cestmoi123 sees no distinction between "news" and Married With Children? Very well then. Unlike most entertainment, however, media conglomerates are not putting out the news solely with an eye to profits. They are, instead, pursuing a form of marketing, basically softening up the populace for their political agenda.

Consider one of the most obvious examples, the Washington Times. This paper has been running at a loss for years, supported by Rev. Moon, a foreign cult leader who despises America and its democracy (far worse than Rev. Wright ever could). And yet, Republicans fawn all over this man, because his ideological goals mesh with theirs.

In the larger market, if the media owners wanted to sell to the half of America that's more left-leaning, they would do so. But they don't (see Donahue for an example), because they see the political promotion of corporatism to be more important than quarterly profit in one particular sector.

What to do? I, unlike others here, do not propose the return of the Fairness Doctrine; I think it was only possible because most opinion in America (both elite and hoi polloi) was centered around a postwar political consensus that no longer exists. However, I strongly support breaking up media monopolies. The resulting companies can be as right-wing or left-wing or MOR as they like, but with more voices will come more striving to earn a good reputation for factual accuracy.

Unfair to single out the media companies for this special emphasis against concentration? Tough. Other industries are not specified in the very first amendment to the Constitution. There's a reason for that. I am not going to consider Viacom's interests to be more important than the very survival of our democratic Republic.

But then, I am a United States citizen, cestmoi. You are a consumer.

The needs of vets can be made vivid and compelling in many ways. But Obama's way is almost always about putting him and his history and creds - true or not - first, with The Other always coming in a poor second. This isn't self in service of history, it's history in service of self.

In case you haven't been paying attention to the Presidential race--which, like it or not, is now between McCain and Obama--there's been a bit of back-and-forth over the Memorial Day weekend because Obama rightly hit McCain for voting against educational support for vets. McNasty's response was to beat his chest and shout, "NOBODY'S with the vets like me. ME! ME! ME!"

"And that's why I can screw them over."

So, yeah, it was time to make the story personal in return. Good on Barack.

Reid's only solidified his hold on the Senate Majority Leadership position recently? That's the most depressing thing I've read all day. Durbin? Schumer? Gah. I'll take Clinton over any of 'em.

I still say Obama should support her in the Senate, or in the Supremes, or somewhere, in exchange for ending nicely, and campaigning for him. I have no problem with him offering her some sort of a quid pro quo, and I sincerely think she's earned it.

Just not VP. Not while we still have a Second Amendment ;-).

...why even mention it? As stated above, she already mentioned Bill's example, why didn't she stop herself there? Most of us manage to keep from blurting out everything that pops into our heads, otherwise we'd get chased by mobs regularly. Or at least slapped. Is her id that unconstrained at this point?

Or did she have a few shots beforehand?

I know, I know, never gonna happen. They know which creepy fascist cult leader brings 'em the bacon.

But Moon hates America a thousand times more than Rev. Wright ever will.

Which would be better for Bill: to be a former President, or to be the husband of the VP? What would that make him, the Second Gentleman? He'd just be in the way. And Hillary is more powerful in the Senate than she would be as VP.

What she should go for is Senate Majority Leader. I think Barack should tell her, "I'll back you as a replacement for Reid, how 'bout that?" She'd be a vast improvement over Reid.

Maybe they searched for an internationally-renowned sculptor.

Just like China is getting internationally-renowned architects to design buildings in Beijing, Shanghai, etc. (Don't know about their monuments, though.)

But while we're complaining about statues made by furriners, I unnerstand there's a statue right in New York City Harbor made by some damn Frenchman! How'd that get there?

I was going to complain about the lack of a picture, too, Alex. But I found one (thank you Google!), of Lei posing with his model. Click on my sig.

I quite like the design, personally.

You intend to shoot someone (or to be fully prepared to shoot them), you point a gun at them. You don't intend to shoot someone, you don't point a gun at them. Period. "Joking" like that gets people killed.

Funny, I learned that from the NRA.

"Oh, did I say 100 years in Iraq? I meant 100 days."

I love McCain's little fantasy ad. If he goes on like this, he's going to make Obama look like Mr. No-Nonsense Realist in comparison.

Thanks for the historical clarification, Alex. It's all too appropriate.

Again, Mr. Bush: Borah didn't say that because he was a Nazi appeaser, he said it because he was a Nazi sympathizer.

Like Henry Ford. Like Charles Lindbergh.

Like your grandfather.

And let me emphasize once again: that Nazi-sympathizing Senator was a Republican.

I sincerely hope the Israeli press is picking up this.