Slashdot Mirror

The Moody memos offer daily direction to the news staff about how they're to report stories. An example is a memo telling them, in reference to the President, "His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day". Collection of Fox News memos. A classic Moody memo.

The author of the Willie Horton ad is now the president of Fox News.

Because the American media sucks balls, that's why. Reporters have been replaced with "annalists". Rampant consolidation has reduced the number of viewpoints, and given the media an incredible pro-corporate bias; business interests outnumber labor or consumer representatives by something like 20 to 1.

After decades of conservatives complaining about a non-existent "liberal bias" in the media, the press goes incredibly easy on Republicans (like CNN splicing video to make McCain look better on his false claims linking Iran to Al Queda) while playing hardball with Democrats (like when Tim Russert lambasted Howard Dean for not knowing the exact number of Americans in the armed forces, when he gave Bush a complete pass on a similar question about nuclear missiles in 1999).

Or how uniformly pro-war the media has been since Bush took office: now as in 2002, the "serious foreign policy analysts" invited to discuss the Iraq mess are pro-war hawks who have been wrong on Iraq every step of the way. Those who opposed the invasion on strategic grounds are as excluded from the debate now as they were 6 years ago.

So in many cases, yes, you'll find that the foreign presses coverage of American events is far superior to that of the American media.

Nothing gets rid of the mud quicker than an intellectual "car wash". The more people become aware of sites like Media Matters and Fact Check, the less likely they'll be to buy into the bullshit.

Rush is an idiot. A few years ago he was whining about the minimum wage. If you're going to argue strongly against something, you should at least be well informed.

"It's -- whatever it is, six and a quarter, seven bucks an hour,"... "[t]he minimum wage has gotten so high that it's paying people that are not skilled to do anything."
- Rush
"75 percent of the people earning minimum wage are teenagers"
- Rush

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408130005

Given at the time minimum wage was $5.15/hr, and less for tipped employees (in Wisconsin it was $2.33/hr at the time) he wasn't even close. Not to mention that teenagers only make up about 1/3 of minimum wage employees.

Between that and his hypocritical drug garbage, I have no respect for the man, or his listeners.

The total proven reserves in ANWR are about 10 billion barrels. Our daily consumption of petroleum is about 20,687,000 barrels/day. Doing the math, that means the entire ANWR reserve discovered so far would give us about 10.4 billion / 20 687 000 = 502.731184 days of petroleum.

<sarcasm>Yeah, real massive. </sarcasm>

Which are some of the least reliable, sectarian-run sources.

Based on analysis from who? If this is true, to which sect are they loyal? And are they overcounting or undercounting the number of dead bodies?

Who does? Are you suggesting that LA Times or UN agents attended all funerals everywhere in Iraq for some period of time?!

They go to the cemetery, look for graves made after 2003, and then ask how they died.

See here.

I said 'accurate, in-context quotes', not handwringing by professional mudslingers. They don't even have anything quoting him on Iraq on the page you reference.

Search under "shock and awe".

A Google search under '"shock and awe" O'Reilly civilians' did not return anything that supports your claims.

He (and his fellow demagouges all over the media) constantly insinuate all of this, although even they are not bold enough to actually use these terms directly, as is the case with many other propagandists advocating violence under the guise of "justice" or "peace".

It's easy to say they "insinuate", without having to provide actual proof that they do.

No, he did advocate, and still does, warfare with "Islamofascists" (the actual ridiculous term he uses)

So O'Reilly advocates war on Islamic militants, and calls them 'Islamofascists'. Big deal.

whom he claimed Saddam was in cahoots with (amongst many, many other lies and distortions) and war on all those who refuse to submit to America-centric rule of "democracy", as defined by American and Zionist Neo-cons. Not to mention his anti-Islam innuendo

Such as?

(which alone is a dead giveway about his true ideas about the predominantly Muslim population of Iraq). The religion is different, the bloody results similar.

Also that "murderous totalitarian government" appears to have been no more murderous then the "liberators" and was at any rate less disastrous to the state of daily lives of average Iraqis. At the worst of Saddam times Baghdad at least had drinkable water and semi-operational sewage.

To say that Saddam was "no more murderous" than the US, you have to count all Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war as having been "murdered" by the US, which I've already demonstrated as false.

Oh I see, so according to this logic the culpabilty for your actions always belongs to other people because no matter what you have done, they have free will! Thus you are automatically blameless for anything that happens as a result of your activities, even if the behaviour of those other people is easily predictable far in advance! How so very neo-conservative of you! I believe you call that idea "Personal Responsibility" and you cherish it very much.

Also, the entire point of religious brainwashing is to achieve the replacement of higher brain functions with uncritical religious zeal. One can easily see that this is true by a very simple test: all religious doctrines are patently absurd, irrational, internally inconsistent and lack any empircial evidence whatsoever, thus brain disfunction is a pre-requisite to acceptance of such dogmas. This makes the True Believer religious zealots of all stripes no more free willed (nor smarter) then the worms I mentioned.

Setting up strawmen just makes you look dumb.

I already explained that one has to take into account all studies as all their methodologies are prone to error and use an average of their results. You prefer to pretend that only the lowest

The UN collects its information from the Iraqi Health Ministry and the Medico-Legal Institute of Baghdad.

Which are some of the least reliable, sectarian-run sources.

They no doubt ask either those at the cemetery, or the victims families.

Who does? Are you suggesting that LA Times or UN agents attended all funerals everywhere in Iraq for some period of time?!

If O'Reilly is such a monster, you should have no problem providing accurate, in-context quotes to prove it.

See here.

O'Reilly never called for targeting civilians in Iraq,

Search under "shock and awe".

nor does he say that America is "Divenely Chosen", "Always Right By Definition", "Gloriously Supreme" or "Perpetually Unjustly Victimized".

He (and his fellow demagouges all over the media) constantly insinuate all of this, although even they are not bold enough to actually use these terms directly, as is the case with many other propagandists advocating violence under the guise of "justice" or "peace".

If O'Reilly advocated war with Iraq, he was advocating for the removal of a murderous totalitarian government, which is different from calling for the murder of people who refuse to submit to theocratic rule.

No, he did advocate, and still does, warfare with "Islamofascists" (the actual ridiculous term he uses) whom he claimed Saddam was in cahoots with (amongst many, many other lies and distortions) and war on all those who refuse to submit to America-centric rule of "democracy", as defined by American and Zionist Neo-cons. Not to mention his anti-Islam innuendo (which alone is a dead giveway about his true ideas about the predominantly Muslim population of Iraq). The religion is different, the bloody results similar.

Also that "murderous totalitarian government" appears to have been no more murderous then the "liberators" and was at any rate less disastrous to the state of daily lives of average Iraqis. At the worst of Saddam times Baghdad at least had drinkable water and semi-operational sewage.

The worms cannot be blamed because the worms do not have free will. Humans do have free will, and if they won't restrain themselves from behaving like sub-human savages, that's their own fault.

Oh I see, so according to this logic the culpabilty for your actions always belongs to other people because no matter what you have done, they have free will! Thus you are automatically blameless for anything that happens as a result of your activities, even if the behaviour of those other people is easily predictable far in advance! How so very neo-conservative of you! I believe you call that idea "Personal Responsibility" and you cherish it very much.

Also, the entire point of religious brainwashing is to achieve the replacement of higher brain functions with uncritical religious zeal. One can easily see that this is true by a very simple test: all religious doctrines are patently absurd, irrational, internally inconsistent and lack any empircial evidence whatsoever, thus brain disfunction is a pre-requisite to acceptance of such dogmas. This makes the True Believer religious zealots of all stripes no more free willed (nor smarter) then the worms I mentioned.

So you reject news reports, and the fact that actual counts of dead bodies more or less falls within the same order of magnitude. What sources do you use to substantiate your assertion of "hundreds of thousands" dead?

I already explained that one has to take into account all studies as all their methodologies are prone to error and use an average of their results. You prefer to pretend that only the lowest estimates have some validity because this is consistent with your pre-conceived notions about the state of affairs and you are not actually interested in any evidence which could contradict them.

Or this one? (Pat Robertson)

Limbaugh responds with 'The phony soldiers.'

It's interesting that you link to a media matters article that covers one small aspect of this controversy. Let's see what they have to say about the situation and its broader context:

Washington, DC - As the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments continues to grow, Media Matters for America would like to highlight the falsehoods that Limbaugh, America's top conservative talk-radio host, has used to claim that he was taken out of context.

Limbaugh claims he referred only to Jesse MacBeth, but smeared other veterans

Misinformation: On September 28, Limbaugh asserted that his "phony soldiers" comment was a reference to Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran.

Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment.

Moreover, as the blog Crooks and Liars and Media Matters noted, in the September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq. In asserting that he was originally "talking about a genuine phony soldier," Limbaugh went on to state: "And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?"

According to Murtha's biography on his congressional website, Murtha joined the Marines in 1952 and volunteered for service in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts.

Limbaugh claims he was only speaking about one soldier, but used the plural

Misinformation: Limbaugh twice claimed that rather than speaking generally of soldiers who support withdrawal from Iraq, that he was "talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment, Jesse MacBeth."

Fact: As the transcript makes clear, Limbaugh actually referred to "phony soldiers," plural. Responding to a caller's statement that supporters of withdrawal "like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media," Limbaugh responded, "The phony soldiers" [emphasis added].

Limbaugh claims to be a victim of "selective" editing, then aired edited clip and posted edited transcript

Misinformation: Limbaugh further asserted that "Media Matters had the transcript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point." To support this claim, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question from the September 26 broadcast of his show. Prior to airing the edited clip, Limbaugh said: "Here is, it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy." After the clip ended, Limbaugh stated: "That was the transcript from yesterday's program, talking about one phony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose, which is exactly the way the website Media Matters generated this story."

Fact: In fact, the clip he aired had been edited. Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth, the full audio of which can be heard here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010

Fact: The transcript (subscription required) of the first segment of the first hour of his September 28 broadcast posted on L

Takes 2 seconds on Google:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332642_fakevet22.html?source=mypi

Full story, even from 'the other side':
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009

Summary for those foaming at the mouth:
Caller says 'what's really funny is, they ([the media]) never talk to real soldiers'
Limbaugh responds with 'The phony soldiers.', caller agrees, then after that call Limbaugh proceeds to talk about a specific example of a phony soldier that the media talked to.

There is no scandal here, except that it's bloody hard to find a retraction for all the stories that believed Jesse MacBeth's lies. That's a crying shame.

The veracity of "The Path to 9/11" has been ably questioned in many places. Here's the list from Media Matters for America, and even though they are completely partisan in their choice of topics, they are meticulous in their sourcing.

Where exactly in the 911 Report?

This is almost like that time the Bush Administration "accidentally" leaked the identity of an .

The scary thing is, I put the word "accidentally" in there with quotation marks to suggest full-on irony. But it turns out to really have been spun that way. Look at the Media Matter article: "Matthews, others uncritically reported Novak's claim that Plame leak was 'inadvertent'".

Cripes. This is The Daily Show come to life.

"I had student deferments in college, and, upon taking a physical, was discovered to have a physical - uh, by virtue of what the military says, I didn't even know it existed - a physical deferment and then the lottery system came along, when they chose your lot by birtdate, and mine was high. And I did not want to go - just as Governor Clinton didn't."

It was blatantly clear that Rush Limbaugh and his caller were referring to Jesse MacBeth, who made himself a darling of the moonbats by passing himself off as a Ranger and an Iraq vet...never mind that he washed out of boot camp after 44 days

No, it was blatantly clear that Limbaugh and his caller were referring to people such as an earlier caller, a military veteran who was against our continued occupation in Iraq. Limbaugh has already stated "I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with [Bush] because the people that disagree with him want to lose."

It would sure be nice to have your "-1, Ad Hominem" option to mod him down in the national dialog (such as it is).

And it's also clear to any unbiased observer that despite Limbaugh's claims, Macbeth was never any sort of hero or "darling" to the anti-war movement, though he may have taken in a few suckers on its fringes. A "socialistalternative.org" interview doesn't make one a hero of the anti-war movement. Especially when it was taken down after a few weeks - even this fringe group figured him out. ("Fringe" not meant to agree or disagree with their positions on any issues, only to point out that they are not the mainstream of the anti-war movement. I'd never even heard of them before.)

Macbeth's main goal was scamming VA benefits; other scammers rounded up in Operation Stolen Valor claimed service in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Their phoniness has nothing to do with Iraq, it's all about the Benjamins.

The problem with you wingers is that you are wrong so reliably on -everything- that you're going to make the rest of us lazy. Could you try and be right on one thing, just for once? Let's start with something easy: is water wet? Or is that too hard for you?

Yes, yes it was. That link was an example of a "phony soldier".

No, that was the pathetic Fox Noise spin to explain Rush's comments, which also included John Murtha and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is still in Iraq.

You are clearly ignorant of the whole smear campaign and thus not intellectually qualified to comment.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Bitch.

A story about a soldier who was never in Iraq that the anti-war left rallied around.

Nope. First, it is a gross distortion to claim that the anti-war movement "rallied around" Jesse Macbeth. A handful of fringe groups passed on his story, that's all; most people in the anti-war movement have never even heard of him.

Second, Limbaugh then lied about what he had said.

Third, it is clear that Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark was meant to include people like this earlier caller "Mike / Caller 1", whose comments were the subject of discussion when the "phony soliders" comment was made.

Fourth, Limbaugh make it quite clear who he considers a "real soldier": "If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq." Anyone serving who doesn't think we should be in Iraq, isn't a "real soldier" in his (worthless) opinion.

A story about a soldier who was never in Iraq that the anti-war left rallied around.

Nope. First, it is a gross distortion to claim that the anti-war movement "rallied around" Jesse Macbeth. A handful of fringe groups passed on his story, that's all; most people in the anti-war movement have never even heard of him.

Second, Limbaugh then lied about what he had said.

Third, it is clear that Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark was meant to include people like this earlier caller "Mike / Caller 1", whose comments were the subject of discussion when the "phony soliders" comment was made.

Fourth, Limbaugh make it quite clear who he considers a "real soldier": "If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq." Anyone serving who doesn't think we should be in Iraq, isn't a "real soldier" in his (worthless) opinion.

Look at the concerted smear campaign against Rush Limbaugh right now. Totally contrived, and yet even Congress is wasting time with it.

No, what's contrived is the reponse of Limbaugh apologists who try to put his remarks into a different context, try to make his "phony soliders" remark refer to guys scamming VA benefits, rather than to soliders who express views against the war (such as the members of the 82nd Airborne who wrote the New York Times op-ed a few weeks ago).

Read the transcript and it's pitifully obvious what Limbaugh meant: anyone who disagrees with him about Iraq is a "phony solider".

I agree, however, that it's ridiculous that Congress is wasting time with this. Limbaugh's an idiot, and anyone who still takes him seriously is beyond hope.

Can you not see the difference between:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. -- http://mediamatters.org/about_us/

Fair and Balanced - trademarked slogan of Fox News.

Bias is not bad in and of itself, as long as it is prominently disclosed.

Fox deserves to be singled out because the other major news outlets, including CBS, make an honest effort to be objective and non-partisan. (The fact that CBS aired a false story is significant because it is a rare occurrence; on the other hand, Fox does it on a daily basis and it's become so commonplace that it barely even registers in the media) The major media outlets may not be perfect, but they do a pretty good job of making sure they report the truth. Fox, on the other hand, is quite transparently a front for the Republican National Committee, and make no effort to be objective or non-partisan.

how prior to the 2006 elections, the networks justified the tremendous slant of the guests on their Sunday Morning talk shows by pointing out that Republicans controlled the White House, Senate and House.

But after the 2006 elections... well, the slant still exists. Guests are mostly conservative and overwhelmingly white males.

The public has elected a Democratic House and Senate but you wouldn't realize it from the media...

how prior to the 2006 elections, the networks justified the tremendous slant of the guests on their Sunday Morning talk shows by pointing out that Republicans controlled the White House, Senate and House.

But after the 2006 elections... well, the slant still exists. Guests are mostly conservative and overwhelmingly white males.

The public has elected a Democratic House and Senate but you wouldn't realize it from the media...

how prior to the 2006 elections, the networks justified the tremendous slant of the guests on their Sunday Morning talk shows by pointing out that Republicans controlled the White House, Senate and House.

But after the 2006 elections... well, the slant still exists. Guests are mostly conservative and overwhelmingly white males.

The public has elected a Democratic House and Senate but you wouldn't realize it from the media...

BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable.

Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.

TIM RUSSERT: What my concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.

BILL MOYERS: Bob Simon didn't wait for the phone to ring.

BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable.

Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.

TIM RUSSERT: What my concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.

BILL MOYERS: Bob Simon didn't wait for the phone to ring.

BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable.

Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.

TIM RUSSERT: What my concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.

BILL MOYERS: Bob Simon didn't wait for the phone to ring.

That nothing like this this happened, was a very commendable achievement of the city government.

Absolutely. That is the only possible outcome of political demonstrations. Too bad there wasn't more of this, eh? Sadly, just things like this, this, and this.

Did you really just cite

Reuters
and the Associated Press
as
examples
of
accuracy
in reporting?

Wow, just wow.

The only facts that Al Gore deals in are the ones he distorts for his twisted agenda.

Yawn. Gore has his opinions, but they are backed up by decades of impartial research. As opposed to you flat earthers, who rely on lies and asshatery.

I deal with the facts as they are. RealClimate is run by real partisans, bought and paid for by the State, some of whom have degrees.

Paid by the state? Do you have any idea who has been president for the last 6 years and who had control of Congress for the last 14? Have members of your family argued that keeping children away from lead paint and mercury out of their food were "real partisans?"

That link has nothing to do with ice cores. No climate scientist or anyone even vaugely aquanted with the data, would dispute that Antarctica is in a cooling trend according to the ice cores. I'm not going to do your research for you. Download some ice core data.

You expect me to prove your points for you? Find your own damned links, lazyass.

And, as I stated before, the antarctic is cooling, and even your flunkies at the IPCC would back me up on that one.

Once again, realities well known liberal bias and smacks down your bullshit, here and here.

Maybe you should try to think of the global economy as an ecosystem, and then you will start to see the light. You can't just say, oh, we'll just wipe out the plankton, big deal. It is a big deal with repercussions that far exceed what can be anticipated. Same thing with wiping out a major industry in the economy. Economic tampering by socialistic lunatics has the potential to bring far more suffering into the world than you are obviously aware. Even the minor U.S. political tampering with ethanol demand is already causing artificial food crises in various parts of the world. But it's a logical fallacy regardless to try to defend your position by saying that the consequences of your position are more terrible than my position. The bottom line is that your position is based on a combination of obsolete hypotheses, political opportunism, peer pressure, propaganda and lies. There's no reason for any reasonable person to believe in it, no matter how horrible its predictions are. If you want a doomsday prediction to guide science and government action, you should start thinking about the next ice age, which will mean the obliteration of life as we know it, and has the added advantage of being nonfictional.

Can be summarized as: E++99, low on facts, but has a lock on self-centered, irresponsible greed.

Not 100% sure about Murdoch, but Roger Ailes certainly qualifies as your typical douchebag conservative. But back to Murdoch, I find it difficult to believe that money is an overriding concern once you reach a certain level. When you have a few billion dollars, what difference does a few billion more make, besides allowing you to buy (political) power? And given that his is a media empire, that's a lot of power.

Yes, that is correct, Mr. Soros has given money to Moveon.org, and Moveon.org has given money to Media Matters.

Did you think that means it is correct to say that Media Matters was funded by Soros? That is not correct. Do you understand the difference between things that are false and things that are true?

Just in case you're going to start in on other lies being told about Media Matters, go read this and this too.

Oh, and the reference to "admitted liar David Brock"? Yes, David Brock has said that when he was being paid by right-wing smear artists, he put out false information on their behalf. That was part of the experience that led him to start exposing all the other lies from the right.

Finally, what does any of this have to do with the webpage on mediamatters.org that I linked to? It describes an erroneous report on Fox News, and includes a transcript and a video recording of it. Do you have some kind of problem with people documenting the instances where Fox News misleads its viewers?

Yes, that is correct, Mr. Soros has given money to Moveon.org, and Moveon.org has given money to Media Matters.

Did you think that means it is correct to say that Media Matters was funded by Soros? That is not correct. Do you understand the difference between things that are false and things that are true?

Just in case you're going to start in on other lies being told about Media Matters, go read this and this too.

Oh, and the reference to "admitted liar David Brock"? Yes, David Brock has said that when he was being paid by right-wing smear artists, he put out false information on their behalf. That was part of the experience that led him to start exposing all the other lies from the right.

Finally, what does any of this have to do with the webpage on mediamatters.org that I linked to? It describes an erroneous report on Fox News, and includes a transcript and a video recording of it. Do you have some kind of problem with people documenting the instances where Fox News misleads its viewers?

In fact, Media Matters has never received funding from progressive philanthropist George Soros.

See how easy that was?

environmentalist groups got their way and now we have a riskier space program.

This point about how the foam insulation process was changed has come up many times in discussions about the damage to Endeavor. And it's wrong.

It has its origin in one of Rush Limbaugh's lies. As it turns out, the foam that dealt Columbia the death blow was the old-style CFC foam. The problem was in the hand-spraying application method used on that area, which left gaps and voids in the foam.

Yes, when they first started using the CFC-free foam in 1997 there were some problems seen. Changes were quickly made to improve the adhesion.

There were also plenty of problems with the CFC foam - "popcorning" from trapped air bubbled was noted in 1995, while in 1992 Columbia was struck by a large piece of foam, ripping a 12cm gouge in the tiles. Both of these were before the switch to CFC-free foam.

So, the new "environmentally friendly" freon-free adhesive's problems have been fixed?

Yes, actually, a long time ago. When they first switched to the CFC-free foam there were some problems; changes were quickly made to improve the adhesion.

The "environmentalists make the Shuttle blow up!" meme is a Limbaugh lie; the piece that dealt Columbia the death blow was made with CFCs.

Please stop spreading Limbaugh's lie.

Actually it's not at all clear that Alger Hiss was guilty of all the spying attributed to him based on the Intercepts. His name in those Intercepts was substituted for a code name that one analyst thought might fit. That was based on the analyst's interpretation of one message with that code name describing circumstances that narrowed down candidates to about 5 people, including Hiss. This was carefully researched and exposed by Kai Bird. I learned about it on Alterman's Altercation column a few months back, or you can look at the article by Bird himself. I would have used the MSNBC article link Alterman provided but for some reason it's been removed (as have all of Alterman's columns once he moved to MediaMatters).

So Hiss isn't the best case used to prove your point because if that information had been made public earlier, the problems with it might have been exposed sooner.

Obviously you watch Fox News and/or listen to Limbaugh for your ideas. For audio and video records some of the more outrageous lies they've told, try http://mediamatters.org/

And this is the at least the third suspected or convicted terrorist, during the Bush administration, that has been allowed to live without the punishment that would otherwise be expected. Eric Rudolph killed a police officer in one incident and killed one person and injured at least 100 others when he bombed the Atlanta Olympics. He also was guilty of bombing untold number of other public buildings. He was arrested in 2003 and was the recipient of an amazing lovefest as the FBI tried their best to negotiate a guilty plea that allowed him to escape the death penalty. OTOH, a sniper attack that killed more people, but not a police officer, and was not an terrorist attack per se on any public building, resulted in the federal prosecutors falling over themselves trying to get these guys killed ASAP.

Then of course there is the Alleged Cuban Terrorist that is wanted in Venezuela for downing a plane that was let go by the Bush courts. It seems that if we can lock a limo driver for terrorism based on his acquaintances, we could keep a guy who probably blew up a plane from the opportunity of doing it again. And then the republican dude has the audacity to claim that new cuban terrorists are the issue?

I think it is official. The rule of law is over, and know we are back to the times of royal favor. I suspect in the next year we will see the supreme court transfer the power of execution to the President, and he will, just like his namesake King George. Perhaps he can bring the US back into that time with a state religion, and then persecute everyone who disagrees.

Examples please.

Bush taking the presidency should be the only example you need. If you need others, just browse the Media Matters archives.

O'REILLY: Reluctantly, and I mean reluctantly, "Talking Points" is going to support this legislation. It's the best we can get and does improve the situation. But make no mistake, it's not fair. It drastically alters the United States of America. And there will be unintended consequences all over the place.

The new census report says America's now one-third minority. And in four states -- California, New Mexico, Texas, and Hawaii -- whites are the minority. So with the infusion of as many as 20 to 30 million new citizens in the next 10 years, the landscape of America will absolutely change.

According to the CIA World Factbook of 2007, the US is currently consuming 20.7 million barrels of oil per day. Let's suppose that "the amount of technically recoverable oil in the ANWR 1002 area 'is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels ... with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels.'"

Quick, do the math. 7.7 billion divided by 20.7 million per day gives us ... 371 days -- just over a year's worth. And it will take about 10 years for the drilling to come online.

Personally, I don't think it's worth it -- but I'm not an oil investor. ;)

IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.

ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.

IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --

McGUIRK : Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some --
woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I
don't know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had.

IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough --

McCORD: Do The Right Thing.

McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did, right?

ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the
Toronto Raptors.

IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah.

RUFFINO: Only tougher.

McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more appropriate.

You know what? "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean freedom from consequences. When you say something, you're not absolved from the feeling the results of your actions. You can feel free to use racial epithets in your everyday speech, or write Christ-based pornography, but don't expect people not to get outraged.

There is no "chilling effect" here. A very rich white guy used very poor judgment in verbally attacking some innocent women for nothing other than the fact that they were black women. He lost his job but gets to look forward to a comfortable retirement and lucrative speaking gigs. It would be different if he had been speaking some truth to power, but instead it was just a slur from a guy with a history of slurs.

Yeah, we can have a discourse about the awful misogyny in rap lyrics. That's a separate argument, though. And don't pretend that Sharpton hasn't stood up against violent rap lyrics. Google is your friend.

As someone who used to work for Media Matters, I can tell you there is a whole lot wrong with this writeup in the WSJ.

For starters, there is nothing approaching blogging involved. Media Matters has hired a number of prominent bloggers to work with them, but an organization with offices on K Street in Washington DC, with a staff of about 50, is a far stretch from what folks think of when they think of a blogger. The researchers write their articles to a very precise formula, and then the editorial staff "correct" them and the process goes back and forth quite a number of times before anything is published. Not exactly what the image of the term blogger conjures up, but Media Matters sure likes when people make that mistake.

What's happening here is not Media Matters discovering this horrible outrage and then alerting the rest of the world to it - what's happening is Media Matters trying to take credit for Imus's firing because they monitored his show. They monitor dozens of shows per day, and pick up every off color comment like this and document it over and over again.

Now, if you buy the stereotyped liberal "whiner" point of view, this is indicative of the whole media being a bunch of foul-mouthed bigots. And said bigots having a whole lot of staying power for not getting shit-canned more often. But if you think about it for a second, it's really just Media Matters shooting a spray of bullets, pointing out every time anyone says anything off color, and then taking credit when people get outraged about it because they documented it "first".

The unfortunate thing is that lots of well meaning and powerful leftist funders give Media Matters money because they fail to see this subterfuge, or maybe because they are "whining liberals" themselves.

It's really more indicative of a more general problem in Washington DC - folks there think that everything that happens in our democracy can be traced back to some pressure group inside the beltway. They don't believe in this thing called "grassroots". I wish I could say they are fools, but reluctantly I must admit that they are frighteningly close to correct in many cases - but not this one.

As someone who used to work for Media Matters, I can tell you there is a whole lot wrong with this writeup in the WSJ.

For starters, there is nothing approaching blogging involved. Media Matters has hired a number of prominent bloggers to work with them, but an organization with offices on K Street in Washington DC, with a staff of about 50, is a far stretch from what folks think of when they think of a blogger. The researchers write their articles to a very precise formula, and then the editorial staff "correct" them and the process goes back and forth quite a number of times before anything is published. Not exactly what the image of the term blogger conjures up, but Media Matters sure likes when people make that mistake.

What's happening here is not Media Matters discovering this horrible outrage and then alerting the rest of the world to it - what's happening is Media Matters trying to take credit for Imus's firing because they monitored his show. They monitor dozens of shows per day, and pick up every off color comment like this and document it over and over again.

Now, if you buy the stereotyped liberal "whiner" point of view, this is indicative of the whole media being a bunch of foul-mouthed bigots. And said bigots having a whole lot of staying power for not getting shit-canned more often. But if you think about it for a second, it's really just Media Matters shooting a spray of bullets, pointing out every time anyone says anything off color, and then taking credit when people get outraged about it because they documented it "first".

The unfortunate thing is that lots of well meaning and powerful leftist funders give Media Matters money because they fail to see this subterfuge, or maybe because they are "whining liberals" themselves.

It's really more indicative of a more general problem in Washington DC - folks there think that everything that happens in our democracy can be traced back to some pressure group inside the beltway. They don't believe in this thing called "grassroots". I wish I could say they are fools, but reluctantly I must admit that they are frighteningly close to correct in many cases - but not this one.

Would you like to show me the massively *OBVIOUS* conflict of interest there? Please do, back what you are saying up.

Yawn. First, you might want to get a little more reputable source yourself, Sparky. Secondly, that he gives money to charity is completely irrelevant to the question of it being a conflict of interest. Chief Justice John Roberts set a good example on how to handle conflicts of interest by recusing himself in a case because he had previously ruled on the same suit as an appellate judge. As opposed to Scalia, who set a bad example by *not* recusing himself when he'd earlier said "I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy".

Yes, those powers were given by an overzealous Congress recently in an effort to get reelected without even reading the bills.

Let's see, from my (incomplete) list: energy policy secrecy, nope. The war, yes but only due to mis-information (al qaida in iraq? WMD? Yellowcake?), so thats really a no. Torture, nope. Rendition, nope. Signing statements, nope. FEMA (by which i meant the politicization of the department, putting horribly inadequately experienced political buddies in charge), nope. Whether FEMA is part of DHS or not is not really relevant if the head is a horse lawyer. FISA & domestic wiretapping, nope. Habeas corpus revocation, yes sort of, again at the behest of the administration. Scientific report "editing", nope. US Attorney purge, not really. The purge has nothing to do with congress, the patriot act provision (which was slipped in by a republican senatorial aid after final negotiations were finished) was passed by congress, but that is ancillary to the purge.

So, no, claiming those behaviors were somehow "given" by congress is not an accurate description. That they occurred and congress chose to look the other way is the only possible argument you could make, and even that is weakened by the administration's strong-arming.

  It's not checks and balances when Congress is trying to micromanage the Iraq war and international relationships.

Congress is explicitly given the authority to fund (or not) military actions. The country has expressed a clear opinion (in polls and the last election) that the are not supportive of the war. It would be dereliction for the congress to sit back and not exercise their duty to impact foreign policy in the way they are allowed to. Micromanaging is when you tell military commanders that they will have to make do with a smaller invasion force than they want, like the administration did.

If you honestly think it's fine think about if Tom Delay did the same thing with a Democrat president.

Better example, what if Newt Gingrich did that with Clinton? Oh, right, he did.

  That's all moot anyway, and you should read a social studies textbook before you speak about the powers again -- several of the items you list are perfectly legal and in the purview of the president. I also supported Bill Clinton's "grabs at power" if that's what you consider firing AGs... and he fired every single one for political reasons.

Go through that list and tell which you think are legal and ethical. Clinton, like Bush I, like Reagan administration, replaced all USA's when he came into office. They are political appointees, and that is normal way of administration change. Firing USAs mid-term is nearly unprecedented, and doing so because the USA's unwillingness to subvert the justice system for political hay is beyond unethical, if still technically legal. However, lying to congress for the reasons behind the firing, and lying about whether you were involved, is quite illegal.

Whether this administration broke the law in every one of my list is not really a defense. They clearly acted in a horribly unethical way in each, and *did* clearly break the law in many of them, with no repercussions until very recently. The point of oversight it to make sure the branch responsible for executing the laws is at least not breaking them, and ideally enforcing them appropriately. Claiming that exercising oversight responsibility is a bad thing really just does not make sense.

-Ted