SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: steve harris who wrote (293154)7/3/2006 4:14:42 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573696
 
re: What does that have to do with my point of no democrats supporting Bill Keller? I bet money the dems are running surveys and a lot of Americans hate what the NYTimes did. You can bet if the polling data showed Americans agreed with the NYTimes, you'd have every Liveshot Dem on every news show they could fly to.

Yeah well you don't see a lot of Reps defending Bush these days either. In fact defense of every kind is pretty out of favor these days. It doesn't "look tough". The politicians are all offensive, in more ways than one.



To: steve harris who wrote (293154)7/3/2006 4:25:07 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573696
 
MAYBE IF WE TRIED A SLINGSHOT Molly Ivins
Thu Jun 29, 6:50 AM ET


AUSTIN -- -- Y'all, this isn't gonna work.

North Korea is threatening to launch a long-range missile against us, and we're threatening to reply with an anti-missile missile.

Sorry to remind you, but our "missile defense system" does not work. Good old Star Wars flopped again when tested in 2004 -- in fact, it failed to launch. Since then, several tests have been delayed or cancelled due to technical problems. Just because we spend $130 billion on a bad idea doesn't mean we can ever get it to work. The latest Bush budget has $10.7 billion for Star Wars, almost twice as much as Homeland Security is spending on customs and border patrol.

The good news is that the North Korean rocket doesn't work, either. The last time they fired a long-range missile, it went 1,300 kilometers (807 miles) and could not put a payload into orbit.

The Korean missile was supposedly tanked up and ready to go more than a week ago, but, oops, experts now say if that were true it would have been fired by now, since the fuel is highly unstable.

If you think the "military standoff" with North Korea sounds silly, wait'll you hear about the diplomatic maneuvering. As you may recall, the United States refused to have bilateral talks with North Korea on the grounds that A) Kim Jong-Il is a nutcase and B) we were already committed to multilateral talks, including South Korea and China.

This kerfuffle went on for quite some time, but so did the six-party talks. Last year, the North Koreans agreed to abandon their nuclear program in return for a security guarantee and economic aid -- but in the meantime, it has come to doubt U.S. sincerity on these pledges. Hard to see how that could happen with such delicate diplomatic players as Dick Cheney and John Bolton at work.

Whenever I need a good laugh, I just think of Bolton's current title: "Ambassador John Bolton" -- ha, ha, ha. Even better, "Ambassador to the United Nations." While there, he has been making Dale Carnegie proud ("How to Win Friends and Influence People"). Bolton's latest U.N. trick was to pitch a wall-eyed fit over some mild (and justified) criticism by a Brit. Good thing the Brits are our closest allies, at least for now.

I don't mind leaving our relations with the Brits to "Ambassador John Bolton," but do we think it's a good idea to have him in charge of our relations with the nutcase who has a missile with unstable fuel? Then again, we might as well leave it to Bolton, since William Perry, former secretary of defense, a Democrat, thinks we should pre-emptively strike their nuke while it's on the launch pad. Better than trying to hit it in midair, of course.

Republican Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has called for direct talks with the North Koreans on the issue, which sounds a lot saner.

As the American Progress Action Fund points out, the real problem is that the Bush administration has no policy on North Korea. "For five years, the Bush administration has been paralyzed over North Korea. Hardliners such as Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and U.N. Ambassador Bolton have rejected serious engagement in favor of a confrontational approach that has backfired. Over time, North Korea has withdrawn from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, reprocessed fissionable material, increased its nuclear arsenal and is now on the verge of starting missile testing."

Boy, that policy worked out well.



To: steve harris who wrote (293154)7/3/2006 4:37:00 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1573696
 
So what is happening that tends to bring voices of freedom, patriotic voices of the left and right, together in the press? The answer is that the official loyal opposition, the Democratic Party, has generally dropped out of the debate -- even of government. Yes, the Democrats (or liberals, if you prefer) are out of the White House and in the minority in both houses of the Congress. That is a problem for them. But a worse problem for all of us is that they have, in general, kept their big mouths shut as President Bush moves steadily ahead in using the war on terror to turn the freest nation in history into a police state. Big Brother is watching and listening.

The Democrats' cynical refusal to engage in the battle for liberty at home in the name of transplanting it in far deserts and mountains has left the press as the only opposition to the White House's spreading power and abuse of legitimate authority. That is why the president and his vice president and their armies of lawyers are after reporters and anyone else in the press.


THE BIG BROTHER WHITE HOUSE IS WATCHING YOU By Richard Reeves

NEW YORK -- "Over the last year, The New York Times has twice published reports about secret anti-terrorism programs being run by the Bush administration," began a Times editorial last week. "Both times, critics have claimed that the paper was being unpatriotic or even aiding the terrorists ..."

The editorial went on to conclude that it will continue to provide information it believes the public needs. So what else is new?

On the same day, last Thursday, The Washington Post published a report by Charles Babington and Michael Abramowitz under the headline: "Bush Seeks to Use Media Leaks to His Advantage -- Attack on Newspapers Continues ..."

So what else is new?

This: The San Diego Union-Tribune, one of the steadiest Republican papers in the country, last Wednesday began its lead editorial under the sarcastic headline "Smash the Presses."

That one began: "Newspaper reporters and editors make judgments every working hour about what they will deliver to their readers. When it comes to national security, this demands a careful balancing of the public's legitimate right to know against the government's legitimate need to protect state secrets. When these two interests collide, as they often do, the First Amendment bars the government from muzzling the press."

Interesting, even obvious. But then the Union-Tribune, which was once considered a training ground for President Richard Nixon's press spokesmen -- most notably Herbert Klein and Gerald Warren -- went back over the history of Nixon's attacks on the press.

The editorial discussed the attempt to prevent The New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the official but secret history of the Vietnam War, and concluded that the Times was right and the president they so enthusiastically supported was wrong. "History," said the Union-Tribune, "shows the public interest was served."

Then the San Diego paper, which published the same information the Times did about the Bush administration's secret (and possibly illegal) vacuuming of telephone calls, e-mails and bank records, continued: "The Times and other publications, including this one, were entirely correct that the public's right to know about the bank-tracking program -- which raises important questions about individual privacy and the president's power to act without judicial oversight -- outweighed the Bush administration's claim of secrecy."

Indeed. So what is happening that tends to bring voices of freedom, patriotic voices of the left and right, together in the press? The answer is that the official loyal opposition, the Democratic Party, has generally dropped out of the debate -- even of government. Yes, the Democrats (or liberals, if you prefer) are out of the White House and in the minority in both houses of the Congress. That is a problem for them. But a worse problem for all of us is that they have, in general, kept their big mouths shut as President Bush moves steadily ahead in using the war on terror to turn the freest nation in history into a police state. Big Brother is watching and listening.

The Democrats' cynical refusal to engage in the battle for liberty at home in the name of transplanting it in far deserts and mountains has left the press as the only opposition to the White House's spreading power and abuse of legitimate authority. That is why the president and his vice president and their armies of lawyers are after reporters and anyone else in the press.

But the press is no political party. We destroy ourselves by being forced to take sides -- or being unable to find named sources on the "other" side on subjects such as illegal spying, torture and intimidation of the citizenry -- because, as the Post headlined, a president can use media leaks to his advantage. And he is. We would be delighted to use other voices, elected voices in the Congress, but their timidity leaves us doing what they should be doing. Agree or disagree with the president's assertions of imminent danger lurking everywhere, it is certainly a subject worth talking about and analyzing in the land of the free.

Years ago a great editor, Ben Bradlee of The Washington Post, a key figure in the Pentagon Papers case and then in Watergate, gave the commencement address at Duke University. As I remember it, he gave a ringing but serious endorsement of freedom and all things Jeffersonian, and then, as he ended, he took a step back, leaned into the microphone and said: "We're leaving you a great country. Don't screw it up!"

Well, the people running it now are screwing it up -- big time!