-
Fox News has a bias?! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
As for pairing pundits with journalists, I agree that it is unfair. Equally unfair is pairing a domineering and bombastic pundit against a mild-mannered, polite one. In case you didn't follow that I was refering to "Hannity and Colmes". It seems to me that with the exception of James Carville, we on the left have no attack dogs to counter-balance the Coulters and Savages from the right. Until we do, the meme of "liberal media" will continue and Fox will continue to be able to assert that they aren't really conservative, they just look conservative because the rest of the media is so very liberal.
Posted at February 9, 2006 10:23 AM in response to Unfair, Unbalanced
-
and where, pray tell, shall we find the name of that citizen? The government isn't talking and as far as I know, by invoking "national security" they can silence (be it by statute or mere intimidation...) those who would be inclined to speak out. After all, the flagship legislation for national security, the PATRIOT Act, specifically prohibits the disclosure of this information. Am I the only one who remembers Ashcroft specifically and categorically denying charges that the FBI had used the powers granted under the Patriot Act to review Americans' library records, bookstore purchases or Internet browsing habits? And then it turns out that, well, perhaps the authority had been used after all? Do I really trust this group to balance civil liberties with national security? 'Fraid not.
Posted at January 16, 2006 12:08 PM in response to And read ...
-
Ross thinks that pagans are "defunct". I had to e-mail him yesterday and let him know that we (and our gods) are alive and well. He also seems to think that smart folk don't like Christians because, I suppose, Christians practice dogmatic Christianity. My experience has always been that intellectuals like Christian dogma just fine (or at least as much as the next religions). It's the holier-than-thou attitude that rankles.
And while I'm sure your friend Ross is a real nice person, one wonders exactly how his mind works.Posted at December 20, 2005 8:33 AM in response to The Odd Couple
-
And every time some corporate shill tries that line about being "anti-business" or "anti-corporation" I will point to Costco.
Their employees are unionized, they have decent health insurance, they treat everyone with respect and still...their profits per employee are higher than Wal-Mart. Their employee turnover rates are lower so training and safety costs are lower. Plus, their marketing department doesn't have to waste time trying to prove what a great company they are. All anyone has to do is contrast and compare.
It's just more profitable to be a good citizen.
Posted at December 8, 2005 10:59 AM in response to Wal-Mart Losing the PR War
-
I have to agree with the other posters who commented that the sample being women of affluence probably skewed the results. While it's interesting to look at the choices these women make, they don't really exist in the "real world". Ask anyone, male or female, if they could maintain their lifestyle while working part-time (or not at all) would they do so, and most would undoubtedly say "yes, they would".
That being said, I disagree with some of the comments in the articles. It is unfortunate that childcare and homecare disproportionately fall upon the women. In spite of the advances we have made in opening the workplace, women still are almost always expected to be the one who takes time off to care for the sick. She's usually the one who gets called when trouble crops up at school. And far from accommodating their female employees' familial responsibilities, many companies penalize them. The women are perceived as unreliable and least likely to put in extra hours.
Witness the kerfuffle with Neil French, and I quote...""Women don't make it to the top because they don't deserve to. They're crap." He added that women inevitably "wimp out and go suckle something".
While men seldom have to base their career choices on whether they want to procreate or not, women often have to consider the tradeoffs required between advancing in their careers and having a family.Posted at November 28, 2005 11:04 AM in response to Hype
-
was it Gregory who tossed in that "sloppy seconds" crack about Alito? I 'bout laughed my arse off with that one...
Posted at November 1, 2005 10:08 AM in response to Scott on the Rack
-
How can we believe anything this mouthpeice says? McClellan has always stood up as an advocate for the administration and we all know that their interpretation of the truth is, shall we say..subjective. Not only that but he has perpetuated the, uh, "misleading" talking points of the Republicans. Misinformation like "Joe Wilson said he was sent by the VP's office", "the investigation is partisan politics..." etc. Now these aren't verbatim quotes but they give the gist of what he spouted. Once he unequivically said that neither Rove, Libbey, or anyone else had anything to do with the leak...well, that tanked what little credibility he had left.
Go on, Helen, put his feet to the fire.Posted at November 1, 2005 9:54 AM in response to Scott on the Rack
-
not til after the 2006 elections, by then he'll be able to pardon Cheney, Libbey, and Rove. He'll leave the peons like Hadley to fend for themselves though.
Posted at October 28, 2005 10:58 AM in response to Pardon me?
-
my apologies to Mr. Jehl if he includes the following information in tomorrows article, but when I read this excerpt from your post
"A two-year inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has yet to uncover the origin of forged documents that formed a basis for sending an envoy on a fact-finding trip toNiger,...".
I felt I had to include other info from La Republica, just for clarification you know.
Excerpt from Jeff Morley in the WaPo's World Opinion Round-up -
"At the time of the Hadley-Pollari meeting, the Niger documents were already well-known in U.S. intelligence circles. Italian intelligence reports on Iraq's nuclear activities had been circulating in Washington since October 2001. La Repubblica's account suggests the forged documents were the product of an Italian government eager to curry favor with President Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. They were originally produced by a rogue cop on the payroll of both French and Italian intelligence services, the newspaper reported. The French wanted to follow up on reports from the late 1980s that Iraq had bought nuclear material in Niger, so the cop, in need of money, sold them the phony documents."
This pretty much debunks the myth that nobody knows who forged them, doesn't it?Posted at October 28, 2005 10:05 AM in response to Early Word on Indictments
-
How'd he get Mama Bush's diary to crib from?
Posted at September 6, 2005 12:41 PM in response to Conservatism and Incompetence
