What worries me is that the dissent was NOT UNIVERSAL in the military. Our is to be "a system of laws, and not/b> of men [choosing to be disloyal to the Constitution, or choosing to be conveniently blind or indecisive]."

Stand by, Shooter. Your world is about to come crashing down.

-- Jebbie

I doubt that. Perhaps you haven't seen my posts regarding the election. If it comes down to Obama/McCain, I'm voting Obama.

First letter March 2008. I wondered how long it would be.

Duke is dangerously close to the other Welch Club. The Birchers.

Lay down with dogs and you are likely to get up with fleas.

JNagyarassoff...The media is NOT INTENDED to be "loyal" to the gov't, or even to the military. It is INTENDED to be loyal to the FACTS AND TRUTH.

Wonderful sentiment. Where is it written? Don't tell me it's in another part of the constitution I must have missed. Like the one that says the 2nd amendment is a collective right.

What I like about J here is that he's the scary reverse of the conservative "judicial activist" whiners. If this court rules the 2nd affirms an individual right, he'll be screaming, "Judicial activists!" "Black robed demons!" "Legislating, nay amending, rewriting the constitution from the bench!"

I doubt that. Perhaps you haven't seen my posts regarding the election. If it comes down to Obama/McCain, I'm voting Obama.

-- shooter242

And to think I was about to suggest Glenn ban you again.

paddy_boy --

"I don't blame the military . . .

. . . for wanting to get their side of the story out there."

The military isn't to have "their" "side of the story". They are to function according to law and orders. They are REQUIRED to be politically neutral. ANY effort by the military to put a "positive spin" on their conduct is OVER THE LINE -- ESPECIALLY when intended to cover up murder and torture, and to go-along-to-get-along -- moral cowardace -- by imprisoning "bottom of the barrel" "bad apples" for what they themselves ordered.

"That's only natural."

Is it "natural" to ignore the law, and one's oath to protect and defend it, when doing so is inconvenient in relation to one's PROHIBITED POLITICAL agenda?

"The problem is that CNN failed to live up to its responsibility as a provider of objective, fact-based news, and allowed itself to be easily (WAY too easily!) transformed into a conduit of Pentagon propaganda."

The media is at fault for being a WILLING conduit of propaganda which individuals in the media in many instances -- and probably most -- were well aware that it was propaganda. HOWEVER, the media is NOT responsible for the military's willing and enthusiastic rejection of the rule of law -- and thus their oath -- in order to "pump up" a war in which many of them have a personal interest, from religiozealotry to racism to FINANCIAL GAIN.

I realize this is not a Army vs. Air Force soccer game. Kick the ball hard and long enough, and old 5'2" Pedinska declares, and the ball eventually goes in a soccer net.

I bet a dozen raw quail eggs, that most people are enjoying normal Moms.

It's time for me to hop in a bath-tub, and meet down at the farm to eat grub.

Retired Military Patriot. Wear a green grass kilt? Pick up a gift of a dozen eggs.

Nor does he fall into the category of pop. lit. lions like Vonnegut that I was dissing. Anyway, back to the interesting Blankfort vs. Chomsky thing. First of all, Blankfort is Jewish, and a pillar of San Francisco activism. So we can forget about Electro Robot here. And hopefully we can forget about that person who just posted about Platonistic elite bankers running communism etc.

I think Blankfort is wrong in thinking that Chomsky's never-outgrown youthful zionism is the reason for the protectsia provided to him by the US liberal elite. As I said, I think it is precisely the fact that Chomsky's "solution" is no solution at all, but a wishy washy formless anarchist fantasy, that makes him valuable, since he drains off anti imperialist energy that would otherwise find more dangerous forms. I know Jeff, and I have tried to discuss this with him, because we exchanged a lot of emails during a period when we were both on a busy email list, but he isn't a great one for theory one way or the other.

The fact that Chomsky's zionist weaknesses offer themselves as an explanation for his ineffectuality is no accident, though. It is yet another example of how Jewish issues continually find their way into the scapegoat position for whatever real contradictions may exist in the larger world. This is a tragic and recurring phenomenon, and as I said Hannah Arendt provides a whole row of instances, ranging from the Jewish role in feudalism through to the Jewish role in communism. Zionism as scapegoat is just another in a long, tragic chain, and that explains why I can recommend reading Jeff Blankfort's essay on Chomsky and simultaneously go on being a zionist myself. It's a long dark corridor that I'm walking, and I don't really expect it to get any lighter.

I got curious about published and accepted codes of ethics of corporate media and did a little moseying around the toobz. Journalism.org published a listing of the codes of ethics of various media organizations, agencies and journalism associations. My findings and a challenge for you to rate your local teevee and radio stations are included in the post.

"It is my considered opinion that Obama is a world class hypocrite."

In the interest of education, since I'm inclined to support the guy, what is the basis for your opinion?

One just needs to consider Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the press and how they evolved and progressed over the course of his life. In fact, it was probably worse back then than it is today. They just didn't have radio, TV and technology. From the kind of childlike idealism J professes here, to abject horror and hatred, like Nixon declaring the press is the enemy, to final acceptance of what it is after he left public life and mellowed with age. It is just the free press, free to do pretty much what it likes, including lie to you. It is guaranteed that right by the first amendment and a few other contortions of legal thought. With respect to libel, this isn't Britain. There are a variety of elements to the law that are morally ambiguous. Always have been.