Slashdot Mirror

It was from this I guess.. back in 06. I'm sure it's not a total number, and it isn't even comical. I was just trying to make light of the situation, rather than flame you.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/29/13270 6.shtml
Even if... http://mediamatters.org/items/200611300002

During its 2004-05 term, the Supreme Court reversed 84 percent of the cases it chose to hear from appeals of 9th Circuit decisions, compared to a 73 percent average reversal rate for all circuit courts of appeals.* But the high court reversed 100 percent of the decisions it heard from the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals.* Moreover, as Media Matters for America has documented, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate was slightly lower than the national average for all circuit courts during the 2003-04 Supreme Court term (76 percent for 9th Circuit vs. 77 percent nationally), and only slightly higher than the national average during the 2002-03 term (75 percent for 9th Circuit vs. 73 percent nationally) and the 2001-02 term (76 percent for 9th Circuit vs. 75 percent nationally). In previous years, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate has exceeded the national average, most notably during the 1996-97 term, when the court's 95 percent reversal rate had exceeded the national average of 71 percent and "earned the Western circuit [the 9th Circuit] its reputation as the nation's 'most reversed,

Letting him interfere with the judicial branch means that he is essentially above the law as he can quash legal challenges as he sees fit. Like, for instance, the illegal spying lawsuit that's been thrown out for "national security" reasons. I don't know why people have started to throw around the word "fascism"...

Frightening to think that grown adults still think that real life is like a television show or movie. Do they think that 80 lb. girls go around beating the Hell out 200 lb. vampires too? Do they think that groups of 20-somethings working in coffee shops are really able to afford vast New York City lofts? Do they think that there is any way Jack Tripper ISN'T gay?

-Eric

Highlight

the Democratic candidates who, as of November 14, had won Republican-held seats in the November 7 midterm elections have said they support central issues in the Democratic platform -- raising the minimum wage, changing course in Iraq, and opposing any effort to privatize Social Security. Also, these new Democrats largely agree on the most contentious social issues of the day; as Media Matters has noted, all but two of the 28 newly elected Democrats (as of November 14) support embryonic stem cell research and only five describe themselves as "pro-life" on the issue of abortion.

(1) Left/Socialist radio in the US ("Scare America") failed to gain traction, economically

and then they try to pass that off as a 1950's memo about Bush.

And got "caught" by a blogger who had memorized every typeface ever used by the military and was able to recognize that the letter could not have been typed (despite the fact that typewriters of the era had knobs that could be turned half-step for the purpose of superscripts and subscripts, regarding the "smoking raised th") based on an standard TV definition picture of the letter.

If you're going to play tit for tat, who retired over Fox News repeatedly labeling Foley as a Democrat (and Hastert too, when it turned out he knew about Foley's proclivities and did nothing)? Or if you want to talk about completely manufactured letters, how about O'Reilly entirely manufacturing quotes from the Houston Chronicle in order to support his claim it was soft on pedophiles when the Chronicle published an editorial asking if the millions of dollars Florida intended to spend on satellite tracking couldn't have been better spent by putting men on the ground to actually make sure that offenders were where they were supposed to be?

"So, its OK to read WaPo bias, but not NewsBusters bias?"

Depends on what you are looking for. If you want to know what someone thinks about issues, read Wapo. If you want to know what someone thinks about what someone thinks about issues, read Newsbusters. If you want to know what someone thinks about what someone thinks about what someone thinks about the issues, read pages such as this one in which the self-appointed watchdogs chew on each other. Eventually you realize that there isn't anything about actual issues there.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610270008

There have been 10 midterm elections from 1970 on. This is the third biggest*, and two of those are unarguably historic events (the midterm surrounding Watergate and the Republican Revolution of 1994). I would describe a change of ten or eleven seats as normal.

Looking at the historic data, you see much bigger shifts in the elections before 1974 than in the elections after. Average before: 30. Average after: 18. Which indicates that the incumbency effect has been getting stronger lately. Throw in gerrymandering, and it's obvious that this election was well outside the norm.

* Maybe fourth, if you're going by the % of seats available.

You sound a lot like radio host Bill Cunningham talking to Sean Hannity about the kid whose chair was forcibly taken from underneath him for not standing during the national anthem: I think to have the chair pulled out from under you is the least of what should happen. And back in the good old days at Deer Park High School, Alan Colmes, the board of education would have met my derriere, and Ma Cunningham would have beat me about the face and head if I had done similar things.Video of the FOX Child-beating support-fest here.

The correct usage is "Democratic party", or perhaps "the Democrats' talking points".

Using "Democrat party" reveals one as a slavish follower of Republican partisans who practice Gingrichian language control.

if you find a mistake or something which violates your standards, you change it. Period.

I'm not arguing about that at all. My point is only that if you change it after you've published it, you need to somehow acknoledge that you've done so. If you don't do that, it's confusing and deceptive. I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about that either. In this case, reruns are generally going to be assumed to be substantively the same as the original airing, so if they want to properly and honestly deal with their audience, they need to tell the audience when it's not. If they thought the content was important enough to be changed, then it's important enough to warrant saying that there was a change. As I said before, this could be the simplest text during the credits, which would be simple and take up no additional time. If you present an altered version as though it is the same thing, it may give the appearance that you are attempting to evade criticism and responsibility. For example, Bill O'Reilly, for example, has done similar things a number of times (e.g. in this instance).

Even books are sometimes changed in subsequent editions when errors of fact or judgment are made.

But this is precisely the point. Books clearly mark when they have altered the contents. Presumably because otherwise it would confuse customers or mislead them as to what they were purchasing.

Excellent...

Just ask Michael Steele, the Republican that ran for a senate seat in Maryland, and just barely lost. He's black and Republican, so he has had his party identification mislabelled on CNN (D vs. R), and he's had Oreos thrown at him (Oreos are black on the outside, white on the inside).

Most witnesses there don't remember it happening; the two who claim it happened didn't mention it in interviews shortly afterwards; their "Oreo" claim didn't crop up until five days after the event; the original story was quite different, changing in significant detail in the retelling; Steele's own versions outright contradict the other alleged witnesses; and the building manager who helped clean up that evening found "no cookies or anything else abnormal." It seems unlikely that the alleged Oreo incident ever occurred.

I understand why you'd think it did, though; indeed, why you apparently think this has happened more than once. The media is happy to hype this allegation despite the evidence to the contrary.

This is worse than fighting random wars? I don't hear about this telescope killing a few dozen Americans per week.

Please. We must support the troops. If you don't stand with them, you stand against them.

The $14M spent on Arecibo could be spent to support the troops in Iraq. Sure, some of that spending doesn't actually go over to Iraq, but that ignores the way things get done in our system. Without proper motivation, our national leadership is unable to focus on getting the job done.

It is cut and runners like you who are sap our legislative will to fight. Democrats know how sensitive Republicans are to criticism. Congress would have done better, if it weren't for unpatriotic people who don't support our troops.

But we shall stay the course: freedom is on the march.

FWIW, Bob and Todd Urosevich's companies, (Diebold Elections Systems and ES&S) account for over %80 of the elections equipment in the U.S. So, while Sequoia (the company owned by Smartmatic, which the Venezuelan government in turn owns a minority stake) is a player, they are not at the scale they've been made out to be in the last few months.

Either way, there's one way to make sure these machines are auditable and to provide the possibility of recovery from a rigged election. That's a voter-verified paper audit trail (and the procedures to actually routinely use the VVPAT to conduct an audit). Surprisingly enough, it was the evil Venezuelan company - Sequoia - that was one of the first to introduce machines with VVPAT.

If you don't like Fox News, why not just change the channel? It's not like it has any huge influence: only a minority pay attention to it. Thanks, also for the obligatory use of the term "propaganda" as a meaning-free pejorative to mean "information I happen to not like."

Additionally, an October 2003 study conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy (PIPA) found Fox News viewers were "significantly more likely to have misperceptions" about the Iraq war than all other media consumers. [...] Fox News watchers were found not only to be the "most likely to hold misperceptions," but "were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions." The PIPA study found that 80 percent of Fox News viewers held at least one of the three misperceptions.

Looks like you have been outfoxed by a movement that wants to censor Fox News for not sharing its political ideology. So much for tolerance, and "if you don't like what someone says, ignore it". The far-left's fictional case "against" Fox News reminds me so much of when the far-right makes a big case "against" CBS, also as part of building a case to have licenses pulled (or other forms of censorship).

That's bullshit. You're just peddling the lies you heard on Fox News.

Problems this, problems that. Bush prevented the NM Guard from going to LA by sitting on the required paperwork for a week. The "states needing help", at least in Louisiana which I'm talking about, did everything they were supposed to do. EMAC was blocked by Bush's failure to send the legal OK.

The National Guard is not allowed to just go in from one state to another, even if the receiving state OK's it. The president must also ensure that the sending state isn't invading the receiving state with the complicity of the governor of the receiving state.

Those are the facts. The lies, no matter where you get them, are part of Bush's grabbing martial law powers, and his murder of Louisianans while trying to get some of them once Katrina offered the opportunity.

Just like Bush exploited the 9/11/2001 planebombings supported by Afghanistan to instead invade Iraq, because that's the power grab Bush wanted. He used the Afghanistan War budget to start bombing Iraq even before Congress agreed to let him invade Iraq (if necessary, yet another bait & switch exploitation opportunity). And he's cut off money and support to NYC in every way, including health coverage for WTC rescue/recovery workers now dying of lung disease and the poverty it caused. Just like he exploited Katrina to try to grab National Guard powers, which he's now got the Congress to give him.

I used to live in Louisiana, and I've been back several times since the storm. I know what happened. I'm not interested in bullshit that pretends that it was Blanco's fault, when it was Bush strangling her and killing Louisianans in the process.

Try out the media matters site.

When a journalist is covering a conflict, they have an obligation to cover both sides of the story. You cited a few anecdotal examples of obvious journalistic screw-ups in this regard, but I think you'll find that if *you* do your homework (and don't just restrict it to a right-wing media criticism site or right-leaning Israeli news site), people with opposing political views to yours have just as many examples. Witness Judith Miller's ridiculously biased reporting of an Israeli interrogation or CNN's failure to balance dubious assertions that the Qana photos were staged and uncritical airing of Israeli intelligence contradicting our own.

The same journalists who embedded with Hezbollah, of course, regularly embed with American, Iraqi, and Israeli forces (most also make the controlled nature of their experience part of the story). In most cases, there's little to suggest that these incidents stem from an explicit bias rather than just poor journalism or Reuter's stupid practice of hiring stringers virtually sight unseen.

When a journalist is covering a conflict, they have an obligation to cover both sides of the story. You cited a few anecdotal examples of obvious journalistic screw-ups in this regard, but I think you'll find that if *you* do your homework (and don't just restrict it to a right-wing media criticism site or right-leaning Israeli news site), people with opposing political views to yours have just as many examples. Witness Judith Miller's ridiculously biased reporting of an Israeli interrogation or CNN's failure to balance dubious assertions that the Qana photos were staged and uncritical airing of Israeli intelligence contradicting our own.

The same journalists who embedded with Hezbollah, of course, regularly embed with American, Iraqi, and Israeli forces (most also make the controlled nature of their experience part of the story). In most cases, there's little to suggest that these incidents stem from an explicit bias rather than just poor journalism or Reuter's stupid practice of hiring stringers virtually sight unseen.

Those of Glenn Beck, for starters. Often it may not be open espousal, so much as complete failure of the entire journalistic process by rebroadcasting right-wing talking points without any attempt at follow up. Wolf Blitzer failing to correct Condoleeza's phony and long-debunked justifications for the Iraq war. Here's Right-Wing blowhard Glenn Beck using bogus assertions to project left-wing media bias. CNN has also joined Faux News in misreporting scandal-plagued and unpopular Republicans' party affiliations as Democratic. Wolf Blitzer is a good softball player but seems to consistently have trouble challenging his interviewee's talking points. Howard Kurtz accusing Democrats of orchestrating the Foley meltdown in quite flagrant contradiction of all known facts regarding how Foley was "outed" by the pages he'd harrassed (and btw by the network that had just two weeks before broadcast the openly Republican Path to 9/11, suggesting that in fact the Republican Party is starting to eat its own). These are just a few examples of CNN's passive-aggressive bias.

Those of Glenn Beck, for starters. Often it may not be open espousal, so much as complete failure of the entire journalistic process by rebroadcasting right-wing talking points without any attempt at follow up. Wolf Blitzer failing to correct Condoleeza's phony and long-debunked justifications for the Iraq war. Here's Right-Wing blowhard Glenn Beck using bogus assertions to project left-wing media bias. CNN has also joined Faux News in misreporting scandal-plagued and unpopular Republicans' party affiliations as Democratic. Wolf Blitzer is a good softball player but seems to consistently have trouble challenging his interviewee's talking points. Howard Kurtz accusing Democrats of orchestrating the Foley meltdown in quite flagrant contradiction of all known facts regarding how Foley was "outed" by the pages he'd harrassed (and btw by the network that had just two weeks before broadcast the openly Republican Path to 9/11, suggesting that in fact the Republican Party is starting to eat its own). These are just a few examples of CNN's passive-aggressive bias.

Those of Glenn Beck, for starters. Often it may not be open espousal, so much as complete failure of the entire journalistic process by rebroadcasting right-wing talking points without any attempt at follow up. Wolf Blitzer failing to correct Condoleeza's phony and long-debunked justifications for the Iraq war. Here's Right-Wing blowhard Glenn Beck using bogus assertions to project left-wing media bias. CNN has also joined Faux News in misreporting scandal-plagued and unpopular Republicans' party affiliations as Democratic. Wolf Blitzer is a good softball player but seems to consistently have trouble challenging his interviewee's talking points. Howard Kurtz accusing Democrats of orchestrating the Foley meltdown in quite flagrant contradiction of all known facts regarding how Foley was "outed" by the pages he'd harrassed (and btw by the network that had just two weeks before broadcast the openly Republican Path to 9/11, suggesting that in fact the Republican Party is starting to eat its own). These are just a few examples of CNN's passive-aggressive bias.

Those of Glenn Beck, for starters. Often it may not be open espousal, so much as complete failure of the entire journalistic process by rebroadcasting right-wing talking points without any attempt at follow up. Wolf Blitzer failing to correct Condoleeza's phony and long-debunked justifications for the Iraq war. Here's Right-Wing blowhard Glenn Beck using bogus assertions to project left-wing media bias. CNN has also joined Faux News in misreporting scandal-plagued and unpopular Republicans' party affiliations as Democratic. Wolf Blitzer is a good softball player but seems to consistently have trouble challenging his interviewee's talking points. Howard Kurtz accusing Democrats of orchestrating the Foley meltdown in quite flagrant contradiction of all known facts regarding how Foley was "outed" by the pages he'd harrassed (and btw by the network that had just two weeks before broadcast the openly Republican Path to 9/11, suggesting that in fact the Republican Party is starting to eat its own). These are just a few examples of CNN's passive-aggressive bias.

Those of Glenn Beck, for starters. Often it may not be open espousal, so much as complete failure of the entire journalistic process by rebroadcasting right-wing talking points without any attempt at follow up. Wolf Blitzer failing to correct Condoleeza's phony and long-debunked justifications for the Iraq war. Here's Right-Wing blowhard Glenn Beck using bogus assertions to project left-wing media bias. CNN has also joined Faux News in misreporting scandal-plagued and unpopular Republicans' party affiliations as Democratic. Wolf Blitzer is a good softball player but seems to consistently have trouble challenging his interviewee's talking points. Howard Kurtz accusing Democrats of orchestrating the Foley meltdown in quite flagrant contradiction of all known facts regarding how Foley was "outed" by the pages he'd harrassed (and btw by the network that had just two weeks before broadcast the openly Republican Path to 9/11, suggesting that in fact the Republican Party is starting to eat its own). These are just a few examples of CNN's passive-aggressive bias.

Immigration per se isn't a divisive issue at all. Except for the very far-right fringe, I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that we should stop legitimate immigration of people with skills that are in-demand, here in the United States.

I think it would be very difficult for a fair-minded observer to square this claim with the hate-mongering that goes on in the mainstream media in the U.S.. For example, "They tell the illegals, become American citizens and vote Mexico's interests in the United States" does not sound like someone who is concerned about illegal immigrants--it sounds like someone who is concerned about immigration of any kind by people who are "not like us."

It is true that the adjective "illegal" is sometimes prepended to the term "immigrant" in the above-linked article and others like it, giving the racist cowards a fig leaf to hide behind, but a great deal of what they say makes no sense if it is applied only to illegals. In particular, it is totally unclear why Buchannan would be talking about his wife's grandparents, who entered the United States quite legally, if he is concerned about illegal immigration, which you and others contend it a totally different issue than legal immigration.

So nope, I don't buy it. I heard the original broadcast of the article linked above, and it was in tone and attitude pure race hatred, straight out of Nuremburg. You'll note that the summary of the article doesn't mention illegals: it mentions how the Republicans are catering to the interests of Hispanic immigrants (which makes sense, as they can vote while illegals cannot.)

In the quote I've pulled above, it isn't totally clear who "they" are, but in context it appears to mean the legal Hispanic immigrants in the United States, whom Buchannan believes are part of an international cabal to contaminate America's precious bodily fluids.

Generally speaking, low income families are producing the most children. The grand ass, John Gibson, used this notion to incite his viewers to have more babies, lest the Hispanics become the racial majority in the US. John Gibson is really a terrible person.

Generally speaking, low income families are producing the most children. The grand ass, John Gibson, used this notion to incite his viewers to have more babies, lest the Hispanics become the racial majority in the US. John Gibson is really a terrible person.

I don't think you really understand liberal values or Jesus's values -- certainly not if you're posting such and angry and hate-filled diatribe.

Making fun of someone's intelligence isn't a conservative or a liberal value. That's just partisan foolishness, and I hope you won't express surprise if many conservatives make fun of the lack of intelligence of some liberal leader should the opportunity present itself. Lord knows that talk radio will make fun of just about anything they can. Calling for an assassination isn't a liberal or a conservative's value, and it's certainly not a Christian value. (Note that in spite of this, the conservative fringe did call for Bill Clinton to be killed, and Pat Robertson -- a supposed Christian leader -- called for Hugo Chavez's assassination on The 700 Club, his supposedly Christian talk show!)

Jesus wouldn't have made a racially charged statement about what happened in New Orleans, but if you think he wouldn't have gotten up on a hill and lambasted this administration for its callous neglect of the poor and suffering in New Orleans and continued to lambast them about the continued neglect of the city's people, then you really just simply don't understand Jesus at all. Love, kindness, and self-sacrifice for those in need is core to his message, unlike the callous indifference and victim blaming that many conservatives did to the people of New Orleans for daring to be foolish enough to be poor and have no where to go. Conservatives could have done little to stop Katrina (except maybe taking responsiblity for and stopping global climate change), but it's the aftermath that Jesus and just about any other administration would've reacted differently to. Are you honestly so enamored with the President that you think he couldn't have done the job better?

(What is up with that strange statement about Jesus serving in Vietnam. Who's trolling here?)

Jesus would've opposed gay prostitution. Liberals oppose prostitution as well, FYI. Libertarians are the only ones I know that occasionally support decriminalizing it. As for homosexuality, it's highly doubtful that Jesus would've supported it -- though he never talks about it directly, it was forbidden in Old Testament law -- but I'm sure that he would've stood in stark opposition to the judgemental condemnations of the "God hates fags" crowd. It was the prostitutes and other sinners that Jesus went directly to minister to. Judging and condemning your neighbors for being less moral than you instead of reaching out to them and embracing them is in direct opposition to Jesus's teachings -- particularly his sermons about the behavior of the Pharisees and Sadducess.

Jesus would have probably supported good stewardship of the planet -- it's part of God's instructions to Adam, after all, and it stems directly from thinking about the effects of your acts on others. Acts taken to pollute the Earth are acts taken at the expense of others to enrich oneself. Cite me any Bible verse that indicates that Jesus would've approved of enriching oneself at the expense of others. Any.

(Aside: Much of the charges of terrorism against Greenpeace are overblown -- Greenpeace has an official policy of nonviolent direct action, a policy Jesus would approve of. However, they've failed to live up to that in many ways due to occaionsal acts of economic sabotage against whaling ships and GMO crop fields, which Jesus would've probably not approved of. Their Danish conviction over terrorism stems from barracading an the HQ of the Danish Agricultural Center and hanging a sign on it. No people were threatened or injured in the process. Greenpeace has actually been the victim of state-sponsored terror in a much more classically violent manner. The French bombed the Rainbow Warrior 20 years ago with limpet mines and accidentally killed one of the crew in the process in *cough* "Operation SATANIC." (I kid you not -- Operation SATANIC.) )

Jesus would'

If you'd read the article you linked to it talks about The Daily Show vs. The Tonight Show and The Late Show. I wouldn't call either of those network news.

Summary: Bill O'Reilly asserted that "[m]any Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what's going on," stating that they "get their news from [Comedy Central host] Jon Stewart and their point of view from bomb-throwing entertainers." In fact, studies have shown that viewers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are consistently better informed about current events than consumers of other media, and Daily Show viewers are significantly better educated than viewers of The O'Reilly Factor. Further, consumers of Fox News in general have been found to be significantly more misinformed about current events than consumers of other mainstream media.

In 2004, the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center released its National Annenberg Election Survey, which found Daily Show viewers to be better informed on campaign issues than consumers of other late-night television programs, newspapers, network news, or cable news.

The survey asked respondents to answer a six-question quiz designed to measure "political knowledge." Daily Show viewers ages 18 to 29 scored higher than those who consumed any amount of network news, any amount of newspapers, or one to three days of cable news; young Daily Show viewers scored the same as young viewers who watched four or more days of cable news.

Additionally, an October 2003 study conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy (PIPA) found Fox News viewers were "significantly more likely to have misperceptions" about the Iraq war than all other media consumers. The study was "based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September" 2003 and measured respondents' "key perceptions and beliefs" on "US policy" in Iraq. The study found that "[t]hose who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions." For instance, of the "three key misperceptions" -- which the study listed as "the beliefs that ... links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, that WMD have been found in Iraq and that world public opinion approved of the US going to war with Iraq" -- Fox News watchers were found not only to be the "most likely to hold misperceptions," but "were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions." The PIPA study found that 80 percent of Fox News viewers held at least one of the three misperceptions.

Erm -- what exactly did Hillary say there? I didn't see any quotes from Hillary in the article you linked to.

Those looking to pin this ONLY on this current administration are showing they are simply interested in partisan politics. There is plenty of blame to go around.

No doubt there is blame to be laid elsewhere. But the fact remains that it is the responsibility of the sitting government to defend the nation against attack -- not the job of people who are no longer in power, and haven't been for 8 months or more. Whatever happened to "the buck stops here"? Frankly, the Bush administration's "how could we have possibly known?" defense would be more compelling if they hadn't also used that excuse for their complete botch of Hurricane Katrina, despite the fact that Bush is on tape being warned in advance about Katrina, and asking not a single question. Face it, the man simply isn't competent to run the US government, and the sooner he and his cronies are out of office, the sooner our nation can stop falling on its face.

And yes, there is the equivalent, many equivalents, of Room 101.

But we don't have telescreens in every room that can listen and watch us

...no one, even Coulter, is saying you should be tortured for doing it.

you don't have to guard your facial expression for fear of being tortured in Room 101

f you use up all your superlatives now, if you shout "tyranny" now, what words will you use when it gets worse?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250003, which references an National Annenberg Election Survey which found that, "Overall, Daily Show viewers scored the highest out of any group surveyed, with Daily Show viewers answering, on average, 60 percent of the questions correctly."

Is that enough of a defense of the grandparent post's weasel words?

The Hill March 29, 2006 Wednesday HEADLINE: Foreign-agent lobbyists amid uproars, duck for cover The brutal ruling junta of Burma dropped its last foreign-agent lobbyists, the Republican PR firm DCI Group, in 2003.

It looks like this is everybody's first experience with John Gibson. Whether it's an act or not (an important consideration), he can be counted on for dimwitted and thoughtless comments every day when his show airs. For example, take a look at this instance where he appears to be urging white Americans to reproduce more so that Hispanics don't become a majority in the future.

They have been doing this kind of thing since the Carter administration, unfortunately. The famous spy Aldrich Ames was captured during the Clinton administration by a warrantless search of his property using the same 'precedents'.

This ethical relativism talking point doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The specific searches that Clinton ordered were legal at the time he ordered them, while, as judge's ruling described in TFA reaffirms, the ones Bush ordered were illegal. Further, even at the time Clinton ordered his searches, he could not have done what Bush has done without breaking the law. Guess what? He stuck to what was legal.

--MarkusQ

I don't see any "Democratic Party" line in the C(IA)NN or NYTimes coverage. But people should research for themselves the liberal or corporate media bias we consume all day long.

This is clearly another battle between religion and science. For anyone who doesn't have all the facts on Bush's recent veto, they are quite simple:

intelligent, reasonable, people outlined a bill that would see leftover embryos from fertility clinics, that were going to be destroyed anyways because of a limited shelf-life, given to researchers. Furthermore, the bill outlined measures to ensure that the number of embryos being created would not be increased for scientific purposes.

Bush decided that it was a bad idea for "moral reasons," whatever the fuck that means. The embryos that this douche "saved" are all going to be destroyed anyways, we just won't see any scientific research come out of it, and so he has set back the clock on medical advancements that will one day save countless numbers of lives (though in the mean time, countless will die because of bush).

Bush either did what he did because he really felt the bill was wrong for his own personal religious reasons (which would have been hard had he actually read the bill, seeing as though the embryos are destroyed either way,) or he was pandering to his base. In either case, the prime motivator for his decision was religion -religion beat science this time, unfortunately.

I would also like to use this post to point out a number of ways in which the conservative media attempts to unethically further their agenda -including using biased language, misleading stories, and outright lies.

• The first is attempting to confuse the public by juxtaposing stories about stem cells with stories about fetal farming (an unrelated issue that the casual viewer might confuse as being the same.) While it is true that bush signed in a law banning fetal farming, this has nothing to do with the stem cell debate. Although, based on the coverage provided by some news stations, you'd think it was the same issue (or at least related). NY Times, CNN on "fetal farming"
• Secondly, people have been repeating (even here on slashdot,) the talking point "BUT GUYS BUSH WAS FRIST PREZDENT TO FUND STEM CELLS LOL!!!1 HE IZ THA BEST!!1 ". Please read, USA Today, Beck misleading claim about bush funding stem cells
• thirdly, an obvious bias is present in reporting where the use of the word "killing" when describing stem cell research is used without restraint.
• Then theres the stupid claim that stem cell research requires abortions.
• Also, lots of media figures have been openly comparing stem cell research with human cloning.
• This next link is a guest on Fox's "Your World", comparing stem cell research to Nazi Genocide

If this sort of crap is what passes for intelligent discourse, on a channel where people get their "news" and "information", is it any wonder that stupid decisions are being made, and shithead leaders get elected into power?

What I'm showing you above are not rare snippets from unpopular shows -admittedly, they are some of the more severe abuses of media power, but they are selected from among a great many such occurences, from some of the most popular American "news" people. The American population is constantly pelted with a barrage of bullshit and rhetoric. It's kind of hard to have faith in democracy under such conditions. Sure, the votes may be cast freely -but what about the months and years beforehand, when the voters should have been getting informed about current events? If that process is sufficiently disrupted, its no longer a democracy. How can you expect people to understand the issue properly, when they are constantly being fed the kind of bullshit demonstrated in the links above?

This is clearly another battle between religion and science. For anyone who doesn't have all the facts on Bush's recent veto, they are quite simple:

intelligent, reasonable, people outlined a bill that would see leftover embryos from fertility clinics, that were going to be destroyed anyways because of a limited shelf-life, given to researchers. Furthermore, the bill outlined measures to ensure that the number of embryos being created would not be increased for scientific purposes.

Bush decided that it was a bad idea for "moral reasons," whatever the fuck that means. The embryos that this douche "saved" are all going to be destroyed anyways, we just won't see any scientific research come out of it, and so he has set back the clock on medical advancements that will one day save countless numbers of lives (though in the mean time, countless will die because of bush).

Bush either did what he did because he really felt the bill was wrong for his own personal religious reasons (which would have been hard had he actually read the bill, seeing as though the embryos are destroyed either way,) or he was pandering to his base. In either case, the prime motivator for his decision was religion -religion beat science this time, unfortunately.

I would also like to use this post to point out a number of ways in which the conservative media attempts to unethically further their agenda -including using biased language, misleading stories, and outright lies.

• The first is attempting to confuse the public by juxtaposing stories about stem cells with stories about fetal farming (an unrelated issue that the casual viewer might confuse as being the same.) While it is true that bush signed in a law banning fetal farming, this has nothing to do with the stem cell debate. Although, based on the coverage provided by some news stations, you'd think it was the same issue (or at least related). NY Times, CNN on "fetal farming"
• Secondly, people have been repeating (even here on slashdot,) the talking point "BUT GUYS BUSH WAS FRIST PREZDENT TO FUND STEM CELLS LOL!!!1 HE IZ THA BEST!!1 ". Please read, USA Today, Beck misleading claim about bush funding stem cells
• thirdly, an obvious bias is present in reporting where the use of the word "killing" when describing stem cell research is used without restraint.
• Then theres the stupid claim that stem cell research requires abortions.
• Also, lots of media figures have been openly comparing stem cell research with human cloning.
• This next link is a guest on Fox's "Your World", comparing stem cell research to Nazi Genocide

If this sort of crap is what passes for intelligent discourse, on a channel where people get their "news" and "information", is it any wonder that stupid decisions are being made, and shithead leaders get elected into power?

What I'm showing you above are not rare snippets from unpopular shows -admittedly, they are some of the more severe abuses of media power, but they are selected from among a great many such occurences, from some of the most popular American "news" people. The American population is constantly pelted with a barrage of bullshit and rhetoric. It's kind of hard to have faith in democracy under such conditions. Sure, the votes may be cast freely -but what about the months and years beforehand, when the voters should have been getting informed about current events? If that process is sufficiently disrupted, its no longer a democracy. How can you expect people to understand the issue properly, when they are constantly being fed the kind of bullshit demonstrated in the links above?

This is clearly another battle between religion and science. For anyone who doesn't have all the facts on Bush's recent veto, they are quite simple:

intelligent, reasonable, people outlined a bill that would see leftover embryos from fertility clinics, that were going to be destroyed anyways because of a limited shelf-life, given to researchers. Furthermore, the bill outlined measures to ensure that the number of embryos being created would not be increased for scientific purposes.

Bush decided that it was a bad idea for "moral reasons," whatever the fuck that means. The embryos that this douche "saved" are all going to be destroyed anyways, we just won't see any scientific research come out of it, and so he has set back the clock on medical advancements that will one day save countless numbers of lives (though in the mean time, countless will die because of bush).

Bush either did what he did because he really felt the bill was wrong for his own personal religious reasons (which would have been hard had he actually read the bill, seeing as though the embryos are destroyed either way,) or he was pandering to his base. In either case, the prime motivator for his decision was religion -religion beat science this time, unfortunately.

I would also like to use this post to point out a number of ways in which the conservative media attempts to unethically further their agenda -including using biased language, misleading stories, and outright lies.

• The first is attempting to confuse the public by juxtaposing stories about stem cells with stories about fetal farming (an unrelated issue that the casual viewer might confuse as being the same.) While it is true that bush signed in a law banning fetal farming, this has nothing to do with the stem cell debate. Although, based on the coverage provided by some news stations, you'd think it was the same issue (or at least related). NY Times, CNN on "fetal farming"
• Secondly, people have been repeating (even here on slashdot,) the talking point "BUT GUYS BUSH WAS FRIST PREZDENT TO FUND STEM CELLS LOL!!!1 HE IZ THA BEST!!1 ". Please read, USA Today, Beck misleading claim about bush funding stem cells
• thirdly, an obvious bias is present in reporting where the use of the word "killing" when describing stem cell research is used without restraint.
• Then theres the stupid claim that stem cell research requires abortions.
• Also, lots of media figures have been openly comparing stem cell research with human cloning.
• This next link is a guest on Fox's "Your World", comparing stem cell research to Nazi Genocide

If this sort of crap is what passes for intelligent discourse, on a channel where people get their "news" and "information", is it any wonder that stupid decisions are being made, and shithead leaders get elected into power?

What I'm showing you above are not rare snippets from unpopular shows -admittedly, they are some of the more severe abuses of media power, but they are selected from among a great many such occurences, from some of the most popular American "news" people. The American population is constantly pelted with a barrage of bullshit and rhetoric. It's kind of hard to have faith in democracy under such conditions. Sure, the votes may be cast freely -but what about the months and years beforehand, when the voters should have been getting informed about current events? If that process is sufficiently disrupted, its no longer a democracy. How can you expect people to understand the issue properly, when they are constantly being fed the kind of bullshit demonstrated in the links above?

This is clearly another battle between religion and science. For anyone who doesn't have all the facts on Bush's recent veto, they are quite simple:

intelligent, reasonable, people outlined a bill that would see leftover embryos from fertility clinics, that were going to be destroyed anyways because of a limited shelf-life, given to researchers. Furthermore, the bill outlined measures to ensure that the number of embryos being created would not be increased for scientific purposes.

Bush decided that it was a bad idea for "moral reasons," whatever the fuck that means. The embryos that this douche "saved" are all going to be destroyed anyways, we just won't see any scientific research come out of it, and so he has set back the clock on medical advancements that will one day save countless numbers of lives (though in the mean time, countless will die because of bush).

Bush either did what he did because he really felt the bill was wrong for his own personal religious reasons (which would have been hard had he actually read the bill, seeing as though the embryos are destroyed either way,) or he was pandering to his base. In either case, the prime motivator for his decision was religion -religion beat science this time, unfortunately.

I would also like to use this post to point out a number of ways in which the conservative media attempts to unethically further their agenda -including using biased language, misleading stories, and outright lies.

• The first is attempting to confuse the public by juxtaposing stories about stem cells with stories about fetal farming (an unrelated issue that the casual viewer might confuse as being the same.) While it is true that bush signed in a law banning fetal farming, this has nothing to do with the stem cell debate. Although, based on the coverage provided by some news stations, you'd think it was the same issue (or at least related). NY Times, CNN on "fetal farming"
• Secondly, people have been repeating (even here on slashdot,) the talking point "BUT GUYS BUSH WAS FRIST PREZDENT TO FUND STEM CELLS LOL!!!1 HE IZ THA BEST!!1 ". Please read, USA Today, Beck misleading claim about bush funding stem cells
• thirdly, an obvious bias is present in reporting where the use of the word "killing" when describing stem cell research is used without restraint.
• Then theres the stupid claim that stem cell research requires abortions.
• Also, lots of media figures have been openly comparing stem cell research with human cloning.
• This next link is a guest on Fox's "Your World", comparing stem cell research to Nazi Genocide

If this sort of crap is what passes for intelligent discourse, on a channel where people get their "news" and "information", is it any wonder that stupid decisions are being made, and shithead leaders get elected into power?

What I'm showing you above are not rare snippets from unpopular shows -admittedly, they are some of the more severe abuses of media power, but they are selected from among a great many such occurences, from some of the most popular American "news" people. The American population is constantly pelted with a barrage of bullshit and rhetoric. It's kind of hard to have faith in democracy under such conditions. Sure, the votes may be cast freely -but what about the months and years beforehand, when the voters should have been getting informed about current events? If that process is sufficiently disrupted, its no longer a democracy. How can you expect people to understand the issue properly, when they are constantly being fed the kind of bullshit demonstrated in the links above?

This is clearly another battle between religion and science. For anyone who doesn't have all the facts on Bush's recent veto, they are quite simple:

intelligent, reasonable, people outlined a bill that would see leftover embryos from fertility clinics, that were going to be destroyed anyways because of a limited shelf-life, given to researchers. Furthermore, the bill outlined measures to ensure that the number of embryos being created would not be increased for scientific purposes.

Bush decided that it was a bad idea for "moral reasons," whatever the fuck that means. The embryos that this douche "saved" are all going to be destroyed anyways, we just won't see any scientific research come out of it, and so he has set back the clock on medical advancements that will one day save countless numbers of lives (though in the mean time, countless will die because of bush).

Bush either did what he did because he really felt the bill was wrong for his own personal religious reasons (which would have been hard had he actually read the bill, seeing as though the embryos are destroyed either way,) or he was pandering to his base. In either case, the prime motivator for his decision was religion -religion beat science this time, unfortunately.

I would also like to use this post to point out a number of ways in which the conservative media attempts to unethically further their agenda -including using biased language, misleading stories, and outright lies.

• The first is attempting to confuse the public by juxtaposing stories about stem cells with stories about fetal farming (an unrelated issue that the casual viewer might confuse as being the same.) While it is true that bush signed in a law banning fetal farming, this has nothing to do with the stem cell debate. Although, based on the coverage provided by some news stations, you'd think it was the same issue (or at least related). NY Times, CNN on "fetal farming"
• Secondly, people have been repeating (even here on slashdot,) the talking point "BUT GUYS BUSH WAS FRIST PREZDENT TO FUND STEM CELLS LOL!!!1 HE IZ THA BEST!!1 ". Please read, USA Today, Beck misleading claim about bush funding stem cells
• thirdly, an obvious bias is present in reporting where the use of the word "killing" when describing stem cell research is used without restraint.
• Then theres the stupid claim that stem cell research requires abortions.
• Also, lots of media figures have been openly comparing stem cell research with human cloning.
• This next link is a guest on Fox's "Your World", comparing stem cell research to Nazi Genocide

If this sort of crap is what passes for intelligent discourse, on a channel where people get their "news" and "information", is it any wonder that stupid decisions are being made, and shithead leaders get elected into power?

What I'm showing you above are not rare snippets from unpopular shows -admittedly, they are some of the more severe abuses of media power, but they are selected from among a great many such occurences, from some of the most popular American "news" people. The American population is constantly pelted with a barrage of bullshit and rhetoric. It's kind of hard to have faith in democracy under such conditions. Sure, the votes may be cast freely -but what about the months and years beforehand, when the voters should have been getting informed about current events? If that process is sufficiently disrupted, its no longer a democracy. How can you expect people to understand the issue properly, when they are constantly being fed the kind of bullshit demonstrated in the links above?

This is clearly another battle between religion and science. For anyone who doesn't have all the facts on Bush's recent veto, they are quite simple:

intelligent, reasonable, people outlined a bill that would see leftover embryos from fertility clinics, that were going to be destroyed anyways because of a limited shelf-life, given to researchers. Furthermore, the bill outlined measures to ensure that the number of embryos being created would not be increased for scientific purposes.

Bush decided that it was a bad idea for "moral reasons," whatever the fuck that means. The embryos that this douche "saved" are all going to be destroyed anyways, we just won't see any scientific research come out of it, and so he has set back the clock on medical advancements that will one day save countless numbers of lives (though in the mean time, countless will die because of bush).

Bush either did what he did because he really felt the bill was wrong for his own personal religious reasons (which would have been hard had he actually read the bill, seeing as though the embryos are destroyed either way,) or he was pandering to his base. In either case, the prime motivator for his decision was religion -religion beat science this time, unfortunately.

I would also like to use this post to point out a number of ways in which the conservative media attempts to unethically further their agenda -including using biased language, misleading stories, and outright lies.

• The first is attempting to confuse the public by juxtaposing stories about stem cells with stories about fetal farming (an unrelated issue that the casual viewer might confuse as being the same.) While it is true that bush signed in a law banning fetal farming, this has nothing to do with the stem cell debate. Although, based on the coverage provided by some news stations, you'd think it was the same issue (or at least related). NY Times, CNN on "fetal farming"
• Secondly, people have been repeating (even here on slashdot,) the talking point "BUT GUYS BUSH WAS FRIST PREZDENT TO FUND STEM CELLS LOL!!!1 HE IZ THA BEST!!1 ". Please read, USA Today, Beck misleading claim about bush funding stem cells
• thirdly, an obvious bias is present in reporting where the use of the word "killing" when describing stem cell research is used without restraint.
• Then theres the stupid claim that stem cell research requires abortions.
• Also, lots of media figures have been openly comparing stem cell research with human cloning.
• This next link is a guest on Fox's "Your World", comparing stem cell research to Nazi Genocide

If this sort of crap is what passes for intelligent discourse, on a channel where people get their "news" and "information", is it any wonder that stupid decisions are being made, and shithead leaders get elected into power?

What I'm showing you above are not rare snippets from unpopular shows -admittedly, they are some of the more severe abuses of media power, but they are selected from among a great many such occurences, from some of the most popular American "news" people. The American population is constantly pelted with a barrage of bullshit and rhetoric. It's kind of hard to have faith in democracy under such conditions. Sure, the votes may be cast freely -but what about the months and years beforehand, when the voters should have been getting informed about current events? If that process is sufficiently disrupted, its no longer a democracy. How can you expect people to understand the issue properly, when they are constantly being fed the kind of bullshit demonstrated in the links above?

I think the issue in this kid's case is that Mr. X took it seriously. Check out this site:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230007 - a radio host jokingly said that he wants to kill Michael Moore - perhaps Mr. Moore should have pressed charges!

Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX".

That's quite the double standard, if, in fact, it is the standard.

For example, there have been people running around for years saying "Kill Osama" and nobody bats an eye. Likewise when Bill O'Reilly invited terrorists to attack San Francisco he didn't get suspended. Same thing when Pat Robertson said we should assassinate Hugo Chaves, or just last Sunday when Melanie Morgan said (on Chris Mathews) that Bill Keller of the NYT should be killed for publicly disclosing information embarrassing to the Bush administration.

So, according to you, these things were crimes, not covered by freedom of speech? Why was no one arrested for them? Or even sent home for a semester?

--MarkusQ

• Bob Carter
• Tim Ball
• Tim Patterson
• Tech Central Station

Generally, you're wrong. The left wants to hear what they already believe, no matter how fantastic. The right wants to hear what they already believe, no matter how fantanstic. Moderates want to hear both sides, often so that they can use the confusion as an excuse not to make a decision.

No he's not, you are. And it's funny, because you are spewing the same "balance" nonsense that the link was lampooning. Even going back to the days of Nixon and Goldwater (who would both be loony liberals in today's GOP), conservative complaints about "liberal bias in the media" were based on their idea that conservative positions weren't given equal time. Whereas liberal complaints are based around the fact that the media not only does not challenge GOP politicians, but are willing deciminators of their propoganda.

1. Bush claims he is not bound by any laws. The Attorney General agrees with him. How would *you* define dictatorship?
2. "free speech zones", reprisals/threats against people not toeing the party line. Sure sounds like he's suppressing things.
3. Industry controls government, which is even worse.
4. Invading other countries, citizens with guns at the borders, mainstream conservative pundits allying themselves with white supremacist groups and repeating their talking points. If that's not extreme, you're certainly well on your way.
5. With all the "patriots" talking about how they'd love to go to Iraq (if only they weren't too old, too sick, etc) and kill them some sandniggas, it's only a matter of time before racism becomes an acceptable political platform (see also point 4). Right now, the administration's policies are mostly working against the poor, which just happens to include minorities.