Skip to main content

View Diary: New guest bloggers -- teaser (233 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Total misreading of much of what the show (none)
    presents. Yes it explores many aspects of things which are current and troubling, but does not laud the conclusiosn you present. In fact it leads many to the exact opposite conclusiosn you seemed to have "gotten" form the show. The tribunal one in particualar. The McCarthy with-hunting is shown as getitng out of control when innocent people are being accused and thus shut down. The "lesser crime" is for lying to the judiciary, which to label as Repbulicanism run-amok is stupid (witness Libby in Plamegate).

    Tom Zarrach (played by the "old" Apollo from the orginal show) is not portrayed as you describe him at all.

    The entire screed about Glen Larson's mormonism is pointeless boogeyman shit writ large.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

    by Lestatdelc on Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 12:30:36 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Of Course You'd Say That (none)
      Because you obviously don't have a diplomatic bone in your body. Here I've offered a pleasant enough olive branch, after soundly winning a tiff you started, and you go right for the nuts again.

      Not two hours ago I saw two thugs intimidating a potential witness, telling him he might get run over by a truck twice. That's the kind of society we live in and you're doing a fine job championing it.

      It's questionable whether this show is intentional propaganda but it is definitely wingnutty-crunchy and that you don't recognize that speaks volumes about your wingnut basis of thought. So does your brittle and scatological temperment.

      I said Glen Larson is a mormon and that the show was based around that. Common knowledge. I said fine to that. Obviously the old show isn't what I refered to as NeoCon and Christofascist in its aesthetic. The new one is, as a subjective judgment. A "screed" is a word you are either deliberate misusing or don't know the definition of and just think sounds slimy. A four-sentence paragraph in which I said the mormon aspect is fine, does not a screed against mormonism make. That this was dovetailed into NeoCon viewpoints was pointed out to me buy a mormon friend, and if you want further studyon a related topic, refer to Bush-stroker (and increasing purveyor of the same all-war, all-hate themes) Orson Scott Card.

      Last thread, you were arguing for an uncompromising letter-of-the-law position. This thread, you are saying it is fine to let a person rot in jail for a crime for which they were neither tried nor convicted, while innocent of what they were accused of... And by a tribunal that had run "amok" enough to be dissolved on the spot when it threatened a person of power.

      You're defending maintaining a false conviction on the whim of a military dictator, who proved he had dictatorial powers in that episode. This is nothing to do with why. You have no respect for law. Last thread, you were wrapping yourself up in your zero-toleranc edefence of a judge but it turns out to be not for fealty to law and order, but merely to the concept of state power.

      So what are you in this for exactly? You write good rhetoric but don't seem to understand there is reason behind the rhyme. All you are doing, from what I can tell is competing for the same idiological turf with the Bushists. Good for you, I hope you get it. Then we can be political opponents.

      9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

      by NewDirection on Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 01:22:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not a false conviction (none)
        And that is entirely the point you utterly fail to grasp, again.

        Lying and giving false testimony is rightly a criminal offense. Just like making death threats against judges, which you seem to think is not something that should be a criminal offense. You continue to trot out false claims that I adhere to nothing but strict "letter of the law" position which is untrue and baseless crap.

        The witch-hunt run amok was rightly desolved for reasons evident in the show. It was a witch-hunt. The person who was still "convicteD": was for lying under oath to cover for someone else. That is what the person was guilty of and was convicted of, with due process.

        You seem to be quite content with letting lying under oath, and making death threats as not being something a society should hold people accountable for (i.e. be convicted in a court of law).

        You can rant and rave all you want that I and others are propaganda swallowing wingnuts but it is baseless crap. Furthermore Glen Larson's mormonism was never in dispute, so stow the strawman. It is however your screed that the show is GOP propaganda and  "NeoCon and Christofascist" and bringing up Larson's religious beliefs as indicative of the later which rightly earned my scatological expletive.

        All you are doing, from what I can tell is competing for the same idiological turf with the Bushists.

        ROFLMAO

        What color is the sky on your planet?

        Because here on earth it is blue.

        cheers,

        Mitch Gore

        Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

        by Lestatdelc on Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 02:51:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In Both Examples... (none)
          You were happy to say that slender evidence and in one case, no actual conviction on the supposed just cause of incarceration, was necessary. Obviously you recall it differently; but the line was something like: "He either lied the first time, or he lied the second time, and it doesn't matter. He's guilty! And he'll pay the price."

          Guilt by pronouncement in a private conversation. Very Bushist. Very witchhunter. It could be: "She either lied when she said she wasn't a witch, or when she confessed she was, so she's guilty!" Substitute Al Qaeda ties for witchcraft and it's current.

          You admitted you'd want evidence were it a democrat, but founded your whole earlier argument on saying you'd require no evidence in that case of a republican.

          As to the mormonism connection, as I said I got that from a Mormon (well a Son of Perdition to be specific). Is the show GOP propaganda? That would be shocking (although not unprecedented). I don't allege that. I said it came from a conservative/republican/neocon set of attitudes and aesthetics. If you don't see that well alrighty then, as I said, the fish are the last to discover the sea.

          I don't know who the show's creators vote for, and it wouldn't be the first time if so that creative liberals have played into wingnut dreck for entertainment value. Hell, I've done it (I don't think I'd do so again these days), so I know whereof I speak saying that. The problem is when that goes unexamined, and gets denied.

          And politicians do the same thing. They do it "pragmatically" and it then poisons our discourse. But go offline, go up to New Hampshire, and you find a dairy farmer saying to a C-Span crew that he thought Feingold's anti-P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act speech sounded too hawkish. Not that unfortunately that's American standard issue, but it is a way that people can wind up thinking when allowed to. And it has more utility to prgoressivism than what I identify as rightwing callousness and posturing.

          As for entertainment:
          Do you think Tom Clancy's works are nonpartisan too?
          I'm not saying anyone should have a problem consuming those things---I don't. But if there is a need to make an argument out of my pointing it out as an aside, I don't see it.

          9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

          by NewDirection on Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 04:59:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope (none)
            You were happy to say that slender evidence and in one case, no actual conviction on the supposed just cause of incarceration, was necessary.

            Your assertion here, besides making no sense, resembles nothing I have said in this thread or the previous ones you allude to. I stated that making death threats against judges are and should be illegal, hence the conviction of the woman making death threats against that judge one the rulings in the Schiavo case.

            "He either lied the first time, or he lied the second time, and it doesn't matter. He's guilty! And he'll pay the price."

            ANd was in context of the deck crew committing perjury to try and cover for Tyrel, whom was begging Adama to let the guy off. Commission of perjury is a crime and rightly should be prosecuted. The guy gave to conflicting statements which was obviously perjury and the guy was rightly going to be brought up on those charges and wasn't going to be given a pass.

            You seem to think that holding people to account for perjury is bad. You also read far to much into that line that Adama was acting as some executioner or judge, but was responding to Tyrel's extra-legal appeal to cut the deck crewman slack for lying on the stand in irrefutable fashion.

            Once again you strip away all context and bullshit right past it to make egregious and craptauclar claims.

            You admitted you'd want evidence were it a democrat, but founded your whole earlier argument on saying you'd require no evidence in that case of a republican.

            Wow, talk about making bullshit out of whole cloth, please cite examples of what you claim because I have done no such thing.

            As to the mormonism connection, as I said I got that from a Mormon (well a Son of Perdition to be specific).

            And again, I have never once disputed Larson's religious views or even that it influenced aspects of the original series in the 70s. It is however entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, your claims that BSG (the new series) is founded on conservative/republican/neocon set of attitudes and aesthetics.

            I don't know who the show's creators vote for

            And isn't even relevant. What I was saying is that the show does deal directly with many aspects of current events in the context of the sci-fi fiction, just as the original Star Trek did in the 60s. You see the show deal with things like the with-hunt for sleeper agents as advancing the neocon view, when I see, and the shows creators expressly (in the DVD commentary) have gone for the opposite. Telling of the perils of such things through the alternate "reality" of the fiction of the sci-fi mythos.

            That is precisely why I have been arguing this with you, because you see just the surface and make extraordinary erroneous leaps to the wrong conclusion. This isn't the first time, but as you pointed out in the other topic thread, you leap to the conclusion that i embrace Bushite attitudes for having a very low threshold for pity for people making death threats against judges.

            You make facile leaps that I argue against due process, or through investigation and instead leap ahead with scant facts of the case at hand and make sweeping pronouncements that I and others don't get what "real death threats are" and pulling red herring emotional based arguments out of your ass like "what if a relative of yours was convicted to 5 years" as if that should or would make me suddenly think that convicting someone of making death threats against one of the judges in the Schiavo case is bad.

            Do you think Tom Clancy's works are nonpartisan too?

            Only read one Tom Clancy novel (Red Storm Rising), when I was a teenager. It struck me as the Michael Crichton of military short-stroking so never read any more of his schlock. SO I wouldn't be qualified to make a judgment, but it wouldn't surprise me given his penchant for gung-ho militarism.

            But if there is a need to make an argument out of my pointing it out as an aside, I don't see it.

            Because you are making erroneous claims about the show and the underlying issues it conscientiously draws form in the current social/political climate as making it inherently pro-neocon and Christifascist, when it is, by and large for the exact opposite reasons it dramatizes such issues. It wrongly (and in my eyes) grossly misrepresents some of the best drama on television which delve into the deeper issues of the day via the mythical device of the sci-fi context (ala Star Trek in its heyday, which, BTWm the new series creator wrote for for years).

            Because you argue that a show whose story present an issue like the witch-hunting episode, which when boiled down delivers two basic points, one: that witch-hunts eve when initiated for a legitimate reason often devolve into hysteria driven endeavors which get out of hand and go after the innocent, and two: lying on the stand (thereby breaking the law and undermining the entire process) even for what you think is a good reason, is wrong... are somehow advancing a "neocon" attitude.

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

            Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

            by Lestatdelc on Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 06:03:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here's What I Take Away From This Conversation (none)
              One, a number of points which register for me but no matter how I present them you don't see.

              What I am asserting is a standard of proof in the former case that goes beyond a single non-specific, non-conspiratorial, non-directed statement. I think more evidence than that should be required to secure a conviction and I took it as agreement when you wrote:

              And yes, lock the fucker up if you have evidence the person meant it. Your problem with that?

              Clearly you don't consider the thread in question to be "evidence the [Democrat] meant it." Meaning there has to be more to prove a death threat. Agreed.
              And this is a lose/lose situation because, if you try to tell me that one line you typed doesn't truly represent your intent, you have again agreed with me.

              Now in the second case: Context. In discussing a fictional television show I made a number of statements about how I interpreted its tone, aesthetics, and message. The context indicates these are subjective opinions, in the event I didn't explicitly say so. Were you in on the creation of the work, I could credit your absolute assertion that I am "wrong" in my conclusions. As it is, it's my opinion versus yours. My opinion is also the opinion of my friend the Utah expatriate Mormon, and one other person with whom I watched the show, all of whom independently formed that opinion. Now I may have been too assertive in judging your own opinion as blindness to the content of the show, not clearly labelling that as opinion, but I thought that would be obvious.

              Just to be clear that there is such a thing as propaganda, view this:
              http://accstudios.com/...
              Now I ask you if that were set in space with the names changed wouldn't it still be?

              But there was another issue raised in the discussion of the show. It's whether a person should be punished for a crime that he did not commit, on the backroom assumption that he committed some other crime.
              I say nay, you say yea.
              No?

              This is a very topical concern because a lot of people are in jail on such an assumption; it comes up a lot if you follow such matters.

              As for the overall issue of whether it is NeoCon to have a low threshold of proof, no. No, I admit it is not NeoCon. Rather, in our modern AMerican society it is NeoCon, conservative, centrist, to hold that opinion. We don't have, for instance, a lot of totalitarian communists running around. Certainly Che Guevara executed hundreds of people on very slender evidence in many cases. And Stalin too of course.

              Totalitarianism is not law and order. Too little tolerance and compassion is to pass through the eye of the needle of justice into lawlessness. In 1984 nothing is illegal, because anything can be punished. The more broad or small the transgression required for punishment is, the closer we get to that degree of totalitarian lawless chaos. Authority acting to preserve "order" without restraint, without regard for the complexity of human nature, is lawlessness. Ultimately in such a society everyone can be found guilty of something or other and thus fealty to the power structure is the only safety; although in Stalinism and Naziism it was found that even exceptional prowess in one's actions, however loyal, could also be punished as these were their own kind of threat.

              These may not seem like legitimite concerns. Certainly a lot of Americans don't recognize how we are verging on this. They don't recognize that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were only two people, and that hundreds internationally and thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan have been subject to even worse injustice because it has been covert. At least what happened to the Rosenbergs happened in broad daylight so that the nation could take note and correct the course. The same unfortunately cannot be said of lots of executions and ongoing imprisonment in the face of new evidence because black people are invisible to much of our society.

              It is for these reasons that I support a standard of proof. Upon its founding this country agreed that governemnt oppression was the worse danger than some crime going unpunished. Really! It's a fact look it up. The current drift away from reasonable standards of proof, toward punishing sentiment is unamerican. I hope you can see that.

              9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

              by NewDirection on Sat Dec 10, 2005 at 12:39:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site