1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Anoother Demo Candidate?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by RichW, Sep 16, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Martyva

    Martyva Guest DBSTalk Gold Club

    823
    0
    Apr 23, 2002
    My recollection was of a small minded evil man who gave heat and couldn't take it. As Americans we accept jerks, and if that were all there was to McCarthy then little would have happened, including the witch hunts and vendettas that led to his downfall
     
  2. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Yep, no matter how much the man is couched in revisionism, McCathyism will continue to be a negative concept... forever... and deservedly so.
     
  3. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    332 entertainers blacklisted. Some for simply refusing to appear and tell who their friends were. His downfall was that the military struck back because of the tactics his staff used. When the military forced into public attention the charges he was making and the tactics he was using, and the congressional committee started to expose his financial shenanigans, public opinion, which had been favorable started to shift. Dramatically. And permanently. Except for revisionists. There may have been spies, but most people agree the tactics and methods McCarthy used were wrong. The end does not justify the means.
     
  4. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    Much as I hate to be a skeptic ( ;) ) I've just gotta ask: Whose history is it that we are revising? Nearly all of the "major" news outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, and the new television networks attacked McCarthy. They hated him, and they hated the fact that he was going after a number of liberal "darlings" in the administration and elsewhere. So, if you were to try to do research on McCarthy, you loop back eventually to these same sources that hated his guts. One of the most prominent journalistic sources of attacks on McCarthy was I.F. Stone. He is loved by liberals, and many journalists consider him to be one of the greats of all time. He went after McCarthy from the beginning. He also supported Stalin, Henry Wallace, and Ho Chi Minh. He was thought to be so honest that one of Oliphant's cartoons showed him refusing to enter heaven because, as St. Peter told God, "he'd rather hang out here, and keep things honest." Only one little problem. "Revisionist history" i.e. the Venona Project and other data collected from the Soviets, indicate that the "saint" was a Soviet agent. One of the recovered cables indicated that Stone was willing to take money for his services, but he didn't want to attract the attention of the F.B.I.

    These are the guys who were reporting the "news" about McCarthy. It turns out that some of them had a VERY ulterior motive for the "spin" they put on the news. If you're gullible enough to just simply accept it, without question, despite information that has come out since then, so be it. As for me, I'll accept that McCarthy was not a likeable person, and that he tended to exaggerate, but that he appears to have been correct in his basic premise that their were communists in the State Department. I'll also question the motives of those who claimed to have been ruined by him, when it turns out that their denials have been shown to have been just as aggregiously untrue as they say that McCarthy's claims about them were.
     
  5. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    "The casual association of McCarthy with Hollywood blacklisting demonstrates the left's renowned respect for the truth. McCarthy's nonexistent crusade has become a fact by sheer repetition. With no explanation, a 2002 New York Times article on the movie industry listed "McCarthyism" as among the various "plagues and scourges" that had beset the industry.

    Honorable thought it was, the Hollywood blacklisting had nothing to do with McCarthy. The Hollywood Ten were called before HUAC in 1947. To repeat, McCarthy was never in the House. In 1947, he had just been elected to the Senate and was so little known that the New York Times called him a "moderate Republican." Even Hiss had been exposed, indicted, and convicted before McCarthy took up the anti-communist cause in his 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia. McCarthy never participated in any investigation of Hollywood."

    Treason Ann Coulter, p. 76. So Bogy, whose engaging in some "revisionist history?" Better watch out, RichW will be on your case. :nono:

    If you have info to the contrary, I'd be happy to hear it. I'm not "cemented in" on the issue. I had always bought the line about McCarthy until I started reading more about him. Now, I am much more questioning.
     
  6. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Yes, my mistake. Blacklisting is commonly referred to as "McCarthyism" but was not part of his activities. How about the other part of my post, his attacks on the military?
    I hope this isn't to terribly liberal a source, it's the first online encyclopedia google brought up.
    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm
    You also have not addressed the issue of whether the ends justify the means.
     
  7. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    Funny you should mention Schine:

    "In this particular run at McC.., the Senate was probing whether McC's committee had pressured the Army to grant special privileges to David Schine, a former staff member on the Committee. Roy Cohn, a brilliant but deeply flawed individual, applied unseemly pressure on the Army to allow Schine to finish his work with the committee, or at least to be given generous weekend passes to do so. A closeted homosexual, Cohn apparently had a mad crush on Schine. McCarthy's troubles with the Army were entirely of Cohn's making. Still and all, it was surely one of the lamest acts of influence peddling in all of American history.

    Among all the facts generally omitted from the traditional telling of the Army-McC.. hearings is that Schine was suddenly drafted in the midst of McC..'s investigation of the Army's Communist infestation problems. Cohn thought Schine's draft was political payback. McC.. disagreed, annoyed at the suggestion that anything could have deterred him from pursuing his investigation. He simply viewed the entire controversy as asinine. The watchdog press was not much interested in exploring the question of why the Army had drafted Schine, just as the press showed little interest in why Clinton's IRS audited Paula Jones.

    In fact, the Army's motives may have been pure, but Schine's draft was absolutely political. It came about only as a result of the vigorous lobbying efforts of a ferociously anti-McCarthy journalist, Drew Pearson. [footnote] When Schine was first drafted, he received a deferment because of a slipped disc. His back had since healed, something the draft board would likely have overlooked, but for Pearson's frenetic letter-writing campaign to the Army demanding a review of Schine's deferment.

    By all accounts, Schine was perfectly happy to be drafted and McC.. showed no interest in relieving him of his duty. McC.. humored Cohn, while quietly confiding in the secretary of the Army, Robert T. Stevens: "You can send [Schine] to Korea for all I care." He said "Schine's a good boy, but there is nothing indispensable about him." McC.. even laughed with Stevens about Cohn's machinations, saying Cohn "thinks David should be a general and work from the penthouse of the Waldorf." [footnotes] Despite enormous pressure to fire Cohn when details of his lobbying the Army came out, McC.. refused. He was fiercely, perhaps suicidally, loyal to Cohn-- whom McC.. did see as indispensable." [emphasis mine]

    Terrible scandal, that. Ends justify the means?? Heavens no. But what means? What ends? That's what the debate is about! When McCarthy said there were communists in the state department, were there? Is it wrong to make an accusation that is correct, and carries with it great importance? Who ended up being damaged the most in the long run as a result of all of this? McCarthy was destroyed by it. He was attacked relentlessly. Did the ends justify the means?

    As to the military, I'll try to get to that, but my fingers and wrists are getting worn out from all this typing! :p The above quote, by the way, so I don't violate copyright laws, is from Treason, Ann Coulter, p. 110-111.

    Interestingly, your error about the Hollywood blacklist typifies what Coulter addresses in her book. The "press" starts a story, it builds and expands until it becomes part of the fabric of the national "myth." McCarthy has become part of that myth. I'm sure that the "left" could site a number of myths that evolved through the works of the "right" in this country as well. It's an interesting phenomenon, and one about which we should all be wary.
     
  8. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Sounds something like: "repeat it often enough and eventually people start to believe it." I think I have heard that somewhere before. :lol:
     
  9. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Yes, most recently in regards to Saddam, al Qaeda, WMDs and imminent threats.:D
     
  10. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    So you, or rather Ann, feels that rather than attacking Stevens they were great friends laughing over Cohn's love interest. Or perhaps Ann is inferring that McCarthy didn't mind Schine being sent off to Korea because it it got rid of his competition for Cohn's attention? I don't know for sure since the footnotes aren't included. Are you, or Ann, inferring that Eisenhower didn't really have a problem with McCarthy, that there were no attacks on Stevens?

    As far as McCarthy "outing" all the dreaded Communists, these were already known to the state department. McCarthy's list included not only known employees with leftist contacts, but others with problems such as alcoholism, almost laughable considering McCarthy's own alcohol problems. Not to mention his own "closet" problems. His attacks were politically motivated. Most of them, at least in the beginning, were focused on Democrats. Tell me Toenail, is Truman also on that list of Soviet spies? McCarthy seemed to think it should have been.
     
  11. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    Footnote: Joseph McCarthy by Arthur Herman, p. 245. I quoted Ann. I don't think she was inferring that. At least I didn't get that impression. You did? Gays in every closet??



    No. I don't recall mentioning Eisenhower. I was addressing whether McCarthy was ultimately right--- that there were communist agents in the State Department. He was and there were.



    Bingo Bogy!! Yes, they knew. Of course, you have to define "state department." A limited number of people knew. But they kept denying it. McCarthy was, gasp, trying to let the PUBLIC know. We do have a right to know such things, don't you think? Or should it just be a little secret amongst friends? What's more important, knowing that Cohn was gay, or knowing that people in high positions were selling us out?


    Sorry, you'll have to tell me what "closet" problems you're talking about. His "crash" after the focus turned on him is well documented. Your earlier comments seem to imply a "gay" issue. As for Truman, I don't recall hearing that McCarthy thought he was a soviet spy! :lol: He was concerned, however, about some of the people in Truman's State Department who were. He was also concerned that Truman didn't seem to care, or at least wouldn't look into the matter. He also didn't think that Truman stood up to Stalin enough, or that he was taking the correct position on China. But I don't think that's the same as saying he's a spy. The left has criticized Bush for not going after Bin Laden "hard" enough, while wasting time with Iraq. Does this imply that the left believes that Bush is an agent of Bin Laden's? I don't think so.

    By the way, feel free to attack McCarthy's positions on various issues as much as you want. I'm sure I'd agree with you on a number of your positions. For example, I was a big fan of Eisenhower. McCarthy apparently wasn't. My main premise is that "McCarthyism" has been blown all out of proportion, and very misused, and that he was right about a number of things that he was villified for. The fact that you misused the term (in the Hollywood comment) proves my point. BTW, my wife and I were talking about McCarthy and our (your's and mine) exchanges this morning. She made a comment to the effect that "well, McCarthy's attacks on all those Hollywood people was way out of line." I smiled! So, you're definitely not alone, Bogy.
     
  12. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "Tell me Toenail, is Truman also on that list of Soviet spies? McCarthy seemed to think it should have been."

    McCarthy was Catholic. I was in Catholic school at the time when the nuns had us pray for McCarthy. (The Kennedy family in those days, by the way, were strong supporters of McCarthy). Since Truman was a Mason (as was FDR before him) and the Catholic Church had a long-running history in opposition to Freemasonry, McCarthy viewed Truman with extreme suspicion and part of the conspiracy, especially after he had recalled Gen MacArthur (another Freemason, BTW)

    Eisenhower was somewhat silent on McCarthy, not because he agreed with him, but because he felt McC was a lout and seeking publicity. Thus Eisenhower's approach was to let McC do himself in, which he eventually did.
     
  13. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well, another "diversified" thread. :grin: Where to begin(or end)?:scratch:

    How about here:

    Very perceptive LMS. But who is "attacking" US? Who ARE these "powerful elements"? Or at least, who are among the attackers? Perhaps a few of us caught 60 Minutes tonight? Although it's probably too "liberal" for some. A very interesting piece on eminent domain.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml
    Seems like not only may the government seize private property for roads, public works, etc., this is a mechanism often used to take private property with the express purpose of turning it over to other private interests. And not only is vacant land targeted, our homes, businesses and viable, profitable commercial real estate are at risk. In none of the three instances cited in the story were the owners of the property in question approached about voluntarily selling their lands. Other business interests, obviously more powerful, and connected to local and state politics, simply stated their desires for a particular property and government authorities willingly complied.

    Now all this reeks of scenarios we've all heard of from The Soviet Union or Red China, private property confiscated for the benefit of others. Only in this case not even the pretense of a benefit to society is maintained. The government is taking property from unwilling private owners to hand it over to other private owners. So it seems that this peculiar brand of "free market socialism" is not frowned upon by the powerful in our capitalist society. Instead it is viewed as a convenient way to capture property that otherwise couldn't be acquired.

    BTW, some of you will be gratified to know the last Grinch in the piece is the NY Times. Ah, you say, very obviously a liberal conspiracy then!:nono2: :rolleyes:
     
  14. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Jon,

    The Portland neighborhood where I own property just recently fought off commercial interests who wanted to use condemnation for just the purpose you stated - using "urban renewal" to force people into selling their property for commerical development. Adding insult to injury, the way this stuff is financed in our state is via a process called "Tax Incremental Financing". When an area falls into an "urban renewal district" any and all increase in property taxes for the next 20 years go to finance "redevelopment". This means not only are property owners subject to condemnation, the money used to buy the condemned property comes from taxes that the property owners pay and from the "profit" made from reselling the condemned property to real estate developers. This also means that the tax increases that would normally got to schools, public safety, parks, etc. are hijacked for the benefit of the redevelopers. This practice has both liberals and libertarians up in arms. If the Mafia were doing the same thing, they would be indicted under seval racketeering laws.
     
  15. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Geez! Is it ME picking on LMS now?;)

    The upshot of your above conclusion is that media serves the interests of media owners. I couldn't agree more. It would be illogical to conclude otherwise as well as being bad business, and it's what I've been trying to say all along.:D

    Yet from this you also conclude that with rare exception, this same media, owned almost exclusively by conservatives(fiscal at least) is permeated with liberal thought and ideology, consistently promotes a liberal agenda, and in fact generally serves the interests of liberals. How can this be? On this you basically conclude that the lunatics are running the asylum. Somehow the "liberal" reporters and editors have wrested control of these multi-billion dollar conglomerates from the owners and these same captains of industry are simply unable, too stupid or disinterested to regain control of the properties they OWN!

    So, let me get this straight. As long as media properties turn a tidy profit, owners(who all are at least rich enough that they SHOULD be conservatives) don't care what is broadcast on the airwaves? They don't care if, by your own admission 70% of Americans receive 100% of their news from, they receive it from sources diametrically opposed to the interests of the owners themselves?

    I'm sorry. That's just insane. Certainly media can be a lucrative business and that is part of the equation. But news is arguably the most important part of media, at least the most relevant in it's ability to shape attitudes and opinions. First it is ludicrious to assume the owners are unaware of this power, or just "don't care". They are very aware of it and IMO care very much. This very power to shape opinion is part of the equation too, perhaps even bigger then profit. Second, even if we were to assume owners didn't exercise their perogative to influence public opinion and be perhaps neutral, it hardly seems reasonable they wouldn't care the agenda of their properties eventually turns the public against their own interests and the interests of their advertisers.

    Major media in today's society, especially news media, serves the interests of the rich and powerful who own them and their rich and powerful advertisers who support them. How could it be any other way?
     
  16. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Time to pick on Toenail.:)
    As a footnote to Ms. Coulter's footnote:
    http://www.crimsonbird.com/history/mccarthy.htm

    Also from the link:
    OK, you were a prosecutor. What if someone had come into your office claiming to have a long list of pedophiles working in the courthouse? I assume you'd be interested. But what if he refused to present any evidence or even show you the list? And then came back a week later with another list which he similarly refused to disclose? Or what if the "proof" was that some on the list knew a pedophile, maybe worked with them or knew them socially or worked on a community project with one? Maybe they were Boy or Girl Scout leaders? Now maybe some of this is even worthy of investigation and if the list is long enough, there's bound to be a pedophile or two on the list. But what if nothing else can be discovered to support the allegations? What would you suggest your "informer" do? Make the list public? Perhaps wave the list from the courthouse steps screaming about the pedophiles inside? Would you suggest others take him seriously?

    I hope not. As the calm, thoughtful, moral person I perceive you as, I would think you'd boot him out of your office and tell him not to come back until he had some proof beyond accusation and innuendo. And if years later it turned out there actually were some pedophiles on the lists, I don't think you should beat yourself up for not taking him seriously at the time because it is obvious his goal was far more self-aggrandizement then genuine concern for harm to children. Should you start to revere his work because on a list that contained many non-pedophiles there happened, mostly by chance, to be a few real pedophiles?

    But this is what you seem to suggest for McCarthy. His reprehensible, despicable tactics are justified because some of those he "suspected" of being communists turned out to actually be communists. Now we shoud reclassify him as misunderstood and unfairly persecuted.

    As for "McCarthyism" becoming synonomous with unfounded attacks based on insinuated lack of patriotism. So what? We know this sad period of our history as the "McCarthy era" even though others may have been equally at fault. But we need to call it something to remind ourselves not to repeat it. Especially when many of us suspect many others of being disloyal simply because they are Muslims or Arabs, or maybe just look like them or know one.
     
  17. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Since Coulter evidently finds Cohn's sexual preference relevant, didn't she think to comment on McCarthy's?
     
  18. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Sure, as usual taxpayers are the losers, as are the original owners of the property. The winners are the private developers who will make a bundle off "condemned" real estate and the enabling politicians who retire to sit on their boards or receive lucrative "consulting" positions.

    Several years ago a similar situation happened in Waikiki where obviously every square inch is valuable. Outrigger, largest hotel chain in the islands, wanted to build a superblock. Standing in their way were numerous properties, several family owned for generations. Not that these are welfare families, but income from these properties helped sustain the families, often many members of it. The city was ready to condemn them and force them to sell. Luckily the plan fell through. I think partly because of the publicity.

    I was appalled when I heard this story. Like most I assumed eminent domain could only be applied for necessary public works. I thought is was just anoter weird abberation of corrupt Hawaii politics until I saw the report last night. It is apparently the norm with the libertarian law firm in the piece citing 10,000 cases in the last 5 years.

    Again, this is something I'd expect to hear from Stalin's Russia or maybe Hussein's Iraq, not the land of the free and home of the brave where private property is sancrosanct.
     
  19. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Actually, I have read of reports where this is happening in Kabul, Afghanistan under the new leadership there.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page