Post a New Topic
Original post made
by Wow, I Never Would Have Guessed!, Midtown,
on May 22, 2009
Consider the source
Robert G. Picard, a professor of media economics at Sweden’s Jonkoping University describes why journalist’s wages are falling in a Christian Science Monitor article.Web Link
* “Actually, journalists deserve low pay … journalists simply aren’t creating much value these days.”
* “Well-paying employment requires that workers possess unique skills, abilities, and knowledge.
It also requires that the labor must be non-commoditized. Unfortunately, journalistic labor has become commoditized”
* “Before professionalism of journalism, many journalists not only wrote the news, but went to the streets to distribute and sell it and few journalists had regular employment in the news and information business. Journalists and social observers debated whether practicing journalism for a news entity was desirable. Even Karl Marx argued that “The first freedom of the press consists in it not being a trade.”
* “Journalism must innovate and create new means of gathering, processing, and distributing information so it provides content and services that readers, listeners, and viewers cannot receive elsewhere. And these must provide sufficient value so audiences and users are willing to pay a reasonable price.”
Picard describes some of the failed strategies that journalism, in this transitional period, has resorted to in order to “provide sufficient value”.
They efforts have been creative, frenzied but ultimately doomed. Despite Picard’s attempts to posit the emergence of a new and sustainable model, does the fact that nobody has found one yet (despite a lot of looking) have any significance for general journalism?
Thank God for Dick Cheney. Smacking the ideologues in this administration with the clue-by-four of reality!
What about the source, Sharon? The reporter wrote the story but are you questioning the facts he presented?
Who are you saying is misreprestened in his story (in other words what woul dmake Cheney's statements facts?)--Adm. Blair, CIA inspector general's investigation, FBI Director Mueller Robert Muller, bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report in December concerning the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Former FBI special agent Ali Soufan, A 2008 McClatchy investigation, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Condi Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Let's focus on the fact that Cheney would not know what the truth is and stop trying to shoot the messenger.
" The argument boils down to this: Obama believes Bush-Cheney needlessly set aside "our . . . principles as luxuries that we could no longer afford."
In response to 9/11, Bush & Co. made "hasty decisions" out of fear. It resorted to "torture" and supposed horrors like Guantanamo Bay -- steps that were not only unnecessary but made America less safe.
Cheney notes that Congress at the time called the threat to the nation "unusual and extraordinary." That, he said, necessitated a shift to a strategy of pre-emption to prevent more attacks.
But the ex-veep says Team Bush "never lost its moral bearings," even when it came to its "enhanced interrogation" program. "The interrogations," he says, "were legal, essential, justified, successful -- and the right thing to do."
To see how vital they were, Cheney says Obama should release memos showing what the interrogations yielded.
"Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place," he said.
Actually, Cheney could have trimmed his speech to just one sentence: "On our watch, [al Qaeda] never hit this country again." What more need be said?
But there is one final point.
Obama sought the high ground yesterday, arguing about laws, values and morals.
Again, Cheney had a powerful answer:
No moral code requires Americans to commit suicide to spare terrorists unpleasantries.
"When an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them," he said.
Obama can switch course to reach some "higher" moral plane if he wants.
But if he does, he may be putting the nation at risk.
And if he can't see that, well, maybe he should consult the ex-veep about it.Web Link
"But the ex-veep says Team Bush "never lost its moral bearings," even when it came to its "enhanced interrogation" program. "The interrogations," he says, "were legal, essential, justified, successful -- and the right thing to do.""
This is where many people differ with Cheney's new interpretation of what happened. Naturally Cheney would say what he said--he is working on protecting his own legacy.
""On our watch, [al Qaeda] never hit this country again." What more need be said?"
Very difficult to prove a negative
"Again, Cheney had a powerful answer:
No moral code requires Americans to commit suicide to spare terrorists unpleasantries."
If you are a Cheney fan you will agree with his answer, but other's feel that the US used to stand for something. That we were different from the dictatorships and oppressive regimes that we constantly castigate for their violations of common decency and human rights.
Of course one has to also believe that had we not resorted to torture then we would have been "committing suicide"--i.e. the US would be completely destroyed by terrorists. This is a fantasy scenario use dby Cheney to justify his despicable behavior. Anyway the use of torture as an effective tool has been discounted by worthy people, many of whom quoted in the article (and Sharon seems to be implying that they are lying).
But, I see why Sharon likes Cheney--one has to only read her posts to understand why
VP Joe Biden Totally On Message as He Speculates on Fresh Horrors that Closing Gitmo Will Unleash on Country
Well, he's on a message. Just because it happens to be Dick Cheney's message is no reason to judge Joe harshly. Web Link
"Speaking to reporters on the final day of his tour of the Balkans, Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged the administration still hasn’t figured out what to do with all the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay but predicted that it will still meet its deadline of closing the prison within a year. “I think so,” Biden said, when asked about the January 2010 deadline. “But, look, what the president said is that this is going to be hard.
It’s like opening Pandora’s Box. We don’t know what’s inside the box.”
He added that it's probably best, since we won't know the extent of the spread of the released jihadis or the damage they might do, to stay off planes, trains, and completely out of the area known as "America" for the forseeable future, just to be safe. All right
Bottom line, Barack Obama believes the president (and the Executive) is subject to the rule of law and congressional statutory prohibitions against torture, and Dick Cheney thinks the president can do anything in wartime and that makes it legal under Article II of the constitution.
Interesting also how the man who was so secretive during his tenure as veep is suddenly become fixture on the TV talk show circuit--is he worried about his legacy or that he is a common criminal?
But is waterboarding just the tip of the iceberg?
Bottom line, waterboarding is not now and never has fallen under any international or national legal definition of torture.
Bottom line, waterboarding 3..THREE..known terrorists has saved many thousands of lives, including those in LA ( think about it, California) but Obama doesn't want to release the results.
Bottom line, Democrats on the committtee, including Pelosi, approved of the enhanced interrogation technique called Waterboarding.
Bottom line: the Bush Admin adhered to the Constitution, our laws, and morality more than any prior Admin in war ( Lincoln, FDR and Truman included)...read a little history and think about it. So, we not only never left the "high moral ground", we took the "moral ground" higher.
Bottom line, you say tomato, I say tomahto, about morality. I find it more moral to waterboard, with no loss of any organ part and a clear statement that we will not let you die, a known guilty person in order to save even one innocent person, than to NOT waterboard the same person and let one innocent person die.
If you were the innocent person, where would you fall on the moral argument?
Cheney is my hero. He already was for his public love and support of his daughter and her partner and his granddaughter by them, along with his defense of our Republic for supporting allowing each State to decide about gay unions. Now he is my hero for his defense of our country and his willingness to stake his life on being the ONLY former or current elected official to speak out strongly against Obama's destruction of the safety of this country. Let's count..terrorism attacks and deaths on Americans in the 30 years BEFORE Sept 12, 2001; and terrorism attacks and deaths on Americans SINCE Sept 12, 2001. Which do you prefer? Who do you believe, Obama when he says that Guantanomo has recruited terrorists, or your own brain when you realize that all the terrorist attacks on us happened..BEFORE GUANTANAMO!
Why do you think we can't get even ONE country to take even ONE terrorist prisoner off our hands from G? Think a bit, folks. What does EVERY OTHER COUNTRY know about these folks that our own President doesn't seem to know? Why won't even a DEM RULED CONGRESS fund the closing of Guantanomo? THINK FOLKS, what do you really believe in this Orwellian world?
If you are like Perspective, you will agree with his above arguments of course his arguments are faulty and arrive at bogus conclusions--but if you share Perspective's hatred of Obama and our democratic institutions (i.e. read some of his posts on other threads attacking the Supreme Court and our way of electing congressmen etc) you will buy his stuff hook, line and sinker.
The Most Insanely Biased "News" Story In HistoryWeb Link
At least I think it's intended to be a news story.
It popped up on Yahoo News a while ago, which I assume means that many thousands of people will read it.
It's written for McClatchy by two reporters--I guess they are supposed to be reporters--named Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel and is titled "Cheney's speech contained omissions, misstatements."
The article is basically a compendium of DNC/Daily Kos talking points from 2003 to the present.
It is full of falsehoods, long-discredited canards, and misleading statements.
It is one of those "news stories" that is intended solely for the ignorant.
If we had comments, maybe we could let our readers tear this piece of nonsense apart line by line while we sleep. Perhaps someday.
First, a society must survive. If it doesn't, nothing else matters. How do you stop someone from raping your daughter without hurting his feelings? How do you imprison someone without threatening his life? I have never seen such a concentrated mess of ignorance than this torture argument. Believe me, if there were a way to selectively protect society I would gladly let fools seek their own destiny. Unfortunately, we are all in it together.
"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!"
If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush.
Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.
The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an "enormous failure."Web Link
Flipfloping can be a vice but flop it can be a virtue, I guess it depends upon the results.
As Obama prefers flipflops to combat boots I guess we will have to Hope,Hope,Hope and something about the profound urgency of now---What?
Obama is beginning to sound like Chamberlin of " peace in our time fame"
Churchill said about him---" he is a very humble man, and he has a lot to be humble about"
Obama is a very narcissistic man and he has a lot to be ..... about
Fill in the dots
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
What you always miss and are never willing to address is the terrorist who is polishing the nails for his/her next bomb. Yes, that bomb that will cause harm, destruction and sadness to Americans. It is simply you liberals that turn away from confronting these terrorist head on.
I want a goverment that will cause them sleepless nights, to live in fear of their suicidal actions.
Or do think somehow that they will be so convinced into peace with Obamas smile? Or more percicly his words, "Upholding values will shield us from terror." -
You think Obama's smile will convince them into hanging-up the suicide bomb vest?
If so I have a bridge in San Francisco I will sell you. The truth is most of you know he is wrong and any thinking person knows he is flat wrong.
Two top Bush-era officials on Friday rejected ex-vice president Dick Cheney's scathing criticism of US President Barack Obama, saying the country's national security was not in jeopardy.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served in the same post under former president George W. Bush, and Tom Ridge, the former head of homeland security, both voiced disagreement with Cheney a day after he attacked Obama's performance as the new commander-in-chief.
Here is the Clinton teams response to Cheney and national securityWeb Link
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
I would think that Sharon would be glad that Obama is continuing some of Bushs' measures. Clearly she wants it both ways--she bashes Obama for not following Bush and then bashes Obama when he does. This must giddy times for Sharon.
Of course one can also look at the reality. when one is a candidate, one does not have access to all the information and/or facts. When one becomes president, one sees the reality and adjusts.
I would think that Sharon would be happy that we have not had anymore terrorists attacks since Obama took office, clearly she is not. Does she actively support Al Qeida in other regards?
Terrorists are thugs, international petty criminals, who can do untoward harm to people who are on their radar screen. But, they are incapable of bringing down well established governments and institutions directly, but can cripple them indirectly if such actors react the wrong way to the type of threat these terrorists pose.
The Shrub Administration distorted way out of proportion the nature of the threat these truly dangerous people posed and pose. They should have focused on taking them out, not suggesting they are a threat to our way of life or our values, thereby justifying Admin actions that are contrary to our way of life and our values. In positioning things the way they did, they fell into Bin Laden's trap, and damaged our institutions and values. As tragic as 9/11 was, the follow on response by the Shrubbies was as tragic or more so, as the Administration compromised values and principals that are at the heart of this country's heritage.
Treat them like Tim McVeigh, who bombed Oklahoma City's Federal Building, and was a US veteran, not like some monolithic entity that has any idea what it wants other than to do damage to innocent people. Protecting citizens from such efforts is essential, but it must be put into the proper context if it is going to be handled appropriately and without the sorts of negative consequences brought about by the Shrub Administration's practices. We did not have to lose our credibility or stature in the world, or as a citizenry have such a high disregard for the last Administration had they handled these matters in a manner more in alignment with what the incidents and the threats actually were about.
8 years of rank amateaurism, and boy does it show.
That describes what we currently have, with His Emptiness.
GWB, on the other hand, liberated Afghanistan and Iraq, stood down Old Europe, stood up New Europe, used waterboarding (and other harsh interrogation methods) to extract crucial information that prevented additional al qaeda attacks. Dick Cheney was a solid operative for GWB. Now, Cheney is telling the truth to the liars (e.g. Pelosi). Both GWB and Cheney were immune to the attacks from the knuckle-dragging hatriots that were were reflexively biting at their heels...there was no substance there to be bothered with.
Thank you, Mr. Cheney for speaking truth to counter fiction.
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
This is how they view Cheney in the UKWeb Link
"You've got to hand it to the 68-year old Cheney.
He's come out swinging like Jake LaMotta, and as Toby Harnden blogged earlier, is landing several well-placed blows.
Cheney's speech at the American Enterprise Institute was brutal, uncompromising and brilliant.
In contrast to President Obama's highly confusing address across town, which frankly could have been written by the European Commission on a slow day,
Cheney adopted a compelling take-no-prisoners approach which generated hundreds of hours of air time across the news networks.
It was old-fashioned John Wayne-style stuff, summed up by the former veep's classic line that "there is no middle ground" in the war against Islamist terrorists (aka Overseas Contingency Operation).
There is something very reassuring about a leader who never apologizes for America's actions, possesses no self-doubts about defending his country, and who believes his nation must do what is necessary to crush al-Qaeda.
The spectacular return of Dick Cheney on the political stage is a huge breath of fresh air after months of suffocating liberal dominance in Washington.
Let's hope he's here to stay".
Gary and Sharon,
I have no problem with your proclivities that favor Shrub, but you both tend to repeat yourselves without substantive response to address legitimate observations and data that offer up another point of view. Offering up web links that could come from anyone, anywhere, does not cut it.
I have refrained from weighing in the last few weeks on various national matters on your threads, and I detect that very few people are participating on the threads on which the two of you participate.
You can now count me as one "less" who will. If there were some insight, some perspective, some recognition that thoughtful people could view things from another lens, it would be worthwhile to continue to offer my POV. You two are part of a small audience that has yourselves and Rush Limbaugh.
"If there were some insight"
1. Liberated Iraq
2. Liberated Afghanistan
3. There were no more major attacks on the USA (partially due to the use of waterboarding).
Hugely insightful, I think.
"You are so tiresome"
If the shoe fits, Boomer....
The latest on
Pelosi v. The CIA Web Link
My links to the UK Daily Telegraph are not "Offering up web links that could come from anyone, anywhere, does not cut it."
The Telegraph is a very trusted news source and will be around long after the NYT goes into liquidation
"The Telegraph is a very trusted news source."
Uh, yes, it is trusted - but only by the conservative Tories over there, so much so that it's referred to as the "Torygraph".
So, sorry, but sourcing the "Fox Newpaper of England" doesn't quite cut it.
And here's a pointed question you and Gary have conveniently ignored:
What about Robert Gates and Tom Ridge's rejection of Cheney comments. Just two more Repub turncoats?
No wonder the party is down to Cheney, Limbaugh and Voldemort at this point.
Was Tony Blair a British conservative?
Pithy and perfect, Gary.
For a Leftist, the way to argue a point is to attack the messenger, not the facts or premises of the message. The best way to attack the messenger? Call him "conservative" or "Christian". There..all a leftist needs to know to not believe the message. Straight out of Alinsky's Rules. If the message comes from Ahmadinijad or Chavez, then it must be good, though.
Astounding, really. And the more uneducated our population gets, the more they become like all the 3rd world populations who keep electing populist petty marxist tyrant wanna-bes. Too bad we can't divide into 2 nations, this time over politics, and let the marxist tyrants take 1/2 and the capitalist constitutionalists take the other. I would happily give up California and move if it meant I could live with a Constitution-loving peoples..Californians could then happily live with the results of their own rules.
Then Real Sharon and others of his ilk could live with the results of living in his world where the "democratic institutions" need more protection than the Constitution, and criticism of policies equals "hate" of an individual. And, since "anti-hate crime" legislation is such a big thing for the left, ( we must legislate love, of course) I would watch the soft tyranny grow exponentially into a hard tyrrany within one generation from the other side of the new border.
Or, we COULD simply learn from history and from other countries around the world what happens EVERY TIME to countries that take the path this President is trying to bring us down.
Ok, back to the regular programming promoted by Alinsky's Rules.
I second Boomer's comments.
Was surprised that my response to Gary's post above, yesterday,was completely deleted. Will not bother to re-post my comments, just leave it as Gary's post (from May 23, 2009 at 12:48 pm) is full of Gary's typical distortions, name-calling, fairy tales and revisionist history.
"I would happily give up California and move if it meant I could live with a Constitution-loving peoples"
Why exactly are you here? Why not Texas or Alaska, home of "true Americans" in your book, no doubt?
Cheney, Rice, Bolton, Palin. There is still hope.
DLTDHYOYWO: Uh..try reading the post again..are we 2 countries yet? Gotta live with ONE President, and ONE congress so far..but if it ever gains steam, I will side with a split in our country.
In the meantime, what makes you think I am not moving out of here? Do you have any idea how many taxpayers California is hemorrhaging now? Try looking it up, then ask yourself who is going to foot the bills of what you believe should be paid for in CA. I would venture a guess that those remaining are not going to be too interested in picking up the slack. (Judging from the latest vote of the remaining "ignorant" taxpayers...)
Regarding todays events in NK, Iran. The neighborhood just got much more dangerous and vindicates the Cheney approach to national security
Two options — either the nuke tested in North Korea was a domestic product, or it came from Iran.
If it came from Iran, time’s up.
If it came from North Korea, anyone who wants a nuke and has large amounts of ready cash now has a willing supplier.
Either way, time’s up. Diplomacy is over. We may be in a period similar to 1939’s “Phoney War” for a little while, but the die has been cast.
No big shock that N. Korea and Iran are pushing hard. They know they can get away with it now.
8 years of Bush, and the world had ..is it 1/2 the number of nuclear bombs? 60%? Can't remember..let's just say a SIGNIFICANT reduction in blowing up potential. The world was much safer, with fewer bombs, fewer terrorists, fewer govt sponsored terrorism outlets, and some dictatorships that were hovering on the brink of democracy.
And now where will we be in 4 years, or 8?
I will be interested in the nuke count, the terrorist attack and death count, and the democracy count at the end of Obama's "reign".
But we will feel so much better because the world will love us again. ( not!!)
The Bush approach to Iran and North Korea was a complete failure and left the world a much more dangerous place.
As with the financial crisis, Obama is stepping up to the plate to fix what Bush and Cheney broke.
Let's not forget more Americans died from terrorism in this country under Bush's watch than under all previous presidents combined, the North Koreans set off their nuke, and Iran marched forward toward a nuclear future.
Thank goodness the grownups are running things again.
L of D: Any data to support your thesis?
Compare economy under Bush, even at its WORST, in all numbers, and economy now.
Compare number of missile firings under Bush, and missile firings now. ( Trick question, how many have been fired from N. Korea since Obama was elected? How many before?)
Compare threats to wipe out Israel under Bush, and threats now.
Compare number of American AND worldwide deaths from terrrorism ( careful..trick question) since 9/11 ( why since 9/11? Cinton's policies were still in place, from Jamie Gorelick and Holden..don't know who or what I am talking about? Read the 9/11 Commission Report) under Bush, then let's talk in 4 years, ok?
Or, keep believing a pretty smile and words over your own brain.
The Emperor has no Clothes ( read that one day, if you haven't already)
Getting snarky, I know. Sorry. Exhausted and depressed from the continual flow of ignorance coming from our leadership and those who follow them.
This stuff takes a lot more patience and repetitive persistence than I have...we need more Garys. It is like playing whack a mole in a prairie.
"Compare economy under Bush, even at its WORST, in all numbers, and economy now." I think you're saying the economy now is in terrible shape. I would agree. I must point out that the economy is in the shape it's in because of the bush-league mismanagement.
"Compare number of missile firings under Bush, and missile firings now." The real question is how many since Bush was elected.
I can see it would be convenient for your thesis if we could pretend that 9/11 did not happen on George and Dick's watch, but we are dealing with reality. George was wrapped up in that goat story and couldn't be bothered--pretty much sums it up.
Cheney is totally deluded. He think's he's some kind of honcho in the Republican party. I can't wait to watch Limbaugh set him straight.
For President Obama on matters like North Korea and Iran there are no good choices, and he can't simply vote "present" this time.
Any decision he makes will be evaluated not necessarily on the basis of its superior logic or the eloquence with which it is presented, but solely on whether it works or not.
If it does, he will be praised; if it doesn't, he will be damned, unfairly or not.
Soon some wannabe Republican presidential candidate will be barnstorming the country, second-guessing Obama's decision-making, giving him no benefit of the doubt, and adopting simplistic answers as a candidate that he could not possibly embrace as Commander-in-Chief —
the one constant being that whatever Obama does, the potential rival, without the responsibilities of office, will argue that it was wrong.
Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 967 views
Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 963 views
The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 587 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Express / Weekend Express
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2018 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.