Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (40906)	8/21/2005 3:02:38 AM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

I ofter wonder what people mean by "hate America". Personally I love America. I love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ... I try to make sure it applies to everyone. I love separation of Church and State ... I can believe whatever I want with government interference - and so can you. I love setting an example for the World of open government, obeying the rule of law, and treating prisoners humanely. I love that I can criticize the President when I think he is wrong or not living up to the standards I expect. Bush works for me - that is America! I exercised that right with Clinton and now with Bush - America before party. Thank you George Washington (the anti-faction President). And then I come on this thread and some people suggest I hate America? Don't they agree with everything I just wrote? If they disagree, who exactly is it that "hates America"?

To: sandintoes who wrote (40906)	8/21/2005 4:43:30 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Those leftwingers certainly HATE the "military." Or should I say---they HATE the US and the "military" of the US.

To: sandintoes who wrote (40906)	8/21/2005 4:50:26 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 93284

[Lefty] 'NY Times' Editor Rips [non-lefty] Book Review in Own Paper Editor and Publisher August 20, 2005 NEW YORK In what must be a first, the editor of The New York Times has written a letter to the editor ripping a recent book review in his own paper. The lengthy broadside by Bill Keller, executive editor, appears in tomorrow’s edition of The New York Times Book Review. Others, including Bill Moyers and Eric Alterman, join Keller in protesting the review of several recent books on the media. That review, by conservative legal scholar Richard A. Posner, appeared on July 31. Keller calls the Posner essay “mostly a regurgitation, as tendentious and cynical as the worst of the books he consumed.” He charges that Posner “weirdly” makes almost no distinction “within the vast category of American media, between those that are aggressively partisan and those that strive to keep opinion sequestered from news, between outlets that invest in serious reporting and those that simply riff on the reporting of others, between the sensational and the more high-minded, between organizations that hasten to correct errors and those that could not care less, between the cartoonish shout shows on cable TV and the more ambitious journalism of, say, the paper you are holding in your hands. “Then he swallows almost uncritically the conventional hogwash of partisan critics on both sides: that '’the media’ (as accused from the right) work in tireless pursuit of a liberal agenda, and that they have (as accused from the left) become docile house pets of the Bush administration because they fear offending the powers that be. “Finally, to explain the workings of this undifferentiated ‘media,’ simultaneously liberal and supine, he applies his trademark theory of market determinism. Whether conspiratorially or instinctively (Posner is unclear on this), the media have changed course in response to economic threats. The liberal news organizations, he says, have become even more liberal in order to protect their market share — to secure their base — in times of mounting competition from blogs and conservative cable upstarts. At the same time they have grown more timid for fear of offending the '’social consensus, however dumb or even vicious the consensus.’ (He may despise the media, dear reader, but Posner doesn't think much of you, either.) In his view, the news media are '’just satisfying a consumer demand no more elevated or consequential than the demand for cosmetic surgery in Brazil or bullfights in Spain.’ In this, Posner the polemicist is sadly consistent with Posner the federal appeals court judge, who has been notably hostile to the idea that the First Amendment affords journalists special protections. … “The saddest thing is that Judge Posner's market determinism leaves no room for the other dynamics I've witnessed in my 35 years in newspapers: the idealism of reporters who think they can make the world better, the intellectual satisfaction of puzzling through a complicated issue, the competitive gratification of being first to discover a buried story, the pride in striving to uphold a professional code of fair play, the quest for peer recognition and, yes, the feedback from attentive and thoughtful readers. He makes no allowance for the possibility that conscientious reporters and editors are capable of setting aside their personal beliefs or standing up to their advertisers (and the prejudices of their readers) to do work they believe in.”

To: sandintoes who wrote (40906)	8/21/2005 5:06:27 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 93284

Target, New Yorker cross line August 19, 2005 BY LEWIS LAZARE SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST It can only be described as the most jaw-dropping collapse of the so-called sacred wall between editorial and advertising in modern magazine history. And it happened this week -- of all places -- at arguably the country's most prestigious magazine, the New Yorker. In the wake of a puff piece by New York Times advertising columnist Stuart Elliott last week announcing Target had cut a deal with the New Yorker to become its sole advertiser for the magazine's Aug. 22 edition, copies of that issue began arriving in mailboxes and hitting newsstands this week. Now we can see exactly what the results of that deal are: A 90-page publication where it is almost impossible to discern any line of demarcation between Target's advertising and the New Yorker editorial product. We weren't the only ones shocked by the Target ads and the New Yorker's handling of them. "It's pretty alarming," said Time Out Chicago Editor in Chief Chad Schlegel. New Yorker Publisher David Carey begs to differ. "I think people kind of get it," said Carey, claiming that because many of the Target ads in the front of the issue are in "defined" ad spaces, sophisticated readers, such as those who regularly peruse the New Yorker, can readily distinguish between the editorial and advertising messages. Still, even the New Yorker publisher conceded that the further into the editorial hole one goes, the spaces where the Target ads are found are rather less defined. Carey said about "80 to 85 percent" of the mail he's received from readers about the issue so far has been positive. But make no mistake. Target advertising executives must be laughing all the way to the image bank because of the ad placement coup they have pulled off, while New Yorker staffers, most notably Editor David Remnick, can only wipe the egg from their faces. What is most stunning about the issue is the New Yorker's refusal to clearly flag any of the pages and pages of copyless Target illustrations as "advertisements." And in "ad" after "ad" it would be quite easy to confuse them for New Yorker editorial content, because all of them are done in a stylish format closely resembling the cartoons and illustrations for which the magazine has become famous. Yet, perplexingly, the New Yorker seemingly went out of its way to boldly flag with the word "advertisement" a few small house ads in the issue that no one could misconstrue as anything but ads. Whatever the damage done to the New Yorker's vaunted editorial integrity by its first-ever single-advertiser issue, Target, already perceived as a relatively classy discount retailer thanks to its savvy advertising profile, has had its image immeasurably burnished by the practically seamless blending of its ads into the New Yorker editorial product. But the real kicker in what has to be counted among the most shameful moments in New Yorker history is the list of illustrators involved in the Target ad campaign that appears on page 87. The ad copy above that list simply says: "Our thanks to all the illustrators who brought this project to life." Would it have been too much to ask for the New Yorker or Target to reference this as an "advertising project," just to provide a tiny bit of clarity somewhere in the magazine? Instead, we are left to conclude that maybe the New Yorker and Target had decided the project was, in fact, something more deceptive.

To: sandintoes who wrote (40906)	8/21/2005 5:39:54 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Salt Lake mayor calls for protest of Bush AP ^ \| 8/20/05 Salt Lake City's Mayor Rocky Anderson used e-mail this week to call for "the biggest demonstration this state has ever seen," when President Bush appears before a national veterans convention Monday. Anderson says Bush policies are disastrous for the country and that to stay quiet during the president's visit would be send a message of apathy. The mayor's e-mail called for a collaboration of health care advocates, seniors, gay and lesbian advocates, anti-Patriot advocates, civil libertarians and anti-war folks to protest outside the convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Mike Parkin, senior vice commander of the V-F-W's Atomic Post 4355 in Salt Lake says the move makes Anderson look unpatriotic. The Vietnam vet, who says he voted for Anderson, but won't again, says the protest will offend veterans and embolden enemies of the U.S.