That the dems were horribly and tragically wrong about the justifications for the Iraq war. He will therefore join us in insisting that our involvment be ended as soon as possible.

He will then agree that the search for truth is a far more important value than any partisan sniping and that empirical testing and constant reevaluation based upon new information is the only sane, rational way to formulate stategy or policy. He will then run for cover as flying pigs circle his head.

OT but the thread IS getting rather old ®

Thanks!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/us/politics/23web-nagourney.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Was that a mistake on our part? Perhaps. Our goal is to give people as much information and insight as we can, in this case to help them understand what was happening in a campaign and to give them a heads-up about what to watch for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1177473600&en=68695f00ef3c8e14&ei=5070

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.

It would appear that severe damage followed by belated apologies is just SOP at the NYT.

I suppose I should be thankful for small favors!

He is one creepy SOB.

One should compile a comprehensive list of all Moslems in the USA, publish it extensively on the internet and elsewhere and develop individual initiatives for combatting the malevolent influence of ethnic Islamic jihadism.

Once we have a database, we can efficiently keep track of them by monitoring their cell phones, which have many capabilities which unfortunately aren't being fully exploited. Besides providing precise location information, they can also be used as surveillance devices. Most cell phones can be remotely activated and can be used to surreptitiously eavesdrop on illegal or subversive conversations

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/21/wmd_conspiracy/permalink/258ad9c9cd591c94f79b6d7c7cb70eb4.html

Efforts to bring back the fairness doctrine can easily be depicted as trying to force by legislation that which can't be accomplished by market forces.

The real effort should be on educating the public on WHY they should demand actual reporting instead of the pablum they're currently being fed.

I'm not a purist who insists that there's something magical about the market, but the sad fact remains, that our corporate news media have been giving the people what they want all along. I can't explain why Anna Nichole 24/7 sells (well actually I can) but the solution to our problem does not reside in trying to legislate fairness. Fairness, after all, is in the eye of the beholder and if my time here at GG has taught me anything, its that human perception is amazingly maleable and that one man's judge of fairness is another man's jack-booted thug!

People would have a much more diverse spectrum to choose from, precisely because it was not driven by the profit motives of a handful of media monopolies

Two things happened pretty much in tandem under Reagan. The fairness doctrine was repealed and media ownership regulations were relaxed. Of these two, I think the latter did more harm. The reason I bring up tabloid style coverage, is because I think that there are properties of human attention that are being exploited. While I mentioned Anna Nichole, I think the Edwards haircut, and all the endless speculation on how the antiwar position hurts the Democrats is all symptomatic of the same thing. People watch TV in order to feel good and a depressingly small number of them choose to feel good by learning about their world and being challenged.

At least when there was a reasonable diversity of ownership, there would be niches where people could find coverage of things other than shiny objects and manufacrtrured conflict.

I think that judicious use of antitrust legislation could have the same beneficial effect that the fairness doctrine would, with the advantage of being content neutral.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/washington/24cnd-cong.html?hp

The money quote:

The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals for heroes and they don’t need to be told elaborate tales.

I guess she's a hero after all!

The libertarian ethic in its free-market form believes that the "system" (market, whatever) will produce moral results

I don't think anyone asserts that the market will produce "moral" results. The theory is however that it produces "equitable" results. (At least that's my understanding.)

What actually happens is more of a pendulum effect. Free markets lead to increasing inequity between classes which in turn inspires regulation which is then attacked as providing for artificial equality. Rightward swings include the late 19th Century and the 80's through the present. Leftward swings include the new Deal and The Great Society.

I have to think that we've reached an apex and will soon be returning to sanity.

I said nothing of the sort. I said it was a swing of the pendulum to the left. Or was FDR a RWA? I'm getting confused.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/23/politics/main2719787.shtml

The Democrats' Dilemma

Barone: The Majority In Congress Is Torn Between Funding The Troops And Ending The War