The World Does Not Hate America

Everybody likes Americans, nobody likes the US government's policy. They have empathy for the people, not the state.

And I have still never seen this VAST LIBERAL MEDIA CONSPIRACY charge proven at all. I had a debate with someone who believed in the VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY and it turned out they thought that honest, objective reporting was "liberal", basically that anything that wasn't pure nationalistic propaganda was commie.

I also don't see what the video has to do with it, did NBC change it on you or something?

[this is good]

Yes they did and I should have verified that the right one was up. Check back a little later and I'll have it replaced.

After that, I'll get to your liberal media thing.

Rosemead Herald replied to Chumblor’s comment:
Jun 24, 2008
Reply

Chumblor - Are you suggesting that CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS are fair in reporting the news? I say they are slanted and give more positive press to the Democrats. Or, they just ignore anything that is positive coming from Republicans. Most network news and newspapers are slanted to support the Democratic Party's "Rock Star" Obama.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/19906.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/13/abc-finally-ids-spitzer-democrat-nbc-fails-third-night
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/03/13/while-no-d-eliot-spitzer-vitter-craig-always-tagged-gop
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/opinion/31pubed.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=9b2c0bc678a93e96&ex=1325221200

I can do this for months, or you can just go read Jonah Goldberg's book, "Bias"
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2008/05/13/newsbusters-interview-jonah-goldberg-author-liberal-fascism

I seem to remember that the media is biased against incumbents in general. Remember all the Monica Lewinsky coverage [that was the most retarded moment in US political history by the way]? Plus the current brand of Republicans may well be the worst administration in US history, suspending habeas corpus indefinitely, running secret prisons, exporting torture, specifically justifying their own torture programs, running aggressive, extremely expensive wars, alienating the governments of the world and their allies, making it easier to pollute and poison America [Clear Skies Act], hiring mercenaries and giving them diplomatic immunity, and moving America closer to being a police state than it should ever be. One could easily argue that this administration is not only inept, but dangerously so, and if it isn't incompetent, then it must be malicious towards the American people.

You should also remember that ALMOST ALL of the propaganda the media has been spewing for months has been focused on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and now on Michelle Obama and McCain's bitch wife [or was it his ex wife that was a bitch, I forget]. While there may be less favorable news regarding the party that is currently wrecking up America, there's much more outright negative news about the Democrats.

When election time comes around, Obama will have been so severely criticised and torn apart by media vultures, that McCain's going to slip in and win by virtue of never having been attacked the same way.

When you identify yourself as:

"ABC’s Jake Tapper began his story on July 10 with Vitter’s party ID: “REPUBLICAN Senator David Vitter is a self-proclaimed defender of family values....”

And then you have a crazy sex scandal, then yes, your party affiliation is relevant because people voted for you based on what your party stands for, and you lied to them. Of course people expect a liberal to have sex, possibly with transvestites or prostitutes or illegal immigrants, because liberals don't have a problem with someone's sex life unless it's very criminal. They aren't elected based on their traditional "family values," but on their progressive, libertine values.

And if even the supposed conservative media outlets are actually left-wing, then it suggests to me that reporting is, in general, a leftist activity, which goes back to the debate I had with that other person.

Remember all the Monica Lewinsky coverage

A president defiles the oval office and for nearly one hundred million kids, redefines oral sex as not being sex? That's your argument to compare the Republican tag being associated with conservative scandals, yet rarely can a Democrat tag be associated with the liberals' scandals? And what was the excuse for all the media attacks on Ronald Reagan and both George Bushes? Jimmy Carter didn't get this kind of media business. Nixon deserved his share but so did Clinton.

suspending habeas corpus indefinitely

For who? Certainly no American citizen. No war president in history has had to answer to habeus corpus for battlefield combatants. All those arrested on American soil have had every right our constitution provides. It is wrong to apply citizens' rights to enemies captured on the battlefield on foreign soil and maintained in prisons on foreign soil. These same people certainly aren't seeing to Americans' rights who they've captured. They make a long threatening speech then lop our guys' heads off. Supporting the gift of citizens' rights for terrorists captured on the battlefield makes you a traitor to that same constitution and to the people putting their lives on the line to keep us safe.

running secret prisons

Last week the Islamo-Nazis ran a professional and complete jail break of more than 1100 prisoners, more than 400 of which were captured combatants. There is a reason combatants are placed in secret prisons.

exporting torture

I'm going to need to see something on that charge.

specifically justifying their own torture programs

What torture? I'm sorry, but abu Graib doesn't qualify and John McCain's charge of torture is the height of ridiculous. That man endured broken bones and things he doesn't discuss. If anyone should know what torture is, he should, but he doesn't. The one tactic that the intelligence agencies were condemned for is used to train our own troops. This false charge lights my fires. I am pissed that America is condemned over our treatment of detainees while the enemies hear nothing of condemnation for their treatment of our people. I mean, come on... All anyone says in the media about their behavior is "Of course they're terrible" and "We shouldn't get down on their level" WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THEIR LEVEL???? Nobody is lopping off their heads and dragging their dead bodies through our streets to cheers and spit and rocks. That is the epitome of a hypocrite. They are treated with dignity and honor by comparison to how they treat ours. Even with the waterboarding, they think we are weak minded for treating them so well. They have no appreciation of rules of engagement. They have no respect for anything outside of Sharia. Don't you get it? They are emboldened by all this care and hand wringing over our treatment of detainees. With this habeas corpus ruling, they will be finding loopholes and spending billions of taxpayer dollars in defense lawyers and court costs for what? To be either released and re-enter the battlefield or at a minimum encourage further attacks on American interests.

running aggressive, extremely expensive wars

Our war effort had better be aggressive. We fight to win. There is no other way to fight. And in this case, we are fighting a war with an ideology that requires a political movement of militant aggression. And the leaders have endorsed attacks on innocents. Women and children are justifiable targets in their minds. Non-military are justifiable targets according to their religious and political leaders. They are not bound by rules of engagement, nor by the boundaries of a nation, nor by the authority of a single commander. That's why they work an insurgency from all over the world. There is no room for negotiations in either their ideology or their power structures as evidenced by the long struggle in Israel. That's why we have to be prepared to invade Iran or Syria or Pakistan.

alienating the governments of the world and their allies

What are you referring to? Specifics, man, specifics.

making it easier to pollute and poison America

The environment has been registering cleaner year after year since before I was born. It has been improved more under George Bush than under Clinton or Carter. McCain's support for Cap and Trade will do nothing more than kill American businesses and hurt the American economy while doing nothing about other nations' pollution level commitments.

hiring mercenaries and giving them diplomatic immunity

.What? What are you talking about?

moving America closer to being a police state than it should ever be.

What evidence do you have for that ridiculous charge?

if it isn't incompetent, then it must be malicious towards the American people.

The only charges of ineptitude I'll accept on the Bush administration is their withdrawal from the war of words when the media proved to be malicious toward him and his instruction to a newly attacked America to go on living as though nothing had happened. When we went to war, we should have been instructed to change everything to a wartime stance. Collect short supplied materials to help out, adopt a soldier and make sure he has everything he needs when he needs it, etc.,

if it isn't incompetent, then it must be malicious towards the American people.

This is the great difference between left and right, libs and conserves, Democrats and Republicans. If you disagree with someone, they must be stupid or evil. If we disagree with someone, we think you are wrong, not evil. I believe you love this country even when you use rhetoric that betrays this country. I believe you are simply lacking in knowledge of the depth of the threat and the harm you do by using such language and taking such stances, and using voters' lack of knowledge to spin the stories and sway the vote. These issues are not political footballs and your style of working on my articles proves the gameplaying rather than open and honest discussion of the basic issues.

You should also remember that ALMOST ALL of the propaganda the media has been spewing for months has been focused on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama,

Media bias favoring one Democrat over another is hardly an argument against media bias against Republicans. Hillary was absolutely shocked that she would have to fight media bias. Obama so rarely has a hardball question from a reporter that he actually gets openly mad at the gall of that reporter.

the party that is currently wrecking up America

To me, that would be the Democrats. I will need to see specifics on that charge too.

there's much more outright negative news about the Democrats.

Only one Democrat was getting all that negative treatment. Billary.

Obama will have been so severely criticised

WHAT?? Please show me all the media criticism and hard questions he's had to deal with that he hasn't earned. By earned I mean sitting under the spiritual tutelage of J. Wright, L. Farrakan, associated with American terrorist B. Ayers, etc., Show me the kid glove treatment of John McCain.

Of course people expect a liberal to have sex, possibly with transvestites or prostitutes or illegal immigrants, because liberals don't have a problem with someone's sex life unless it's very criminal. They aren't elected based on their traditional "family values," but on their progressive, libertine values.

So, in your mind the double standard is justified? America does not vote a candidate into office for his perversions. Some perverts have gravitated to the Democratic Party because it supports their lifestyles but that does not mean the vast majority of even liberal voters want their representative involved in scandals. I think you need to rethink your think on this one. Vitter was a special case because of his meanness as a prosecutor to the perverse, but the point of tagging him a Republican at the outset is justifiably labeled as media bias.

reporting is, in general, a leftist activity

Well that's a unique take on the job of information provider. In times past the news offices had pretty evenly matched numbers of conservative to liberal journalists. Again, read the book, 'Bias' by Jonah Goldberg. He documents the editors' approach to hiring predominantly liberal journalists.

The media is inherently biased away from conservatives because the reporters can't allow themselves to be limited by moralism and ideology.

I don't have time to go through all this right now, but I wanted to speak to this one immediately. So, the ideal reporter has no morals or ideals. Everybody has bias. The problem with the way journalists are taught this line of crap today means they try to deny and hide their bias. In the old days, journalists admitted their bias, then gave their take on the story. That way you knew where the reproter was coming from.

Yeah, the ideal reporter just reports on what they see, they do not filter it. Their job is to bring the news, not their opinion.

[這個好]

I really admire those who can stand by their views, so I thank you both (Judge Bob and Chumbler) for the debate above.
As a non-American observing from outside the 50 states, I would say most New Zealanders, for example, would embrace Americans. However, New Zealanders (generally) are against US policy.
As to which policies, you will find that most people are largely uninformed and could not tell you. The most ready answer might be ‘the Iraq War’.
Anti-Americanism tends to come from a few camps. (1) It is fashionable—monkey see, monkey do. This is the camp which follows Hollywood types as they oppose and make fun of the President. Bear in mind this is not directed at any one party, though Republican presidents do get a worse deal. (2) Nation envy: make fun of the larger nation because we are smaller. (3) Actual opposition among more informed people on policy. (4) The hatred of hypocrisy: the espousing of true American values (which most American individuals represent) being at odds with how those values are expressed by institutions (e.g. the use of sweatshops by certain corporations).
However, I believe any “anti” movement falls into similar camps. I will bet that there was a similar dislike of the British Empire decades ago and how some British corporations did indeed abuse other peoples.

I really admire those who can stand by their views, so I thank you both (Judge Bob and Chumbler) for the debate above.

Thank you for the compliment.

1. Nothing like having a fifth column undermining your best efforts. Such is the Hollywood message.

2. I once spent a summer in a child care facility I was too old for but due to a single mother working, I was placed with my 3 siblings. In that setting, I learned first hand the animal nature in humans to take down the biggest one in the group so the competition would be more even. Given the opportunity, I could forsee a coalition against the U.S. As long as there is another threat worse than the big guy, Western culture is pleased to have the big guy around. When the threat vanishes the rest will work to take the big guy down a notch or two.

3. Those can be named as elites and the media brokers. After Germany, France, and Russia opposed Iraq invasion, two of those nations elected decidedly conservative leaders. Russia is a special case with Putin centralizing power and naming his successor whom he puppeteers.

4. Legitimate criticism, I have to admit.

Your conclusion is distinctly accurate.

they do not filter it.

That's b.s. as demonstrated above.

Their job is to bring the news, not their opinion.

Everybody has a bias. To deny that is to deny our fallibility. The best way to handle that fallibility is to state your leanings up front. Hiding and denying it is just dishonest. That's why Fox is so popular. All the commentators state their leanings whether Liberal, Conservative, or Centrist. Yes they claim to be fair and balanced. Yes, they lean more right than left, but they are balanced between lefties and righties and have some centrists sprinkled in, so over all they are pretty balanced. The attraction is the up front acknowledgment of the reporters leanings.

See, that's a Republican attitude

That is not a Republican attitude. That is a moral issue that most people see affecting kids' attitude toward oral sex.

was a senile old coot whose wife was even less there

I do not recall any media attacks on Reagan

Sounds to me like you apparently did hear the media attacks. How do you know Reagan was senile? How did you hear stuff about Nancy if not by a media attack?
.

Clinton's scandal is incomparable to Watergate.

It is in this; they were both deserved scandals.

they would have no impact on the kangaroo court proceedings organized by the White House and the Pentagon at Guant·namo.

lol. I thought that choice of words was yours. Now I realize you cut and pasted a FAIR AND BALANCED report for me to read. Think you can stick to sources who at least try to report the news instead of giving me a Michael Moore renditions? You know, respectable sources.
This blogger got the story from this site
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/omar-m08.shtml
They cite sources like this one.

well-known cameraman for Al Jazeera news was released May 1 by the US military. The reporter, Sami al-Hajj, was captured in 2001 while covering the US invasion of Afghanistan

Yep, that's a trusty witness for justice to be served.

guess only US citizens have human rights then?

In case you've forgotten, WE'RE IN A WAR!!! Never in modern history has any government given citizen's rights to an enemy captured on the battlefield. There are rules of engagement, there are rules for holding captives. Those have generally been honored by both sides with the exception of Japan. But they are different from citizen's rights and generally if they aren't honoring them, we don't have to. We do for our own purposes, not for theirs.

"Islamo-Nazis"

The term is accurate and I will not stop using it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I0oA-x-1qA&playnext=4&playnext_from=QL

That's enough for tonight. I'm going to bed.

Ok, I'm taking the baton back up and am carrying it again.

Your links continue to be quotes from leftists who continually charge George Bush with heinous crimes and not from credible sources.

["By his admission that the CIA has indeed practiced illegal kidnapping and detention, Bush exposes not only his own previous lies," said Sarah Ludford.]

All he admitted to was secret prisons, not torture, not illegal rendition.

[US President George W. Bush's admission that secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) exist vindicated the council's months-long investigation, Van der Linden said]

and not any of the other charges mentioned in this very biased piece. All quotes from extreme liberals and nothing of proof by any of them except for Bush's admission of secret prisons.

Ok, now I've read through three of your links and not one is credible. Wikepedia relies on input from its users. The stories require verification. Also, Muslims have a policy of taqiyya which is a concept of protecting the reputation of Islam. The enemies are using the internet, our own colleges and schools, and our main stream media which is only too happy to attend their desires, to spread these lies. Worse, our own government officials are ignorant of this tactic. They have been employing CAIR (an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas support scandal) to train our intelligence. I cannot accept a Muslim victim witness when we are at war with a vast branch of Muslims. To witt: Haditha scandal.

I will not be bothering to go through any more of your 'sources' unless you can put up something credible. Until then, I will be deleting non-credible comments and links. I simply won't abide false accusations and phony sources for reference.

Judge Bob, I agree with your points and (2) and (3) are particularly significant. You are right about how people behave in cases of envy; and as to the other point, the power brokers may well be behind the opposition. One issue on Germany: is Merkel more conservative than Schröder? (After checking, I think you are right based on their respective parties—funny, I always thought she was more to the left. It is harder to tell with these proportional systems.)

I'm glad you could verify that Merkel is more conservative. Americans are generally self interested. I have been guilty of that for a long time. 9/11 changed everything for me. Now, international politics aren't anecdotal, its critical to know what's going on around the world. This blog has been a venue for both learning and communicating what I've learned and thanks to Chumblor and a few others, an incentive to know what the heck I'm talking about.

I forgot to click the reply button again.

Happens to me all the time with Vox.
I think every nation is guilty of being insular, Judge Bob. I am often surprised at how ignorant of international affairs my own countrymen are.

the ideal reporter
The ideal reporter does not filter.

Where did my post go? I don't even know what you're responding to, the context is gone.

I explained, I deleted it because it was filled with false charges and incredible references. I feel a responsibility to my readers so, I won't abide that sort of input.

What was so incredible about the sources? The story is the same wherever you go.

Read through the commentary. I explained clearly why.

Well here are some "fair and balanced" sources that say the exact same things if you could look past the obviously biased phrasing of the other sources

http://www.rcmpwatch.com/category/maher-arar/
http://www.maherarar.ca/news%20releases%20more.php?id=A142_0_23_0_M
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=12ed8fea-bef6-4648-9ae1-1015e95ca87a&k=97840
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2006/n19se06c.htm
http://www.durdesh.net/news/Article464.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060919.warar0919/BNStory/National/home

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/omar-m08.shtml
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051107/omar_khadr_051107/20051107?hub=TopStories
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr/
http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/insecurity/2007/Nov-15.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/5/guantanamos_child_the_untold_story_of
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/345323
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/23/barbara-kay-the-quot-real-criminals-quot-in-the-omar-khadr-case.aspx

Look at that, it turns out the "incredible socialists" are easily verified by liberals, conservatives, government and private media, Amnesty International and the public.

"That is not a Republican attitude. That is a moral issue that most people see affecting kids' attitude toward oral sex."
Most people who have strong problems with the idea of kids having sex are Republicans, I should wager. Everyone else is just uncomfortable with their kids becoming sexually active in the same way they're uncomfortable about their kids trying anything new because they're overprotective.

"Sounds to me like you apparently did hear the media attacks. How do you know Reagan was senile? How did you hear stuff about Nancy if not by a media attack?"
History class. Nancy Reagan went to seances and Ronald was later diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, which certainly does not have a quick onset.

"It is in this; they were both deserved scandals."
Vietnam is comparable to Iraq. They're both wars!
Jesus is comparable to Mohammed. They're both prophets!
Apples are comparable to oranges. They're both fruit!
Lying about getting a blowjob from a consenting adult is in no way, shape or form comparable to a massive and real conspiracy by the president to commit crimes extending but not limited to sabotaging democracy and illegal wiretapping.

"well-known cameraman for Al Jazeera news was released May 1 by the US military. The reporter, Sami al-Hajj, was captured in 2001 while covering the US invasion of Afghanistan

Yep, that's a trusty witness for justice to be served."
I guess the only reporters that can be trusted are conservative Americans, then, because certainly other countries' reporters, especially the brown ones, are shifty characters!

You cannot spread human rights by denying them. And if you read the Maher Arar stuff I linked, you would see that no, not everyone the US is arresting and exporting to be tortured are "enemy combatants," they are simply foreign citizens LEGALLY entering the US and being ILLEGALLY detained and deported, not even to their home country, with no evidence. You would also see by reading the Omar Khadr stuff that the US government apparently has no interest in the rights of child soldiers either! Human rights cannot be spread by creating contempt for them.

The term is in not accurate and it is a disgusting insult to everyone who suffered under and suffered against the real Nazis.

Here are some "fair and balanced" sources on US secret prisons, although I forget what context they were brought up in in the first place since my post was deleted.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2166967,00.html
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/19/afghan12319.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17935971/
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1544502,00.html
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/09/17/560/27189
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4461470.stm

Liberals, conservatives, mainstream media, the European Union, Human rights groups, and the BBC all show that the US runs secret prisons, and makes the obvious connections between secret prisons and secret torture in torture-infamous countries.
And there are tons of resources on US torture if you just look at the top results on google, too!

To clarify: My antagonism in these last posts are because I despise arbitrary censorship and I despise arguments that equate anyone to Nazis when the comparison is absurd.

Your assertion isn't proven by the Katrina aid from outside the U.S. People who dislike China's record on human right have provided assistance to the victims of the China earthquake.

The idea that America is liked or disliked by the world is tied to making generalizations. Generally speaking, this is not a good way to judge anything.

What is more important is are we as a nation respected? What evidence exists to support the answer to that question. There is no absolute answer to this, but it seems fair to me that stock in America's reputation is not up. Are we looked at as the source of moral leadership in the world that we once were?

I think that, generally [yes, generalizations], people like Americans. Generally [yes] Americans are friendly and hospitable and whatnot. Just like any other place in the world, if you ignore politics and religion, everyone is friendly. People who donate to charities and relief funds do so out of a common human decency, or empathy, not out of political or religious reasons. Iranians held nation-wide candlelight vigils on 9/11, remember that?

If you are ever morally confused about a major world issue, here is a rule that is almost never violated: Whenever you hear that "world opinion" holds a view, assume it is morally wrong.

And here is a related rule if your religious or national or ethnic group ever suffers horrific persecution: "World opinion" will never do a thing for you. Never.

"World opinion" has little or nothing to say about the world's greatest evils and regularly condemns those who fight evil.

The history of "world opinion" regarding the greatest mass murders and cruelties on the planet is one of relentless apathy.

Ask the 1.5 million Armenians massacred by the Ottoman Turks;

or the 6 million Ukrainians slaughtered by Stalin;

or the tens of millions of other Soviet citizens killed by Stalin's Soviet Union'

or the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their helpers throughout Europe;

or the 60 million Chinese butchered by Mao;

or the 2 million Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot;

or the millions killed and enslaved in Sudan;

or the Tutsis murdered in Rwanda's genocide;

or the millions starved to death and enslaved in North Korea;

or the million Tibetans killed by the Chinese;

or the million-plus Afghans put to death by Brezhnev's Soviet Union.

Ask any of these poor souls, or the hundreds of millions of others slaughtered, tortured, raped and enslaved in the last 100 years, if "world opinion" did anything for them.

On the other hand, we learn that "world opinion" is quite exercised over Israel's unintentional killing of a few hundred Lebanese civilians behind whom hides Hezbollah--a terror group that intentionally sends missiles at Israeli cities and whose announced goals are the annihilation of Israel and the Islamicization of Lebanon. And, of course, "world opinion" was just livid at American abuses of some Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Graib prison in Baghdad. In fact, "world opinion" is constantly upset with America and Israel, two of the most decent countries on the earth, yet silent about the world's cruelest countries.

Why is this?

It is difficult to overstate the damage done to the world by television news. Even when not driven by political bias--an exceedingly rare occurrence globally--television news presents a thoroughly distorted picture of the world. Because it is almost entirely dependent upon pictures, T news is only capable of showing human suffering in, or caused by, free countries. So even if the BBC or CNN were interested in showing the suffering of millions of Sudanese blacks or North Koreans--and they are not interested in so doing--they cannot do it because reporters cannot visit Sudan or North Korea and video freely. Likewise, China's decimation and annexation of Tibet, one of the world's oldest ongoing civilizations, never made it to television.

"World opinion" is shaped by the same lack of courage that shapes most individual beings' behavior. This is another aspect of the problem of the distorted way news is presented. It takes courage to report the evil of evil regimes; it takes no courage to report on the flaws of decent societies. Reporters who went into Afghanistan without the Soviet Union's permission were killed. Reporters would risk their lives to get critical stories out of Tibet, North Korea and other areas where vicious regimes rule. But to report on America's bad deeds in Iraq (not to mention home) or Israel's is relatively effortless, and you surely won't get killed. Indeed, you may well win a Pulitzer Prize.

"World opinion" bends toward power. To cite the Israel example, "world opinion" far more fears alienating the largest producers of oil and 1.3 billion Muslims than it fears alienating tiny Israel and the world's 13 million Jews. and not only because of oil and numbers. When you offend Muslim, you risk getting a fatwa, having your editorial offices burned down or receiving death threats. Jews don't burn down their critics' offices, issue fatwas or send death threats, let alone act on such threats.

Those who don't fight evil condemn those who do. "World opinion" doesn't confront real evils, but it has a particular animus toward those who do--most notably today America and Israel.

The moment one recognizes "world opinion" for what it is--a statement of moral cowardice, one is no longer enthralled by the term. That "world opinion" at this moment allegedly loathes America and Israel is a badge of honor to be worn proudly by those countries. It is when "world opinion" and its news media start liking you that you should wonder if you've lost your way.

Dennis Prager

Chumblor, since you feel such an affinity for the news agencies and their reporting honesty, and since you trust them to give you the unbiased truth, for you and you alone, I can only recant the use of the term "world opinion." I still hold that the majority of private citizens like and support America, but world opinion in the media is against America. The point of my article was not to prove the media loved America. It is fairly proven that the media is profligately acting against America. My point was to suggest that the people of the world, by and large, love America. I don't mean just Americans, I mean America.

America's reputation is suffering a privation of information in the news. If people want the whole story, really want the story, they have to do the research for themselves because they are not going to get it on the 6 o'clock news or in their Sunday paper. Or they have to have a memory of what America has done and compare that to the memory of what the press said about her then. As in the above video and its report of a Lithuanian grandmother giving her lifesavings in remembrance of America's work for Lithuania, the truth is there if the reporter and editor care to tell it. Since this story is not focused on politics, this little tidbit slipped by.

I despise arbitrary censorship and I despise arguments that equate anyone to Nazis when the comparison is absurd.

Oh, yeah. Arbitrary because it happened to you. You are not being intellectually honest and you know it. I have deleted one of your comments. ONE. That stuff is just nuts and I won't have it on my site. If that ticks you off, tough, go start your own blog where you can moderate. In the mean time, I'll keep trying to decide whether or not I should block your comments. All comments are read by me and I have had only two occasions to delete any. The first was at commenter's request and the second was illegitimate opinion pieces referenced in a diatribe false allegations. It'd be like referencing my article to prove Leftists hate America. It might be true or it might not, but my article is certainly not proof of Leftists' hatred of America. I write opinions and reference others who have the facts. But my opinion does not make the facts. That's what you were referencing, others' opinions against the administration
Either hold yourself to a standard of truth, or I will.

Despising the comparison of Islamists to Nazis, is your denial of the obvious. Despising the truth does not make it any less than the truth. It does, however reflect on your credibility.

If you checked out the video I linked of the visual comparison, and if you've been watching history unfold for the last 30 years, you would know that Islamists are acquiring as big an influence in economics as Germany did pre-WWII. And if you have been paying attention, you would know that the Nazi's hatred of the Jews was endorsed by, and to some degree instructed by Islamists. And if you've been watching, their military might has exploded over the last 15 years, due their focus on acquiring technology. And if you haven't noticed, the purveyors of that power are just as nuts as was Adolph Hitler and perhaps more so in that, Ahmadenijad has stated he is prepared to have his own country destroyed in the cause of Allah, to destroy Israel and advance Islam around the world. More than any of that, the sheer numbers of Islamists who are proclaiming their desire to die in the cause of Allah and are proving it by insurgency (as used in the media) into Iraq and Afghanistan and formerly majority Christian Lebanon. More than any of that, is the prolific historical evidence that this has always been the way of Islamism and will continue to be the way of Islamism which has been almost entirely ignored by the West and continues to be ignored by the media and the left in the West.

Now, I'm going to have to take another hour to go through your links which aren't linked, and justify for you whether or not they are worth leaving there because you have demonstrated what you consider to be a valuable source is a load of crap to the rest of my readers. If I have to invest this kind of time just to prove that I am fair to you, I'd rather just block you and be done with it. Sorry if that seems unfair to you, but I see it is as valuable time lost to a nut with the ability to speak clearly. Tell me why I should trouble myself that much just to please your sense of arbitrary censorship? I'd rather spend the time studying other topics, current events, history as applied to current issues so I can continue writing articles rather than shoot down opinion pieces at your pleasure. The only reason I am reluctant to do that is because I want dissenting commentary. It makes my thoughts more clear and my articles more carefully researched and the ratings are better. But, if you won't hold yourself to a standard worth respecting, your input is worthless to me.

JudgeBob replied to stickpoet’s comment:
Jul 4, 2008
Reply

[Your assertion isn't proven by the Katrina aid from outside the U.S. People who dislike China's record on human right have provided assistance to the victims of the China earthquake. ]

You would be correct but for the fact that nobody states they are supporting China because of their great history of defending human rights as was done in the video.

[The idea that America is liked or disliked by the world is tied to making generalizations. Generally speaking, this is not a good way to judge anything. ]

If generalizing is not generally a good way to judge anything, then why generally judge generalizations? Look, you've struck upon the theme of my blog. I judge people, things, moral issues. Generalizations are critical to drawing general conclusions about life. "Generally, you should tell the truth." is a moral judgment call required to have wisdom on the moral issue of speaking the truth. Are there times when a lie can be justified morally? Of course, I'm not going to tell a rapist where the little girl ran and hid if he demands that I tell him.

So generalizations are a requirement for wisdom, otherwise you would be paralyzed in constant comparisons of case by case. Either you believe one side of an issue is generally true, or you believe the other side of an issue is generally true. There are always exceptions, that's not the issue. The issue of a generalization is; does it represent the truth or likelihood of truth in a given set of circumstances. The only way to work with generalizations is to present them with anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not a proof, but a descriptive case setting parameters for the generalization. It is up to the common sense of the reader to draw from the anecdotes how relevant they are to the truth as they've observed it.

[What is more important is are we as a nation respected? What evidence exists to support the answer to that question. There is no absolute answer to this, but it seems fair to me that stock in America's reputation is not up. Are we looked at as the source of moral leadership in the world that we once were?]

I suspect not as we once were back when the press weren't coalesced against their own leadership, especially during justifiable war efforts. Now every war effort is unjustified in the eyes of the press around the world but most relevantly, by the word of our own press and Hollywood media.

I think policy makers aren't supportive, but I do think they respect us. Certainly not by the UN council which votes most regularly against Israel and next against America. But I believe that to be the influence of the many Muslim influenced nations as well as the Muslim nations. Most European representatives are faced with a vast Muslim population as their fifth column and Great Brittan and Canada are succumbing to the same influence, albeit a bit slower. As discussed with Jack, after all the condemnation of American efforts in Iraq, the people replaced the leaders of those Western countries in the next election with more conservative leaders. Russia being the exception. No, the people support American policy for the most part, in policy, governments do not.

Of course world opinion can't be trusted. It doesn't exist. The world is not harmonious enough to have a united voice about anything. "World opinion" is a myth. If a "world opinion" exists on anything, genocide for example, then it's almost universally opposed to it, but everyone agrees that there is little that can be done about it. Has America lead any kind of charge into Sudan to stop genocide? Or spearheaded any major international movement to liberate Tibet? No. Remember when the Republicans were shouting down Clinton for Somalia and Kosovo and his other foreign interventions? America didn't have a unified opinion then, and it doesn't now. It never has, and neither has the rest of the world. Even when a consensus opinion is reached by a large portion of the global population, the reality is that all their condemnation changes nothing, and they lack the force to change things for the better.

On the other hand, countries like America and Israel and the European nations are expected to uphold a higher standard than despots and tyrants. The Algerian War of Independence was a horrific civil war perpetrated by the French. America lead the world in decrying Germany and Russia's oil-for-food interests in Iraq. America is constantly criticising the UN for one thing or another. Canada, America and Mexico are denounced for their treatments of native people. France is shouted down when it tries to ban headscarves, not just by Muslims but by the rest of the first world [except America]. Japan is constantly criticized for continuing to glorify their World War II efforts and war criminals. These countries are expected to be better than that, they are expected to be above torture and illegal detention and warrantless searches and massacres and second-class citizenship and the glorification of war. They are expected to constantly improve themselves, and if nobody points out their flaws, then they can never improve.

Of course it seems like "world opinion" is biased against developed nations and not undeveloped. Developed nations are the only ones that listen to criticism. They're the only ones whom dissent and critique and advice can change, and they're obvious targets for peaceful discussion. Crazy countries are not going to change because you ask them, or tell them they are being mean, especially if they don't share Western values. It's a wasted effort to talk to the Robert Mugabe, but not to talk to the American people. It's not about fighting those who "fight evil," it's about confronting the evil within all of us and making ourselves better for it. It's petty and juvenile to assume that everyone is against you and nobody cares about what you care about.

Israel is a special case, in that whenever it does something, even when it is reported 100% objectively, the numbers make it seem like they're using overkill. "Israeli tanks demolish homes in Gaza strip as Jewish settlers pull out" seems mean-spirited and anti-Arab for no good reason. "Israeli soldiers shoot 5 militants after Palestinian kills Jewish soldier" seems like overkill. The last Lebanese war especially seemed like overkill, invading and bombarding a nation's capital because two soldiers were kidnapped. The world is also generally less anti-Palestinian [but there is no consensus world opinion that is pro-Palestinian] than the people living in the region because they have no contact with Hamas and Hezbollah and have no reason to hate them.

I don't think the world loves Americans in the way that homegrown super-patriots do, but basically yes. I also think that the media is biased towards reporting on the good and bad that Western and free nations do, because the other countries tend to have restricted media or keep away from Western conflicts. Zimbabwe bars foreign journalists from even entering the country, so we almost never hear about them. But then again, nobody ever hears about India or Australia or New Zealand or Canada even though they're free states. There is a matter of global power that determines what is newsworthy and what is not. Europe, Russia, China and America are newsworthy, whether they're violating human rights or suffering disasters or promoting humanitarianism or fighting just or unjust wars.
The media is not biased against America and it does not promote anti-Americanism. It just exposes the bad that America and other free nations do, and people tend to remember the bad more easily than the good.

Germany was an economic dump before WWII, the global economy was in a little bit of a recession and Germany was seeing some of the worst hyperinflation in history. It's a ridiculous assertion to claim that the Nazis needed outside help to come up with anti-semitism. It's even more ridiculous to claim that the Muslim world's military power is in any way, shape or form a threat to the US, which spends more than the entire world combined on weapons. The biggest difference between Hitler's war and jihad is that Hitler fought to win, he fought to destroy everyone around him, and he did not fight planning to die in the process. A man who will do whatever it takes to survive and kill everyone else is much more dangerous than a man who will blow himself up for a short-term victory.

It doesn't exist.

World opinion is a generalization. As a generalization, it requires no harmony. There is no need for a grand plan of condemnation for a mob to lynch somebody, but mob opinion kills just the same.

World opinion on genocide has universally been apathy. "Yawn, not our problem" Sure, anybody is willing to say if pressed, those poor souls, somebody should do something. That's not the world opinion we are talking about. We are talking about opinion that leads to action.

expected to uphold a higher standard than despots and tyrants.

There you go with that double standard again. Actual resistance to America's efforts to fight evil is the direct result of that double standard. That's the issue at hand.in voting in representatives. That's the issue with building support in the war zones. That's the issue with the governments of the world opposing Israel. Words matter. Equating our actions with despots costs lives under despots and among those who fight despots. If all the critics gave attention to the standards and held all governments to the same set, there would be much less evil in the world because the best would be called the best rather than compared unfairly to the worst.

It's not about fighting those who "fight evil," it's about confronting the evil within all of us and making ourselves better for it.

That's moral cowardice. You have to spend more on fighting real evil where people are no more valuable than what they can provide the leaders rather than spend all your efforts reporting how bad the good systems are. There is a time and a place to criticize your own. Not during conflict with real evil despots and tyrants and we should never be equated to them by any press, ever.

100% objectively, the numbers make it seem like they're using overkill.

The numbers are not presented in any form of fairness. If they were they'd also report the number of attacks on Israel daily or compare the number of deaths Israel has suffered by Muslims between Israeli attacks on Islamists. Instead, you hear about the latest Islamist attack which is being responded to by Israel.

no reason to hate them.

Are you kidding me? Israel is the only pro-Western nation in the region. They are the only power that reflects Western values. Palestinians are a radicalized block prepared to send its own children into innocent crowds to inflict as much pain as they can and that technique has been exported around the world. But nobody has any reason to hate them. That is buffoonery

Zimbabwe bars foreign journalists from even entering the country, so we almost never hear about them.

.Cowardice on the part of the reporters. That's the real evil. They'd rather sit in their cushy little position and report on the evils in the West, tearing down the best influences for good around the world. There are very few who are willing to speak the truth for very good reasons. They don't want fatwahs issued against them. Cowardice!!! and bias.

The media is not biased against America and it does not promote anti-Americanism.

You really are a fringe leftist aren't you?
One report with exact figures of demonstrative bias in the big three for one candidate over another.

Germany was seeing some of the worst hyperinflation in history

And it was the Nazis who built the most powerful military in history before WWII ever began.

ridiculous assertion to claim that the Nazis needed outside help to come up with anti-semitism

Who said they needed outside help? [Nazi's hatred of the Jews was endorsed by, and to some degree instructed by Islamists.] The Grand Mufti instructed the Nazis to require the Jews to wear the Juden badge to make them easily identifiable and other formerly Islamic traditions against Jews.

It's even more ridiculous to claim that the Muslim world's military power is in any way, shape or form a threat to the US, which spends more than the entire world combined on weapons.

How soon we forget that it only took 19 to bring down WTC and kill 3,000 innocent non-combatants. World threats are no longer measured in dollars and ranks. It is now measured in its ability to kill large numbers. They are working on nuclear capabilitty. They already have ICBM capability albeit limited. They continually demonstrate a propensity for self destruction in the cause of Allah. And they have people in every corner of the globe completely willing to carry out structured attacks if they could ever organize well enough to structure one massive grand attack. I'm not willing to wait until they do, that's how we got to 9/11 in the first place.

A man who will do whatever it takes to survive and kill everyone else is much more dangerous than a man who will blow himself up for a short-term victory.

You know better than this. You are again circling my premise looking for weak spots to punch holes in it. Kids are recruited to do the dieing. Planners and bomb builders don't do the dieing unless we go after them. At 300,000,000 professing jihadis, I don't think you have an appreciation for just how stupid that last statement was. Nations aren't obliterated out of existence. They are intimidated into surrender unless it is genocidal. Then it is a people within the nation that is obliterated almost always unsuccessfully because it is never entirely completed. The point is, the threat against Western society is militarily feasible. The question is, how much will do the people have to take losses and continue to stand for their ideals. If Europe is any indication, not much.

I don't think the world loves Americans any more than Americans love the rest of the world. The world just doesn't work that way. The truth is that we all look out for ourselves, and that's just the way it has to be.

But I do have a problem with any country, including America, attempting to mask its self interested actions under a cloak of altruism, such as the invasion of Iraq. You were after the oil. Even that notorious"liberal" Alan Greenspan admitted to it in his book. So, why don't you just admit it, instead of all this nonsense about bringing "freedom" to the world. You never know, you just might regain some lost credibility. Respect, well that's another matter.

I notice you didn't refer to Fox News, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaurgh and Coulter in your comments regarding biased reporting. Presumably you "forgot" them, which isn't surprising at all. I'd have "forgotten" them as well if I was a bigoted conservative.

That said, I think it is true that the people of the world do just want to get on with living their lives. They just don't want the likes of you, and your idiot President, telling them how they must do it at the point of a gun.

While wandering the internet, I stumbled across this handy profile of Fox News' PR activity, and how it actively suppresses facts that disagree with Fox policy and blacklists reporters who do not agree to be attack dogs for the network!

http://gawker.com/tag/irena-briganti/?i=5022476&t=irena-briganti-the-most-vindictive-flack-in-the-media-world

Such gems include:

"She is the single most blatant horse trader for stories in the entire media business. That means she will tell a reporter, "I'll give you this tidbit of news, but in return you have to write a negative story about this or that element of our competitors." When a reporter takes the tidbit but doesn't do Fox's bidding with the other fluff or nasty story (as no respectable reporter would), that reporter goes on Fox's shit list, and is subject to have a negative item about them planted by Briganti. This kind of blatant favor trading and retaliation would make PR people from, say, the Times or MSNBC laugh or shudder. Fox is the only practitioner of this level of media PR bloodsport."

"She's famous for blacklisting reporters who do not cover Fox the way it wants to be covered. Whereas most media operations strive to present a professional face even if they hate a certain reporter, Fox does the opposite. One reporter told me that Irena blacklisted him and even turned him down for a requested tour of the Fox studios because she felt his coverage was negative. Also blacklisted in the past were an AP reporter and a Baltimore Sun reporter. The notable thing is that these are not commentators that Fox disagrees with; these are regular, run-of-the-mill TV reporters, reporting fact-based news, who were blacklisted because said facts disagreed with Fox."

All backed up with links and support from valid news sources! What say you now, O defenders of Fox, the One True Fair and Balanced News Station?

Hey JudgeBob, I see you made it to the front page of VOX! I saw your name and had to look at this. Caveat: Only watched 1st video and your opening. It's past midnight. Life of a working, blogging mom of teens.

Bottom Line: What unabashed joyousness. A celebration of the oneness of the world. Joined by a common theme: the love of music and how it unites. That was one of the most precious videos. Made my heart sing. LOVED, LOVED, LOVED it. Made my night after a late, long drive home picking up an angry teen :)

Happy to have been a lift.

The World Does Not Hate America

Comments

Post a comment

About Me

GREAT RESOURCES

My Groups

Neighborhood

Tags

Archives

Twitter