T Nation

Ted Turner/Barbara Boxer

Hello friends!!!

It’s been an eventful day!!!

Barbara Boxer brought her unkept self to the Senate floor and proceeded to embarrass herself.

Just received news that Ted Turner (head of CNN) has just stated that FoxNews is an arm of the Bush Administration. Further, he compared FoxNews to the Nazi propaganda machine prior to WWII.

I’d like my leftist friends to comment on both of these events. Please speak up: POX, AlDurr, tme, hspder, JusttheFacts, etc…

Thanks!!!

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Just received news that Ted Turner (head of CNN) has just stated that FoxNews is an arm of the Bush Administration. Further, he compared FoxNews to the Nazi propaganda machine prior to WWII.
[/quote]

Shit Head Ted couldn’t possibly be just a tad bit jealous of Fox, could he? Of course not.

Gee Jeffy, I didn’t watch it so I can’t comment on Boxer. I don’t really care for her all that much, though. How did she offend you? By talking to Rice? Or did she turn you down once?

As for Turner’s comments: I think he’s absolutely right.

tme,

Boxer IS mad at me. I caught her living in my dumpster. I told her to wash her hair and get a job. She sort of has a job now. But the hair… Damn I wish she had listened!!!

Let me make sure that I understand this: You agree with the Nazi parallel?

I don’t want to put any words in your mouth. It’s possible you either didn’t read my post or that you aren’t familiar with the story.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

[quote]tme wrote:
Gee Jeffy, I didn’t watch it so I can’t comment on Boxer. I don’t really care for her all that much, though. How did she offend you? By talking to Rice? Or did she turn you down once?

As for Turner’s comments: I think he’s absolutely right.
[/quote]

Amen!

Fox is no more a part of the Bush administration that CNN was part of the Clinton regime…oh wait…better not use that comparison :slight_smile:

Ted is a classic liberal. After losing he attacks the winner and makes a wild ass comparison to a villian in history. The uneducated and liberal will remember the soundbite rather the the substance.

Boxer is an idiot. She barely has the repect of her own party. He Assault Weapon positions were hysterical. She wouldn’t know an assault weapon if it bit her in the ass. Not that it mattered during the Clinton Years.

Thankfully the era of Ted and Babs has passed.

[quote]Jeffy wrote:

Just received news that Ted Turner (head of CNN) has just stated that FoxNews is an arm of the Bush Administration. Further, he compared FoxNews to the Nazi propaganda machine prior to WWII. [/quote]

No jeffy, I read what you posted. Just because you posted something doesn’t make it true. Sorry, but “just received news” doesn’t quite make it to the level of attribution that would make it fact.

If he did make the above statement, then it is his opinion and he is entitled to it. I tend to agree, Fox IS the media arm of the Bush administration. I can’t really make the comparison to the Nazi’s, I wasn’t around back then and I don’t watch Foxnews. But it’s probably a valid comparison and I’ll take his word for it. If he really did say it.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hello friends!!!

It’s been an eventful day!!!

Barbara Boxer brought her unkept self to the Senate floor and proceeded to embarrass herself.

Just received news that Ted Turner (head of CNN) has just stated that FoxNews is an arm of the Bush Administration. Further, he compared FoxNews to the Nazi propaganda machine prior to WWII.

I’d like my leftist friends to comment on both of these events. Please speak up: POX, AlDurr, tme, hspder, JusttheFacts, etc…

Thanks!!!

JeffR[/quote]

Turner’s right, Jeff!!!
Fox News is a disgrace!!!
It’s apalling!!!
Like my new posting style???

Actually, CNN isn’t much better, though CNN International is pretty good usually. CNN (USA) gives it’s audience exactly what they want to hear, which is basically a pro-war message, with some anti-war stuff thrown in, but nothing too critical or shocking.
Fox just aims at the pro war, republican, market. They say ‘look at our glorious tanks and planes’ and ‘Isn’t the president wonderful?’ It’s trash TV. Actually, it is one of the best comedies on my cable here in Japan.

On another note, shame on Barbara Boxer for having a dissenting voice. Shame on her for not getting behind Bush and Condi 100%. After all, shouldn’t everyone have the same opinion?

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Like my new posting style???
[/quote]

LOL!

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Actually, CNN isn’t much better, though CNN International is pretty good usually. CNN (USA) gives it’s audience exactly what they want to hear, which is basically a pro-war message, with some anti-war stuff thrown in, but nothing too critical or shocking.
Fox just aims at the pro war, republican, market. They say ‘look at our glorious tanks and planes’ and ‘Isn’t the president wonderful?’ It’s trash TV. Actually, it is one of the best comedies on my cable here in Japan.[/quote]

Right on the Money, deano (pun intended).

I still remember when CNN started years ago - when they were alone in the market they actually did a pretty good job of providing an unbiased, fact-based view.

Then Fox News and MSNBC came along, and all hell broke loose…

These channels, in order to steal viewers from CNN, provided viewers with a beautified, censored, biased view of reality, that was designed to give people what they wanted to see - not facts or an unbiased, clear picture of reality.

And viewers flocked to this cinematic version, since it made them feel soooo much better.

CNN, loosing its viewers, decided to sacrifice its values and followed suit.

So now we have all news channels that are about giving people what they want to see - and Fox News caters very well to a very specific market.

The reason I feel that TT is not completely out of line with this comparison is that what managed to get Hitler into power in the 1930s was exactly the same strategy - censor reality and give people hope by telling them exactly what they wanted to hear.

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
On another note, shame on Barbara Boxer for having a dissenting voice. Shame on her for not getting behind Bush and Condi 100%. After all, shouldn’t everyone have the same opinion?
[/quote]

Absolutely. After all, Republicans are about the majority imposing their view in the minority and borgifying them…

“We are the Republicans. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Your life, as it has been, is over. Your culture will adapt to service us.”

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hello friends!!!

It’s been an eventful day!!!

Barbara Boxer brought her unkept self to the Senate floor and proceeded to embarrass herself.

Just received news that Ted Turner (head of CNN) has just stated that FoxNews is an arm of the Bush Administration. Further, he compared FoxNews to the Nazi propaganda machine prior to WWII.

I’d like my leftist friends to comment on both of these events. Please speak up: POX, AlDurr, tme, hspder, JusttheFacts, etc…

Thanks!!!

JeffR[/quote]

I have no idea what Boxer did this morning but she ought to be embarassed that she voted for the resolution to invade Iraq.

Turner forgets to tell you that CNN is propaganda for the democrats. But really it’s all pretty much propaganda for big business and the elites who run the country and a good deal of the world.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
tme,

Boxer IS mad at me. I caught her living in my dumpster. I told her to wash her hair and get a job. She sort of has a job now. But the hair… Damn I wish she had listened!!!

JeffR[/quote]

Although we are politically chalk and cheese Jeff, that’s pretty fucking funny.

hspeder, you are right on the money, as usual. Great post.

Ted Turner was once married to Jane Fonda. Nuff said.

As for Boxer, nothing wrong with dissent, but her neverending, windy grandstanding is unbearable. I watched a little bit on C-SPAN - she’s just taking up time and space by pontificating in no general direction.

It’s lame. And dull. And predictable - she even had a visual aid that included the famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand. Coupled with that trite example, she went on to blather about American foreign policy since the 1970s.

So odd, since she voted for the Resolution to go to war. Even odder (!), based on what she is saying now, she should not have voted for the war, even if she was ‘duped’ by Bush and Rice.

Oh, and to pass along a zinger I read:

Ted Kennedy is prepared to vote against Rice…apparently not the first time he has tried to sink a woman.

HOnestly, give me a break with the cheap rhetoric on the Hitler stuff. That’s just ridiculous to make an excessively broad comparison in order to put Bush’s name with Hitler’s.

hspder:

“CNN provided an unbiased fact based view?” The fact that you are not kidding is just a bit scary!

I think you need to pull your head out of your liberal butt and inhale deeply. Liberals like you always cry that they want diversity. Well, you got it with the media now my boy! CNN, when it first began was just about as liberal as you could get. In fact, they “outliberaled” NBC, ABC and yes even Dan Rathernottellthetruth on CBS.

The problem is that liberals (like yourself) have had it so very good for so very long that when a FOX News came along you were all wondering what was wrong with them because they were not attacking the republicans with every other story.

The liberal elite media is dying, in case you haven’t noticed. The fall of Rather, the lowered ratings for the other liberal mouthpieces. The “Air America” disaster (They were going to show that Rush Limbaugh…he he that still cracks me up). People are tired of leftist propaganda (maybe they want some rightist propaganda for a while…LOL).

Either way, you want some cheese with your whine hspder?

D.D.Dean,

You have been one of my favorite liberal friends for some time. I do value your opinion. You accepted the challenge, and unlike ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH1 (rsu), you lived up to your obligation.

All right, enough sunshine!!!

I do like your new posting style!!!

I would have thought that YOU of all my liberal friends would have disowned these ridiculous characters’ comments.

First of all, there is no comparison to the Nazi propaganda machine and Fox. None. Find me ANY newsreel where goebbels had a Von Hindenberg supporter debating a Nazi!!! Don’t bother, there isn’t one.

If you watch Fox, you can see that the liberals are everywhere!!! Hell I even watched Ted Rall spout off!!!

I encourage my liberal friends to watch Barbara Boxer’s rants on C-Span in their entirety. She’s an absolute loon!!!

I started this post using the most ridiculous figures making their most ridiculous comments in the hope that my liberal friends could criticize ANY aspect of current liberal ideology.

I’m disappointed.

JeffR

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ted Kennedy is prepared to vote against Rice…apparently not the first time he has tried to sink a woman.[/quote]

That’s hilarious!

Instead of insulting anyone that doesn’t like Condi, let’s try and understand why us liberals don’t like her, even though she was a Democrat for a good part of her life.

I was a student in Stanford during part of Condi’s stint there (which was 1993-1999). She was truly infamous, and I had the displeasure of seeing her in action several times.

There are several accounts on the web, by other alumni, and professors, that give good examples of her backboneless style, however I decided to pick the one that seemed the least negative, since I know that the others would just be labelled as coming from some wacko.

You’d probably label the news channels of the Bay Area wackos for making a point of never specifically mentioning that Condi was the provost of Stanford, but rather occasionally only saying she had “Bay Area ties” - a practise that was started about 3 years ago, after a very damning special report done by NBC11 on her, with testimonies from people still in Stanford. In great part Boxer’s clear chip on the shoulder with Condi comes from a lot of pressure from her Bay Area supporters.

So, here goes a very fact-based, unbiased account, that I hope my conservative friends will be smart enough not to label the work of a loonie, but rather of a very professional journalist doing her job:


Condoleezza Rice’s academic background

By Margie Burns

January 21, 2005?At every stage of her adult career, the right-wing-funded Hoover Institution has been Condoleezza Rice’s platform and haven.

The institution’s newsletter said in summer 1999, “Condoleezza Rice has been appointed a senior fellow at Hoover effective July 1. / Rice, who has been provost of Stanford University since 1993, left that post on July 1. In addition to her appointment at Hoover, she will serve as a professor of political science at Stanford University. She will be on leave during the upcoming academic year.”

(Rice has been extensively on leave from her professorship at Stanford in recent years, as the world knows. But Stanford has provided her a generous buffer throughout her postgraduate career.)

Neither Rice nor the White House have replied to questions placed in several emails and telephone calls.

Rice graduated from the University of Denver in 1974 at the age of 19, with top grades, a BA in political science, and a Phi Beta Kappa key. She then went to graduate school at Notre Dame for a year, receiving a master’s in political science. Notre Dame, like Denver U, is a rather conservative institution (it has an extensive “Whitewater archive”).

Rice’s postgraduate area of emphasis was Russia and Soviet studies; Notre Dame had a well-established Soviet studies department with political connections. Professor George Brinkley was among a series of faculty members to take Rice under his wing and mentor her extensively.

With the master’s degree, she returned to Denver to pursue a doctorate in political science, working largely under the guidance of Professor Josef Korbel, who continued to work with Rice until his death in 1977.

While still a graduate student, Rice took a seven-week research trip to the Soviet Union, with a stop in Poland. In 1976 or 1977, she was also an intern with the Department of State in Washington. At that time she was still a Democrat. The contact person at State said the internship was with the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, although little is known about the internship because records were less well kept then. He commented, “We can tell you that she is the first nominee for secretary of state whose experience included an internship at the State Department.”

Rice was also an intern with the Rand Corporation in 1980. Rand has not returned calls for comment. She later became a director at Rand.

In August 1981, Rice received her PhD in political science from the University of Denver. For context, The Digest of Education Statistics shows 571 doctorates awarded to black non-Hispanic women in all fields, in the US, for 1980-81. Of 3,114 PhDs in the social sciences awarded in 1980-81, women earned 845.

It is a bit harder to determine how many of those 3,114 PhD graduates got university teaching jobs. There were 484 PhDs in political science and government that year, along with 1,875 master’s degrees.

In the four traditional program areas in the seventies, the college teaching market cratered first for humanities and fine arts, then for social sciences, last for sciences.

Academic horror stories came floating back from anyone who attended one of the giant academic job conventions during that period, like those held by the Modern Language Association or the American Psychological Association. One philosophy convention, the story went, had 10,000 applicants and two jobs. A friend who came back from an MLA convention said a man stepped forward in a hotel elevator when the doors closed, turned around and faced the captive audience of strangers, and began, “I’d like to tell you all about my dissertation . . .”

This writer happens to personally know four excellent political scientists, from the same academic generation; three are men and the fourth an African-American woman. All four had excellent graduate track records; none had a straight shot at an academic career. Two of the men, each with a Harvard doctorate, failed to land a tenured professorship; one went into government research, the other into postgraduate business school administration. The third, who achieved tenure and even an endowed chair, went into university administration and then had to relocate after being reorganized out of a job.

The woman, whom I consider excellent and brilliant, has a successful academic career but often serves the equivalent of four academic positions, a not unusual situation for women promoted in universities.

One gets the distinct impression that Rice was not among PhD grads sending out dozens or hundreds of job application letters to institutions around the country.

“Rice first came to Stanford in 1981 as a fellow in the arms control and disarmament program,” according to the Hoover Institution bio. She switched from registered Democrat in 1982. For her first year, Stanford gave her a $30,000 research fellowship in its Center for International Security and Arms Control, possibly a first for a woman. The average salary for a full professor in political science that year, according to the Digest, was $33,437; for an associate professor, $25,278; for an assistant professor, $20,608; and for an instructor, $16,450. Average salaries at all levels were lower for women.

During Rice’s first year, Stanford also offered her a three-year assistant professorship under an affirmative action program.

Her dissertation was published as a book, The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army, 1948-1983: Uncertain Allegiance, in 1984 by Princeton University Press, with the help of Professor Bernard Lewis. The dissertation argues that in the relationship between the Soviet Union and the Czech military, the Soviet Union was the dominant partner, although the relationship changed in some ways over time.

When the three years were up, her position was renewed for another three years, and Rice was promoted to associate professor in 1987.

From 1981 on, her career was a sequence of treks back and forth from the Hoover Institution to Republican administrations. From 1985 to 1986, she held a national fellowship from the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Simultaneously she also held an international affairs fellowship from the Council on Foreign Relations, from July 1985 to June 1986 according to the Membership Department at the CFR. Their contact person says courteously that they are not allowed to give out the fellowship amount.

In conjunction with the fellowships, “Rice went to Washington, D.C., to work on nuclear strategic planning at the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” according to the Hoover bio, returning to Stanford afterward. She was 30 when she began her stint with the Joint Chiefs.

The bio continues, “Rice returned to Washington in 1989 when she was director of Soviet and East European affairs with the National Security Council. She also was appointed special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Soviet affairs at the National Security Council under President George [H.W.] Bush.”

Back at Stanford, she was promoted to full professor in 1993. Rice has said that she was surprised when, a few months after her promotion, she was also named as the new provost, heading financial affairs for a university budget of about $1.5 billion.

Soon she also had the assignment of firing quite a few people: Stanford reportedly suffered a $20 million deficit. Individuals at Stanford are not eager to talk about this period on the record, but evidently the administration made the typically cynical move of assigning unpopular and draconian tasks to someone who filled two minority slots. (This managerial tactic is not unusual in academia any more than it is unusual in business or government.) Rice seems not to have been too reluctant but has been quoted subsequently as regretting that she was somewhat hardnosed.

In summary: Rice is diligent and capable, but her career has been most consistently and strongly marked by her willingness to do what she was told. Back when she was told to practice piano and make good grades, the willingness was socially productive. Now that she has become the voice of the Bush White House in foreign affairs, it has become the reverse. Her connection with the administration’s Iraq invasion, indefinite detentions, torture of people taken prisoner, and refusal to let prisoners see attorneys have tainted and compromised her credibility. Her appointment at State would be a provocation that would further diminish US credibility and destabilize global affairs.

There is also a fearsome possibility, as other writers have pointed out, that Rice will be assigned the task of firing independent analysts and solid researchers in the State Department. If this assessment sounds harsh, it should be measured against her track record in academia, where Rice has been the beneficiary of primarily right-wing academic interests who have sponsored her at every turn since high school, and she has always produced the performance demanded.

Margie Burns, a freelance writer in the Washington, DC, area, can be reached at margie.burns@verizon.net.

hspder,

I am furious!!

I read that entire article.

I kept waiting for the punchline.

What in the hell is YOUR POINT!!??!!

Damn, I wasted a few minutes of my life on that damn article.

I assume you are trying to say that “the vast right wing conspiracy” decided to overpromote Rice.

Are you fucking serious?

First, of all, take a peek at the number of positions she has held. Take a peek at her ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS!!! Especially her academic achievements PRIOR to the alleged interest from the Hoover Institute.

I am trying to interpret what in the fuck this writer is trying to say. This is how I am interpreting this:

The vast right-wing conspiracy/Hoover institute saw a Democrat (A democrat no-less!!!) who showed exceptional promise. Then they decided to smooth the way in academia (I’m sure they have huge pull in the liberal academia world) to make her into a loyal REPUBLICAN STOOGE.

I ask again, are you fucking serious?

You go on to say that Rice has “backboneless style”!!! Did you watch ANY OF THE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS? If that is a lack of backbone, then you and the vast majority of your party have a backbone like a chocolate eclair!!!

How about the part where hspder tries to justify Boxer’s lunatic, transparent, power-grabbing as a “chip on her shoulder caused by Bay Area Constituents”?!?

In summary, hspder’s irritating article highlights why so many of us reject the current Democrats. The article and the party are filled with all sorts of innuendo and suppositions. Lots of haymakers, empty words, and nonsense.

hspder, I rarely get angry. However, your comments and this bumbling, non-sensical excuse for an article caused me no small irritation.

Damn!!!

JeffR

P.S. I apologize for the profanity. This is the sort of nonsense that sets me off.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
hspder,

I am furious!!

I read that entire article.

I kept waiting for the punchline.

What in the hell is YOUR POINT!!??!!

Damn, I wasted a few minutes of my life on that damn article.
[/quote]

Welcome to my hell, JeffR. I am very rarely able to make sense from hspder’s posts. And then, just when I think I understand, BOOM!! He changes direction.

Don’t feel alone.