Comments Posted By jackson1234
Displaying 101 To 110 Of 190 Comments
'THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING HERE'
Michale:
"So we have here a business chasing profit while following in the footsteps of Fox News. So, refresh me: what’s the conservative objection?"
Can you show me anything comparable FOX did along this lines, i.e., go into the White House for a straight "news" broadcast to advance legislation?
I know you can't. The Democrats' congressional hearings still would be underway. You are usually more intellectually honest.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 16.06.2009 @ 12:24
Anon:
"People are expressing their outrage at this media corruption and the ensuing hypocrisy from the left. If a Republican did this with Fox News, the left would be having an apoplectic fit. This ABC programming will be left-wing, pro-Obama propaganda masquerading as news. That just needs to be said. That’s all."
Precisely. This isn't about regulation, and no one, on the Right, at least, disputes ABC has the legal right to put a camera in the White House and broadcast the most unctuous propaganda 24/7. Rick's point, my point, and your point is larger. This isn't about the law but about the propriety and the extreme danger of state-controlled media (even under the aegis of private ownership). I would hope the Left would have become upset had FOX done an hour-long propaganda broadcast from the White House directed by the Bush Administration. I would have. Hell, the Left got upset because FOX didn't trash Bush enough.
Conservatives aren't the ones who stay awake at night to plan how to shut down opposition voices. I remember once upon a time when the majority of liberals didn't, either. Those liberal now are the minority.
This is very dangerous. Period. Those who don't see it seriously need to think it through.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 16.06.2009 @ 12:20
I'm with Riehl. There is nothing unbelievable at all here. If this story is true, the United States media will be unmasked as little more than a totalitarian propaganda outlet. My only hope is that the public will see, probably for the first time, that nothing they read or hear from the traditional media can be trusted any longer.
Even the Europeans, who have no First Amendment protections at all, would have a problem with this one. As we look around our own hemisphere, we see outlets in Latin America that bravely battle their governments to provide objective information. Brave souls in Iran use the new media to inform the rest of us about what has happened there. There are too many such circumstances to list.
The United States is headed to a very dark place. As bad as I hate to admit it, the so-called crazies were right about Obama and the Left, and I will never have anything but praise for the right-wing radio bloviators whom the government probably will unplug unless the GOP has great success in the next congressional elections.
Ultimately I'm saddened to read this one because a free press was such a vital part of American democracy. Someone once said we have a free press for anyone who owns one. Even they never thought "someone" would be an increasingly lawless White House.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 16.06.2009 @ 09:23
Sotomayor's remarks--oft-repeated, it turns out--are facially racist. Whether she is, though, is another matter (a distinction the Left seems unable to make at times). That will be flushed out at the hearings.
And Rick: to call a distinguished senator a "cretin" because of a stupid remark doesn't really help your case.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 10.06.2009 @ 13:17
WHELAN APOLOGY LEAVES QUESTIONS UNANSWERED ABOUT BLOG COMMENTERS
I comment under a pseudonym. I feel not only more comfortable with criticism of a blog, but also with praise of one. I also am unaware of any adverse consequences to commenters who use their real identities, but given how poisonous the cultue and our politics have become would not be shocked if it emerges there have been many.
This is a thoughtful discussion and one that should be had.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 9.06.2009 @ 09:42
THE LIGHTWORKER'S MAGIC WORDS BRING DEMOCRACY TO LEBANON
I'm afraid there is more than a bit of truth to what Ledeen wrote. On the other hand, Lebanon has been trending democratic despite what has or hasn't happened in the United States.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 8.06.2009 @ 10:39
OBAMA'S CAIRO ADDRESS: DID IT LIVE UP TO THE HYPE?
All in all, it really was a quite forgettable speech domestically except for the objectionable parts. What the intended audience, the Islamic one, retains will be important. It could be Muslims remember that the United States extended an initial oliver branch, or is weak and vulnerable, or a combination of all. While I sincerely hope it is the former only, I suspect it will be a mixture. If it were to be only weakness and vulnerability, Obama will be the American Chamberlin. As an American, I truly hope it isn't that. As a realist, I believe it easily could be.
And regardless of how Muslims ultimately react, nothing has changed regarding Iran, Hezbollah, and our challenges in Afghanistan. No, one speech or a thousand speeches weren't going to make a difference on those fronts. Policies and military responses will. Obama has been good on Afghanistan, and rather poor on the looming Iranian and Lebanese elections. How he responds to these potential crises will be how he is ultimately judged.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 5.06.2009 @ 10:46
OBAMA'S CAIRO SPEECH COULD HAVE BEEN BRAVER
Several ironies about the speech: first, any apology for reputed torture probably shouldn't have been delivered in Egypt for obvious reasons. For years, that nation's police have taken torture to new heights. It is the reason rendition to Egypt is so popular.
Next, can anyone imagine Obama going to Vatican City or Jerusalem or name it and mentioning the reality that the United States basically is a Christian country in fact if not in law? I can't. Also, given the on again, off again persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, who comprise about 10 percent of the population there, there should have been more encouragement of tolerance on that front. There really wasn't despite the platitudes.
As an aside, am I the only one who finds it creepy that the president of a secular nation gives a speech about goddamned religion? Bush did this as well, and I never saw it as anything but pathetic.
Finally, why in the fuck does Iran need nuclear power? An explanation would have been in order. For a president who apparently doesn't believe the United States deserves nuclear power, I would like to know the answer.
All in all a fine rhetorical speech light on logic and short on courage, as you pointed out. In other words, a typical Obama speech, bright and shiny and ultimately vapid as hell. It will change nothing, and the looming hell with Iran remains the unspoken horror.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 4.06.2009 @ 10:40
PRINCIPLE SHOULD TRUMP PRAGMATISM IN SOTOMAYOR VOTE
Davebo:
If she is indeed that far out of the mainstream then why did Bush appoint her to the appellate court and the senate confirm herIt was part of a deal between then Sens. Moniyhan and D'Amato--they would each get six left-wing and six right-wing judges approved. No one ever thought the more extreme nominees like this one would even be considered for the high court.
Again, the nation's eyes will turn to so-called moderate Democrats like Tester, Baucus, Conrad and so forth, along with every Republican, when the roll is called. I assume here that the full extent of her background will be known.
I accept there will be a liberal, activist justice. I don't accept that someone this whacked out will be confirmed.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 27.05.2009 @ 14:14
Ken: "So if someone comes to a conclusion that is different then what you want them to belive then they are not capable of excercising independent judgement?"
No, if someone claims moderation and votes for someone this far out of the mainstream, they are liars. I'll be looking at the Nelsons and Webbs closely on this one.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 27.05.2009 @ 12:49
