"The restrictions aren't the issue. The reality that the radio airwaves are still considered "public property" is."

So is the internet. Want to start restricting content on there?

I've not called any manner of "restrictions" upon content. Again, I've merely pointed out a simple fact.

"As does Sun Myung Moon and the Bush Administration (given how they've either crowned themselves sovereign monarch over the United States or try to kill stories they don't like), but that's not really at issue here is it?"

A foolish equivalence. All government tries to influence the media. Being able to command the media is a different thing.

And owning a 'major' newspaper, or threatening journalists with legal action, doesn't qualify as attempting to "command" how news is put out?

I have nothing against NPR or PBS. I was responding to a comment that corporations cannot reliably run media outlets. This is rubbish. Nobody should have a monopoly on media, corporations or government included.

So say we all.

"The real question is whether or not any media organization - irregardless of its funding or founding - can accurately claim to speak for "the American people". How about we focus on that and quit this no longer entertaining attack on NPR?"

It's a stupid question. America is a divided country; no media organization could or does or should speak for it in its entirety.

Again, so say we all. It is, however, perfectly right for us to call out those who claim to speak for "the people" while expounding patent nonsense, is it not?

"And how, precisely, is Lynx seeking to deny anyone anything?

Or are you using the "you" in a generic, everyone-except-me kind of way? Dangerous ground upon which to rest an argument, you know. Smacks of paranoia and "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street"."

I think it's fairly obvious to anyone with the cognitive ability of an eight year old that he would like to deny the kind of content Fox and Limbaugh currently serves up under the nomenclature of 'mechanisms for truth',

Actually, it isn't. Lynx, like the rest of us, was simply making an observation.

mechanisms apparently exemplified by the hyperpartisan Greenwald. How he imagines this working is anyone's guess (though I'm sure he hasn't really thought it through) but if he's calling for anything less than federally mandating vetting of truth then the call is redundant since the mechanisms (blogs, critiques) already exist.

Okay, now you're jumping the proverbial shark and assigning claims that haven't been made by anyone here.

And if Glenn's "hyperpartisan", I'd hate to see what you call genuine extremists like Hagee and Buchanan.

Doesn't he face sanctions or anything for making statements like this? Couldn't it be construed as possible tampering with the Courts given the ongoing suits against the telecos?

You should really shut up, Sh**ter, if you have no clue what you're talking about.

So say we all. But then he's from Jersey.

Incidentally, how does one get into your line of work. It sounds fascinating.

Is there no such thing as a just war?

Sadly, that's a too subjective question for any one to ever answer within consensus opinion. The world is too diverse and mores too often at odds with each other, at least at this point in history, for such absolutes.

Wouldn't that make the 9.11 victims collateral damage, and therefore, nothing to get excited about? Hey, it happens...

Yes it might, if the target were a military target and they simply missed. Or perhaps even if their purpose and intent for attacking were just. I realize that "just intent" is subjective and the 09/11 hijackers were sure their intent was just. I disagree with them.

My point exactly. You and I feel their actions were criminal; bin Laden's men did not. But then, I personally feel the occupation of Iraq is equally criminal, whereas commentators such as Elephantman and shooter242 do not. All such judgments are subjective, some enjoying wider consensus than others.

I guess I don't feel as hopeless about our ability to know Right and Wrong.

We all answer to historical judgment, and more importantly our consciences, in making such decisions. We just have the misfortune of seeing a time when our major officeholders give neither any consideration.

We should encourage good behaviour

Wasn't he banned or tossed in front of a truck or something?

When al-Qaeda succeeds in 9/11 part II (perhaps even on 9/11/08), due to Democrats' aid and comfort. - nabalzbbfr

What a pity the Bush Administration decided to let Bin Laden and his network escape into Pakistan back in 2002.

Pray your man Bush is lucky enough to be out of office when whatever is coming hits. Pray the American public is stupid enough to forget him.

Pray for those things, because if neither come to pass, he (and you) are not long for this world.

Pray also that you never have cause to be found in New York City. We here take a dim view of those parading that day for their own gain or to make light of it.