First of all, the government doesn't "prevent" marriage. People have marriage ceremonies without the government's consent, and it doesn't matter. The question is (a) should government recognize marriage, and (b) in what cases should government recognize marriage.
If marriage is viewed as an act of love, then government has not reason for involvement whatsoever. However, if you view marriage as the foundation platform for a family, then that view changes, for several reasons:
1) Stronger families mean that there is less need of government intervention in the general case. Strong families have less need of governance.
2) When children enter the picture, you have a lot of issues surrounding care, custody, etc., all for a child which has no real input into the matter.
When marriage is viewed as a foundation for a family, then there are legal reasons for the government to recognize or not recognize certain marriages (but again, legal recognition of marriage is not equivalent with marriage).
On a different topic, one could also point out the absurdity of calling anything between same-sex partners "marriage". Even in the past when same-sex relationships were viewed as being better than man-woman relationships, same-sex relationships were not considered, even for a second, marriage. Why? Because marriage is more about family than it is about affections.
"However, I'd suspect that your probably a strict Fox news only kinda guy."
Showing your own ignorance, Fox News has generally been against the swiftees, especially Bill O'Reilly.
As for the swiftees, I haven't looked into the matter too much myself, but I thought that at least one of their claims were authenticated by John Kerry's own book, wasn't it? I could be wrong.
Anyway, I haven't seen any evidence supporting a problem w/ Bush's national guard service. However, there are some missing documents which seem problematic, but I've only seen good coverage of that on NewsMax - http://dev.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/5/ 130506.shtml
I wouldn't be so certain. I think such tasks are better left to consumer advocacy groups. One thing the FDA did for years was block a food from entering the US that could basically cure a large number of cases of epilepsy in children. Why was it blocked? The can claimed it had 3 carbs per serving, while the FDA thought it had 11. Thankfully that pissing contest is now resolved.
By the way, for those of you stuck with epilepsy, I wholeheartedly recommend The Ketogenic Diet. It provides a drug-free way of dealing with epilepsy that is MUCH MUCH more side-effect-free than current epilepsy meds. Ketocal was the food that was blocked by the FDA, which is a powder that allows you to serve the ketogenic diet to children with feeding tubes.
I honestly think that this was just because Sun doesn't necessarily have a say in what goes into OpenOffice.org. Without this, the open-source world could simply just stick any technology into the OpenOffice.org codebase, and viola, Microsoft can't sue for infringement. I'm not a fan of software patents, but I think this really does make sense from a legal viewpoint, and is not necessarily an underhanded legal move by Microsoft.
"When you sell software, you ARE selling programming. You are saying, X didn't exist, I created it, now if you pay me Y you can have it."
You have just described the free software model (and the proprietary model as well). Where the free software model and the proprietary model diverge is what happens AFTER the recipient gets the software. In the proprietary model, the originator still has control. In the open model, the originator does not. Free software is like teaching. I can charge for a class, but I cannot prevent you, after taking my class, to open up a class teaching the same things.
But the free software movement has NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with charging to receive copies of a program from an author.
Tommy Franks against the war? I don't think so. He spoke to a local business meeting here, and was very much for it.
I've been planning on reading Plan of Attack for a while. Against All Enemies is not on my reading list because I trust Clarke as far as I could throw him.
If you think that drinking beer is the only evidence Jayna Davis has, you obviously haven't read her stuff.
"If you can't then your argument holds no water and just sounds like a wacko getting high on some conspiracy theory, reading news from very dubious sources."
Keep on trusting the establishment media. They're the ones feeding you information like CBS's documents regarding Bush's National Guard service (shown to be falsifications by others you wouldn't consider mainstream enough). Honestly, I have no trust for any of the major networks, including fox, and very few of the print magazines/newspapers (our own newspaper - the Tulsa World - is chock full of disinformation).
Anyway, The Price of Loyalty looks like a good read. Thanks for recommending it.
I gave you two sources, either of which can be checked out from your local library. I don't understand your insistance that it come from "mainstream" sources. The book The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror was pretty well sourced from what I recall. The Third Terrorist is shorter, and deals a lot more with the middle-eastern connection. The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror deals with a number of wierd things about OKC, plus how they relate to other world events, so it's pretty thick.
I'm sorry I don't remember links from every story I've ever read. Perhaps when I get a few hundred hours of free time I'll provide you with links to every news report I ever read on the subject. However, some good links can be found on jaynadavis.com.
I read the transcript. I agree with you that O'Reilly did not give his guest a fair shake. But it's an exception, and it's not worse than what is often on Hardball for example.
"If you are so certain the other networks are as biased as Fox News, then I challenge you to watch the movie OutFoxed and then scrutinize the other networks."
Interestingly, I don't have insider ties to other news organizations, so I can't perform your test.
"To date, there has been no evidence documented that connects Iraq to terrorism against Americans."
Except that Ramzi Youssef was working for Iraq when he set of the WTC bomb (he is usually counted in with the Saudis, because that's his nationality, and most people don't mention that he was working for Saddam at the time). Also, there is the assassination attempt against former president GHWB. Also there is the fact that Iraq harbored many of the terrorists involved in attacks against americans, including the remaining attacker from the WTC bombing in 1993.
I agree that "victory" was called too early, but remember at the time the media was outraged that GWB was taking too long to declare victory. GWB was pressured into calling victory too early. I blame GWB (he should be above following the popular opinion of the media, but was weak in this case), but I certainly don't think Kerry would have done better.
'Where are the guys responsible? Oh, that's right, in jail, caught by the administration that "did nothing".'
Kind of. One of them was in Iraq, and the other was caught by the government in the Phillipines when he accidentally set his building on fire.
"Also, your grip on the concept of "across-the-board" seems pretty loose, at best... at worst, you're repeating a lie, at best, you're playing fast-and-loose with a term."
No, that would be "equally across the board". "Across the board" simply means that everyone getting taxes pays less taxes. If the rich got a lower percentage tax cut, would you still say that "across the board" is wrong? Doubt it.
As to OKC, it's really not that far-fetched. The local investigation done by state rep Charles Key turned up VASTLY different information that what was fed from the federal government. Read the book "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis or "The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror".
The thing is that the government knew about the plot against OKC, and even advised several individuals in that building and the building next door to not show up for work that day. In fact, in the central ATF office in that building NO ATF AGENTS were in the building that morning. Shortly after the blast, congressman Istook talked to a reporter and said something about it being a terrible tragedy, especially since we knew about it before it happened.
You should really be more skeptical of the news. They are not very reliable, and usually prefer to not rock the boat too much, no matter who is in office.
First of all, on the day of the bombing, Congressman Istook told a reporter that they had known that this was coming for a long time, and that it was connected to the middle east. In addition, the day of the bombing, ALL ATF AGENTS had mysteriously been out of the building. Others in the building were alerted not to be there on that day because the building was under threat.
State Representative Charles Key here in Oklahoma did his own investigation which showed a lot of the public information about the OKC bombing to be false.
At one time Wolfowitz mentioned that the Iraq conection was worth looking into.
According to the New York Times, in Afghanistan there were documents about bomb recipes, one of which was marked "the kind used in Oklahoma City". They had more information on the recipe for the bomb than we do.
But I really suggest you read Jayna Davis's book The Third Terrorist or the book The Oklahoma City Bombing and the politics of Terror. Jayna Davis worked for KFOR in OKC and followed up on the story, and wrote a book on it.
You're right, it's a lot like teachers and doctors.
Teachers don't get paid every time you use something you learn. They also don't get paid if you teach someone else what they taught you.
Developing new techniques is one thing that great surgeons do, and then they share them with other surgeons. You don't have to pay the pioneering surgeon every time you do the procedure yourself.
Similarly, with lawyers, you cannot copyright or patent a legal argument. If you make an argument in open court, it's there for anyone to use for the rest of eternity.
"And no I dont ever want to live from selling support contracts."
What about selling programming? X doesn't exist. Pay me Y and I'll bring it into existence. That's the way most software companies do things anyway. Remember, free software doesn't necessarily mean that you make software public, it means that those that receive the software have full rights to use, modify, and redistribute -- which is really a typical consulting agreement.
You haven't mentioned anyone by name that O'Reilly was unfair to. If you did that, it would be a good conversation. It would be silly for me to sit here and list the people that O'Reilly _wasn't_ unfair to, or to recall a conversation where I though that O'Reilly was acting fairly. If you have instances of O'Reilly being unfair, please present them.
"Care to refute analysis provided by a previous post which indicates you have the facts completely wrong? According to that chart, the top 1% of earners got a 5% tax reduction, and the *most* any other income group saw was a 1.4% reduction!"
I don't have the facts wrong. I agree with those facts. The people who paid higher percentages in taxes got a higher percentage tax cut. That sounds fair to me.
"I'm sorry, I want to be really fair about this, but in any analysis, even percentage-paid-based, the majority of this administration's tax cuts ( especially if you include the estate tax ) are heavily weighted towards the very, very wealthy."
Might that be because the _taxes themselves_ are heavily weighted toward the very, very wealthy? Perhaps it would help if you knew where I stand - I believe in a flat tax, with tax exemptions only for the very, very poor.
"WHY would you think this guy is good at getting rid of terrorists?!?"
Have we been attacked again on our soil? Did you think that the 9/11 attacks were meant to be a one-time-only attack? Maybe the reason we haven't been attacked again is because GWB is serious, while Kerry wants to treat this as a police effort.
Let's look at what happened during the Clinton years -
Do you remember the OKC bombing? Are you aware that we had intelligence reports stating that middle-easterners were going to attack the heartland using two lily-whites (i.e. - white people as front men)? Bill Clinton ignored the middle east threat, took down the watch for John Doe #2 despite numerous eyewitness reports that he existed, because he didn't want to get involved in the middle east. (For more info on this read the books "The Third Terrorist" or visit jaynadavis.com.
"Fox News would prefer to downplay the significance of this milestone and instead distract viewers with irrelevant courtroom drama."
It isn't a significant milestone. Why is 1,000 more important than 999? Both are extremely low numbers for a war. They are tragic, but very low considering what has been accomplished.
"Already the Fox News effect is demonstrated in your blurring of commentary and reporting."
Actually, it's pointing out the fact that there _is_ no difference between commentary and reporting. What you choose to report is as much a commentary as what you say about it.
Does Fox News have slack ethics? I don't know. I'm certain that theirs isn't any more slack than the other networks.
"Oh, how about less than 10% of that number died in Kosovo and Somalia combined."
How about the story that _noone_ is covering - Iraq's involvement in terror activities on US soil in the Clinton administration - Ramzi Youssef worked for Iraq, Ramzi Youssef also trained the OKC bombers, who were working with a member of Iraq's republican guard at the time. Perhaps the reason why the numbers were so small in that era is that Clinton didn't really want to do _anything_ that involved the military internationally, especially in the Middle East. GWB had the balls to do it, and has done quite well.
"On O'Reilly anyone expressing their views to forcefully will have their microphones cut or ask to "Shut up" in a stunningly unprofessional way. "
This is complete BS. I've seen O'Reilly quite a few times, and the only times he's cut someone's mike is when either (a) they were passing off completely unsubstantiated lies or (b) they were completely dodging O'Reilly's questions.
And then about CNN - you don't think it's a conflict of interest for Carville and Begala to work directly for the Kerry campaign _and_ be on TV? The fact that you can point out one instance of Fox News doing the right thing and CNN doing the wrong this doesn't mean it's an epidemic. Are you sure you're not just ignoring the times when CNN is unethical?
'They don't have a Hannity telling you "180 more days before George Bush gets relected". You can't do that in journalism, one ought to say "180 more days for the 2004 election".'
Except that Hannity is not a journalist. Hannity & Colmes is a right-wing/left-wing slugfest. Period. Hannity pulls for the right and Colmes pulls for the left. I don't see the problem here.
""Where WMDs found in Iraq?""
Yes. The fact that you aren't aware of them just means that you don't pay enough attention. The fact that Fox News watchers probably have other sources of news as well (other than Fox or the traditional media) is not what the traditional media wants. For information on Iraq's WMD finds, see here and here, not to mention the WMD that were shipped to Syria and used in an attempted assassination of King Hussein of Jordan.
""Is there a connection between Iraq and 9/11 ?""
Yes! Hussein Al-Hussany, who helped McVeigh in the OKC bombing, was a member of the Republican Guard, and after the OKC bombing went to work for Logan national airport. Hussein Al-Hussany sued Jayna Davis for slander for publishing reports about this, AND LOST. Ramzi Youssef, one of the ones who carried out the first WTC bombing, was being employed by Iraq at the time.
Anyway, it's a long connection, but the imminent connection is between the larger war on terror and Iraq, and between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, which noone denies exists.
Of course, the people who don't believe network news don't come up with the same answers as the people who do, but that doesn't make their answers wrong. What can I say but look up the facts and check them yourself.
"If you really want lower taxes, then cease being a person and start becoming a corporation."
There's no such thing as a corporation paying taxes. Eventually it has to come from *gasp* people. For example, "my employer's share" of my income tax is really just a tax on me that I can't deduct.
As for the lion's share of the tax breaks going to the rich, that's because the lion's share of the taxes go to the rich. Personally, I believe in a flat tax with only tax breaks for the very poor. That's still a system that's biased against the rich, but it's fairly biased.
Of course, we ALL pay way too much in taxes. If we got taxes down to 5-10% of what we earn, that would be great.
James Carville and Paul Begala - they are both on the air with CNN.
In a more circuitous link, Greta van Sustern's husband campaigns for Kerry, and is one of his top fundraisers (in case you think that Fox only has Republican ties).
As for the clip, I don't feel like downloading it, but assuming it's horrendously damaging, that's only one reporter. Are you sure it's epidemic? Do you watch enough Fox coverage to come to that conclusion?
Personally, I don't like Fox because they seem to like to fawn over all of the legal incidents of the day - Koby Brian, Michael Jackson, the murder trials, the kidnappings - I really don't think that qualifies as news. But I really see them being pretty fair to both sides. I'm sure on occasion someone is unfair, but if you think that's unusual you've never read the New York Times or watched other news channels.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, the government doesn't "prevent" marriage. People have marriage ceremonies without the government's consent, and it doesn't matter. The question is (a) should government recognize marriage, and (b) in what cases should government recognize marriage.
If marriage is viewed as an act of love, then government has not reason for involvement whatsoever. However, if you view marriage as the foundation platform for a family, then that view changes, for several reasons:
1) Stronger families mean that there is less need of government intervention in the general case. Strong families have less need of governance.
2) When children enter the picture, you have a lot of issues surrounding care, custody, etc., all for a child which has no real input into the matter.
When marriage is viewed as a foundation for a family, then there are legal reasons for the government to recognize or not recognize certain marriages (but again, legal recognition of marriage is not equivalent with marriage).
On a different topic, one could also point out the absurdity of calling anything between same-sex partners "marriage". Even in the past when same-sex relationships were viewed as being better than man-woman relationships, same-sex relationships were not considered, even for a second, marriage. Why? Because marriage is more about family than it is about affections.
I guess the feds got her!
"However, I'd suspect that your probably a strict Fox news only kinda guy."
/ 130506.shtml
Showing your own ignorance, Fox News has generally been against the swiftees, especially Bill O'Reilly.
As for the swiftees, I haven't looked into the matter too much myself, but I thought that at least one of their claims were authenticated by John Kerry's own book, wasn't it? I could be wrong.
Anyway, I haven't seen any evidence supporting a problem w/ Bush's national guard service. However, there are some missing documents which seem problematic, but I've only seen good coverage of that on NewsMax - http://dev.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/5
"I want an FDA thank you very much"
I wouldn't be so certain. I think such tasks are better left to consumer advocacy groups. One thing the FDA did for years was block a food from entering the US that could basically cure a large number of cases of epilepsy in children. Why was it blocked? The can claimed it had 3 carbs per serving, while the FDA thought it had 11. Thankfully that pissing contest is now resolved.
By the way, for those of you stuck with epilepsy, I wholeheartedly recommend The Ketogenic Diet. It provides a drug-free way of dealing with epilepsy that is MUCH MUCH more side-effect-free than current epilepsy meds. Ketocal was the food that was blocked by the FDA, which is a powder that allows you to serve the ketogenic diet to children with feeding tubes.
I honestly think that this was just because Sun doesn't necessarily have a say in what goes into OpenOffice.org. Without this, the open-source world could simply just stick any technology into the OpenOffice.org codebase, and viola, Microsoft can't sue for infringement. I'm not a fan of software patents, but I think this really does make sense from a legal viewpoint, and is not necessarily an underhanded legal move by Microsoft.
I thought game developers got to make up their own physics :)
So are you treated better or worse over there as a research assistent than over here in the USA?
So, you could say that the Beatles are helping Michael Jackson get out of jail?
I found this -- if you're interested in a WSJ article reprinted on Jayna's website:
http://www.jaynadavis.com/story090502-wsj1.html
Your missing the point.
"When you sell software, you ARE selling programming. You are saying, X didn't exist, I created it, now if you pay me Y you can have it."
You have just described the free software model (and the proprietary model as well). Where the free software model and the proprietary model diverge is what happens AFTER the recipient gets the software. In the proprietary model, the originator still has control. In the open model, the originator does not. Free software is like teaching. I can charge for a class, but I cannot prevent you, after taking my class, to open up a class teaching the same things.
But the free software movement has NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with charging to receive copies of a program from an author.
Tommy Franks against the war? I don't think so. He spoke to a local business meeting here, and was very much for it.
I've been planning on reading Plan of Attack for a while. Against All Enemies is not on my reading list because I trust Clarke as far as I could throw him.
If you think that drinking beer is the only evidence Jayna Davis has, you obviously haven't read her stuff.
"If you can't then your argument holds no water and just sounds like a wacko getting high on some conspiracy theory, reading news from very dubious sources."
Keep on trusting the establishment media. They're the ones feeding you information like CBS's documents regarding Bush's National Guard service (shown to be falsifications by others you wouldn't consider mainstream enough). Honestly, I have no trust for any of the major networks, including fox, and very few of the print magazines/newspapers (our own newspaper - the Tulsa World - is chock full of disinformation).
Anyway, The Price of Loyalty looks like a good read. Thanks for recommending it.
I gave you two sources, either of which can be checked out from your local library. I don't understand your insistance that it come from "mainstream" sources. The book The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror was pretty well sourced from what I recall. The Third Terrorist is shorter, and deals a lot more with the middle-eastern connection. The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror deals with a number of wierd things about OKC, plus how they relate to other world events, so it's pretty thick.
I'm sorry I don't remember links from every story I've ever read. Perhaps when I get a few hundred hours of free time I'll provide you with links to every news report I ever read on the subject. However, some good links can be found on jaynadavis.com.
I read the transcript. I agree with you that O'Reilly did not give his guest a fair shake. But it's an exception, and it's not worse than what is often on Hardball for example.
"If you are so certain the other networks are as biased as Fox News, then I challenge you to watch the movie OutFoxed and then scrutinize the other networks."
Interestingly, I don't have insider ties to other news organizations, so I can't perform your test.
"To date, there has been no evidence documented that connects Iraq to terrorism against Americans."
Except that Ramzi Youssef was working for Iraq when he set of the WTC bomb (he is usually counted in with the Saudis, because that's his nationality, and most people don't mention that he was working for Saddam at the time). Also, there is the assassination attempt against former president GHWB. Also there is the fact that Iraq harbored many of the terrorists involved in attacks against americans, including the remaining attacker from the WTC bombing in 1993.
I agree that "victory" was called too early, but remember at the time the media was outraged that GWB was taking too long to declare victory. GWB was pressured into calling victory too early. I blame GWB (he should be above following the popular opinion of the media, but was weak in this case), but I certainly don't think Kerry would have done better.
'Where are the guys responsible? Oh, that's right, in jail, caught by the administration that "did nothing".'
Kind of. One of them was in Iraq, and the other was caught by the government in the Phillipines when he accidentally set his building on fire.
"Also, your grip on the concept of "across-the-board" seems pretty loose, at best... at worst, you're repeating a lie, at best, you're playing fast-and-loose with a term."
No, that would be "equally across the board". "Across the board" simply means that everyone getting taxes pays less taxes. If the rich got a lower percentage tax cut, would you still say that "across the board" is wrong? Doubt it.
As to OKC, it's really not that far-fetched. The local investigation done by state rep Charles Key turned up VASTLY different information that what was fed from the federal government. Read the book "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis or "The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror".
The thing is that the government knew about the plot against OKC, and even advised several individuals in that building and the building next door to not show up for work that day. In fact, in the central ATF office in that building NO ATF AGENTS were in the building that morning. Shortly after the blast, congressman Istook talked to a reporter and said something about it being a terrible tragedy, especially since we knew about it before it happened.
You should really be more skeptical of the news. They are not very reliable, and usually prefer to not rock the boat too much, no matter who is in office.
First of all, on the day of the bombing, Congressman Istook told a reporter that they had known that this was coming for a long time, and that it was connected to the middle east. In addition, the day of the bombing, ALL ATF AGENTS had mysteriously been out of the building. Others in the building were alerted not to be there on that day because the building was under threat.
State Representative Charles Key here in Oklahoma did his own investigation which showed a lot of the public information about the OKC bombing to be false.
At one time Wolfowitz mentioned that the Iraq conection was worth looking into.
According to the New York Times, in Afghanistan there were documents about bomb recipes, one of which was marked "the kind used in Oklahoma City". They had more information on the recipe for the bomb than we do.
But I really suggest you read Jayna Davis's book The Third Terrorist or the book The Oklahoma City Bombing and the politics of Terror. Jayna Davis worked for KFOR in OKC and followed up on the story, and wrote a book on it.
You're right, it's a lot like teachers and doctors.
Teachers don't get paid every time you use something you learn. They also don't get paid if you teach someone else what they taught you.
Developing new techniques is one thing that great surgeons do, and then they share them with other surgeons. You don't have to pay the pioneering surgeon every time you do the procedure yourself.
Similarly, with lawyers, you cannot copyright or patent a legal argument. If you make an argument in open court, it's there for anyone to use for the rest of eternity.
"And no I dont ever want to live from selling support contracts."
What about selling programming? X doesn't exist. Pay me Y and I'll bring it into existence. That's the way most software companies do things anyway. Remember, free software doesn't necessarily mean that you make software public, it means that those that receive the software have full rights to use, modify, and redistribute -- which is really a typical consulting agreement.
You haven't mentioned anyone by name that O'Reilly was unfair to. If you did that, it would be a good conversation. It would be silly for me to sit here and list the people that O'Reilly _wasn't_ unfair to, or to recall a conversation where I though that O'Reilly was acting fairly. If you have instances of O'Reilly being unfair, please present them.
Sorry, bad wording on my part, s/Kerry Campaign/all of the individuals I know of who are actively supporting of John Kerry/;
"Care to refute analysis provided by a previous post which indicates you have the facts completely wrong? According to that chart, the top 1% of earners got a 5% tax reduction, and the *most* any other income group saw was a 1.4% reduction!"
I don't have the facts wrong. I agree with those facts. The people who paid higher percentages in taxes got a higher percentage tax cut. That sounds fair to me.
"I'm sorry, I want to be really fair about this, but in any analysis, even percentage-paid-based, the majority of this administration's tax cuts ( especially if you include the estate tax ) are heavily weighted towards the very, very wealthy."
Might that be because the _taxes themselves_ are heavily weighted toward the very, very wealthy? Perhaps it would help if you knew where I stand - I believe in a flat tax, with tax exemptions only for the very, very poor.
"WHY would you think this guy is good at getting rid of terrorists?!?"
Have we been attacked again on our soil? Did you think that the 9/11 attacks were meant to be a one-time-only attack? Maybe the reason we haven't been attacked again is because GWB is serious, while Kerry wants to treat this as a police effort.
Let's look at what happened during the Clinton years -
Do you remember the OKC bombing? Are you aware that we had intelligence reports stating that middle-easterners were going to attack the heartland using two lily-whites (i.e. - white people as front men)? Bill Clinton ignored the middle east threat, took down the watch for John Doe #2 despite numerous eyewitness reports that he existed, because he didn't want to get involved in the middle east. (For more info on this read the books "The Third Terrorist" or visit jaynadavis.com.
"Fox News would prefer to downplay the significance of this milestone and instead distract viewers with irrelevant courtroom drama."
It isn't a significant milestone. Why is 1,000 more important than 999? Both are extremely low numbers for a war. They are tragic, but very low considering what has been accomplished.
"Already the Fox News effect is demonstrated in your blurring of commentary and reporting."
Actually, it's pointing out the fact that there _is_ no difference between commentary and reporting. What you choose to report is as much a commentary as what you say about it.
Does Fox News have slack ethics? I don't know. I'm certain that theirs isn't any more slack than the other networks.
"Oh, how about less than 10% of that number died in Kosovo and Somalia combined."
How about the story that _noone_ is covering - Iraq's involvement in terror activities on US soil in the Clinton administration - Ramzi Youssef worked for Iraq, Ramzi Youssef also trained the OKC bombers, who were working with a member of Iraq's republican guard at the time. Perhaps the reason why the numbers were so small in that era is that Clinton didn't really want to do _anything_ that involved the military internationally, especially in the Middle East. GWB had the balls to do it, and has done quite well.
"On O'Reilly anyone expressing their views to forcefully will have their microphones cut or ask to "Shut up" in a stunningly unprofessional way. "
This is complete BS. I've seen O'Reilly quite a few times, and the only times he's cut someone's mike is when either (a) they were passing off completely unsubstantiated lies or (b) they were completely dodging O'Reilly's questions.
And then about CNN - you don't think it's a conflict of interest for Carville and Begala to work directly for the Kerry campaign _and_ be on TV? The fact that you can point out one instance of Fox News doing the right thing and CNN doing the wrong this doesn't mean it's an epidemic. Are you sure you're not just ignoring the times when CNN is unethical?
'They don't have a Hannity telling you "180 more days before George Bush gets relected". You can't do that in journalism, one ought to say "180 more days for the 2004 election".'
Except that Hannity is not a journalist. Hannity & Colmes is a right-wing/left-wing slugfest. Period. Hannity pulls for the right and Colmes pulls for the left. I don't see the problem here.
""Where WMDs found in Iraq?""
Yes. The fact that you aren't aware of them just means that you don't pay enough attention. The fact that Fox News watchers probably have other sources of news as well (other than Fox or the traditional media) is not what the traditional media wants. For information on Iraq's WMD finds, see here and here, not to mention the WMD that were shipped to Syria and used in an attempted assassination of King Hussein of Jordan.
""Is there a connection between Iraq and 9/11 ?""
Yes! Hussein Al-Hussany, who helped McVeigh in the OKC bombing, was a member of the Republican Guard, and after the OKC bombing went to work for Logan national airport. Hussein Al-Hussany sued Jayna Davis for slander for publishing reports about this, AND LOST. Ramzi Youssef, one of the ones who carried out the first WTC bombing, was being employed by Iraq at the time.
Anyway, it's a long connection, but the imminent connection is between the larger war on terror and Iraq, and between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, which noone denies exists.
Of course, the people who don't believe network news don't come up with the same answers as the people who do, but that doesn't make their answers wrong. What can I say but look up the facts and check them yourself.
"If you really want lower taxes, then cease being a person and start becoming a corporation."
There's no such thing as a corporation paying taxes. Eventually it has to come from *gasp* people. For example, "my employer's share" of my income tax is really just a tax on me that I can't deduct.
As for the lion's share of the tax breaks going to the rich, that's because the lion's share of the taxes go to the rich. Personally, I believe in a flat tax with only tax breaks for the very poor. That's still a system that's biased against the rich, but it's fairly biased.
Of course, we ALL pay way too much in taxes. If we got taxes down to 5-10% of what we earn, that would be great.
It would be nice if you backed up your case with facts, so that third parties could decide on the evidence.
James Carville and Paul Begala - they are both on the air with CNN.
In a more circuitous link, Greta van Sustern's husband campaigns for Kerry, and is one of his top fundraisers (in case you think that Fox only has Republican ties).
As for the clip, I don't feel like downloading it, but assuming it's horrendously damaging, that's only one reporter. Are you sure it's epidemic? Do you watch enough Fox coverage to come to that conclusion?
Personally, I don't like Fox because they seem to like to fawn over all of the legal incidents of the day - Koby Brian, Michael Jackson, the murder trials, the kidnappings - I really don't think that qualifies as news. But I really see them being pretty fair to both sides. I'm sure on occasion someone is unfair, but if you think that's unusual you've never read the New York Times or watched other news channels.