tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458161926216714198.post6310765390843241926..comments2023-10-17T05:18:36.318-07:00Comments on <i>Watchdogs and Lapdogs</i>: The Hunt for Red OctoberM. Deryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09642995185292648416noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458161926216714198.post-72599525888416627752008-10-16T21:39:00.000-07:002008-10-16T21:39:00.000-07:00Fascinating post, bristling with sharply drawn opi...Fascinating post, bristling with sharply drawn opinions and supported by colorful quotes (headlines, mostly). I would have liked to have seen juicier, more substantial quotes from the opposing voices, and would have been curious to hear any bona fide socialists who APPROVE of the bailout <I>for socialist reasons</I>, as well as from any media critics who've tracked the use of red-baiting, Cold War 2.0 rhetoric on the business pages, in regard to the bailout. Also, you might have complexified your argument by noting the extent to which our allegedly "free" market is in fact government subsidized. (Two examples among many: the longstanding taxpayer subsidization, through noncompetitive gov't contracts, of the aerospace industry; periodic gov't infusions of cash to perform financial CPR on the chronically ailing commercial aviation industry.) As well, why not discuss the seemingly sacrosanct nature of free-market or "neoliberal" capitalism in American culture, and the newsmedia's seeming support for that orthodoxy? If socialism is so risibly impractical, so doomed to failure, what's to fear from a Marxian critique of capitalism? Shouldn't dissenting voices have a seat at the debate? Quoting media critics from the left press---Z magazine, Counterpunch, In These Times, The Nation, Mother Jones, Amy Goodman, The Progressive---would have sharpened the points of debate in your post.M. Deryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09642995185292648416noreply@blogger.com