I appreciate your comments, but think you misunderstand. Please see the last paragraph of my "Open Letter," particularly the reference to Mr. Swift's and his "Modest Proposal."

No. If someone reads them with the aggressive bias and blatant dishonesty that you do; they will get similar readings, but now those of use how are not warped like you.

This is just simple truth. You went after him simply because we were having a good laugh at you and the omooo as he revealed even more of his blatant bigotry.

Like omoo himself has often claimed; only white American males can be racist -- you know; you.

I figure karma will get you for your continued lies; but the only one you really could hurt never reads here and she does not know you exist. So, live the lie --- you do all the time.

Or if you were brought up in a culture at all, as far as that goes.

But I'm not. NPR is.

I couldn't believe what I was hearing when I listened to the discussion on why NPR doesn't use the term "torture". I often yell at the TV (most recently at Michael Jackson All The Time Every Day) but not so much at the radio. I'm always so glad to know I'm not alone in my outrage. Thanks for your continued action on this matter.

Like about the military has killed over a hundred people in Pakistan, in about 10 days, and from the sky. How humanitarian. Humanitarian bombing you and ondelette support (ondelette even called for these exact bombing long ago, because he is such a humanitarian), and were here pimping in late January with your "It's not going to be like Cambodia" prowar bullshit. But you probably don't remember any of that.

"Pray that they keep the bombers and drones grounded"

-ondelette

Yeah, pray. More prayers are what we need. Maybe You'll wake up and Obama will be the candidate you voted for, and not the trickster who fooled all of you hope and change dumbfucks, while us crazy wheezing assholes told you exactly what was going to happen and have been correct in our predictions, which you call "insane wheeze".

What's that say about idiots like you when a crazy wheezing street preacher has been right about Obama's Administration while Obama used you and your friends starry eyed liberal idealism to fuck you. You are the one that got mindfucked, asshole. You are the ones that voted "hoping" for "change", our wars our now your wars, since the party you voted for and support is paying for it, and now you whine about it, after the fact. I love it.

Keep praying assholes, maybe if you wish enough the Empire won't kill thousands of people fulfilling your bullshit humanitarian agenda.

Pray in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up faster, morons.

Proof? The proof is in your posts. All anyone interested need do is read them and then compare your claims to what your idiot friend actually wrote.

Have a nice day, Bucky.

We must all recognize that “the role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate.” Neutrality is the true goal of the ethical journalist; this principle must guide any discussion henceforth.

A blank eyed neutrality is also the true goal sought by the heroin addict by way of consolation of having to deal with the many spiky difficulties of the world we live in.
Ethical considerations disappear as rights and wrongs merge into mere stuff removing the necessity to determine the difference.
This is, "Yeah, right, whatever," conciousness, that now infests every level of your and my societies.
It is the rot of late Weimar and is the particular kind of societal rot that always precedes the descent into full blown fascism.

“people have different definitions of torture and different feelings about what constitutes torture,”

Perhaps some one ought to inform this dumb bitch and corrupt minded effete that these different views are only enjoyed by those who have not undergone these procedures formerly known as torture.

Amongst those subjects that have endured them there will without doubt be a universal and heartfelt consensus that the experience was indeed torture. Why else other would they have used them?

I would like to commend Ms. Shepard for her staunch support of journalistic ethics. I first became aware of her work during the controversy surrounding NPR’s policy to use phrases like “harsh interrogation techniques” rather than “torture” to describe the treatment of terrorism suspects under the Bush Administration. Her defense of journalistic ethics in the “NPR Ombudsman Blog” postings of both 6/21 and 6/30 were insightful and engaging, and are the sources for the below quotes.

I fully agree with her assessment that the word torture is an example of “loaded language,” which should never be used to describe these highly-charged issues. Since “there has been no clear consensus on what constitutes torture” and “people have different definitions of torture and different feelings about what constitutes torture,” NPR is justified in avoiding the use of the word. We must all recognize that “the role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate.” Neutrality is the true goal of the ethical journalist; this principle must guide any discussion henceforth.

With this in mind, I would like offer the following modest proposal to Ms. Shepard and those journalists who share her strong moral bearing. In the future, I humbly suggest that they use the neutral phrase “minor nudity” in lieu of the loaded phrase “child pornography.” Much like the word torture, child pornography is “loaded with political and social implications.” Much like the word torture, “there has been no clear consensus on what constitutes” child pornography – indeed, the best definition available for pornography is Justice Potter Steward’s famous maxim “I know it when I see it,” but this could hardly be called objective. Much like the word torture, “people have different definitions of” child pornography and “different feelings about what constitutes” child pornography – for example, one family’s adorable picture of their bathing toddler is another’s pornographic image. In sum, this topic is “not an open-and-shut case.” Therefore, recognizing that “the role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate,” Ms. Shepard and her fellow ethical journalists should adopt this modest proposal.

Indeed, I hope Ms. Shepard and her fellow ethical journalists have the courage of their convictions and scour their reports of all language which betrays any hint of non-neutrality (By the way, Ms. Shepard, please note and cease the use of the following non-neutral words in your own Ombudsman Blog: “harsh,” “enhanced,” “terrorism,” “suspects,” “cramped,” “barbaric,” “respect,” “reasonable,” “terrifying,” “distinguished,” and others too numerous to list. These words communicate non-neutral values and have no place in ethical journalism.)

In conclusion, I would like to thank one Mr. Swift, whose sublime “Modest Proposal” was the inspiration for this rather crude imitation. I assume Ms. Shepard is familiar with his work, though I wonder whether she would consider his writing to be “dialogue” or “diatribe” - but these are questions for another day!

Respectfully yours,

Richard Nihlson