While taking nothing away from his impartial and fair reporting as a pioneer of televison journalism, we should not forget that Walter Cronkite was "for the war in Vietnam" before he was against it. At least he had the courage to change his mind when confronted with the true facts. He will be missed.

Glenn, I think you're brilliant and 99% of the time I think you're right, but I think your strong feelings on this particular issue have led you to get this story, well, completely wrong. The reason Cronkite's "greatest moment" was giving his opinion on the Vietnam War wasn't because he was doing what a journalist was supposed to do. It was because he believed so firmly a journalist WASN'T supposed to give his opinion but felt so strongly about the war that he had to speak out.

I agree that journalists shouldn't go along with whatever the government and the Pentagon tell them to. But what people seem to be saying about Cronkite, and what they admired about him, was that he rigorously reported just the facts, and that you never knew where he stood. He wasn't following the government line, but he also wasn't giving his opinion. He was just giving the facts. Speaking out on Vietnam was, from what I understand, unprecedented.

Sorry again for the misunderstanding, I was apologizing for continuing on a subject you didn't like, which I was doing because I resent someone portraying search and rescue costs as big gummint. I didn't mean to imply you hated big gummint, too.

A quote from him accepting the 1999 Norman Cousins Global Governance Award at the ceremony at the United Nations:

“It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.”

@heru-ur

For the record, you are now arguing that the kid's parents should have been required to buy insurance before the kid set out ...

That is so false that one is tempted to call it a lie. However, you may be so deluded that you believe that, so I'll go with deluded.

There are a number of ways the state of New Hampshire could deal with the issue. I have not argued for any of these ways and you know it.

I have argued that the fee-grabbing goons charged a boy 25,000 dollars while the normal charge is a few hundred. If you can not see the blatant unfairness of that then you are unable to judge fairness at all.

Simple as that.

Someday, when I feel like it, I'll tell you what I think should be done. But just now I am real surprised to see you defending the Republican mantra from the Reagan days --- user fees. Let the user always pick up the whole tab they said. Progressives were against it back then -- all but you and mac-whatever apparently.

rrheard is amazing. Earlier in this thread, I posted the fact that Iraq under Saddam had tons of 'yellow cake'. This is a fact, was reported in the media, and easily researched. But rrheard (and others) viciously attacked me for the statement. rrheard said that Saddam never never never had yellow cake. He (and others) made personal attacks on me.

So I posted two URL citations (out of many) proving my fact: from CNN and the LA Times. A simple fact. There were tons of yellow cake in Iraq. In fact, there were 550 tons of it. Yellow cake can be fairly quickly processed to make a quick and dirty radioactive bomb. I never said Saddam made one. All I said was that Iraq had this material.

So what does rrheard do? First he posts a description of yellow cake. Second, he puts up another post admitting he didn't bother reading my full posts. Then he states "I'll concede that I may be slightly confused as to the exact definition of "yellow" cake and/or what constitutes it." What?? rrheard posts a description of yellow cake, then he says he doesn't know what yellow cake is!!

And then finally rrheard states again that there WAS NO YELLOW CAKE in Iraq!!

Despite what the U.S. gov't says, despite what the Canadian gov't says, despite what the main media says, despite what the Iraqi gov't says, despite what all the hundreds of technicians and scientists and military involved say, despite what the UNITED NATIONS says... rrheard says there WAS NEVER ANY yellow cake in Iraq!!

rrheard, despite your personal attacks, and your denials of the obvious, I think you are probably a good guy. You have your opinions, I have mine. If we cannot agree on yellow cake, we will not agree on anything. How about if we stop posting to and about each other?

(This post sent at about 5pm Pacific Time, July 19)

The word is "government", look it up.

The issue is one of fairness, look that up. (and equality under the law while you are at it)

The issue is also one of changing the rules after the action is taken. That has a nice Latin name and is held to be important by constitutional lawyers like the host of this site. Perhaps you can e-mail him and ask about this.

I realize you ambulance drivers get touchy, but charging one kid 25,000 while others pay a couple of hundred is beyond belief. Even you know that if you would drop your ever-present blinders of hate.

okay, what idiot ate dinner with theg ambino family and blew up nYC, toboot?

wha ti do recal is msnbc have some skanky authors blaming myself and others, in no way connected to washingron d.c. proper or the cia/hatch/osama-arms deals...or offering private citizens up as fodder for fires [rumours galore, on that account] as personal and directly responable for the whole big legal murderous mess.

or blaming fire fighters for fires.

i see nothing much has changed.

were gettign emrons again. joy! and happy unbirthday to everyone, from D.c. and 'her' dare i say IT[?]

Sanctamounisly

Ludacris

Undeniably

Tenacious

Simpletons

?

S