Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
mutex
Published Letters: 21
Your last post was a pleasure to read. Thank you.
-- only used the word 'torture' once. And that was to quote GG.
What's the point of holding politicians to a promise if we don't think what they've promised to do is the best policy- sirdook
It's a fair point. As I said in the last sentence: "Much of that will, I presume, depend on what their alternative is."
- GG
I'm not sure we need to wait for the alternative. The original promise was based on something reviewable and public. She is now advocating for something that is not-so-public.
I'd give her a lot more leeway if she stated, for instance, that she wants to move away from a previous promise of using the AFM because she would feel better having a policy that can be modified ONLY through legislative means.
But, she didn't. She wants to make policy via a process and with information hidden from us. That is what needs to be rejected. Forget the argument of using the AFM or not. What I find offensive is that she wants to replace something reviewable (publicly available) with something hidden. That is what is reprehensible.
Another example would be the millions of women in Africa, where economic circumstances require their husbands to travel long distances for extended periods of time to find work, who are infected with HIV as a result of their husbands "harmless" visits with infected prostitutes while away from home.
Perhaps the real crime is that the husbands didn't use condoms?
It's not the sex between adults that is the crime, it is the negligence that enabled the transfer of HIV.
You type faster then me?
Having been a foster parent of 12 drug exposed babies, I can sympathize with what you are stating. Smoking crack absolutely promotes the neglect of children. I also have never met a person who uses crack recreationally. But, in terms of law, smoking cracks does not equal neglect.
If it were, couldn't we stated that all DUIs are, at least, attempted manslaughter? How would we classify a schizophrenic with violent tendencies not taking his or her medicine? Attempted battery?
I am definitely not a lawyer, but my understanding of law is the above hypothetical scenarios will not happen. As such, I don't see a parent smoking crack will ever be, by itself, prosecuted as child neglect.
Go Team USA. I'm almost done caring about this place because most people don't care and the rest are largely ineffectual at shutting down the propoganda machinery that enables the Grand American Myth of Economic and Moral Exceptionalism.
So, perhaps, the revolution needs to be against the propaganda machinery (MSM?) and not the government? Would the press cover a mass sit-in of CNN or Fox headquarters? Well, I'm sure they would. But how?
Okay, I only got up to page 5, but I really want to ask this.
Let us assume 1) that Obama is a progressive and 2) he fills his cabinet with predominately non-progressive people.
Would it be fair to say that the 'only' progressive opinion he will hear is his own? Is that a good thing?
I've often wondered how many serial and mass murderers are registered Republicans.
I wonder how many Liberals would agree with that study against how many Conservatives?
There has been no attack since disclosure of the illegal wiretapping, rendition, torture, etc. activities. Does that further defeat the insipid rhetoric of 'these things prevented an attack and are, therefore, justifiable'?
It's not a large majority, but the point is this: those percentages are not reflected in Congress, the Senate, and our mass media. The first problem is the disconnect between public opinion and the opinion of our public 'officials.' The second problem is the disconnect between the populace and their voting habits. Not voting for people who support your views isn't going to bring about a change.
Would you say the Republicans do well when criticized from within their own party? If so, do you think there might have been one or two Republicans to vote for the stimulus package?
Republicans are good at group think and being antagonistic.
Untethered overreaction to a man who's integrity cannot be questioned.
Why can't it be questioned?
Both have their work looked over by an editor. And, editors are supposed to police what is published to ensure that the 'facts' are true and corroborated.
In addition, I point you to a passage from the ASNE Statement of Principles (emphasis mine):
Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly. Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports.
Sig is link but here is the URL: http://www.asne.org/kiosk/archive/principl.htm
In light of the above, I would say that opinionists and reporters CAN be held to the same standard when it comes to presenting something as fact. And, the best way to corroborate something is fact is to cite multiple sources that are not anonymous.
...the populist anger being fueled by these bonuses does present an opportunity for enterprising Republicans.
Those enterprising Republicans might need to change their platform though. I'm not sure advocating unfettered capitalism (the very thing that allowed for this debacle) helps their cause.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
