Comment by mongo — July 31, 2007 @ 6:29 pm”

Well, what do you know:

“CNN.com: U.S., Iraqi death tolls head in opposite directions

The U.S. troop death toll in Iraq for July — which rose to 73 on Tuesday — is the lowest monthly total since November, reflecting military hopes that the recent troop buildup is making strides.

However, the figure is nearly twice as high as in the same month last year, while Iraqi military and civilian fatalities jumped in July.”

What an awful thing to be right about, however….

It also tends to explain the noticable decrease in monthly casualties compared to the last three months.

I’ll bet there’s an inverse relationship between the number of US casualties and the number of iraqi civilian deaths–i.e., as the US stands down troops (and increases usage of air power), more iraqis fall down.

They dropped 437 bombs and missiles in Iraq in the first half of 2007, compared to 86 in the first half of 2006. This is also three times more than in the second half of 2006, according to Air Force data.

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/iraq/000619.php#more

Comment by paul”

I’m not sure where you’re getting your ideas from, other than from those illiberals you hang out with.

You seem to be betraying your own fear here–that is, it would be offensive to *you*, a non-liberal, that a message you would tune out on is being delivered to others.

Now, if alot of people besides me decide we all dislike Rush, we all will avoid his advertizers. We’ve just conducted a disorganized boycott.

But if you organize the boycott, doesn’t it betray a fear of what’s being boycotted by the organizers. The presumption that the speech won’t die on its own. Is it offensive to liberals that a message is being delivered to others, although they have personally decided to tune out? If you are offended about others projecting their beliefs on you (i.e. the church) wouldn’t it apply to restricting access to others with dissenting views from your own?

Comment by paul — July 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm

It’s not about shutting down fee speech. If/when O’Liely loses his TV show, he can bloviate on a blog… it’s a matter of making it clear to advertisers that when they support something repugnant to you, you will no longer support them.

Boycotts are a way for a large group of like-minded people to express that they dislike the actions of a company. Let’s look at it from this angle.

I don’t support Rush Limbaugh. Personally, I can’t stand the StayPuff Marshmellow-Man’s pompus attitude. Now, suppose I find out that one of my favorite suppliers for consumer goods, say, Cat Toys International (a made up company, just in case. :P ), advertizes on Rush’s show. If they are advertizing on his show, then, indirectly, I’m paying for Rush’s bull.

I decide not to buy Cat Toy’s products.

Now, if alot of people besides me decide we all dislike Rush, we all will avoid his advertizers. We’ve just conducted a disorganized boycott. Somone realizes that we’re all on the same page. The boycott turns organized. Someone else says ‘I hate Rush’. We tell him that Cat Toys International funds him. He’s like, “I buy Cat Toy products!” We tell him “Well, you may hate him, but you’re supporting him.” He either joins us, or says, “It’s not that big of a deal.”

O’Reilly is free to say whatever bull he wants. We’re free not to pay for it. Capiche?

Comment by paul — July 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm

There should be some kind of fairness doctrine or something that guarantees free speech in the media.

If rosa parks and her supporters wanted fair treatment, they couldn’t just turn the channel. You can.

I’m not opposed to boycotts. I’m opposed to boycotts that have the sole purpose of shutting down free speech.

Doesn’t that signal a lack of confidence on the part of the boycott organizers? Shouldn’t people be allowed to decide for themselves?

Comment by paul — July 31, 2007 @ 3:08 pm

What is your opinion of the ‘Montgomery Bus Boycott’ in response to Rosa Parks’ arrest?

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

Why aren’t the US TROOPS in Afghanistan, going after Bin Laden, instead of in Iraq, dying for OIL COMPANIES? Oh, right, Bush LIED….

What freedoms have you lost?

Habeas Corpus, Illegal spying, etc…

If your losing freedoms why not fight for them?

We ARE. Bush and Cheney need to HANG for WAR CRIMES…

If you aren’t posting this from Iraq, go Cheney yourself – hypocrite.

Congress: Is there progress in Iraq?

Mullen: No.

Congress: By being in Iraq how does this affect the terrorist situation?

Mullen: It’s making them stronger.

Congress: Should we leave now?

Mullen: No, we should stay years.

Congress: But you said that if the situation didn’t improve and actually it is getting worse, and now you say we should stay? What up with that?

Mullen: I got my job and I’m a good little lackey. Next question.

I do not get this; in regards to free speech.

If you are boycotting, you are active attacking someones right to say what they want. If you disagree with someone on television; you can turn the channel. If you feel their message is wrong or harmful, and you sensibilities are commonly held, why wouldn’t you trust that other will come to the same conclusion. What you are advocating, is that people not be given the opportunity to make up their own minds. You want to decide what they should and shouldn’t be exposed too.

Doesn’t that signal a lack of confidence on the part of the boycott organizers? Shouldn’t people be allowed to decide for themselves?