If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
CNN was just busted for manipulating what a certain person said.. they deleted the last portion of her quote to make it sound like she called for peace. They're all the same..
Wasn't just CNN I seen 2 local reports ABC did the same thing cutting out the "take it to the suburbs" comments. Gotta save those weaves!!!
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjqhnSf0l-Q"]"Burn Down White Suburbs" - Milwaukee Rioters Told by Sister of Dead Thug Sylville Smith - YouTube[/ame]
For years, the Jabara family says, their neighbor had terrorized them. It came to a head when the man walked up to their front steps and killed one of them, police said.
The real answer is to fix the underlying problem that is Economics 101 -- that people who directly consume medical services don't pay for them. Insurance companies and taxpayers pay for them. There is no condition under which this can succeed, and no amount of micromanagement or think tanking can do anything but mitigate damage.
True. Another problem is that health insurance has traditionally been tied to a job. And that situation happened because it was not taxed as income to the recipient.
And a little Friedman for those of you waiting for the health care system to normalize in the future: "In the long run we are all dead."
Just watched some of that...its like one cannot look away.
My wife is convinced that when Trump concedes from an undisclosed location, he's going walk off camera, immediately appear through the curtains behind Hillary as she accepts the win, and they share a high-five, capping the greatest rope-a-dope in human history.
Then the white riots begin, sending Prime into frozen state of indecision.
I'm not even sure if there is an apt metaphor for this news. I would say it is akin to LBJ losing Cronkite but that probably doesn't go far enough. Donald Trump loses the support of torture lover John Yoo.
John Yoo, David Addington, Bybee, and Darth Cheney should all be in prison. If you want to know how the detention, the torture policy, the warrantless searches, renditions and Gitmo terror prison all came into "legal" being, please read The Dark Side by Jane Mayer. A 2008 National Book Award finalist and a scrupulously documented account. The author has done stints at the New Yorker Magazine, was a front page editor and senior writer for the WSJ and in fact was the WSJ's first female White House correspondent. Maybe google has it scanned - all you need to read is the first 27 pages to be abhored with the actions of our gov't. Its astounding that Yoo wrote legal briefs and opinions that Congress has no power over the president's actions and that it is the Prez's Constitutional right to ignore any and all treaties and conventions the US has signed. Furthermore, the Prez has the right to simply declare a person a terrorist, hold them indefinately without representation for indefinate interrogation. Secret hearings are allowed in order to execute the individual at the Prez's discretion. Cheney, Bybee, Addington and Yoo presented to Bush 'legal justification' from the DOJ authorizing the activities. Yoo went so far as to cite himself as precedent in Constitutional arguments justifying his authorizations. Cheney then convinced Bush as he had DOJ approvals of suggested activities. In order to prevent any dissent or even public knowledge, all of that was immediately classified.
You don't have to read the entire 350 pages, the first 27 will do. You also don't have to be right or left to be appalled at the abuse of power. But a clear understanding what can and does happen in the halls of power is more than enough to realize we shouldn't have Clinton or Trump anywhere near the Oval Office.
“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx
Historically, I think the norm has been the press as it is. Antebellum American press was absolutely partisan and wickedly so. I'm not sure when the notion of the "fair and impartial" journalist gained traction - probably when journalism became a subject for higher education. My guess is the early 20th C or so. I'm sure hack can speak to that. I'd say for roughly the past 75-100 years the model has been more "neutral." Whether you think the model was successful or not, meh...that was, at least, the goal.
But that still leaves 100-125 years of absolutely partisan press.
Finally, one more point -- the RS article talks about the press typically being more "liberal" than "Democrat" in its writing -- advocating ideas not electioneering. That strikes me as a rather remarkable splitting of a hair as their idea advocacy lines up with party politics most of the time. I will give them some credit in some recent efforts to take illiberal campus policies to task. They should be doing more, but it's clear which side they've chosen and it's the right side.
I think that's basically correct. Google the Lippman/Dewey debate, but, basically, in the 20s Lippman said a journalist's role is to explain the complexities of government so people can decide for themselves. Dewey said people don't need an explanatory filter, but both positions are far from Hearst. I think media was RELATIVELY successful at objectivity until recently, and plenty still are. Reuters until earlier this year had a climate-change denier at the executive level and didn't cover the issue from that perspective. Newspapers are more iffy, seeing as they don't have a business model anymore. But I think it's fair to worry about relatively-objective media going full Fox now, which leads to that liberal-Democratic Party distinction you flagged.
I agree that it was just tossed out there in the piece as an unsupported assertion. I agree that now that we have Bernie, there's suddenly a distinction between Democratic Party and left wing. Coverage of Bernie that favors Hillary has at times reminded me of Fox News, with the unsupported assertions, raised-eyebrow suggestiveness instead of explanations and proofs, and connectable dots left unconnected surely on purpose. There hasn't been any real left wing since Clinton triangulated, so this is a new thing to watch and I suspect will get worse.
But, that said, the REAL thing to worry about isn't a right-left issue. It's that now that the media is in turmoil and casting about for a sustainable way to do their jobs, government knows it and uses its newfound leverage. I have much less access to real information now then when I was a summer intern in 1997. They know they've got us by the balls and so much less actual information gets out across all media. That's what we should all be concerned about. A worsening impact is that plenty of people like me now just don't bother covering government. It doesn't pay and every other type of person in DC is more interesting and informative to talk to. So that leaves the government coverage to the star-fucker type of journalists who like the attention and are often willing to make compromises for access. This is just increasing the power of unelected bureaucrats at the expense of voters and their representatives.
That can't be possible. Everyone knows the private sector can do everything better, more cheaply, faster, more efficiently, and with better results. No exceptions!
“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx
Tweet
Comment