct. 20, 2010, George Soros decided he WOULD contribute to MMFA, mostly in response to Fox News patterns and practices and their persistently FALSE assertions. (Moral of this story: careful what you wish for Fox....)
Finally, even if Soros WERE the liberal/progressive bogeyman/kingmaker you, Fox and the right try to make him out to be, I'll give you some on the right who are just as active, influential and much more odious:
The Koch Brothers Richard Mellon Scaife Rupert Murdoch
You're a dogged little Lefty, I'll grant you that.
A couple of points:
- I read the Dreier-Martin article and it is exactly what I described it as - before I read it - a radical Lefty academic hit piece: 1. The loaded language alone is priceless;"He is a propagandist." "...spew their political pornography...", "...the "paranoid style" of American politics practiced by extreme conservatives." (and all this in the first two paragraphs) 2. The lack of sourcing as all the links are to general profiles of Breitbart and articles tangential to their piece* but the controversial claims are not sourced. 3. * Hilariously, one of these side articles is used to buttress the following argument; "The mainstream media are mesmerized by the Tea Party and controversies that it and its political allies have stoked. In bending over backwards to cover the right wing -- and downplay comparable activities by liberal and progressive activists -- the reporters and editors have lost sight of the journalists' responsibilities not only to fact-check and verify, but also to provide context." In what universe does the MSM downplay Lefty protests in favor of the right wing variety? Far from being downplayed these protests are promoted and cleansed of any mention of hardcore Marxist/Stalinist participation. 4. Finally, the first comment listed below the article blows the author's contentious timeline regarding the Sherrod affair away. Sure, they had the correct facts (more or less), but is it too much to ask that they be presented in their actual chronological order so they paint an accurate picture of these events?
- MediaMatters and George Soros: 1. So, now the party line is; Soros does fund MMFA (since 2010), but only after Fox and Drudge lied about him doing so. OOOKKKAAAYYY... 2. You can Google all sorts of interesting information regarding MMFA funding, their donors and their donor's relationships to Soros funded organizations. Are you really obtuse enough to believe that Soros and friends of Soros were not funneling money to this group? 3. The point is moot now in any case as now MMFA is indeed funded by George Soros.
> You're a dogged little Lefty, I'll grant you that.
I'm dogged and certainly left of YOU, but I'm not little. I'm a full-grown man (and have probably been on this earth much longer than you have). <g>
Glad you glanced at the article(s) and, at the very least, encountered some things you found humorous, if not enlightening.
> In what universe does the MSM downplay Lefty protests in favor of the right wing variety?
Certainly in coverage of the so-called Tea Party, for instance, which if it wasn't a Fox News creation surely was promoted and nourished there. How much airtime did MSM spend covering their rallies and their disruptive behavior at town halls last year? How often has MSM looked into the funding of the astroturf organizations behind the Tea Party? Not nearly as often or as deeply as they should have, to my mind.
> Far from being downplayed these protests are promoted and cleansed of any mention of hardcore Marxist/Stalinist participation.
You lose me here, since I'm pretty sure the Cold War has been over for some years now and the Marxist/Stalinists LOST. You might be referring to the protests in Wisconsin, but it seems now that YOU have fallen into using loaded language and seeing commies under the rug where they are none.
I would suppose, based on our back-and-forth, that you are intelligent enough to NOT use phrases which you can't define. But I've found when most people start throwing around phrases like "socialist/Communist/Marxist" they become strangely silent when asked to define these terms and then illustrate how President Obama (or liberals/progressives) fit the definition.
> You can Google all sorts of interesting information regarding MMFA funding, their donors and their donor's relationships to Soros funded organizations. Are you really obtuse enough to believe that Soros and friends of Soros were not funneling money to this group?
Not obtuse at all and sharp enough to point out that those who have claimed for years that "MMA is funded by (the evil) George Soros" have not looked into the matter and/or have not highly valued facts and truth.
There are connections, to be sure, since Soros is active in a variety of organizations, but in the same way I can connect myself (and YOU) to Kevin Bacon in a few easy steps.
And, you know, what if Soros WERE totally funding MMA? That wouldn't allow you to do what so many would like to do: dismiss MMA out of hand.
>>"You lose me here, since I'm pretty sure the Cold War has been over for some years now and the Marxist/Stalinists LOST. You might be referring to the protests in Wisconsin, but it seems now that YOU have fallen into using loaded language and seeing commies under the rug where they are none."<<
Yes they lost. But they have not gone away and they are a large contingent of the anti-war left and pretty much organize every Lefty march under the auspices of ANSWER. But the MSM goes to great pains to avoid the issue as they know that outside of their far Left cocoon hard core Communists are about a popular as herpes.
Here are some very recent examples: - Anti-War Rally in San Francisco on 03/20: Links to SF media articles: http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-03-20/news/17414762_1_anti-war-protest-dolores-park "81 anti-war protesters have been arrested as events marking the anniversary of the war in Iraq wind down, police report. The arrested protesters at the county jail are cooperating with the process of being charged in as many as three misdemeanors each, all related to obstructing traffic, according to sheriff's spokeswoman Eileen Hirst." * Who were these "protestors"? * What were they protesting besides being "against the war?" * The article fails to say.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/hleon/detail?entry_id=59595 * A far Left columnist (probably considered a moderate in SF) whines about the protest lacking focus and he does illustrate his column with some diverse pictures but - again - something was missing as...
Here is what really went on: http://zombietime.com/sf_anti-war_rally_3-20-2010/ * A veritable stew of America hating terrorist loving groups coming together.
- May Day 2011: Links to LA Times articles: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/29/local/la-me-may-day-20110429 * Described as an "Immigrants Rights Rally" with NO mention of the more unsavory groups involved. * Interestingly enough - or perhaps not - the article describes how police are "ready". Ready for what exactly goes unstated. Reading between the lines we can surmise that radical leftist are more violent than, say, Tea Party members. Who knew?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/05/small-turnout-at-may-day-march.html * Article starts with; "There were American flags, union banners and vendors hawking treats such as ice cream and hot dogs wrapped in bacon. But what was missing from this year's May Day march on a crystal-clear Sunday morning were the crowds."
So the whitewash begins with the first sentence and continues as the crowd is described as; "immigrant rights and labor activists".
Here is what really went on: http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20110501 http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/05/06/seiu-drops-mask-goes-full-commie/ "You can even hear SEIU members leading the marchers in a threatening chant of, "Legalizacion o Revolucion!" (legalization or revolution)."
...so again, much more red than red, white & blue.
Some more links showing how brazen these groups are - despite the MSM blackout:
Socialists Rooting for Revolution in Wisconsin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1LeqQbf4Rs (You reference Wisconsin - here you go.)
Chicago Communists Join Wisconsin Rally http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-nxSRQNmjs (One more from Wisconsin)
Proud Socialists March at Left-Wing Protest in DC - One Nation March http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkw7n9Qagu8&feature=player_embedded
>>"I would suppose, based on our back-and-forth, that you are intelligent enough to NOT use phrases which you can't define. But I've found when most people start throwing around phrases like "socialist/Communist/Marxist" they become strangely silent when asked to define these terms and then illustrate how President Obama (or liberals/progressives) fit the definition."<<
Oh, I've got a pretty solid understanding of the differences although I believe it is pointless to follow the hair splitting between different communist groups as, to me; these are distinctions without a real difference. In the examples above Socialist and Communist are sometimes used interchangeably which is incorrect; the people in those vids are Communists.
BTW, I don't believe that Obama is a Marxist. But he is a solid Socialist despite his denials to the contrary. I base this conclusion on his upbringing, the company he keeps (and has kept) and his statements regarding: - Wealth redistribution - The expansion of government programs - His administrations autocratic actions
Of course, with Obama, what he says is immaterial (as he has proven time and time again) it's what he does, or doesn't do, that's telling.
Hi, Scott, and thanks for the links. I explored them all.
Your original point was this:
> Far from being downplayed these protests are promoted and cleansed of any mention of hardcore Marxist/Stalinist participation.
The posters took numerous photos of the Marxist/Stalinist/Communist (hereinafter abbreviated MSC) participants, so obviously they were there. Gosh - they even had card tables and flyers and T-shirts. But if the 2004 demonstration in SF had 50,000, it's hard to know what percentage were MSC activists.
The attendance figures of subsequent demonstrations seems to argue against any real power or popularity on the part of MSC. Attendance at the 2010 demonstration was down to 2,000 or 3,000 and the commentary makes the case that about the only participants left were MSC -- probably passing out pamphlets to each other.
We both know MSC have been active in American politics since 1919. But the fate of the largest of these groups pretty much speaks to their waning influence:
* Shortly after its founding in 1919, they had about 60,000 members (The International Workers Order, founded in 1930 and disbanded in 1954, had almost 200,000 members at its height, just after WWII, but it seems to have been as much a fraternal and insurance organization than a political organization).
* by 1957, CPUSA was down to less than 10,000 members, 1,500 of which were FBI informants. In 1958, it suspended publication of "The Daily Worker" due to falling circulation.
* around 1970, membership is given as about 25,000
* in 2002, they claimed 20,000 members
My conclusion: MSC are marginal in size and influence. THAT might be a significant the reason the MSM downplays their participation in larger demonstrations.
I don't know as much about MSC as perhaps I should, largely because it has never been a prime interest of mine either as history or as relevant today. But I recognize their right to espouse their political/economic theories -- what with free speech and all -- and I don't condemn their points of view out-of-hand. At the same time, I don't go searching under the carpets for commies and don't automatically run from anybody or anything associated with the very marginal MSC movement here in America.
It's obvious that some (many?) of the values and goals of the MSC movement are shared by the left here in the U.S.:
"Among the points in the party's "Immediate Program" are a $12/hour minimum wage for all workers, national universal health care, and opposition to privatization of United States Social Security. Economic measures such as increased taxes on "the rich and corporations", "strong regulation" of the financial industry, "regulation and public ownership of utilities", and increased federal aid to cities and states; opposition to the Iraq War and other military interventions; opposition to free trade treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); nuclear disarmament and a reduced military budget; various civil rights provisions; campaign finance reform including public financing of campaigns; and election law reform, including Instant Runoff Voting." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA
I would think that some of these values, such as opposition to NAFTA and campaign finance reform, might even be shared by some on the RIGHT.
I don't hold many of these values/goals BECAUSE of the MSC nor would I ever renounce the same because MSC espouse them.
Moving to another of your points:
> But they have not gone away and they are a large contingent of the anti-war left and pretty much organize every Lefty march under the auspices of ANSWER. But the MSM goes to great pains to avoid the issue as they know that outside of their far Left cocoon hard core Communists are about a popular as herpes.
I had never heard of ANSWER before. It seems they DO get around. But they are also far from universally popular among the left in general and the the anti-war left in particular.
ANSWER stands for "Act Now to Stop War and End Racism." I admit it - I'm against most wars and I'd love to stop racism.
As an "umbrella organization," the Steering Committee consists of:
Alliance for Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines Free Palestine Alliance - U.S. Haiti Support Network Kensington Welfare Rights Union Korea Truth Commission Muslim Student Association - National Mexico Solidarity Network Nicaragua Network Partnership for Civil Justice - LDEF Party for Socialism and Liberation IFCO/Pastors for Peace
I see only one nominally MSC organization there.
Apparently they are pro-Palestinian, so much so that the Anti-Defamation League considers them anti-Israel. I'm not going to get into THAT dispute, which is many years old and, apparently, will be ongoing for the forseeable future. http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/iac_answer_backgrounder.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_3
I would summarize my main points as follows:
* MSC is part of the American political scene and has been since 1919, but it's a small and not so scary part.
* MSC is, by definition, leftist, but not all leftists are MSC.
> BTW, I don't believe that Obama is a Marxist. But he is a solid Socialist despite his denials to the contrary. I base this conclusion on his upbringing, the company he keeps (and has kept) and his statements regarding: - Wealth redistribution - The expansion of government programs - His administrations autocratic actions
"Wealth redistribution" - Well, that's been going on since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. It's just a question of how much is collected and how it is (re)distributed.
"The expansion of government programs" - What government programs has he expanded, other than health care? I can think of many which have SHRUNK as a result of budget cuts.
"His administrations autocratic actions" I think recent history shows a consistent pattern of expansion of the powers of the president (Executive Branch). In fact, it was first Reagan then George W. Bush who made the unitary executive theory a major part of their signing statements. What particular autocratic actions to your attribute to President Obama?
2010 - And so we come to the evidence for my statement that the rally was little more than a mini-convention for four groups which seem to have little in common but which rely on each other to supply warm bodies and thus the appearance of greater popularity. A rally of nothing but devoted communists would look embarrassingly small,
You received two negative votes already from Lefties who just cannot admit that MMFA is a propaganda arm of Soros and the Obama administration. The work done by The Daily Caller to expose this organization is solid - and not refuted by MMFA.
And now Alan Dershowitz is attacking MMFA (quite correctly) for their anti-semetic foriegn policy views.
I do hope that this organization loses it's tax exempt status soon but we will probably have to wait until the next administration in Jan '13 for that to happen.