According to Richard Clarke's book, that bombing was based on what they thought was solid evidence at the time. I believe him, though others may not. But I don't see that he has any motive for protecting Clinton. In any case, he's not the only one who says so -- Benjamin and Simon's book also confirms this (the book is called The Age of Sacred Terror). At the time I also believed the Sudan hit was to distract us during the impeachment hearings, but according to good sources who were there at the time, the administration was basically in a position where they were ready to attack any time they got reasonable intelligence on al Qaeda -- the intel might not have been any good a few days later, because the people targeted would not have been there any longer. It was just dumb luck that the Sudan information -- which turned out not to be accurate -- came up during the impeachment hearings. According to Clarke, Clinton said to go ahead with the attack even after being advised that everyone would say that he was doing it to wag the dog.
The book is by John Dean -- not Jonathan as I mistakenly wrote, and certainly not Howard as someone else assumed -- and it's called Worse than Watergate. It's an expose of Bush, not Ashcroft, but it concentrates on the issue of openness in government (and of course has something to say about Ashcroft). Dean was Nixon's White House lawyer. I'll do better than an Amazon link -- here's the Wikipedia ISBN link so you can get it from your favorite book source.
Read Dean's book. Ashcroft has been pissing on the FOIA since he entered office. There's plenty of evidence that he lied, over and over again. I watched him do it to a Congressional investigation a couple weeks ago. They threatened him with contempt of Congress, but he just sat there glowering. They asked him to submit documents and he refused. They asked for a reason and he refused to give one. They suggested executive privelege and he said no. He forced the Patriot act through congress and suggested that even taking the time to read the bill before signing it would make them unpatriotic. He refused to open gun records of suspected terrorists for fear of pissing off his buddies in the NRA. He refused to investigate anthrax attacks in the US once it became clear that the prime suspect was an American. He refused to investigate the thousands of anthrax hoax attacks targeted at abortion clinics after 9/11. He encouraged government agencies to deny all FOIA requests on principle. He's been having peaceful advocacy groups with no terrorist ties watched and infiltrated, while practically ignoring home grown terrorist threats (including cases involving WMD, such as this one). All the while he wastes our money and resources fighting smut. Now this? A legitimate FOIA request, and his reason for denying it is utter transparent bullshit. He's the Attorney General. The American people deserve better than this.
yeah he works hard enough lying to the American public and destroying all openness in government. Have you read Jonathan Dean's book? I realize you're joking but I've had it with this guy. We've had more than enough evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach his sorry ass.
Yet if the opposite were true, I bet it would suddenly be an issue for you that most reporters voted for Bush.
Ummm, no, other than my questioning their intelligence. But my point would be the same -- media bias is a function of institutional factors more powerful than individual bias. Media workers are trained to avoid bias. That doesn't mean they are successful; most people involved in the media would agree that it is an impossible ideal, but nonetheless the dominant media worker's ideology is that they strive to avoid advocacy in their reporting. Outright political bias in the media is obvious anyway, and skeptical readers discount it. The real media bias that distorts the news comes from institutional factors -- for example, you have a story due tomorrow, and you have been sent press releases from the local police station, the mayor, and a PR company. Most reporters will write the story based on the press releases rather than searching for other sources.
Whines from Bill O'Reilly are entirely beside the point. The FAIR study's methodology is much stronger than the studies cited the other way, and it at least attempts to be systematic; you can't refute that with one loudmouth's sour grapes about not being as intelligent or suffessful as Dan Rather.
Taking a median of congress seems like a reasonable way to do that to me.
No it's not! Congress is notoriously limited in its political perspective; by the very nature of this kind of representation, those that get elected will generally ruffle the fewest feathers. Real radicals, left or right, rarely make it to Congress. Comparing the Congressional political views to those of the general American public is ridiculous; even more so to compare it to any more objective and theoretical view of the political spectrum such as those suggested by political science research.
what they defined as the center of the political spectrum of the members of congress
Certainly a far cry from the center of the political spectrum of the American public, or even of intellectual thought on the subject. The political spectrum represented by congress, with a few notable exceptions, is alarmingly limited.
But the tendency to cite liberal thinktanks vs. conservative is probably a good measure of where a paper and its reporters stand.
No it's not. It's a good measure of which think tanks are more likely to solicit media citation. Most serious studies of the mass media have found that institutional factors such as the pressure to get a story out and the inertia involved in relying on official press releases and quotes fed to reporters by think tanks and government agencies are far more influential in influencing stories than whether reporters vote democratic or republican. And the coding of think tanks itself is suspect; is Brookings Institute "conservative" or "liberal"? How about RAND? But more importantly, what about the vast majority of articles that don't cite think tanks?
Putting Drudge -- or Fox -- at the "center" suggests a particular -- I would say skewed -- perspective on the political spectrum. It's important to recognize that any estimation of media bias as "liberal" or "conservative" is bound to be subjective based on one's understanding of those terms.
They also found that the Drudge Report and Fox News Special Report were pretty much at the true center of the political spectrum.
Ummmm, this seems to be a significant problem with the study. The "true center" as compared to what? How did they measure that? Sure, if you think Drudge report is "centrist" then of course everything else seems "liberal."
In general, members of the mass media are not guided primarily by being "liberal" or "conservative" but rather by doing what they perceive to be their jobs. Whether reporters vote for Bush or not is hardly an indication of how they will report the news. Here are some articles refuting the myth of the liberal media. And here's a study that specifically counters the studies you quote.
If you look at the quicktime movie of the Dashboard in action, one of the Widgets is a little game called "Tile" that is like the "Puzzle" desk accessory in OS 6+... Now nobody can complain anymore that there aren't any games for MacOS!!!
RSS aggregation has been available for years in OSX through a number of third party utilities. Best of all, some of them do not require you to use Safari as your main browser. What we really need imho is an RSS tool that builds a hierarchical menu of sites and articles in your menubar rather than in a separate application window or a browser window. But the kind of tool Apple seems to be supplying here is almost a step backwards. It will be cool for Safari users, but the rest of us will still be looking for better RSS tools in third party apps.
is that the IP you think the cops are going to find when they look it up? That might be what you see on your LAN but it's not what the cops (or anyone else looking for you) will see. Go to http://whatismyip.com and see what I mean. Once they have your ip, as the other poster suggests, the cops can figure out where you are geographically and narrow it down from there.
PC owners are a different breed. They LIKE opening the case.
I see your point, but what mainstream PC manufacturer builds a case that you can open with a lever, without even touching a screwdriver? I like opening my computer case. That's one of the many things I love about my G4.
I've run it before on my G4 using vMac, the virtual 68k Mac emulator. It works. vMac is also cool if you ever want to play those old black and white games... Çrystal Quest, anyone?
Just look at all the valuable information available on the MFS Wiki. Lots of useful information suggesting hours and hours of labor by Minix users everywhere. I predict this will be the Next Big Thing. Minix installations everywhere, sweeping the nation, sweeping the world, while Linux fades into obscurity. With BSD dying and Apple beleaguered, Minix will become the next major competitor to Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Richard Clarke's book, that bombing was based on what they thought was solid evidence at the time. I believe him, though others may not. But I don't see that he has any motive for protecting Clinton. In any case, he's not the only one who says so -- Benjamin and Simon's book also confirms this (the book is called The Age of Sacred Terror). At the time I also believed the Sudan hit was to distract us during the impeachment hearings, but according to good sources who were there at the time, the administration was basically in a position where they were ready to attack any time they got reasonable intelligence on al Qaeda -- the intel might not have been any good a few days later, because the people targeted would not have been there any longer. It was just dumb luck that the Sudan information -- which turned out not to be accurate -- came up during the impeachment hearings. According to Clarke, Clinton said to go ahead with the attack even after being advised that everyone would say that he was doing it to wag the dog.
The book is by John Dean -- not Jonathan as I mistakenly wrote, and certainly not Howard as someone else assumed -- and it's called Worse than Watergate. It's an expose of Bush, not Ashcroft, but it concentrates on the issue of openness in government (and of course has something to say about Ashcroft). Dean was Nixon's White House lawyer. I'll do better than an Amazon link -- here's the Wikipedia ISBN link so you can get it from your favorite book source.
Not Howard Dean; read John Dean's book. Former counsel to Richard Nixon. The book is Worse than Watergate.
Read Dean's book. Ashcroft has been pissing on the FOIA since he entered office. There's plenty of evidence that he lied, over and over again. I watched him do it to a Congressional investigation a couple weeks ago. They threatened him with contempt of Congress, but he just sat there glowering. They asked him to submit documents and he refused. They asked for a reason and he refused to give one. They suggested executive privelege and he said no. He forced the Patriot act through congress and suggested that even taking the time to read the bill before signing it would make them unpatriotic. He refused to open gun records of suspected terrorists for fear of pissing off his buddies in the NRA. He refused to investigate anthrax attacks in the US once it became clear that the prime suspect was an American. He refused to investigate the thousands of anthrax hoax attacks targeted at abortion clinics after 9/11. He encouraged government agencies to deny all FOIA requests on principle. He's been having peaceful advocacy groups with no terrorist ties watched and infiltrated, while practically ignoring home grown terrorist threats (including cases involving WMD, such as this one). All the while he wastes our money and resources fighting smut. Now this? A legitimate FOIA request, and his reason for denying it is utter transparent bullshit. He's the Attorney General. The American people deserve better than this.
More importantly, what kind of moron would believe that a company like Microsoft will give you a penny for forwarding email?
Far too many such morons exist, considering the number of times I've been forwarded this email. This thing is 7 years old and I still receive it!!
yeah he works hard enough lying to the American public and destroying all openness in government. Have you read Jonathan Dean's book? I realize you're joking but I've had it with this guy. We've had more than enough evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach his sorry ass.
Ummm, no, other than my questioning their intelligence. But my point would be the same -- media bias is a function of institutional factors more powerful than individual bias. Media workers are trained to avoid bias. That doesn't mean they are successful; most people involved in the media would agree that it is an impossible ideal, but nonetheless the dominant media worker's ideology is that they strive to avoid advocacy in their reporting. Outright political bias in the media is obvious anyway, and skeptical readers discount it. The real media bias that distorts the news comes from institutional factors -- for example, you have a story due tomorrow, and you have been sent press releases from the local police station, the mayor, and a PR company. Most reporters will write the story based on the press releases rather than searching for other sources.
Whines from Bill O'Reilly are entirely beside the point. The FAIR study's methodology is much stronger than the studies cited the other way, and it at least attempts to be systematic; you can't refute that with one loudmouth's sour grapes about not being as intelligent or suffessful as Dan Rather.
No it's not! Congress is notoriously limited in its political perspective; by the very nature of this kind of representation, those that get elected will generally ruffle the fewest feathers. Real radicals, left or right, rarely make it to Congress. Comparing the Congressional political views to those of the general American public is ridiculous; even more so to compare it to any more objective and theoretical view of the political spectrum such as those suggested by political science research.
Certainly a far cry from the center of the political spectrum of the American public, or even of intellectual thought on the subject. The political spectrum represented by congress, with a few notable exceptions, is alarmingly limited.
No it's not. It's a good measure of which think tanks are more likely to solicit media citation. Most serious studies of the mass media have found that institutional factors such as the pressure to get a story out and the inertia involved in relying on official press releases and quotes fed to reporters by think tanks and government agencies are far more influential in influencing stories than whether reporters vote democratic or republican. And the coding of think tanks itself is suspect; is Brookings Institute "conservative" or "liberal"? How about RAND? But more importantly, what about the vast majority of articles that don't cite think tanks?
Putting Drudge -- or Fox -- at the "center" suggests a particular -- I would say skewed -- perspective on the political spectrum. It's important to recognize that any estimation of media bias as "liberal" or "conservative" is bound to be subjective based on one's understanding of those terms.
The study's methodology is severely flawed. Be suspicious of anything that puts Drudge at the "center" of the political spectrum.
Ummmm, this seems to be a significant problem with the study. The "true center" as compared to what? How did they measure that? Sure, if you think Drudge report is "centrist" then of course everything else seems "liberal."
In general, members of the mass media are not guided primarily by being "liberal" or "conservative" but rather by doing what they perceive to be their jobs. Whether reporters vote for Bush or not is hardly an indication of how they will report the news. Here are some articles refuting the myth of the liberal media. And here's a study that specifically counters the studies you quote.
You're right! I am! Thanks!
If you look at the quicktime movie of the Dashboard in action, one of the Widgets is a little game called "Tile" that is like the "Puzzle" desk accessory in OS 6+... Now nobody can complain anymore that there aren't any games for MacOS!!!
You misspelled "KDE."
RSS aggregation has been available for years in OSX through a number of third party utilities. Best of all, some of them do not require you to use Safari as your main browser. What we really need imho is an RSS tool that builds a hierarchical menu of sites and articles in your menubar rather than in a separate application window or a browser window. But the kind of tool Apple seems to be supplying here is almost a step backwards. It will be cool for Safari users, but the rest of us will still be looking for better RSS tools in third party apps.
is that the IP you think the cops are going to find when they look it up? That might be what you see on your LAN but it's not what the cops (or anyone else looking for you) will see. Go to http://whatismyip.com and see what I mean. Once they have your ip, as the other poster suggests, the cops can figure out where you are geographically and narrow it down from there.
The smart criminals become lawyers, politicians, and investment bankers.
I see your point, but what mainstream PC manufacturer builds a case that you can open with a lever, without even touching a screwdriver? I like opening my computer case. That's one of the many things I love about my G4.
It's iFi. Get it right.
You mean iFi?
linkage
That means Apple is dying!!
I've run it before on my G4 using vMac, the virtual 68k Mac emulator. It works. vMac is also cool if you ever want to play those old black and white games... Çrystal Quest, anyone?
Just look at all the valuable information available on the MFS Wiki. Lots of useful information suggesting hours and hours of labor by Minix users everywhere. I predict this will be the Next Big Thing. Minix installations everywhere, sweeping the nation, sweeping the world, while Linux fades into obscurity. With BSD dying and Apple beleaguered, Minix will become the next major competitor to Windows.