R-b L,

I too heard the ATC piece on Gingrich and am sad to say that it is representative of what NPR dishes out these days. They rarely show both sides of an issue anymore and usually are more inclined to play "devil's advocate" with progressive interviewees than conservative ones. Not that I'm against that, but it should be applied across the board.

NPR is developing an insidious slant that is obvious to us, but goes by unnoticed by many listeners. The failure to question, or interview someone with an opposing viewpoint, often validates one side of an issue. You used to be able to count on at least getting the whole story when you listened to them, but not so much these days.

Biden IS right. Guiliani invokes 9/11 or some derivative with practically every breath.

I didn't see it, but I would imagine not (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Usually they make outrageous statements like that and the interviewer moves on, as if there's nothing more to be said.

Thats the primary MO for the media in passively validating this BS.

Over such a display of rudeness to a presidential candidate. She clearly thinks she is bigger than Dennis Kucinich, and that he should feel priveliged to be interviewed by her.

Pardon my french, but Hannah Storm isn't a pimple on Dennis Kucinich's ass.

Once upon a time, journalists were respected professionals that were perceived as unbiased sources of truth. Unfortunately, they are still accorded that degree of respect but many (not all) of the mainstream "news celebrities" fail in this duty and perceive themselves to be the news, not their subjects. To me, this explains Hannah Storm's snotty attitude towards the Kucinichs

Media profoundly influences how this country perceives itself and the world, and until the majority of "journalists" start living up to the standards of Murrow. Cronkite, Bernstein, Rather, et al, their failings deserve more scrutiny.

If you don't want to read about lousy journalists, don't click on the link.

The way you do that is by focusing attention on her and mounting a campaign to have her removed from every committee she currently sits on. The committee positions are what confers true power to a politician. If would be enough for me if all she could do is cast one vote on the Senate floor.

"What I do believe, however, is that the big bucks, soldier-of-fortune, gun-as-penis mentality has attracted a large number of the wrong kind of people to these "security" organizations."

Where does that leave room for consideration of the locals? And if this is just a "bad apples" scenario, why are they still in the employ of these companies? You can spot those kind of mercs a mile away, and if you really want to avoid these situations, you don't hire them in the first place.

"I beg to differ . . . 'the contractors have only the safety of their charges in mind.'

I don't think anybody, including me, actually believes that."

It seems to me from that statement that you believe contractors do have more than the safety of their charges in mind. That's where I differ from you and that was the focus of my comment. Sorry, I should have included that part of your statement in my post.

I'm not making excuses for contractors. I'm saying that these firms don't care if they hire the guy with the "the big bucks, soldier-of-fortune, gun-as-penis mentality." Is that OK? Garry seems to think so. Do you?

I'm sure there are good private contractors out there, but how many, what percentage? Does total immunity encourage good behavior? I think we're of the same mind on this issue, but for some reason you've flown off the handle.

Have a good day.

I echo all the sentiments previously posted regarding the need to emphasize human rights as the defining characteristic of this country and its form of democracy.

Human rights is what used to separate the U.S. from other countries. No more.

This placement of national security as the end-all objective of foreign policy goes to the heart of the republican neocon perspective. If democrats can't get on the same page on this issue, then we have some big problems.

W getting a verbal thrashing like Howard did from Rudd on the floors of Congress (or anywhere else for that matter)? That was awesome! I can only wish in my wildest dreams that a senator or house representative would tear into Bush like that.

Bush has made countless statements as bad (or worse) than what Howard said.

I also love the trail end of the news segment that said that the Bush administration sent CHENEY to help Howard. Looks like it did wonders. ROFLMAO!!!!

"Edwards' stock-in-trade wasn't in suing corporations like Enron or Adelphia; Edwards' specialty was in suing North Carolina obstetricians."

I say: SO WHAT?

The tort system was developed as a means for people who are wronged to seek redress against the perpetrators. Are doctors supposed to be immune from this process?

John Edwards represented his clients to the best of his ability using the only legal system available. Rest assured his opponents retained high-powered firms with deeper resources than he had, and if they couldn't prove their case, then maybe there was a high degree of culpability by the practitioner.

Oft-maligned, the tort system does provide an essential function in our society to those least able to defend themselves. Someday you (or someone you know) may be in need of a good trial lawyer.