[. . .]
The Homeland Security angle: How can someone who is so suceptible to extortion and blackmail get so close to the (p)resident? God knows what he could have been coerced into doing to keep his 'cover'. Why was he included in the distribution of the Plame memo? Who does security checks at the White House? If the Secret Service vetted this guy, the (p)resident better start walking around in body armor and a helmet. They suck.
[. . .]
CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship."
A new survey found that a majority of high schoolers think newspapers should not be allowed to publish without government approval. And almost one in five said that Americans should be prohibited from expressing unpopular opinions.
Lemme tell you little darlings something: This is my livelihood you're messing with, so either learn the Bill of Rights or you don't deserve Social Security.
Now, I didn't mind being on the losing side of the last election. But as a loser, I guess I have some "unpopular" opinions — and I'd like to keep them. I'd even like to continue to say them right out loud on TV, because if I just get up there every Friday night and spout the Bush administration's approved talking points, that's not freedom or entertainment. It's Fox News.
Yo. This one goes out to all my fellow vets. The "Blog of the Year" dissed President Jimmy Carter, a vet and an honorable man. I don't know about you, but I have now become officially as hell sick of right-wing too-busy-to-have-served punks calling me and those I respect, terrorist-loving lefties. What are we going to do about it? Suggestions welcomed.
For my part, I was thinking that we can start by pointing out that those men and women of the Boomer Generation and slightly younger who sat out the Cold War in the comfort of our shadows must be commie-lovers. Yup, Lovers of Lenin all. Otherwise why were they not willing to stand on the walls to keep the heathen commies penned up within their own borders? Why? Because, by using the same logic that they use to conflate us with the likes of such miserable people as Osama, they loved Brother Joe Stalin like a sibling.
[. . .]
. . . That's one reason I served, because of my belief that every American has an equal right to be right and to be wrong. I did not serve to one day turn my country over to loud-mouthed self-absorbed reactionaries who want to dishonor me and those who believe as I do by calling me a traitor for not sharing their worldview . . . [my emphasis]
[. . .]
I don’t actually think at all well of Ward Churchill, but I now regret attacking him a week or so ago. He’s just the first of a long list of names that they’re going to go after. They’re smart enough to attack the least appealing individuals first, in a classic salami-slice operation.
If I turn out to be wrong in this, I will be very happy and will let the whole world insult me with impunity.
But here's one last item from TheConservativeGuy, which you have to love for its retrospective irony:Taking on liberals 24/7/365 I'M CALLING YOU OUT, TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT!
Indeed, the recently released 2004 edition of Gallup's annual survey of what Americans think of the honesty and ethical standards of various professions found that journalists ranked behind not only nurses, grade school teachers, clergy and judges but behind auto mechanics, state and local officeholders and seven other professions as well (but slightly ahead of business executives, congressmen, lawyers, advertising practitioners and car salesmen). Only slightly more than 20% of poll respondents said they considered journalists to have "high" or "very high" ethical standards.
The president, in an interview published Wednesday in several regional newspapers, left the door open to the idea of raising the cap on wages subject to the Social Security tax as a way to help cover the transition costs of private accounts. Earnings above $90,000 are not subject to tax now.
Dear Mr. McClellan:
I am writing you in regard to the now-vacant position of White House press corps plant.
It is my understanding that your previous press corps plant, James D. Guckert - to whom you issued White House press credentials under the name Jeff Gannon - is no longer with the administration.
I realize, of course, that because of the flap over the administration's policy of having conservative columnists on the payroll, it may not be politically feasible to fill Mr. Guckert's position right away. However, when you do begin hiring again, I hope you will consider me.
Again, thank you for your time, sir, and I will be waiting to hear from you.
P.S. The three columns for $1,399 offer is still good while supplies last.
Inserting an agent directly into the White House press corps was a daring operation. Until his exposure, he proved useful for the White House. But the longer-term implication is the Republican effort to sideline an independent press and undermine its legitimacy. "Spin" seems quaint. "In this day and age," said press secretary McClellan, waxing philosophical about the Gannon affair, "when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide or try to pick and choose who is a journalist." It is not that the White House press secretary cannot distinguish who is or is not a journalist; it is that there are no journalists, just the gaming of the system for the concentration of power.
In the fourth to last paragraph concluding my post The Great Pretender, TCF made a bold, self-righteous and exasperated pledge to expose the now obvious Conservative grip (bias now an inadequate description), on the Mainstream Media in America. I hoped to also enlist the help of others in this quest, having now an abundance of evidence in hand, and no takers (so far) from The Right willing to contradict it.
[. . .]
With the Bushies, if you're their friend, anything goes. If you're their critic, nothing goes. They're waging a jihad against journalists - buying them off so they'll promote administration programs, trying to put them in jail for doing their jobs and replacing them with ringers.
At last month's press conference, Jeff Gannon asked Mr. Bush how he could work with Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality." But Bush officials have divorced themselves from reality.
They flipped TV's in the West Wing and Air Force One to Fox News. They paid conservative columnists handsomely to promote administration programs. Federal agencies distributed packaged "news" video releases with faux anchors so local news outlets would run them. As CNN reported, the Pentagon produces Web sites with "news" articles intended to influence opinion abroad and at home, but you have to look hard for the disclaimer: "Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense." The agencies spent a whopping $88 million spinning reality in 2004, splurging on P.R. contracts.
[. . .]
[. . .]
The assassination of a political leader. The forming of alliances. Where have I heard this one before?
Along with Steve Soto, I can't quite tell on what grounds the Bush Administration is going after Syria for the assassination of Hariri. It seems forced and over the top, and when combined with our recent saber rattling towards Iran, a little unnerving. I'm still not sure whether Bush is audacious and stupid enough to start another war (a much bigger war), or whether he is just ratcheting up the rhetoric. I'm also not very confident that he can do the latter without also starting the former. [my emphasis]
[. . .]
With obesity among children rising steadily, health experts say our school's physical education programs are woefully inadequate. What do you think?
"Well, what do people expect? How are today's gym teachers supposed to motivate kids, now that homophobia, verbal harassment, and physical abuse are off limits?"
"I don't want my kids missing out on all that gym class offers. That's why I give them cruel nicknames, make them shower together, and snap them with wet towels."
"You know, sex burns a lot of calories. Teens love sex. I can't see why no one has thought of this before."
Bush would do well to listen to his own words, such as this comment on "Meet the Press" last weekend: "See, free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of mass terror and don't blackmail the world."
He is, of course, incapable of sensing the overwhelming hypocrisy of statements like this, and will, of course, never apply its rationale to his own policy.
[. . .]
The point being, the U.S. (often through its client state, Israel) is determined to retain the lion's share of weapons contracts, and it is willing to play Nuclear Roulette in order to maximize product viability. It GREATLY DESIRES a new global arms race, and is willing to "bungle" its foreign policy in order for the Irans and North Koreas of the world to join in the fun.
