Economy
Comments (0)
So in a private and off camera moment, President Bush may have uttered his first real honest answer regarding the United States Economy, and the absolute mess that it is in. He said that Wall Street had gotten drunk, and that he was waiting for them to sober up, to get things back on track. Wonder if his last seven years of his Presidency, if he was sober?
“There is no question about it. Wall Street got drunk,” the president said. “That’s one reason I asked you to turn off your TV cameras.”
“The question is, How long will it (take to) sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments?” (source - CBS News)
Thing is, if he can say the truth in private, what the hell is stopping him from saying it in Public, and worse, DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
I mean he is planning to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of $25 Billion, but he won’t lift a finger to help the MILLIONS FACING FORECLOSURE. It just is inconceivable that a man who knows that a sector is out of control, is unwilling to lift a finger to correct the situation. It really is absurd, to hide the truth, as he does, to spout about how the Economy is Basically Sound, when the truth is, it isn’t.
Sphere: Related Content Ian @ July 23, 2008
Election 2008 (USA)
Comments (0)
The McCain camp has confirmed that an opinion editorial by Senator McCain was denied by the New York Times Newspaper, for publication. Fox News, in a careful attack of innuendo, have linked the rejection by the New York Times Op Ed Editor as being political, as the man served in the Bill Clinton Administration. Naturally it doesn’t go into the actual ‘he rejected it because he’s a democrat‘ stuff, but the implication is clear.
The New York Times on Friday blocked an opinion piece submitted by John McCain to the newspaper shortly after it printed a piece by his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, McCain campaign officials confirmed to FOX News on Monday. (source - Fox News)
Frankly, after reading the article itself, the whole article, I have to wonder if perhaps both sides are simply trying to meddle? Is Fox News trying to gain readership by its defence of John McCain or is the New York Times trying to censor what news it prevents? There appears to be a lot who would support either opinion, however I myself belief that both sides here are missing a key issue.
The Media is not about News, but about taking sides, about convincing people where they should stand on issues that matter to their advertisers, not to their readers. Simple truth is that on the surface, the request by the Op Ed Editor for Senator McCain to define more clearly his policies, is about informing the voters, but let’s be serious here. It is a tactic to force the Senator to make a statement, that can come back to haunt him later, or be used against him. While it would be nice if ALL CANDIDATES would be clear, concise, and definite about their policies, we all KNOW that isn’t going to happen in our lifetime.
“It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan,” Shipley wrote. (source - Fox News)
This is not the job of any Newspaper nor is it the job of any Media to censor what a political candidate has to say. Now some will disagree that any Media has the right, under its rules, and under the rules of editorial sections, but I wonder, if they aren’t simply missing the whole point here. Yes, this is not a NEWS section, but an OPINION SECTION, so why then is John McCain being censored for voicing his opinion? Why is any Editor working with the authors to better frame their piece, if this is about EXPRESSING OPINIONS?
What is needed is a clear law and stated guidelines in which ALL MEDIA are forced to provide ALL CANDIDATES a FREE FORUM to express their views, their policies, AS THEY SEE FIT. Not to have some editor MAKE THAT CHOICE. This is part of the problem, with elections costing so much, and with the rampant polarization of the Media. Fox News for example is a clear organ for the Conservative Side, while the New York Times has the same reputation for the Liberal Side.
During an Election Year, both Candidates should have CLEAR FREE ACCESS to the other side Media Outlets, meaning that Obama should be given Equal Access to state his views on FOX or other Conservative Outlets, and McCain given the same EQUAL ACCESS on the Liberal side.
No matter how nicely the New York Times puts its argument forward, this smacks not of Censorship as it stinks of pushing a Political Agenda. That really isn’t the job of any media outlet, though that has long since fallen by the wayside, with 99.9% of all Media Outlets.
Sphere: Related Content Ian @ July 22, 2008
Justice
Comments (0)
The world has changed a lot over the last decade or two. One of those changes has been the Computer, and the Internet. The way information can suddenly reach millions of people, in a flash. How gossip and inuendo can suddenly be flashed across the world is one of those advances, but so to is the spreading of concerns, of voicing opinions that others may never have thought of. It is a double edged sword, but one that is growingly under attack.
The blogging community increasingly is subject to lawsuits and threats of legal action running the gamut from subpoenas to cease-and-desist notices.
Since blogging became popular in about 2004, there have been 159 civil and criminal court actions involving bloggers, according to the nonprofit Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) in New York. Seven cases have resulted in verdicts against bloggers, with cumulative penalties totaling $18.5 million. Many more legal actions never result in trial. (source - ABC News)
While some who post online are simply posting gossip, idle chit chat, it has far reaching consequences. And yet we all believe we are protected by some vague freedom of speech, that supposedly entitles us to say what we want. I think we all fall into that trap, but is the assault on the so called ‘blogosphere’ really about perceived insults? Is it about a perceived threat to a person’s reputation that is driving these increased lawsuits, or is it something else?
For example, our Prime Minister is suing the Liberal Party for what was said on the Liberal Party website. He is claiming that it was defamation, libel, or whatever the legal term is, and that it harmed his reputation. On the surface that sounds reasonable, but is the goal of the lawsuit about correcting an injustice, or is it about stifling free speech? Is it to intimidate those who oppose his policies into silence? Or to lessen their voiced opposition to those policies, for fear of being sued?
Simple truth is that more people are suing over comments made on the Internet. Now I don’t know, but when does opinion become construed as fact? I for example, am not a fan of the Harper Government, or the Bush Administration. I voice that dissatisfaction, and is that libel? It is my opinion, my personal view, so when does it cross the line? Or does it?
Are these increased lawsuits about someone trying to right a wrong, or is it a veiled attempt at stifling the rights of people into voicing their opinions?
“These defamation suits are chilling free expression on the Internet,” said Lawrence Walters, a First Amendment attorney based in Florida, who told ABCNEWS.com that in the past two years his practice has seen an increased volume of defamation cases. “Where someone might be able to get away with some criticism on a low-key level, when you post it on the Internet people tend to take action and then these defamation suits are filed. It scares people from expressing themselves in the future.” (source - ABC News)
What is worse, is that it appears that a lot of those doing the suing, are elected officials or those in position of public responsibility, such as School Boards, or other similar posts. So I wonder, are these lawsuits really about protecting one’s image, one’s reputation, or is it more about finding a back door to limiting the rights of people to express their opinions?
Sphere: Related Content Ian @ July 21, 2008
Site News
Comments (0)
In case you noticed, the links were somehow generating a 404 error when clicked on. The front page loaded fine, but nothing else. Seems I added a plugin that had a conflict and it took me all of today to figure it out, and solve the error.
Sorry for the inconvenience, but I am now hairless if that helps…
Ian.
Sphere: Related Content Ian @ July 20, 2008