Right-wing blogger condemns Amy Goodman to death

[Len Colby]

.

Your best post ever!

From the 'Jan, Steve and Kathy' thread:

I just voted and the results did not reflect my vote.

About what Id expect from someone so low as to post together quotes and unstated assumptions ( in the j'accusers head) to imply things dealing with violence about another member.

Sleaze. Period

I have no idea what you are rambling about. I accurately quoted your positions when you thought the condemnation was from a right-winger and when you found out it was from a “9/11 revisionist” (Barrett’s phraseology). The only people I “impl(ied) things dealing with violence” were Barrett and ‘Jackchit’ who aren’t members and Fetzer who is but isn’t you.

If you understood that I “impl(ied) things dealing with violence” relating to you, you misunderstood.

[Randy Downs]

So I guess it didn’t occur to any of you that Goodman hasn’t given 9/11 conspiracy theories more coverage is because like 64% of Americans she concluded they are “not very likely”. She’s in good company, only some infinitesimally small number of engineers, pilots, firemen and people who were there publicly question the overall 9/11 theory. Generally some minute fraction of a percent.

She has already done two programs on the subject, perhaps she should do programs with creationists, Holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and perpetual motion device ‘inventors’ as well.

Only a truther could classify her as “a licensed jester”. She already risked her like and was badly beaten for her coverage of a massacre of East Timorese by the Indonesian Army in 1991*. How many of those so quick to criticize her can say they’d risked their life for what they believe in? She doesn’t seem to shy away from any other story that would offend the powers that be. Are (were) Noah Chomsky, Ed Said, Ward Churchill, Alexander Cockburn, Norman Solomon etc etc licensed jesters as well?

David Rovics wrote an excellent take down of “left-gate keeper” nonsense.**

What I also found interesting was that Nathaniel thought the condemnation to death of Goodman “morally reprehensible” when he thought it came from a right-winger but only a “regrettable” albeit “inevitable” “outburst” when informed it actually came from a fellow truther. Why would it be less “morally reprehensible” , just because one agrees the person making the condemnation about the issue he disagreed with Goodman about?

This reminds me of when a truther on the Loose Change forum threatened to kill (or blind) Mark Roberts, a debunker. The response of Dylan Avery was to tell the guy were to find Roberts, the reaction of most posters was support. Those who voiced disagreement (all newbies) only did so because it was ‘bad for the cause’ not because it was “morally reprehensible”.

* http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_re...ence/nairn.html

http://www.etan.org/timor/SntaCRUZ.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/1997/11/12/mas...y_of_east_timor

** http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=69564

Well i used to see Democracy Now on Free Speech TV, i think Goodman does a good job of trying to get people involved in listening to independent media and ignoring corporate media. She seems to take a broad-based approach as opposed to the pinpoint focus of 1 particular subject.

There are other things going on the world than "9/11", and if people choose to focus elsewhere does NOT de facto mean "they agree with the party line"

She did 2 programs on 9/11? Really? What are they called Len? Where and when were they broadcast? What are they called 'cause i'd like to see them. And do you mean she aired someone else's program, or that everything in these programs came from her personally? There's a bit of a difference, you do understand that don't you?

YOU are going to bash Churchill and Solomon?? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Randy

[Len Colby]

Well i used to see Democracy Now on Free Speech TV, i think Goodman does a good job of trying to get people involved in listening to independent media and ignoring corporate media. She seems to take a broad-based approach as opposed to the pinpoint focus of 1 particular subject.

There are other things going on the world than "9/11", and if people choose to focus elsewhere does NOT de facto mean "they agree with the party line"

Since you missed the obvious I’ll explain it to you: the people who keep going on about Goodman towing the party line on 9/11 are truthers. Perhaps you should take Paul to task for calling her a “licensed jester”, a charge I defended her against, or fire off an indignant e-mail to Barrett who said she should be hung. Read the first transcript linked below Goodman seems a bit skeptical of the ‘the Pentagon was hit by a missile’ and CD theories.

She did 2 programs on 9/11? Really? What are they called Len? Where and when were they broadcast? What are they called 'cause i'd like to see them. And do you mean she aired someone else's program, or that everything in these programs came from her personally? There's a bit of a difference, you do understand that don't you?

Word to the wise before mouthing off like a fool, do minimal research to make sure you know what you’re talking about. Just over 4 years ago there was a debate between David Ray Griffin and Chip Berlet about 9/11 specifically the latter’s book “The New Pearl Harbor” on Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/26/the_...harbor_a_debate

On the fifth anniversary of the attacks the title of her show was “9/11 Debate: Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors of “Debunking 9/11 Myths””

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/9/11/excl...te_loose_change

Those were the 2 shows I was thinking about. They were broadcast years ago and have been widely discussed on “truther” sites, it’s hard to believe someone who claims to be a fan and claims to have looked into 9/11 was unaware of them. You could have found them though minimal effort (you have heard of Google right?). There were a couple of others:

9/11 Responders Speak Out on Government Failure to Address Environmental, Health Impact of World Trade Center Collapse

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/6/21/9_11...rs_speak_out_on

A couple of weeks ago she interviewed Gore Vidal who has been saying he thought ‘9/11 was an inside job’.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/14/lege...re_vidal_on_the

Again if you had bothered to do a rudimentary internet search you would have found them.

YOU are going to bash Churchill and Solomon?? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

If you understood that I was “bashing” any of the leftists I mentioned you really need to improve your reading comprehension. I respect most of them especially Solomon and Chomsky. Churchill however is an unscrupulous ‘sack of $#!t’ who has:

1. Lied about stuff as basic as his ethnic background and used such lies to advance his academic career presumably displacing a candidate who really was a Native American or a better qualified candidate who like him has no American Indian roots.
   
2. Called the people who worked at the WTC “little Eichmanns” and legitimate terrorist targets as opposed to “innocent” “civilians”
   
3. Submitted fraudulent research, the U of Colorado president and four university committee with a total of 23 members concluded unanimously he had committed academic misconduct though they disagreed on the appropriate punishment.
   

There is a good and amply documented Wikipedia page about him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

A prominent leftist who seems to have nothing but contempt for the “truth movement” is the inimitable Noam Chomsky he thinks it is a bunch of extremely “irrational” “hysterical” “gossip” mongers I imagine Barrett thinks he should be executed as well.

http://www.barrettforcongress.us/chomsky.htm

[Randy Downs]

"Word to the wise before mouthing off like a fool,"

Len, you should stand in front of mirror and say that.

Randy

[Len Colby]

"Word to the wise before mouthing off like a fool,"

Len, you should stand in front of mirror and say that.

Randy

Tell me that again when you can point to examples of me making repeated unfounded accusations against members of this forum based on my ignorance, inability/unwillingness to verify the facts and/or reading comprehension errors. Speaking of the facts I’ve repeatedly shown you to be factually in eror, funny that you chose to avoid addressing those errors.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Once again the "truthers" are giving Amy Goodman grief, it seems some of them at Pacifica want to silence or at least intimidate her just because she doesn't believe in their theories regarding 9/11. Perhaps not coincidentally they cut funding for her show and changed its airtime.

From The Nation

The Paranoid Style at Pacifica

posted by Eyal Press on 10/22/2009 @ 4:20pm

In his Wall Street Journal column yesterday, Tom Frank paid homage to Richard Hofstadter's famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." As Frank noted, Birthers convinced that Barack Obama's birth certificate was forged in a plot to turn the United States into a fascist state are heirs to a long tradition of conspiracy thinking that has periodically flourished on the fringes of the American right.

But the paranoid style has seeped into some institutions on the left as well. For proof, look no further than a recent meeting of the Pacifica radio network's National Board, where a resolution was introduced that requires all programmers to disclose funding sources above $5,000. "The reason I created this motion," Chris Condon, a member of Pacifica's National Governance Committee, explained, "is because there has been a lot of debate about whether or not Amy Goodman has received CIA conduit foundation funding from the Ford Foundation and other places."

Amy Goodman is, of course, the co-host of Democracy Now!, an unabashedly progressive news program that airs on over 800 stations across the country. As anyone who has listened to even five minutes of the program knows, Goodman is about as likely to be on the payroll of the CIA as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky. She has probably devoted more airtime to dissecting the CIA's transgressions in the past decade than any other member of her profession.

No matter, the Governance Committee at Pacifica passed the resolution, a step taken to discover whether you-know-who has been funneling money to Goodman to cover up "the truth" about 9/11. "We'd like to know what kind of 9/11 coverage the Ford Foundation paid for," said Condon. "The whole issue of 9/11 and Amy Goodman has been ongoing for years and years and years."

The disquieting coverage was apparently just journalism, as when Goodman had the gumption to ask David Ray Griffin, a 9/11 Truther who appeared on her program several years ago, to name some engineers who supported the theory that passenger planes could not have brought down the Twin Towers. (The real cause was explosives set off by the attack's covert plotters, 9/11 Truthers allege.) When Griffin referred vaguely to the notes in his book, Goodman persisted: "Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down." "I'm sorry, I don't have that information at my fingertips," Griffin replied.

The suspicions about Goodman would be laughable were they not coming from board members at an independent radio network with a proud history of promoting progressive dialogue and dissent. Pacifica was founded by conscientious objectors a half-century ago and has stations in some of the largest markets (New York, Los Angeles, Washington) in the country. In the late 1990s, some of the network's supporters fought off what they believed was an attempt by the National Board to standardize programming and soften its edge.

The struggle was successful, but the unintended consequence was to democratize Pacifica in a way that has ended up empowering many cranks. Instead of serving as a vibrant home for incisive programming that challenges the assumptions of mainstream debate, the network has fallen into the hands of sectarians and crackpots whose control over the Governance Committee may be strong but whose hold on reality appears tenuous.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/487369

From Counterpunch

Pacifica is behind in payments to Free Speech Radio News and Democracy Now. In just the month of July, WBAI (where the General Manager doubles as Pacifica’s Chief Financial Officer) was almost $50K over budget.

Under Aaron’s tenure, the stations have been under serious pressure to increase listenership and fundraising by offering miracle cures and 9/11 conspiracist DVDs as donor “thank you gifts”.

http://www.counterpunch.org/boal10062009.html

From Indybay

A proposed amendment which would have limited the policy to Pacifica's internal paid and unpaid programmers - exempting such syndicated programs as DN! and BBC World News - failed on a 4 to 4 tie vote, with Condon, O'Brien and Wanzala joined by George Reiter, another Aaron ally, in voting against. In further discussion, Condon revealed another goal of his resolution - to reduce funding of Democracy Now! - the network's most popular program - in future contract negotiations. During this discussion, no recognition was made of the fact that the program is, in actual dollars, the network's largest fundraiser. The resolution passed 5 to 4. It's full text is available at http://pacifica.org/documents/pnb091009agenda.htm under "Motion on Funding Disclosure."

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2009/10/230997.php

Truthers constantly complain about suppression of free speech but have few if any qualm about trying to restrict those with contrary views when they can.