Thursday - April 12, 2007
Documenting deception
Mark your calendar to watch PBS on
April
25th:
Bill Moyers has put together an amazing 90-minute video documenting the lies that the Bush administration told to sell the Iraq war to the American public, with a special focus on how the media led the charge. I've watched an advance copy and read a transcript, and the most important thing I can say about it is: Watch PBS from 9:00 to 10:30 PM on Wednesday, April 25. Spending that 90 minutes will actually save you time because you'll never watch television news again - not even on PBS, which comes in for its own share of criticism.
While a great many pundits, not to mention presidents, look remarkably stupid or dishonest in the four-year-old clips included in "Buying the War," it's hard to take any spiteful pleasure in holding them to account, and not just because the killing and dying they facilitated is ongoing, but also because of what this video reveals about the mindset of members of the DC media. Moyers interviews media personalities, including Dan Rather, who clearly both understand what the media did wrong and are unable to really see it as having been wrong or avoidable.
It's hard to see how he could document all the lies in a mere 90 minutes, especially because he spends some time recognizing the people who got it right. Still, it sounds like a must watch show.
Bill Moyers has put together an amazing 90-minute video documenting the lies that the Bush administration told to sell the Iraq war to the American public, with a special focus on how the media led the charge. I've watched an advance copy and read a transcript, and the most important thing I can say about it is: Watch PBS from 9:00 to 10:30 PM on Wednesday, April 25. Spending that 90 minutes will actually save you time because you'll never watch television news again - not even on PBS, which comes in for its own share of criticism.
While a great many pundits, not to mention presidents, look remarkably stupid or dishonest in the four-year-old clips included in "Buying the War," it's hard to take any spiteful pleasure in holding them to account, and not just because the killing and dying they facilitated is ongoing, but also because of what this video reveals about the mindset of members of the DC media. Moyers interviews media personalities, including Dan Rather, who clearly both understand what the media did wrong and are unable to really see it as having been wrong or avoidable.
It's hard to see how he could document all the lies in a mere 90 minutes, especially because he spends some time recognizing the people who got it right. Still, it sounds like a must watch show.
Monday - April 09, 2007
Inquiring minds want to know-what does Joe Lieberman think of Imus?
I was a regular Imus listener years ago, in those
palmy days when he was a more or less recovering drug addict who played rock n'
roll and had the Reverend Billy Sol Hargus on as a regular. Over the years, as
he ditched the music, brought on the politicians and the racism, and veered to
the right, I got disgusted and stopped listening. It has been a mystery to me
how he has gotten a free pass for this long. Apparently
he has now been so disgusting that even the corporate masters he enriches have
had to slap his wrist -a two week suspension for calling the entire
Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy headed 'hos". Lost in the obvious racism
is the fact that it is also incredibly sexist, in other words, typical Imus.
Over the years he has provided a forum for lots of politicians, eager to kiss his ass for the exposure he gives them. (You may recall I criticized Chris Dodd for picking Imus' show to announce his candidacy).
But this post isn't about Imus. It is a humble request to any Connecticut media type that might run across it. Call Connecticut's moralizing Junior Senator. Get him on record about this. Don't let him escape scrutiny. He's always passing judgment on our morals, sometimes on the Imus show, right there between Imus and the Henchmen's racist rants. If you don't ask him, he won't have to talk. Ask him if he'll be going back, once Imus has said his penance. (Hint to Don: It doesn't count without a sincere act of contrition)
Over the years he has provided a forum for lots of politicians, eager to kiss his ass for the exposure he gives them. (You may recall I criticized Chris Dodd for picking Imus' show to announce his candidacy).
But this post isn't about Imus. It is a humble request to any Connecticut media type that might run across it. Call Connecticut's moralizing Junior Senator. Get him on record about this. Don't let him escape scrutiny. He's always passing judgment on our morals, sometimes on the Imus show, right there between Imus and the Henchmen's racist rants. If you don't ask him, he won't have to talk. Ask him if he'll be going back, once Imus has said his penance. (Hint to Don: It doesn't count without a sincere act of contrition)
Monday - April 09, 2007
That's not so hard, is it
Following up on some recent posts about our local
media's failure to note Joe Lieberman's Iraq hypocrisy (some would say madness),
we see a textbook example from the Connecticut Post showing how it's done.
(Hugh
S. Bailey, Iraq finally looking up-again and
again):
He has to assume no one is paying attention. Otherwise, there's no way Joe Lieberman could maintain his record of dissembling, prevarication and misrepresentation he's been peddling about Iraq for the past four years.
His new statements flatly contradict his old ones. He tells us things are finally turning around — but he said that a year ago, and two years ago. He has no credibility left.
In a March 29 opinion piece in USA Today, Lieberman decried the idea of setting a date for troop withdrawal: "Just at the moment things are at last beginning to look up in Iraq, a narrow majority in Congress has decided that it's time to force our military to retreat."
Forget the ridiculous verbiage; this isn't a battle over territory, it's an occupation, and it's impossible to retreat when you hold no ground other than that on which you stand. The real problem here is that things were supposed to be looking up last July.
In the debate with Ned Lamont before the Democratic primary last year, Lieberman said this: "I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year," meaning 2006, "we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops, and by the end of next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home."
Also: "The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago."
...
Among the senator's more ingratiating habits is his constant name-dropping. Listen the next time he's on a Sunday-morning talk show how often he mentions his agreement with former media darling John McCain. Now his affections have moved on to Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the recently promoted leader of U.S. forces in Iraq. The mere mention of McCain or Petraeus is apparently supposed to put the sheen of credibility on even the most outrageous statement.
But his biggest offense is seeking to end debate on the most bitterly divisive issue in a generation. "General Petraeus says he will be able to see whether his plan is succeeding by the end of the summer. Let us declare a truce in the Washington war until then. For the next six months, let us instead come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security, " he says.
Just sit back and see what happens, he says — let people continue dying, let the country continue to spend billions of dollars each month. It's a profoundly unserious proposition to ask that Americans, four years into what was promised to be a quick and easy victory, would suddenly stop questioning just what in the world we're accomplishing over there. It defies every instinct of a democratic society.
Nothing that hasn't been said on every left to center oriented blog in this state, but something so hard to get the "responsible" Lieberman enablers to say. Congratulations, Mr. Bailey.
He has to assume no one is paying attention. Otherwise, there's no way Joe Lieberman could maintain his record of dissembling, prevarication and misrepresentation he's been peddling about Iraq for the past four years.
His new statements flatly contradict his old ones. He tells us things are finally turning around — but he said that a year ago, and two years ago. He has no credibility left.
In a March 29 opinion piece in USA Today, Lieberman decried the idea of setting a date for troop withdrawal: "Just at the moment things are at last beginning to look up in Iraq, a narrow majority in Congress has decided that it's time to force our military to retreat."
Forget the ridiculous verbiage; this isn't a battle over territory, it's an occupation, and it's impossible to retreat when you hold no ground other than that on which you stand. The real problem here is that things were supposed to be looking up last July.
In the debate with Ned Lamont before the Democratic primary last year, Lieberman said this: "I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year," meaning 2006, "we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops, and by the end of next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home."
Also: "The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago."
...
Among the senator's more ingratiating habits is his constant name-dropping. Listen the next time he's on a Sunday-morning talk show how often he mentions his agreement with former media darling John McCain. Now his affections have moved on to Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the recently promoted leader of U.S. forces in Iraq. The mere mention of McCain or Petraeus is apparently supposed to put the sheen of credibility on even the most outrageous statement.
But his biggest offense is seeking to end debate on the most bitterly divisive issue in a generation. "General Petraeus says he will be able to see whether his plan is succeeding by the end of the summer. Let us declare a truce in the Washington war until then. For the next six months, let us instead come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security, " he says.
Just sit back and see what happens, he says — let people continue dying, let the country continue to spend billions of dollars each month. It's a profoundly unserious proposition to ask that Americans, four years into what was promised to be a quick and easy victory, would suddenly stop questioning just what in the world we're accomplishing over there. It defies every instinct of a democratic society.
Nothing that hasn't been said on every left to center oriented blog in this state, but something so hard to get the "responsible" Lieberman enablers to say. Congratulations, Mr. Bailey.
Wednesday - April 04, 2007
Pelosi trip
It would seem to be a fundamental rule of
journalism that one of its primary roles is to expose official hypocrisy,
particularly that of those in high
places.
We get three newspapers every morning, which we attempt to speed read in the course of about half an hour. Today I looked at all three to see how they did on exposing Bush's hypocrisy on Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria. As you may know, according to him it endangers the Republic when a Congressperson talks to the Syrians. Somehow, though, the statement is inoperative when it comes to Republican Congresspeople, who have gone to Syria on similar trips with nary a presidential whimper.
Of the three papers, only the Day printed an article (from the Associated Press) that mentioned the fact:
Visiting neighboring Lebanon on Monday, Pelosi shrugged off White House criticism of her trip to Syria, noting that Republican lawmakers met Assad on Sunday without comment from the Bush administration.
The article in the Courant doesn't say a word about the Republican trips, even though its focus is more on the Presidential complaints than the article in the Day. The Courant's article is by another Associated Press writer.
The Times article also contains nary a mention of the Republican trips, but you'll have to take my word for it. The article has been edited since the morning paper was printed, so the web article actually does make note of the trips:
Even so, three Republican congressmen — Robert Aderholt of Alabama, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Frank Wolf of Virginia — visited Syria separately and met with Mr. Assad on Sunday. And a senior American diplomat, Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey, held talks in Damascus last month with Syrian officials about an influx of Iraqi refugees. Mr. Bush did not mention those visits in his remarks yesterday.
The web article lists the authors as Hassan Fattah and Graham Bowley, the print article lists only Mr. Fattah.
The Courant's website now has a number of news service articles that contain the information too.
For what it's worth, this is another indication that the internet has had a positive affect on news coverage. I'm too lazy to supply the links, but the reaction in the blogosphere was immediate and strong to the initial failure of the media to cover this obvious hypocrisy. There's no question in my mind but that the reaction was the cause for the changes to the article in the Times.
The hypocrisy, by the way, is even deeper than the fact that Bush didn't protest the Republican trips, he appeared to help arrange them.
We get three newspapers every morning, which we attempt to speed read in the course of about half an hour. Today I looked at all three to see how they did on exposing Bush's hypocrisy on Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria. As you may know, according to him it endangers the Republic when a Congressperson talks to the Syrians. Somehow, though, the statement is inoperative when it comes to Republican Congresspeople, who have gone to Syria on similar trips with nary a presidential whimper.
Of the three papers, only the Day printed an article (from the Associated Press) that mentioned the fact:
Visiting neighboring Lebanon on Monday, Pelosi shrugged off White House criticism of her trip to Syria, noting that Republican lawmakers met Assad on Sunday without comment from the Bush administration.
The article in the Courant doesn't say a word about the Republican trips, even though its focus is more on the Presidential complaints than the article in the Day. The Courant's article is by another Associated Press writer.
The Times article also contains nary a mention of the Republican trips, but you'll have to take my word for it. The article has been edited since the morning paper was printed, so the web article actually does make note of the trips:
Even so, three Republican congressmen — Robert Aderholt of Alabama, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Frank Wolf of Virginia — visited Syria separately and met with Mr. Assad on Sunday. And a senior American diplomat, Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey, held talks in Damascus last month with Syrian officials about an influx of Iraqi refugees. Mr. Bush did not mention those visits in his remarks yesterday.
The web article lists the authors as Hassan Fattah and Graham Bowley, the print article lists only Mr. Fattah.
The Courant's website now has a number of news service articles that contain the information too.
For what it's worth, this is another indication that the internet has had a positive affect on news coverage. I'm too lazy to supply the links, but the reaction in the blogosphere was immediate and strong to the initial failure of the media to cover this obvious hypocrisy. There's no question in my mind but that the reaction was the cause for the changes to the article in the Times.
The hypocrisy, by the way, is even deeper than the fact that Bush didn't protest the Republican trips, he appeared to help arrange them.
Wednesday - April 04, 2007
I'm sticking to my guns on this one
Lately, whenever I diss the Day I get an email
setting me straight, if straightening I need.
Yesterday I asked why the Day continues to put a D after Lieberman's name and taking it to task for not covering his post election turnabout on Iraq, and I got an email pointing me to this article about Joe and his relationship to top name Democrats. Unfortunately, it will cost you $2.25 to read it, but my correspondent sent the text in an email.
I don't think the article undermines my central points: First, that Lieberman is no longer a D, despite the wishful thinking of some of these people. (In one way or another, each person interviewed was vested in Lieberman prior to the election. Many supported him, implicitly or explicitly, against Lamont, and it's now difficult for them to acknowledge that they've been had. Not so with the rank and file) He is a self proclaimed independent and he should be denominated as such. No one calls Bernie Saunders a Democrat, though he's a more reliable member of the caucus.
In fact, the article supports the point:
Wasn't he sending a message to Democrats by refusing to back the party's presidential candidate, or swear that he would "die a Democrat," as he did to New York magazine while competing for the party's nomination in August?
"Yes, that's right," Lieberman said, "because that's where I'm enjoying being an independent. Parties are important in our country, but in some ways, for a lot of people, the party has become more important than the country."
The article doesn't undermine my second point either-that the Day has not sufficiently covered Lieberman's hypocrisy since the election.
All that being said, I will readily concede that there are folks at the Day that have tried their best, including the author of the referenced article.
Yesterday I asked why the Day continues to put a D after Lieberman's name and taking it to task for not covering his post election turnabout on Iraq, and I got an email pointing me to this article about Joe and his relationship to top name Democrats. Unfortunately, it will cost you $2.25 to read it, but my correspondent sent the text in an email.
I don't think the article undermines my central points: First, that Lieberman is no longer a D, despite the wishful thinking of some of these people. (In one way or another, each person interviewed was vested in Lieberman prior to the election. Many supported him, implicitly or explicitly, against Lamont, and it's now difficult for them to acknowledge that they've been had. Not so with the rank and file) He is a self proclaimed independent and he should be denominated as such. No one calls Bernie Saunders a Democrat, though he's a more reliable member of the caucus.
In fact, the article supports the point:
Wasn't he sending a message to Democrats by refusing to back the party's presidential candidate, or swear that he would "die a Democrat," as he did to New York magazine while competing for the party's nomination in August?
"Yes, that's right," Lieberman said, "because that's where I'm enjoying being an independent. Parties are important in our country, but in some ways, for a lot of people, the party has become more important than the country."
The article doesn't undermine my second point either-that the Day has not sufficiently covered Lieberman's hypocrisy since the election.
All that being said, I will readily concede that there are folks at the Day that have tried their best, including the author of the referenced article.
Tuesday - April 03, 2007
The Day gives Joe a D, we want it back
I don't know if they'll print it, and besides
this version has links:
To the Editor of the Day:
It comes as something of a surprise to me that the Day, a newspaper, doesn't keep up with the news.
If you check your archives, you will find that even the Day reported on the fact that Joseph Lieberman ran for the Senate last year as the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, thus revealing his true priorities for all the world to see. Since his election to the Senate on that ticket, he has let it be known that he prefers to be regarded as an Independent. We Democrats don't agree with Mr. Lieberman about much, but we agree with him about that.
I bring this to your attention since you erroneously referred to the Senator as a Democrat in an article on the 2nd. Most other news outlets have reluctantly stopped covering for the Senator, and have stopped calling him a Democrat. The Day appears to be the last holdout.
Perhaps I shouldn't fault the Day for being unaware of the Senator's preferences and the objective reality, since it has pretty much ignored his performance since the election. Still, being a newspaper and all, the Day might be interested to know that the Senator has taken several positions on the Iraq War since the election that are at variance with the positions that he took when he was shilling for votes. Most notable are his support for the Iraq escalation, at odds with his statement prior to the election that he foresaw a drawdown as early as this past December, and his recent statement that now, for the very first time, there is reason to be optimistic about Iraq, his constant optimism during the campaign notwithstanding. Come to think of it, the Day's readers might have been interested to know these things as well.
To the Editor of the Day:
It comes as something of a surprise to me that the Day, a newspaper, doesn't keep up with the news.
If you check your archives, you will find that even the Day reported on the fact that Joseph Lieberman ran for the Senate last year as the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, thus revealing his true priorities for all the world to see. Since his election to the Senate on that ticket, he has let it be known that he prefers to be regarded as an Independent. We Democrats don't agree with Mr. Lieberman about much, but we agree with him about that.
I bring this to your attention since you erroneously referred to the Senator as a Democrat in an article on the 2nd. Most other news outlets have reluctantly stopped covering for the Senator, and have stopped calling him a Democrat. The Day appears to be the last holdout.
Perhaps I shouldn't fault the Day for being unaware of the Senator's preferences and the objective reality, since it has pretty much ignored his performance since the election. Still, being a newspaper and all, the Day might be interested to know that the Senator has taken several positions on the Iraq War since the election that are at variance with the positions that he took when he was shilling for votes. Most notable are his support for the Iraq escalation, at odds with his statement prior to the election that he foresaw a drawdown as early as this past December, and his recent statement that now, for the very first time, there is reason to be optimistic about Iraq, his constant optimism during the campaign notwithstanding. Come to think of it, the Day's readers might have been interested to know these things as well.
Sunday - March 18, 2007
Will Beltway Democrats never learn?
Digby at Hullabaloo documents yet another example
of unfair and unbalanced reporting on Fox. This time it's Brit Hume
claiming that Valerie Plame lied about her role, or non-role, in sending her
husband to Niger.
It seems that the only Democrats that don't know that Fox is an arm of the Republican party live in Washington. Having successfully beaten back an attempt by the Nevada Democrats to allow Fox to host a presidential debate, the "base" (meaning most Democrats that don't live in Washington) are once again faced with the task of trying to get Beltway Democrats to stop conferring legitimacy on Fox.
This time it's the Congressional Black Caucus, which despite protests, continues to negotiate with Fox to hold a debate on that network. You can add your voice to other protesters here. This is doubly troubling because not only has Fox made a habit of libeling Democrats, it has also been part of the current right wing attempts to legitimize racism. Some of its history is documented at the link above. For instance:
It seems that the only Democrats that don't know that Fox is an arm of the Republican party live in Washington. Having successfully beaten back an attempt by the Nevada Democrats to allow Fox to host a presidential debate, the "base" (meaning most Democrats that don't live in Washington) are once again faced with the task of trying to get Beltway Democrats to stop conferring legitimacy on Fox.
This time it's the Congressional Black Caucus, which despite protests, continues to negotiate with Fox to hold a debate on that network. You can add your voice to other protesters here. This is doubly troubling because not only has Fox made a habit of libeling Democrats, it has also been part of the current right wing attempts to legitimize racism. Some of its history is documented at the link above. For instance:
• Commenting on Hannity &
Colmes about the speakers at Coretta Scott King's funeral, featured guest Mary
Matalin said, "I think these civil rights leaders are nothing more than racists"
who are keeping "their African-American brothers enslaved."
• Jesse Lee Peterson, a regular
guest who is Black said: "Kwanzaa is a racist, pagan, Marxist holiday" and then
claimed that the "so-called seven principles of Kwanzaa are socialist, Marxist,
separatist ideas... if a white man started a white holiday, seven-day white
holiday, black folks would be burning down America."
• Erik Rush, another Black guest,
labeled Sen. Obama's church as cultish and separatist for espousing values of
black unity and black empowerment (Fox regularly selects Black guests it knows
will undermine Black causes). Rush said he replaced the word "black" with
"white" in the church's mission statement and "Suddenly, I was looking at this
really scary doctrine. You know, it was something that you'd see in more like a
cult or an Aryan Brethren church… I would go beyond saying they're
Afrocentric. They're African centric. They refer to themselves as an African
people and that somewhat disturbs me from the viewpoint of well, do they
consider themselves Americans? Do they consider themselves Christians?"
• On The Big Story, John Gibson,
warned viewers that nearly half of all children under the age of five in the
United States are minorities. "You know what that means? Twenty-five years and
the majority of the population is Hispanic." He then urged viewers to "do your
duty. Make more babies." He later repeated: "To put it bluntly, we need more
babies."
More white babies, that is. Obama has already stopped giving interviews on Fox. If he were to announce that he wouldn't participate in this debate, it's hard to see how the Black Caucus could go on with these negotiations. It would have to be embarassing to the Black Caucus to hold a debate with the only black candidate boycotting.
Friday - March 09, 2007
Getting rich in the new media
Blogger
Colleen Caldwell has made over $7,000.00 pushing various products on her
blog. Per
example:
"Has anyone out there read a book called 'The Ultimate Gift'? I just heard that a movie is being made of the book (which sold 4 million copies)," she wrote in a recent post on her site, Simple Kind of Life.
The 30-year-old software analyst from Brooksville, Fla., went on to praise the inspirational message of the Fox Faith film, which opens today, about a trust fund baby who discovers the joy of giving. Caldwell noted that each member of the opening-weekend audience was being allowed to direct a dollar of the ticket price to a charity of the filmgoer's choice.
One thing Caldwell didn't mention: She was paid $12 to build buzz about the movie's opening and the charitable campaign — bringing her blogging-for-dollars take to more than $7,700.
When I read this I was enormously depressed. No one has ever offered me a dime to shill for a product. Heck, I'd push that film for $10.00 but no one even asked.
Just kidding, of course. It would take at least twice that much money to get me to compromise my principles.
But the fact that I haven't had any offers isn't what got me depressed. It's the limited opportunities for corruption that the world of blogging offers. At $12.00 a pop, it took Colleen about 641 posts to earn that $7,700.00. Is that the best I can hope for if I turn pro? That's a year's worth of posts.
Contrast that with the opportunities open in the old media. You can, for instance, sell yourself outright, by writing posts, (or "columns" as they're called) that are bought and paid for, like Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus (thanks to Center for Media and Democracy for the links). Unfortunately, that can cause some problems if and when you get caught. Still, the money's fairly good and if you're doing it from the right side of the spectrum, and you're smart about it, you might suffer no ill consequences if you're exposed.
But even that's chickenfeed compared to the opportunities to make money for giving speeches to groups about whom you write or report. Why you can pull down $50,000.00 for one speech, with no express quid pro quo (but plenty of wink winks). It would take Colleen over 4000 posts to pull down that much money.
It's hard work making money in the blog world. Of course I would never think of taking the money. Look at the sidebar: no ads. I simply refuse to run them. Though, there are times, as I sit at my incredibly great Mac computer, downloading pictures for my blog from my first rate, highly dependable Canon camera or scanning them from my equally super Canon scanner, and saving them to my hardworking, high capacity Seagate hard drive, which has never let me down, or printing drafts onto my Brother printer, which attached to my Linksys network with incredible ease, (all of which I highly recommend) that I envy folks like Coleen, Armstrong and Cokie. If only I weren't so principled.
"Has anyone out there read a book called 'The Ultimate Gift'? I just heard that a movie is being made of the book (which sold 4 million copies)," she wrote in a recent post on her site, Simple Kind of Life.
The 30-year-old software analyst from Brooksville, Fla., went on to praise the inspirational message of the Fox Faith film, which opens today, about a trust fund baby who discovers the joy of giving. Caldwell noted that each member of the opening-weekend audience was being allowed to direct a dollar of the ticket price to a charity of the filmgoer's choice.
One thing Caldwell didn't mention: She was paid $12 to build buzz about the movie's opening and the charitable campaign — bringing her blogging-for-dollars take to more than $7,700.
When I read this I was enormously depressed. No one has ever offered me a dime to shill for a product. Heck, I'd push that film for $10.00 but no one even asked.
Just kidding, of course. It would take at least twice that much money to get me to compromise my principles.
But the fact that I haven't had any offers isn't what got me depressed. It's the limited opportunities for corruption that the world of blogging offers. At $12.00 a pop, it took Colleen about 641 posts to earn that $7,700.00. Is that the best I can hope for if I turn pro? That's a year's worth of posts.
Contrast that with the opportunities open in the old media. You can, for instance, sell yourself outright, by writing posts, (or "columns" as they're called) that are bought and paid for, like Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus (thanks to Center for Media and Democracy for the links). Unfortunately, that can cause some problems if and when you get caught. Still, the money's fairly good and if you're doing it from the right side of the spectrum, and you're smart about it, you might suffer no ill consequences if you're exposed.
But even that's chickenfeed compared to the opportunities to make money for giving speeches to groups about whom you write or report. Why you can pull down $50,000.00 for one speech, with no express quid pro quo (but plenty of wink winks). It would take Colleen over 4000 posts to pull down that much money.
It's hard work making money in the blog world. Of course I would never think of taking the money. Look at the sidebar: no ads. I simply refuse to run them. Though, there are times, as I sit at my incredibly great Mac computer, downloading pictures for my blog from my first rate, highly dependable Canon camera or scanning them from my equally super Canon scanner, and saving them to my hardworking, high capacity Seagate hard drive, which has never let me down, or printing drafts onto my Brother printer, which attached to my Linksys network with incredible ease, (all of which I highly recommend) that I envy folks like Coleen, Armstrong and Cokie. If only I weren't so principled.
Tuesday - March 06, 2007
Changes at the Day
I have at times been quite critical of the New
London Day, partly because I was so impressed with the quality of the paper
before its precipitous decline in the days of its now departed right wing
managing editor (I think that was his title). That decline has been arrested,
and it really has improved of late. Even at its worst, it was never anywhere
near as bad as the poor Norwich Bulletin, which has been reduced by the Gannett
chain into a rag so worthless it is, despite the best efforts of some good
people on staff, hardly worth
mocking.
So it was with some sadness that I learned today that some of the people at the Day whose names have graced its pages for many years will be accepting a buyout and leaving the paper. It is also with some jealousy-I wish someone would buy me out.
Several are going, but I've had personal contact with two that I want to mention especially.
I hate to see Steve Slosberg go for a number of reasons. First, I consider him my contemporary, so his retirement makes me that much more aware of my own advancing years. Second, the Day will no doubt no longer be chronicling the adventures of the Brook Street Monkey. Finally, of course, I think most of us will miss Steve's columns. He's a good writer and a nice guy. I certainly hope he sticks around, and if he gets bored he can always start a blog.
Greg Stone will be leaving as well. Greg reads this blog on occasion, and despite the fact that some of my barbs have been sent his way (presumably anyway, since the editorials are unsigned) he has never responded in anger and has, in fact, been quite nice about it. He's a good journalist, despite anything I may have said to the contrary.
I must admit, however, that I searched the article in vain for a name that I must presume was high on the wish list of those that extended the buy out offer. I read it once, I read it twice, I read it thrice, but that name (which I shall not state here) does not appear. My amazement made me wax poetic, as I blurted out:
By all that is holy!
Where is J___ F_____?
So it was with some sadness that I learned today that some of the people at the Day whose names have graced its pages for many years will be accepting a buyout and leaving the paper. It is also with some jealousy-I wish someone would buy me out.
Several are going, but I've had personal contact with two that I want to mention especially.
I hate to see Steve Slosberg go for a number of reasons. First, I consider him my contemporary, so his retirement makes me that much more aware of my own advancing years. Second, the Day will no doubt no longer be chronicling the adventures of the Brook Street Monkey. Finally, of course, I think most of us will miss Steve's columns. He's a good writer and a nice guy. I certainly hope he sticks around, and if he gets bored he can always start a blog.
Greg Stone will be leaving as well. Greg reads this blog on occasion, and despite the fact that some of my barbs have been sent his way (presumably anyway, since the editorials are unsigned) he has never responded in anger and has, in fact, been quite nice about it. He's a good journalist, despite anything I may have said to the contrary.
I must admit, however, that I searched the article in vain for a name that I must presume was high on the wish list of those that extended the buy out offer. I read it once, I read it twice, I read it thrice, but that name (which I shall not state here) does not appear. My amazement made me wax poetic, as I blurted out:
By all that is holy!
Where is J___ F_____?
Thursday - February 22, 2007
The Mystic River Press and the Search for Meaning
Each week the postperson hereabouts inflicts not
one, but two, free community newspapers on us innocent Grotonites. Both the
Mystic River
Press and the
Groton
Times share the defect of poor editing,
manifested in almost every article by atrocious grammatical slips. But the
Mystic River
Press has one thing the
Times
doesn't have, an editorial cartoonist that I will have the courtesy not to
attempt to name.
I reproduce below the latest cartoon. I defy anyone to explain it.
Now, I overlook the fact that Diana Urban, a member of the House of Representatives, has no senatorial hat to doff. Even bloggers make mistakes, so why not cartoonists. But what is "cognitive perusal"? (There are exactly zero Google hits where the words are paired. This post will probably shoot to the top of that particular search) What does Donald Trump have to do with whatever the subject of this cartoon happens to be? And finally, what is the subject of this cartoon?
Lest you think this is an anomaly, I hereby confess that I have yet to understand a single cartoon from the pen of this person who shall remain unnamed. In those rare instances that a cartoon refers to some recognizable event or issue, I have never yet been able to glean the point the cartoonist is trying to make about said event or issue. But I pair with these admissions the assertion that no living being could make any more sense of these cartoons than I.
Perspicacious readers might note that I am a fan of Zippy comics, which is often every bit as incomprehensible. This I admit, but I deny the comparison. Zippy operates at a subconscious level, and at at that level, he makes sense, or at least rings true. This stuff isn't deep enough to operate at that level. It is not inspired nonsense. It simply makes no sense.
I reproduce below the latest cartoon. I defy anyone to explain it.
Now, I overlook the fact that Diana Urban, a member of the House of Representatives, has no senatorial hat to doff. Even bloggers make mistakes, so why not cartoonists. But what is "cognitive perusal"? (There are exactly zero Google hits where the words are paired. This post will probably shoot to the top of that particular search) What does Donald Trump have to do with whatever the subject of this cartoon happens to be? And finally, what is the subject of this cartoon?
Lest you think this is an anomaly, I hereby confess that I have yet to understand a single cartoon from the pen of this person who shall remain unnamed. In those rare instances that a cartoon refers to some recognizable event or issue, I have never yet been able to glean the point the cartoonist is trying to make about said event or issue. But I pair with these admissions the assertion that no living being could make any more sense of these cartoons than I.
Perspicacious readers might note that I am a fan of Zippy comics, which is often every bit as incomprehensible. This I admit, but I deny the comparison. Zippy operates at a subconscious level, and at at that level, he makes sense, or at least rings true. This stuff isn't deep enough to operate at that level. It is not inspired nonsense. It simply makes no sense.
Sunday - February 18, 2007
Our malleable past
A certain segment of the media seems to live in
the ever present. The past is down the memory hole, and they are unable to cope
with the idea that, all things being in flux, the state of things at the moment
is by its nature impermanent.
Today' s lesson is about the former tendency, the predilection of certain reporters to shape the past to fit their preconceived notions of what it must have been, in order to make it fit within whatever narrative they are trying to push today. In today's Times, Patrick Healy continues his assault on Hillary Clinton, this time concentrating on her position with regard to the Iraq war, and her refusal to "apologize" (something virtually no one is asking her to do, we would like her to admit she made a mistake) for her vote to license Bush to start the war. I'm not going to go into the merits or demerits of her position. Healy accuses her of trying to avoid the flip-flop charge, and he includes this paragraph in the story:
In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry’s when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force. (Emphasis mine)
I read this paragraph shortly after I woke up, but as bleary eyed as I was, I was certain that there was something not quite right here. Off to Google, where I tried this search: "kerry iraq vote know now would different campaign". Here's the first paragraph from the first hit, (Findlaw, Kerry Stands by His Iraq Vote, by Michael C. Dorf, August 18, 2004):
Responding to a challenge from President Bush, last week Senator Kerry stated that even if he had known then what he knows now, he still would have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq in October 2002. (Emphasis mine)
Funny, what Kerry said seems to be 180° from what Clinton said. Kerry, in fact, fearing to flip flop, failed to flip flop at all, making himself look like a total idiot and saddling himself with a contradictory Iraq policy for the rest of the campaign. He should have said then what Hillary is saying now. It would have been sufficient then. Bear in mind he would have been lying, as is Hillary, because both of them knew then what they know now: that Bush and his cronies are pathological liars, that they were set on a course toward war and the vote, no matter how it was couched in cautionary language about seeking peace, would be viewed and would be used as a declaration of war. Finally, they knew or should have known that the case for war was weak or non-existent.
But I meander. If I could do this quite basic research, which took me all of twenty seconds, why was it beyond Healy's powers? Is the necessity for an overriding narrative so important to these people that they feel warranted to re-write the past in order to push that narrative? I know the Times must publish daily, and the press to get the story out is probably strong, but don't they make even a minimal attempt to check their facts?
Today' s lesson is about the former tendency, the predilection of certain reporters to shape the past to fit their preconceived notions of what it must have been, in order to make it fit within whatever narrative they are trying to push today. In today's Times, Patrick Healy continues his assault on Hillary Clinton, this time concentrating on her position with regard to the Iraq war, and her refusal to "apologize" (something virtually no one is asking her to do, we would like her to admit she made a mistake) for her vote to license Bush to start the war. I'm not going to go into the merits or demerits of her position. Healy accuses her of trying to avoid the flip-flop charge, and he includes this paragraph in the story:
In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry’s when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force. (Emphasis mine)
I read this paragraph shortly after I woke up, but as bleary eyed as I was, I was certain that there was something not quite right here. Off to Google, where I tried this search: "kerry iraq vote know now would different campaign". Here's the first paragraph from the first hit, (Findlaw, Kerry Stands by His Iraq Vote, by Michael C. Dorf, August 18, 2004):
Responding to a challenge from President Bush, last week Senator Kerry stated that even if he had known then what he knows now, he still would have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq in October 2002. (Emphasis mine)
Funny, what Kerry said seems to be 180° from what Clinton said. Kerry, in fact, fearing to flip flop, failed to flip flop at all, making himself look like a total idiot and saddling himself with a contradictory Iraq policy for the rest of the campaign. He should have said then what Hillary is saying now. It would have been sufficient then. Bear in mind he would have been lying, as is Hillary, because both of them knew then what they know now: that Bush and his cronies are pathological liars, that they were set on a course toward war and the vote, no matter how it was couched in cautionary language about seeking peace, would be viewed and would be used as a declaration of war. Finally, they knew or should have known that the case for war was weak or non-existent.
But I meander. If I could do this quite basic research, which took me all of twenty seconds, why was it beyond Healy's powers? Is the necessity for an overriding narrative so important to these people that they feel warranted to re-write the past in order to push that narrative? I know the Times must publish daily, and the press to get the story out is probably strong, but don't they make even a minimal attempt to check their facts?
Saturday - February 17, 2007
Welcome changes at the Day's website
Hat tip to the Day for improvement to its
websites. It appears to have cleaned up its "Print Page" function. I use that
function a lot, because I like to clip articles to computer notebooks, and the
"Print" pages work better. The Day's have hitherto contained annoying boxed
links. Those are gone, and good riddance. Not only that, it looks like the Day
has ended the annoying requirement that you log in to look at any article more
than a day old.
Friday - February 02, 2007
Miss Molly
Both Paul
Krugman and Jim
Shea pay tribute to Molly Ivins this morning, and both single out the
same attribute for praise: her courage. Here's Krugman, after pointing out how
prescient she was about
Iraq:
Was Molly smarter than all the experts? No, she was just braver. The administration’s exploitation of 9/11 created an environment in which it took a lot of courage to see and say the obvious.
Molly had that courage; not enough others can say the same.
And Shea, along the same lines:
It wasn't so much what she wrote about George W. Bush that distinguished her; it was when she did it.
There was a time in this country after the start of the Iraq war when it was very uncomfortable to publicly criticize the president and his policies, and those who did so were often attacked and labeled unpatriotic. Remember the Dixie Chicks?
While much of the mainstream media cowered on the sidelines during this time, Ivins remained fearless and passionate and loud.
That is what I will always remember about her.
Was Molly smarter than all the experts? No, she was just braver. The administration’s exploitation of 9/11 created an environment in which it took a lot of courage to see and say the obvious.
Molly had that courage; not enough others can say the same.
And Shea, along the same lines:
It wasn't so much what she wrote about George W. Bush that distinguished her; it was when she did it.
There was a time in this country after the start of the Iraq war when it was very uncomfortable to publicly criticize the president and his policies, and those who did so were often attacked and labeled unpatriotic. Remember the Dixie Chicks?
While much of the mainstream media cowered on the sidelines during this time, Ivins remained fearless and passionate and loud.
That is what I will always remember about her.
Friday - February 02, 2007
The Day Explains Itself
Recently the New London Day has been barraged
with letters taking it to task for printing all the facts about a recent auto
accident involving several fatalities. Some readers apparently felt it was
inappropriate for the Day to mention that the teenage driver of one car was
driving illegally. I won't go into the reasons readers complained. I didn't read
the letters, and I'm certainly not going to go to the trouble of doing so. I
have quite enough trouble trying to digest the irrationality coming out of
Washington. I don't need the home grown variety for
dessert.
Nonetheless, I write to defend the readers. They have every right to expect the Day to shield them from unpleasant facts, something the Day has done for them for years. A person who got his or her news solely from the Day would be blissfully unaware, for instance, that the Senator they voted for at the Day's suggestion has gone back on his campaign promise to investigate the Katrina fiasco, not to mention his assertion that it was unnecessary to send additional troops to Iraq (I could go on, but the horse is dead).
Of course it's not only about Joe. For years the Day kept that same reader similarly unaware of Rob Simmons voting record and, right at this very instant,that same reader is, at best, but dimly aware of the approaching war with Iran. It is also my understanding, from very reliable sources, that the Day felt it to be its duty to shield the people of New London County from its knowledge that Joe Gentile was a scam artist, until something went wrong at the very last minute.
It stands to reason, then, that the Day's readers should be offended when the paper has the effrontery to rub their noses in unpleasant facts. They just aren't used to it. Needless to say the Day, through the person of its executive editor, Lance Johnson, felt it necessary to explain or justify this startling breach of journalistic ethics.
Mr. Johnson certainly had an obligation to account for his paper's actions. I haven't bothered to actually read his column, because that's not important. The point is, he disappointed his readers and they have a right to an explanation. When a newspaper does something as absurd as report the facts, complaining readers should be assuaged. As to those who complain when the Day fails to report the facts (e.g., see Lieberman, Joe, above), that's a different story. Such troublemakers deserve only the brush-off, and believe me that's all they get. You won't catch Mr. Johnson explaining the Day's actions to them.
Nonetheless, I write to defend the readers. They have every right to expect the Day to shield them from unpleasant facts, something the Day has done for them for years. A person who got his or her news solely from the Day would be blissfully unaware, for instance, that the Senator they voted for at the Day's suggestion has gone back on his campaign promise to investigate the Katrina fiasco, not to mention his assertion that it was unnecessary to send additional troops to Iraq (I could go on, but the horse is dead).
Of course it's not only about Joe. For years the Day kept that same reader similarly unaware of Rob Simmons voting record and, right at this very instant,that same reader is, at best, but dimly aware of the approaching war with Iran. It is also my understanding, from very reliable sources, that the Day felt it to be its duty to shield the people of New London County from its knowledge that Joe Gentile was a scam artist, until something went wrong at the very last minute.
It stands to reason, then, that the Day's readers should be offended when the paper has the effrontery to rub their noses in unpleasant facts. They just aren't used to it. Needless to say the Day, through the person of its executive editor, Lance Johnson, felt it necessary to explain or justify this startling breach of journalistic ethics.
Mr. Johnson certainly had an obligation to account for his paper's actions. I haven't bothered to actually read his column, because that's not important. The point is, he disappointed his readers and they have a right to an explanation. When a newspaper does something as absurd as report the facts, complaining readers should be assuaged. As to those who complain when the Day fails to report the facts (e.g., see Lieberman, Joe, above), that's a different story. Such troublemakers deserve only the brush-off, and believe me that's all they get. You won't catch Mr. Johnson explaining the Day's actions to them.
Sunday - January 28, 2007
Todays' Word
Disingenuous: Not straightforward or
candid; insincere or calculating; Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated.
(American Heritage Dictionary).
For some reason this word came to mind when I read a Letter to the Editor in this morning's Day:
When Will The Day Hold Lieberman To Task?
I have observed for many months the oft-repeated anguish of The Day's editorial board — most recently with the editorial titled “It's the war, stupid,” published Jan. 23 — with regard to President George W. Bush's policies in Iraq. I've followed with great interest The Day's repeated concerns, decrying the horror and misguided-ness of this president's foreign policy.
That that policy is the No. 1 issue — bar none — and has been for several years seems to be beyond question. And yet, who is the No. 1 cheerleader for this war? None other than The Day's enthusiastically endorsed Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.
But nowhere can be found an editorial comment holding Sen. Lieberman to task for his pushing aside the Lieberman pledge to investigate the devastating government reaction to Katrina — a major American tragedy. Instead, Sen. Lieberman uses his Connecticut senator seat to pursue with great vigor the support, not only of the war in Iraq, but its escalation.
Nowhere can be found a single concern from The Day regarding Sen. Lieberman's Washington Post reprint supporting the escalation; an escalation that The Day condemns regularly. But The Day editorial board must be aware of this omission. The Day cannot even bring itself to assign the appropriate I (Independent) to Sen. Lieberman and continues with the erroneous D (Democrat).
It remains for The Day to hold the man whom they supported with not a modicum of concern — the most ardent and vocal supporter of a horrific tragedy in Iraq and the booster to spread that war to Iran — to account. Not to is the height of hypocrisy.
Art Costa
New London
What's disingenuous about this letter, you might ask. Nothing, actually. Here's the disingenuous part: the brief response from the Day:
Editor's note: Sen. Joseph Lieberman is registered as a member of the Democratic Party.
For some reason this word came to mind when I read a Letter to the Editor in this morning's Day:
When Will The Day Hold Lieberman To Task?
I have observed for many months the oft-repeated anguish of The Day's editorial board — most recently with the editorial titled “It's the war, stupid,” published Jan. 23 — with regard to President George W. Bush's policies in Iraq. I've followed with great interest The Day's repeated concerns, decrying the horror and misguided-ness of this president's foreign policy.
That that policy is the No. 1 issue — bar none — and has been for several years seems to be beyond question. And yet, who is the No. 1 cheerleader for this war? None other than The Day's enthusiastically endorsed Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.
But nowhere can be found an editorial comment holding Sen. Lieberman to task for his pushing aside the Lieberman pledge to investigate the devastating government reaction to Katrina — a major American tragedy. Instead, Sen. Lieberman uses his Connecticut senator seat to pursue with great vigor the support, not only of the war in Iraq, but its escalation.
Nowhere can be found a single concern from The Day regarding Sen. Lieberman's Washington Post reprint supporting the escalation; an escalation that The Day condemns regularly. But The Day editorial board must be aware of this omission. The Day cannot even bring itself to assign the appropriate I (Independent) to Sen. Lieberman and continues with the erroneous D (Democrat).
It remains for The Day to hold the man whom they supported with not a modicum of concern — the most ardent and vocal supporter of a horrific tragedy in Iraq and the booster to spread that war to Iran — to account. Not to is the height of hypocrisy.
Art Costa
New London
What's disingenuous about this letter, you might ask. Nothing, actually. Here's the disingenuous part: the brief response from the Day:
Editor's note: Sen. Joseph Lieberman is registered as a member of the Democratic Party.
Friday - January 26, 2007
A job well done
I am currently reading a biography of Benjamin
Franklin, the brother of the first man to start a newspaper in what is now the
United States, and a perhaps the founder of the first media conglomerate in the
country.
Ben had this to say about the job of the journalist:
Printers are educated in the belief that when men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public; and that when Truth and Error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter.
One must wonder if the venerable deist would maintain that position if he had a chance to observe today's media, which has internalized this maxim to an extent that the very practical BF would have found amazing. He was not the sort of man that suffered fools gladly, so it is hard to believe he would have given space to someone who believed, for instance, that one and one did not make two. For some questions, two sides is simply one side too many, and giving the demonstrably false equal status with the demonstrable truth (as inconvenient as that truth might be) simply advances the cause of error. (This is not the time or the place to get sidetracked with a discussion of how it would have been nice had the press followed Ben's maxim in the run up to war).
I have condemned the tendency of our media to play a story as if both sides of every "controversy" are entitled to equal consideration, without pointing out that one side is demonstrably and clearly wrong. Fairness therefore compels me to salute one Blaine Harden of the Washington Post, for not falling into this equivalency trap. His article Global-Warming Film Sparks Ire, (re-printed in this morning's Courant) tells the story of a fundamentalist yahoo in Federal Way, Washington who objected to his daughter being exposed to Al Gore's movie. His fellow yahoos on the school board banned the movie, but relented after being bombarded with emails, calls and letters. They used the standard dodge: they weren't banning the movie, they just wanted to make sure the kiddies were exposed to both sides of the controversy:
What the school board had intended to do, Larson and school board members insisted, was not to stop schools from teaching the science of global warming, but merely to follow long-standing school board rules that require students to be exposed to "other perspectives" when they view a film like "An Inconvenient Truth."
"We do not need to lose balance in order to save the Earth," Larson said.
But Harden was having none of it:
Exactly what "balance" might amount to, however, was not spelled out.
The National Academy of Sciences, together with nearly all of the world's leading climate experts, have agreed that there is conclusive evidence that human activity is causing the Earth to warm and that there is an urgent need to reduce the amount of carbon being released into the air.
Give that man a Pulitzer.
Ben had this to say about the job of the journalist:
Printers are educated in the belief that when men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public; and that when Truth and Error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter.
One must wonder if the venerable deist would maintain that position if he had a chance to observe today's media, which has internalized this maxim to an extent that the very practical BF would have found amazing. He was not the sort of man that suffered fools gladly, so it is hard to believe he would have given space to someone who believed, for instance, that one and one did not make two. For some questions, two sides is simply one side too many, and giving the demonstrably false equal status with the demonstrable truth (as inconvenient as that truth might be) simply advances the cause of error. (This is not the time or the place to get sidetracked with a discussion of how it would have been nice had the press followed Ben's maxim in the run up to war).
I have condemned the tendency of our media to play a story as if both sides of every "controversy" are entitled to equal consideration, without pointing out that one side is demonstrably and clearly wrong. Fairness therefore compels me to salute one Blaine Harden of the Washington Post, for not falling into this equivalency trap. His article Global-Warming Film Sparks Ire, (re-printed in this morning's Courant) tells the story of a fundamentalist yahoo in Federal Way, Washington who objected to his daughter being exposed to Al Gore's movie. His fellow yahoos on the school board banned the movie, but relented after being bombarded with emails, calls and letters. They used the standard dodge: they weren't banning the movie, they just wanted to make sure the kiddies were exposed to both sides of the controversy:
What the school board had intended to do, Larson and school board members insisted, was not to stop schools from teaching the science of global warming, but merely to follow long-standing school board rules that require students to be exposed to "other perspectives" when they view a film like "An Inconvenient Truth."
"We do not need to lose balance in order to save the Earth," Larson said.
But Harden was having none of it:
Exactly what "balance" might amount to, however, was not spelled out.
The National Academy of Sciences, together with nearly all of the world's leading climate experts, have agreed that there is conclusive evidence that human activity is causing the Earth to warm and that there is an urgent need to reduce the amount of carbon being released into the air.
Give that man a Pulitzer.
Thursday - December 28, 2006
Gerald Ford, the Nation's (Quack) Healer
The
evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interr d with their
bones
When I first read that quote from Shakespeare it seemed wrong to me. When people die it seems that the evil they do is interr'd, and we try our best to find the good. Perhaps Shakespeare was taking the long view. Once someone's been dead for a decent period of time, we disinter the evil that we overlooked.
The media coverage of Gerald Ford's death brings this to mind. Don't get me wrong. Ford was not an evil man. He was an uninspired and uninspiring hack politician who became President solely by accident, though we all knew, when he was confirmed as vice president, that he would indeed become President. He was acceptable as a potential caretaker president to the Democrats that controlled Congress at the time.
When I first read that quote from Shakespeare it seemed wrong to me. When people die it seems that the evil they do is interr'd, and we try our best to find the good. Perhaps Shakespeare was taking the long view. Once someone's been dead for a decent period of time, we disinter the evil that we overlooked.
The media coverage of Gerald Ford's death brings this to mind. Don't get me wrong. Ford was not an evil man. He was an uninspired and uninspiring hack politician who became President solely by accident, though we all knew, when he was confirmed as vice president, that he would indeed become President. He was acceptable as a potential caretaker president to the Democrats that controlled Congress at the time.
Saturday - December 16, 2006
We don't need censorship in this country, we just ignore the facts
My friend, Steve Fournier, who I mentioned
in a recent post, has just posted a new entry on his site, to
which I thought I would draw attention. Steve decided to do some TV watching
after he noticed that the media had generally ignored the John Hopkins study
about the number of deaths in Iraq, which I wrote
about some time ago.
The media did not ignore the study, of course. It was reported and dismissed, since it didn't fit in the narrative, and no less a source of all wisdom then George Bush, in his guise as expert in mathematics, declared the methodology flawed.
The media did not ignore the study, of course. It was reported and dismissed, since it didn't fit in the narrative, and no less a source of all wisdom then George Bush, in his guise as expert in mathematics, declared the methodology flawed.
Sunday - December 10, 2006
The press that doesn't bark
Today Buzzflash links to a blog called
Beggarscanbechoosers,
which makes an interesting
point:
He has violated the Constitution. He has violated his oath of office. He lied America into a disastrous war of aggression that killed 650,000 Iraqi men, women and children. He made the United States the most feared and hated nation on the planet.
By contrast, all Bill Clinton did was lie about a blow job.
Guess which president our nation's media called upon to resign?
And folks, that was all Clinton did. Despite millions of dollars spent on investigations that's all they ever found. Imagine what they would turn up on Bush and his cronies if they were ever subjected to that kind of investigation.
Here's a list of newspapers that called for Clinton to resign. The following newspapers appear on the list:
The New London Day
The Norwich Bulletin
The Hartford Courant
He has violated the Constitution. He has violated his oath of office. He lied America into a disastrous war of aggression that killed 650,000 Iraqi men, women and children. He made the United States the most feared and hated nation on the planet.
By contrast, all Bill Clinton did was lie about a blow job.
Guess which president our nation's media called upon to resign?
And folks, that was all Clinton did. Despite millions of dollars spent on investigations that's all they ever found. Imagine what they would turn up on Bush and his cronies if they were ever subjected to that kind of investigation.
Here's a list of newspapers that called for Clinton to resign. The following newspapers appear on the list:
The New London Day
The Norwich Bulletin
The Hartford Courant
Tuesday - November 28, 2006
The White House hype machine gets a boost
There is a definition of insanity that posits
that said condition consists of doing the same thing over and over and expecting
a different result. A subspecies of the condition must be falling for the same
dodge over and over again. We can laugh at Charlie Brown trying forever to kick
Lucy's football, but what about the press constantly falling for a similar dodge
at the hands of Republican manipulators? It's not quite so funny because there
are real world implications.
The latest example, as reported at TPM Muckraker, is this AP article in which we learn that "Several members of a government board appointed to guard privacy and civil liberties during the war on terror say they're impressed with the protections built into the Bush administration's electronic eavesdropping program."
The latest example, as reported at TPM Muckraker, is this AP article in which we learn that "Several members of a government board appointed to guard privacy and civil liberties during the war on terror say they're impressed with the protections built into the Bush administration's electronic eavesdropping program."
It's not the answer, it's the question
Bush to world: You are unacceptable
Pointing Fingers Again
Off til Saturday
The Day Opines
"Even the liberal New Republic" rears its ugly head again
A response to the Day
More from the "liberal media
Watching the Newtown parade from afar