December, Week 1 2007

The Basketball Girls are in Rosalia for a game, they won't be back till after midnight... Christy and Cindy are at Hayden Lake, Christian was up all night so he will sleep all day, Autumn and Amanda are here too. Amanda is in the basement exercising and Autumn is watching 'Madeline' on TV... the USC UCLA game is on in a few minutes, I will try to watch it.

It snowed almost all day and we accumulated another 6 inches but it started to rain at about 1500 and now we are down from over a foot to less than 7 or 8 inches.

Christy had a very tense but otherwise uneventful ride from Hayden Lake, Idaho in the snow and slush... it took her about 4 hours to get home through the snow, but that includes a stop at the Safeway in Newport.

Monica and Amanda played in the snow for a few hours , they towed each other on an old truck inner-tube behind the ATV, Monica snapped the cable on the winch by not releasing the power button, I got a little upset. She came up the hill and was upset with me that she got stuck... she got stuck because she broke the winch cable and the blade wouldn't come up. it is hard to maneuver that thing when the plow won't come up.

I am getting so tired of the way the kids talk to me, I get the impression from their tone of voice and what they say that they figure my role in their world is to provide them with the time and means to do whatever the hell they want to do. I can not think of an instance when they have made a concession to the needs and desires of their parents. One got upset with me for asking her too any time to pick up her mess, "I heard you Dad, you don't have to say it more than once." I actually think she believes that I am the unreasonable one. I have asked her for a week to take the dirty clothes down from the top of the stairs to the laundry room, she wanted something from me today so I reminded her for about the 15th time to bring down the dirty clothes, she went up and kicked them down the stairs and started to leave. I said "...are you just going to leave them there.?' She said, "You said 'bring them down the stairs', so I did" I said, "Take them to the laundry room". She said; "You didn't tell me to do that."... Aaaaarg.

One of them got tweaked because I wouldn't quit watching my football game with the Bengals down two scores against the Steelers with ten minutes to go in the game. I said I would take him when the game was over, maybe fifteen or twenty minutes but he couldn't wait and said something rude and walked out. Then he got upset that Christy didn't want to drive him the 1/4 mile after spending four harrowing hours in the car. Later he called from his girlfriends house wanting a ride to the falls for him and his buddy. We have to attend a hearing on his MIP Citation on Thursday but we are some sort of unmentionable body part if we don't drop everything and accommodate his every whim.

I asked them to come into the house through the garage if they were covered with snow because the water the snow makes when it melts, that they don't mop up, sits the hardwood floors. blah blah blah, no one went through the garage, I got irritated and they acted like I had asked them to come down the chimney or something.

"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."

Sorry about the whine/rant yesterday... I will endeavor to mellow out and not get so upset with the small stuff. My children are in the process of choosing their paths in life and it's too late for me to interfere. The harder I push the more they will resist I can't make them adhere to my ideals they have to create their own from what I have tried to show them... time will tell what sort of job I did.

I went out and tried to remove some of the slush from the driveway and clear the road down to the shop. I went to Kubota's to get some clamps to repair the cable that Monica broke, it sure is entertaining to talk to him, I could spend the day in there just kibitzing with him and the other old guys that go in there...

The girls have a late practice today, they alternate weekly with the boys basketball team for practice times.

New England is playing tonight they are playing the Ravens I think, who cares, it's just fun to watch a team like the Patriots... don't tell my sister, we'd have nothing to argue about.

What an awesome game... I can't write more yet because I have a friend in the UK who won't see the game till tomorrow... but WOW, what an unforgettable game.

"Do you think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power the government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

I have read all of Ayn Rand's major works and think her comments on the role of government and her depiction of the ills of corporate America are valid and proven in many (but not all) instances. The aspect of her philosophy that I have a hard time with is that there is no place in her world for misfits. In her ideal world the society is geared at enabling the go-getter, the entrepreneur, innovator, inventor and other A+ type personalities. I am not one of the 'chosen few' I am a worker-bee, I am too involved in the moment to be focused on any one thing in particular. I would not survive in her world. Either would most of the people I know. There is no place for Autumn and Cindy in her world either.

I see aspects of her theories in the Ultra Conservative and the Libertarian ravings. The I got mine and I want more, screw you and keep the poor poor and the rich richer. The Libertarians seem to want a small government, that they control. I have not heard more than a condescending word about the outsiders... the poor, the indigent, the mentally ill. There is no room for the worker-bees in their world. No hope for them to be able to take pride in, and be compensated for an honest days work.

It's pretty discouraging to envision a world controlled by CEO's. Their vision of the "Big Picture" is relegated to how do my actions affect my profits. The people working for me are costing me money and therefore they are all potential liabilities. Product = Profit, The less money it costs me to make the product the more money in my pocket, If I hire an employee that will work happily for five dollars a day why should I continue to pay an employee who demands a hundred and sixty dollars a day. Simple math...move the plant from Knoxville to Bangladesh.

When you hav a government run by people with the same mentality as the upper management at General Motirs then you have a government who will take care of the people they deem to be their peers or equals and they may through the common man some crumbs because someone has to get their hands dirty in the garden but that's it. I am not encouraged...

Christy and I went to Spokane for a consultation with the surgeon who performed her mastectomy, we cycle between visits to her and to the Oncologist, we see each about twice a year. There is nothing to report all the scans tests and hands on examinations are negative, no problems to report, no concerns to be acted upon...

I got all the chores done; Dump, Bank, Hardware Store and stuff. The kids had an abbreviated day of school and got out at noon. I went to a Basketball game in Kettle Falls. Monica's team did fine and they won, Calie's team did some awesome stuff and lost. The overcame a 20 point deficit while I was fiddling with my cameras, I have no idea how they managed it, I presume Maria had something to do with it, she is tiny but she is a dervish on the court.

Once you permit those who are convinced of their own superior rightness to censor and silence and suppress those who hold contrary opinions, just at that moment the citadel has been surrendered.

Archibald Macleish - (1892-1982) Poet, playwright, Librarian of Congress, & Assistant Secretary of State under Franklin Roosevelt Source: Saturday Review, 12 May 1979

I had a meeting with a fella named King to talk about paving the streets at 10:00, he showed up about 11:20, Trent was there too and we talked a bit and went over the maps I had to leave to take Christian to Newport to get an ID Card and a renewal of his temporary Drivers license... I feel bad leaving Trent to do my job but some times my personal life just has to take precedence. For $18.75 a month they can only expect so much devotion.

Some complications are arising in the Amanda situation, I knew the 'happy-ever-after' for her was too good to be true. She is a sweet girl and doing her best but her Mother appears to be a bit of an albatross around her neck.

We will be contacting a lawyer on her behalf in the morning to see what rights a 15 year old girl has in this state. The thought that Amanda's mom can force Amanda to leave here and go live with her in some 'Shelter' in Colville against her wishes seems a bit hard to believe. She believes she can and that has me concerned for Amanda's wellbeing... That poor kid has been pretty resilient so far, but... damn... she is only 15 and she shouldn't have to concern herself with survival or be held hostage to her mothers incompetence. In 11 months she could petition the court to allow her to emancipate herself...

Christy and I had a long conversation with a lawyer re: Amanda and that led to more long conversations with DCFS and a trip to Newport to sign papers and fill out forms, the bottom line is Amanda isn't going anywhere. Her mom is not to have any contact with her. A lot of work but worthwhile I think...

We will go back to a court hearing next Friday, we will petition the court to allow her to stay with us and to deem her to be a "CHild In Need of Services (CINS pronounced Chins) She will also apply for 9 months of support which will amount to $350 for clothing and shelter... not a lot but enough so that she will be no burden to us at all.

The Golden Compass is coming out soon, it is a fantasy, a "Once upon a time" epic. I read an article entitled:

Apparently some Religious groups are going to extremes to boycott The Golden Compass. Apparently they have so little faith in the validity and clarity of their various religions that they feel threatened by children's stories. Remember Jerry Fallwell and the Purple Tele Tubbie.

What is it they are really trying to do? Get their names in the paper for publicity? A thrust of power to intimidate Hollywood or other churches, Paranoia, stupidity, fear? To my mind, the churches who lash out like this make themselves look weak and unsure of themselves when they go on these ridiculous crusades to protect themselves from things that aren't threatening.

They know they have the Divine Right to prevent me from seeing a show that they have arbitrarily deemed to be a threat to their beliefs... are their beliefs so shallow and poorly founded that the depiction of souls as animals in a fantastical fairy tale is an attack on the foundation of their church... sorry let the stupid bastards lash out from their narrow little minds. If only the world could see them for what they are, pathetic little people living in constant fear that someone will question their beliefs and question their ordination of power and leadership. Believe in my beliefs or I will kill you if I can and denounce you if I can't...

Ugh... the people who involve themselves in this sort of repression and arbitrary, superstitious fear mongering and threats just make me sick to my stomach... and when they get support from their constituents I fear we will be in for the second coming of the inquisition.... damn it folks, if you don't like a stupid movie, don't go see it... it is your right and privilege... but may your God damn you to hell when you presume you have the right to prevent me from seeing it. AMEN!

I guess that article sort of pissed me off... sorry... I feel better now... grin.

I just watched the last Bruce Willis movie... Live Free or Die Hard... a fun movie, I really enjoyed it... If you like over the top action movies... and I do, you will love this one.

"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? ... A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men."

Daniel Webster- (1782-1852), US Senator Source: Speech in the House of Representatives, January 14, 1814

FEAR OF CHAVEZ IS FEAR OF DEMOCRACY
Bush: If it’s our oil, why do Venezuelans get to vote on it?
GOP panicked that counting votes in Venezuela will spread to Florida

by Greg Palast
Monday December 3, 2007

The Family Bush can fix Florida. They can fix Ohio. But it’s just driving them crazy that they can’t fix the vote in Venezuela.

[Note: Watch the reports taken from the Palast BBC investigations in Venezuela in the newly released DVD, “The Assassination of Hugo Chavez.“]

The Bush Administration and its press puppies - the same ones who couldn’t get enough of the purple thumbs of voters of Iraq - are absolutely livid that this weekend the electorate of Venezuela had the opportunity to vote.

Typical was the mouth-breathing editorial by the San Francisco Chronicle, that the referendum could make Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s President, “a constitutional dictator for life.” And no less a freedom fighter than Donald Rumsfeld, from the height of the Washington Post, said that by voting, Venezuela was “receding into dictatorship.” Oh, my!

Given that Chavez’ referendum was defeated at the ballot box, we now that, as a dictator, Chavez is a flop. Of course, without meaning to gainsay Secretary Rumsfeld, maybe Chavez is not a dictator.

Let’s get clear exactly what this vote was about. Firstly, it was a referendum to change the nation’s constitution to end term limits for President.

Oh, horror! Imagine if we eliminated term limits in the US! We could end up stuck with a president - like Franklin Roosevelt. Worse, if Bill Clinton could have run again, we’d have missed out on the statesmanship of Junior Bush. While US media called Chavez a “tyrant” for suggesting an end to term limits, they somehow forgot to smear the tyrant tag on Mr. Clinton for suggesting the same for the America.

We were not told this weekend’s referendum was a vote on term limits, rather, we were told by virtually every US news outlet that the referendum was to make Chavez, “President for Life.” The “President for Life” canard was mis-reported by no less than The New York Times.

But ending term limits does not mean winning the term. As Chavez himself told me, “It’s up to the people” whether he gets reelected. And that infuriates the US Powers That Be.

Secondly, beyond ending term limits, the referendum would have loaded the nation’s constitution with changes in property law, work hours and so many other complex economic adjustments that the entire referendum sank of its own weight.

It’s the Oil.

Term limits and work hours in Venezuela? Why was this a crisis for Washington?

Why is the Bush crew so bonkers about Hugo? Is it because Venezuela sits on the world’s largest reserve of coconuts?

Like Operation Iraqi Liberation (”OIL”) - it’s all about the crude, dude. And lots of it. The US Department of Energy documents I obtained indicate that the guys holding Bush’s dipstick figure that Venezuela is sitting on 1.36 trillion barrels of crude, five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Chavez’ continuing tenure means that Venezuelans’ huge supply of oil will now be in the hands of … Venezuelans!

As Arturo Quiran, resident of a poor folks’ housing complex, told me, “Ten, fifteen years ago … there was a lot of oil money here in Venezuela but we didn’t see it.” Notably, Quiran doesn’t particularly agree with Chavez’ politics. But, he thought Americans should understand that under Chavez’ Administration, there’s a doctor’s office in his building with “free operations, x-rays, medicines. Education also. People who never knew how to read and write now know how to sign their own papers.”

Not everyone is pleased. As one TV news anchor, violently anti-Chavez, told me in derisive tones, “Chavez gives them (the poor) bricks and bread!” - how dare he! - so, they vote for him.

Big Oil has better ideas for Venezuela, best expressed in several Wall Street Journal articles attacking Chavez for spending his nation’s oil wealth on “social programs” rather than on more drilling platforms to better fill the SUVs of Texas.

Chavez has committed other crimes in Washington’s eyes. Not only has this uppity brown man spent Venezuela’s oil wealth in Venezuela, he withdrew $20 billion from the US Federal Reserve. Weirdly, Venezuela’s previous leaders, though the nation was dirt poor, lent billions to the US Treasury on crap terms. Chavez has said, Basta! to this game, and has called for keeping South America’s capital in … South America! Oh, no!

Oh, and did I mention that Chavez told Exxon it had to pay more than a 1% royalty to his nation on the heavy crude the company extracted?

And that’s why they have to kill him. In 2002, The New York Times sickeningly applauded the coup d’etat against Chavez. But that failed. Therefore, as the electorate of Venezuela is obstinately refusing to vote as Condi Rice tells them, there’s only one solution left for democracy-loving Bush-niks, the view express out loud by our President’s spiritual advisor, Pat Robertson:

“We have this enemy to our south controlling a huge pool of oil. Hugo Chavez thinks we’re trying to assassinate him. I think we ought to go ahead and do it. … … We don’t need another $200 billion war … It’s a whole lot easier to have some covert operatives do the job.”

But Hugo’s not my enemy. Indeed, he’s made a damn good offer to the American people: oil for $50 a barrel - nearly half of what it sells today. By locking in a long-term price, Venezuela loses its crazy Iraq war oil-price windfall. In return, we agree not to let oil prices fall through the floor (it dropped to $9 a barrel in 1998) and bankrupt his nation. But Saudi Arabia doesn’t like that deal. And Abdullah’s wish is George Bush’s command. (Interestingly, Chavez’ fellow no-term-limits dictator Bill Clinton endorsed the concept.)

I don’t agree with everything Chavez does. And I’ve found some of his opponents’ point well taken. But unlike Bush, I don’t think I should have a veto over the Venezuelan vote.

And the locals’ sentiments are quite clear. I drove with one opposition candidate, Julio Borges, on a campaign stop to a small town three hours from Caracas. We met his supporters - or, more accurately, his lone supporter. The “rally” was in her kitchen. She served us delicious arepas.

The next day, I returned to that very same town when Chavez arrived. Nearly a thousand screaming fans showed up - and an equal number were turned away. (The British Telegraph laughably reports that Chavez’ boosters appear “under duress.”) You’d think they were showing for a taping of “South American Idol.” (Well, the Venezuelan President did break into song a few times.)

It’s worth noting that Chavez’ personal popularity doesn’t extend to all his plans for “Bolivarian” socialism. And that killed his referendum at the ballot box. I guess Chavez should have asked Jeb bush how to count votes in a democracy.

So there you have it. Some guy who thinks he can take Venezuela’s oil and oil money and just give it away to Venezuelans. And these same Venezuelans have the temerity to demand the right to pick the president of their choice! What is the world coming to?

In Orwellian Bush-speak and Times-talk, Chavez’ referendum was portrayed before the vote as a trick, Saddam goes Latin. Maybe their real fear is that Chavez has brought a bit of economic justice through the ballot box, a trend that could spread northward. Think about it: Chavez is funding full health care for all Venezuelans. What if that happened here?

Watching the Republican debates is proving a surreal experience. The feeling is like watching... well, a science experiment, I guess, would be the best way to put it. All of the Republicans involved seem to be devolving into crude caricatures of Republicanism, but different crude caricatures of Republicanism -- something a bit more surreal than mere pandering. It is as if modern Republicanism was pushed through an ideological prism, and each of its parts scattered onto a different podium at a different part of the stage.

Romney: The CEO Republican. The multimillionaire whose interest is an America secured for the financial goals of multimillionaires. The problems of the little people are nothing: give them a little verbal bread, by appealing to a few of their baser instincts (Guantanamo good! Terrorism bad! Torture good!), and the Republican party leadership can play the public like puppets on strings. Romney stands out for being the Republican whose social and foreign policy stances are most transparently a put-on, someone who seems happy to drift along saying pretty much whatever the staffers say he should say if it allows him to move on without incident.

Huckabee: The Religious Republican. The perfect embodiment of true Republican religion; sings to the majesty of a Jesus that has been painstakingly repainted in the Republicans' own image, scrubbed of inconvenient tendencies towards compassion. Huckabee does not know if Jesus would support the death penalty. He does not know if torture is anti-Christian enough to really make a big fuss over. He considers himself the most Christian candidate, but mere self-proclaimed knowledge of the Holy Will of God is not sufficient enough to go against the Republican edicts against the poor and sick that define his party. Republicanism is a stronger religion, on that stage, than Christianity will ever be, and Reagan a more heralded messiah:
when it comes to Huckabee facing the phalanx of fervently "religious" Republican voters that will oppose him if he steps too carelessly on their own agendas, Jesus will have to make do as usual with a bit of vapid praise and little else.

Giuliani: The Crime Boss Republican. Giuliani's primary motivation in government has always been the consolidation of his own power, the use of that power to retaliate against his enemies, and, apparently, Herculean efforts to organize his city around best satisfying his own desires and needs and genitalia. And all of it sold to the public under constant assertions of danger, of terror, and imminent death if his edicts are questioned. He represents mafia don Republicanism, as perfected by Karl Rove, DeLay, Cheney and countless others, and is the most craven issuer of the bluntly stated threat: let me and my Republican associates and my Republican petty whims go unimpeded, or something will happen to you or your family.

Tancredo/Hunter: The Bigots. Nativism and racism writ large; the "Southern Strategy" recast to draw from and stoke fear, resentment and loathing not against black Americans, now protected too well for such rank hatreds to be openly expressed, but against brown Americans. Bigotry against minorities is still perfectly acceptable and, in fact, craved by the Republican base -- the targets, however, have had to shift as each previously assaulted group has won their own civil rights. So now the attack moves to gay Americans, yes, but most especially to Hispanics, thinly veiled under pretenses of rampant and dangerous "illegality." Gotta have someone to hate. Gotta have have some group, somewhere, that supposedly threatens the very social fabric of America by having the audacity to wish to be treated as human. What if (insert group here) moves next door, or marries your daughter, or gets on the same elevator as you? How many American laws must be changed or created or ignored, in order to prevent such a terror from happening?

Thompson: The Vacuum-Packed Professional Republican. Chosen by name alone, not skill, and specifically picked to be well known and inoffensive with no particular record, agenda, skills, or ideas that might get in the way. The goal of the handpicked vacuum packed Republican, whether it be Fred Thompson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or anyone else, is for their name to quickly provide enough boost to make their actual statements and positions irrelevant. Unfortunately for his party backers, Thompson has proved to have the political vibrancy of a dead halibut, thus defeating himself handily in his only area of purported accomplishment.

Ron Paul: The To Hell With The Rest Of You Republican. The rejector of the base premises of government itself. Paul represents the large portion of the Republican party that condemns the very notion that government should have a role in bettering the health, education, or welfare of its citizens. Under the Republican faux-libertarianism that finds its current crown princes in figures like Grover Norquist and Ron Paul, government can indeed be ably used as an enforcing tool of bigotry, but not of tolerance; government can indeed be used as a valid tool of industry against citizenry, but not the reverse; government, most of all, is a failure by its mere existence -- unless it serves their own thinly drawn purposes, of course. It is the shallowest and most crass interpretation possible of societal good and, indeed, of civilization, which goes to explain why it is so popular among certain groups.

While not one of the current Republican candidates are eager to utter George Bush's name -- he is, after all, badly damaged goods, since he had the misfortune to put Republican ideas into practice and be branded with the now-obvious results -- there have been absolutely no attempts whatsoever to distance themselves from either those ideas or those results. On the contrary, it has just been broken up into discrete portions, every one of them seeking dominance over the others.

It is as if all the failures and corruptions of principle of George Bush has been cleaved into parts, each one of them reaching an even more extreme level in one or another of those seeking to succeed him. Would you like the religious panderer Bush, or the fiscally incompetent Bush? Would you prefer the Bush that uses the crudely drawn specter of terrorism as distraction from every issue and act, no matter how seemingly petty or unconnected? Would you like the Bush that turns all aspects of government into crap, or the Bush that uses his position as a tribal lord, meting out punishments to all those that oppose him and lucrative positions and benefits to all those that maintain their loyalty? You have a choice: each one is represented onstage.

And why should that be surprising? It is, after all, the fabric of Republicanism. These are the things that get applause, when spoken from their podiums: the crude, the insincere, the blasphemous, the hateful, even the condemnation of the tasks of government themselves. Large portions of America cheer for these things, and, surely, those portions of America need a political party too.

If anything, though, it's going to be fascinating to watch which portion of this spectrum proves the most powerful in the party. Will it be the racism? The oligarchical premises of rank and privilege? The claims of Christianity divorced of any actual requirement to behave in a Christian fashion? The damn everyone but me movement is alive and well, but which precise form will it take?

Which part of the schizophrenic Republican personality will prove most dominant, at the end of primary season? And what will it take to stitch the various Frankensteinian parts back together into something again vaguely presentable to the nation, come the general election?

UPDATE: My goodness, I forgot McCain, the Warmonger Republican. In my defense, it's only because everyone has forgotten McCain. He is still running, right, and not just as a foil to Ron Paul?

Rumors Over Facts: The Washington Post Explains

by BarbinMD

Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 05:34:24 AM PST

Two days ago the Washington Post ran a front page story...check that...ran a front page list of debunked rumors, known in some ethical circles as lies, about Barak Obama, titled:

Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him

Appalled that the Washington Post chose to give a national platform to smears and politically motivated whisper campaigns, I asked if the Washington Post was The New Drudge? I was not alone in my outrage. As cataloged in a diary by psericks, Media Matters pointed out that they, "reported only Obama's denials of madrassa smear, not media debunkings," while the Columbia Journalism Review called it, "the single worst campaign ‘08 piece to appear in any American newspaper so far this election cycle." Even the Washington Post's own political cartoonist slammed the newspaper, with his caption reading, "So much discussion they ran out of space for the word 'lies'."

Making all of this doubly infuriating, was that at the same time the Washington Post was using the front page of their national newspaper to rehash lies, they all but ignored the well-researched, documented news that Rudy Giuliani had sex with his mistress on the taxpayer's dime.

And what was the Washington Post's response to the overwhelmingly negative reaction to their new, Drudge-style "reporting"? I first checked in with their ever-vigilant ombudsman, Deborah Howell, but she was busy covering the question of whether the murder of Sean Taylor had received too much coverage. But Lois Romano, "a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters," did respond during the Post Political Hour. First, on the Obama story:

These are always very difficult decisions-- how to address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a factor in the race, without taking a position. Part of our job is to acknowledge that there is a discussion going on and to fact check and lay out the facts. The Internet has complicated this responsibility because there is so much garbage and falsehoods out there. This discussion has reached a high pitch on the Internet and our editors decided it was in the readers interest to address it. I have heard people say that they won't support Sen. Obama because they read he doesn't put is hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. He has denied this-- so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.

Where to begin? First, their job is to report the news, not to acknowledge and repeat, "so much garbage and falsehoods." And did it occur to her that that garbage wasn't just on the internet(s), it was on the front page of her so-called respectable newspaper? And if it's their job to lay out the facts, can she start by showing where, "this dicussion has reached a high pitch"? Because if repeating lies from random, whacko sites is now newsworthy by Washington Post standards, I have a few suggestions for next week's political coverage: Laura Bush, Murderer, or maybe, George Bush, Complicit Role in 9/11 Attack. And while they're at it, maybe they can finally set the record straight; Apollo Moon landing, fact or fiction? Because, hey, it's all on the internet.

Finally, they were giving Senator Obama, "a chance to deny its accuracy"? Great idea. Perhaps next week the Washington Post will allow him to deny that he beats his wife.

And what about the non-coverage of the Rudy-does-Judi story?

I would disagree that it was underplayed. If you're asking why we didn't put it on the front page, that is because we had nothing new to add to the Politico story at this time.

Well, sure. The leading contender for the Republican nomination for president was, at best, using creative bookkeeping to subsidize his illicit affair, and three sentences in the middle of an article about the debate was plenty of coverage. It's not like he paid a lot for a haircut or anything. And they had nothing to add? So, if they had nothing new to add to the fact that the WTC was hit on 9/11, they wouldn't run it on the front page? If they had nothing new to add to Al Gore announcing his candidacy, they wouldn't run it on the front page? Is that another new standard for the Washington Post? If we don't break the story, we don't cover it? Matt Drudge will be crushed.

Digby's take on the Washington Post's embarrassing lack of journalistic ethics was, "It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's out there," and sadly, their own political reporter seems to agree. Unless of course what's out there is a substantial, investigative piece about Rudy Giuliani.

'The Golden Compass' Spurs Controversy

Religious Groups Claim the Film Encourages Atheism

Rumors Over Facts: The Washington Post Explains

by BarbinMD

Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 05:34:24 AM PST