News reporting has degenerated to the point where fact and fiction often cannot be determined by the casual reader, or viewer.

The people trying to influence public opinion know this, so they dress up their "reporting" as news when, in fact, it is opinion.

Fox News' headline banner featured a waving American flag as its symbol. The image framing used is red, white, and blue. It looks like an advertisement for America but it is just the opposite. It makes a mockery of the American ideal of a freely informed public.

Propaganda is not new, it has been a part of the information stream as far back as can be remembered but it could usually be seen for what it was. Today, it is not easy to see the truth.

Mother Jones Magazine ran an extensive report, "Lie by Lie", outlining the lies and propaganda used immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq. It contains full documentation and footnotes as verification of the informaytion presented. Here is a link to the piece: http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

Read the Mother Jones Magazine piece, "Lie by Lie".

Here's the web address:http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

What is it with these Republican freaks writing smear pieces and appearing on talk shows and Hate Radio?

Ou mental institutions are failing to keep these idiots under control.

For good reason.

I hate to bring this up, but where is the factual reporting as to the progress being made as it concerns the average Iraqi citizen?

We get casualty reports on a regular basis, and bombings and terrorists' acts are mostly reported, but what about the progress of the day-to-day functioning of Iraqi commerce, education, and the general well-being of the common people?

Why do I have the feeling that information about Iraq is managed to the point of being useless? Embedded reporters are useless unless censored news is acceptable.

The "Surge" has worked, but at what cost? Are communities now divided by walls, checkpoints, and overly aggressive police?

Any civilian unrest can be subdued by sufficient military force but is this helping or hurting the Iraqis?

Are we repeating the same tactics used by Saddam to control the religious factions in Iraq?

Religious ignorance does not belong in a secular government.

The devil you say.

Let's give some credit where credit is due. I think the piece is funny, and a bit educational.

The Devil has indeed been a part of popular culture and entertainment for centuries.

And, religionists need boogeymen in order to keep their flocks under control.

The mere existence of liars like Limbaugh and Corsi suggest that Americans are short on brains and long on being influenced by storytelling.

I'll give the former communist Russia one and only one thing in their favor - the banning of religion.

As a society, we suffer a limited vision. Quick and easy is our motto. Let's not waste time on nuance, it's either black or white. You are for us or you are against us.

Instant food. Instant entertainment. Headline news. We let phonies like Hannity and Limbaugh carry a political message and they call it "fair and balanced" reporting.

Our dealings with world issues follow the same pattern. Rice criticizes Russia for behaving as we are behaving in Iraq. Bush invades the wrong country because his quick, and faulty, reading of intelligence reports tells him that Saddam is going to attack the free world.

As soon as gas falls to $3.50 per gallon SUV sales will increase, as if the oil supply has suddenly become infinite.

We are myopic in our view of the world and world events, and we elect people that reinforce that fallacy.

He'll continue Bush's policies because they are the policies of the Republican Party.

And we know (or should know) that McCain will eventually have to bend over and follow the GOP line.

The Democrats are failing miserably in communicating this to the voters.

I cannot resist ....

We have been in a major recession since 2000. A recession of common sense and intelligence on the part of the Bush Administration, and Congress.

The two-party system is fine for electing representatives to a specific term but it does not serve the Supreme Court very well.

If an institution exists that demands non-partisan representation, it is the Supreme court. A politicized court is a liability, as we have seen with too many recent split decisions.

If we value the premise of impartial judgement we must look at the Court as the final arbiter basing its decisions on totally neutral viewpoints. Instead, justices are appointed by individuals that have a decidedly political bias with the end result a polarized Court. This causes decisions that are split 5 to 4 and the middle ground is absent.

This ensures controversy and it increases the chances that rulings will be reversed upon review by a future Court with a different political mix.

Add this to your thoughts about the demise of our political system. I think it is relevant.

Another World exists, although many cannot see it, it is there.

The Other World lies between the lines, so to speak. When McCain says he does not know how many houses he owns, that is the Other World rearing its ugly head.

It is the world that one finds when one is not attending to routine tasks.

Actually the Other World is best described as that world that resides between our ears, in the vacant recesses in our skulls, where no rational thought exists.

When listening to political speeches or commentary from politically biased news sources too much of the Other World is evident.