Media control? Doesn't happen.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

And now for the GOOD news!

Good news travels in bunches!

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 15 2004, 02:06 AM
And now for the GOOD news!

Good news travels in bunches!

Media control? Doesn't happen

Did it occur to you the two stories you linked demonstrate the media is actually doing its job in writing what it sees fit?

Or was that your point?

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Did it occur to you that we have not got the full story on Iraq since the engagement happened? Naaaw, things have been going swimmingly. I just find it interesting that it took this long for the whole concept of media control to come out this late in the game. This isn't rocket science and it doesn't take much to see that we have not been getting the whole story on the war. Where are the stories in the casualties? Where's the indepth reports on those being kidnapped and killed? Is anyone aware that the majority of those "contractors" kidnapped have been picked from the 14 military bases being constructed around Iraq? Where is that story? We have been feed a very sanitized view that has not given us the whole story as to what has been going on. Its just refreshing for someone in the mainstream media finally find their balls and remember that part of the fifth estate's responsibility is to provide oversight of the government. Or are you going to try and argue that the media has done that over the past four years?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 15 2004, 04:03 AM
Naaaw, things have been going swimmingly. I just find it interesting that it took this long for the whole concept of media control to come out this late in the game. This isn't rocket science and it doesn't take much to see that we have not been getting the whole story on the war. Where are the stories in the casualties? Where's the indepth reports on those being kidnapped and killed? Is anyone aware that the majority of those "contractors" kidnapped have been picked from the 14 military bases being constructed around Iraq? Where is that story? We have been feed a very sanitized view that has not given us the whole story as to what has been going on. Its just refreshing for someone in the mainstream media finally find their balls and remember that part of the fifth estate's responsibility is to provide oversight of the government. Or are you going to try and argue that the media has done that over the past four years?

Did it occur to you that we have not got the full story on Iraq since the engagement happened? Naaaw, things have been going swimmingly.

Nope.

It's pretty obvious from television screens and newspapers that the main justification for the war, WMD, produced nothing and that's been apparent for over a year, that post-war planning was screwed, that American soldiers have died as a result of that poor planning, that the American military and reserve system is stretched to the point where it might break the concept of the all-volunteer army as a consequence, that civilians have been killed in unreasonable numbers as a result of too few troops on the ground, that Kellogg, Root & Brown, a subsidiary of Halliburton, is screwing the American taxpayer, that the long haul appears inevitable and that the current Administration is accountable for all of the above.

The average American is seeing the above on a daily basis just as Vietnam was brought to their living rooms. You simply can't deny that message or that those images are there. If you do, you're simply not paying attention.

You've posted mainstream media links here yourself in the last few days of soldiers complaining about the mission and their lack of morale, words presented here by your own hands but apparently the import of the SOURCE of the news failing to register on your own brain given what you just wrote in this thread about a "filtered story."

The problem here is that you think the media should be used to filter your particular interpretation of events and nothing else. You're seeking the same control you feel others have and that is a classic, classic argument from the fringe elements of both the left and the right. You're just as guilty as the other guys and you simply don't get it.

If you had presented those two links above and said: "See, here's how the American government is trying to control spin," then I wouldn't have said a thing since governments trying to control spin isn't exactly a bulletin.

Instead, you took two news stories, one with examples of media shredding the government and both exposing the effort to spin, and tried to present them as somehow the media being under government control, your usual conspiracy theory. In fact, your links are two CLEAR examples of the media doing its job by exposing the attempt at spin.

You hooped yourself.

By the way, here's an example of a government controlled network censoring the news as exposed in the mainstream press:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6252308/

Where are the stories in the casualties? Where's the indepth reports on those being kidnapped and killed?

You see them profiled every day in their home town newspapers and television news. The Kenneth Bigley affair in Britain brought that country to a halt with wall to wall coverage of a dead man walking in a wire cage.

Is anyone aware that the majority of those "contractors" kidnapped have been picked from the 14 military bases being constructed around Iraq? Where is that story?

It would be a common sense tactic for insurgents to attempt to delay military installations that would be used to defeat the insurrection. The locations are isolated with only a few ways in and out which makes the access routes relatively easy pickings for bad guys. There are obvious strategic attractions to go after those particular contractors if you're a nutbar.

The Chicago Tribune seven months ago on the issue of constructing military bases in Iraq, which was first brought to public view by the New York Times in April:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...uring-bases.htm

It would be obvious the goal is to withdraw American soldiers to encampments, similar to the strategy in Afghanistan, and gradually turn over the dangerous work of peace enforcement to Iraqi's, with the Americans in the background providing the occasional muscle. The two strategies look similar. By the way, that interpretation isn't in any of those stories. Its simply my own.

Both these links provide quotes and details from the original New York Times article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/fac.../iraq-intro.htm

The Associated Press reported that April had all Iraqi civilians employed for reconstruction working on four military facilities for the new Iraqi army, about 2,000 people. In May, one month later, there were 25,000 Iraqi's employed working on 73 projects, mostly civilian infrastructure according to the Associated Press. There were supposed to be about 2000 infrastructure projects underway by that time. Obviously the violence has slowed the pace immeasurably. You'll remember about 40 Iraqi children being blown to bits a few weeks ago at the opening ceremony of a sewer plant.

Cowperson

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Oct 15 2004, 11:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Oct 15 2004, 11:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 15 2004, 04:03 AM
Naaaw, things have been going swimmingly. I just find it interesting that it took this long for the whole concept of media control to come out this late in the game. This isn't rocket science and it doesn't take much to see that we have not been getting the whole story on the war. Where are the stories in the casualties? Where's the indepth reports on those being kidnapped and killed? Is anyone aware that the majority of those "contractors" kidnapped have been picked from the 14 military bases being constructed around Iraq? Where is that story? We have been feed a very sanitized view that has not given us the whole story as to what has been going on. Its just refreshing for someone in the mainstream media finally find their balls and remember that part of the fifth estate's responsibility is to provide oversight of the government. Or are you going to try and argue that the media has done that over the past four years?

Did it occur to you that we have not got the full story on Iraq since the engagement happened? Naaaw, things have been going swimmingly.

Nope.

It's pretty obvious from television screens and newspapers that the main justification for the war, WMD, produced nothing and that's been apparent for over a year, that post-war planning was screwed, that American soldiers have died as a result of that poor planning, that the American military and reserve system is stretched to the point where it might break the concept of the all-volunteer army as a consequence, that civilians have been killed in unreasonable numbers as a result of too few troops on the ground, that Kellogg, Root & Brown, a subsidiary of Halliburton, is screwing the American taxpayer, that the long haul appears inevitable and that the current Administration is accountable for all of the above.

The average American is seeing the above on a daily basis just as Vietnam was brought to their living rooms. You simply can't deny that message or that those images are there. If you do, you're simply not paying attention.

You've posted mainstream media links here yourself in the last few days of soldiers complaining about the mission and their lack of morale, words presented here by your own hands but apparently the import of the SOURCE of the news failing to register on your own brain given what you just wrote in this thread about a "filtered story."

The problem here is that you think the media should be used to filter your particular interpretation of events and nothing else. You're seeking the same control you feel others have and that is a classic, classic argument from the fringe elements of both the left and the right. You're just as guilty as the other guys and you simply don't get it.

If you had presented those two links above and said: "See, here's how the American government is trying to control spin," then I wouldn't have said a thing since governments trying to control spin isn't exactly a bulletin.

Instead, you took two news stories, one with examples of media shredding the government and both exposing the effort to spin, and tried to present them as somehow the media being under government control, your usual conspiracy theory. In fact, your links are two CLEAR examples of the media doing its job by exposing the attempt at spin.

You hooped yourself.

Where are the stories in the casualties? Where's the indepth reports on those being kidnapped and killed?

You see them profiled every day in their home town newspapers and television news. The Kenneth Bigley affair in Britain brought that country to a halt with wall to wall coverage of a dead man walking in a wire cage.

Is anyone aware that the majority of those "contractors" kidnapped have been picked from the 14 military bases being constructed around Iraq? Where is that story?

It would be a common sense tactic for insurgents to attempt to delay military installations that would be used to defeat the insurrection. The locations are isolated with only a few ways in and out which makes the access routes relatively easy pickings for bad guys. There are obvious strategic attractions to go after those particular contractors if you're a nutbar.

The Chicago Tribune seven months ago on the issue of constructing military bases in Iraq, which was first brought to public view by the New York Times in April:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...uring-bases.htm

It would be obvious the goal is to withdraw American soldiers to encampments, similar to the strategy in Afghanistan, and gradually turn over the dangerous work of peace enforcement to Iraqi's, with the Americans in the background providing the occasional muscle. The two strategies look similar. By the way, that interpretation isn't in any of those stories. Its simply my own.

Both these links provide quotes and details from the original New York Times article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/fac.../iraq-intro.htm

The Associated Press reported that April had all Iraqi civilians employed for reconstruction working on four military facilities for the new Iraqi army, about 2,000 people. In May, one month later, there were 25,000 Iraqi's employed working on 73 projects, mostly civilian infrastructure according to the Associated Press. There were supposed to be about 2000 infrastructure projects underway by that time. Obviously the violence has slowed the pace immeasurably. You'll remember about 40 Iraqi children being blown to bits a few weeks ago at the opening ceremony of a sewer plant.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]

The problem here is that you think the media should be used to filter your particular interpretation of events and nothing else. You're seeking the same control you feel others have and that is a classic, classic argument from the fringe elements of both the left and the right. You're just as guilty as the other guys and you simply don't get it.

Actually, reporting on what is going on in the ground is much different than reporting what the administration talking points want to happen. What is it that's so hard to understand?

- the white house doesn't want an ugly incident killing Bush's chance at reelection
- they asked media to "look at the positives" and stop report what is really going on

As an example, if there was a civil war outside your door and people were dying on your front lawn but you just finished up a really dandy backyard BBQ, guess what the notes would urge you to report? The mean steaks and good times out back.

Any lens as a filter is not objective, but if objectivity is lost because one is told that a particular story is too harrowing and not good for the pres, are you happy to hear it's not reported?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Oct 15 2004, 02:53 PM
Actually, reporting on what is going on in the ground is much different than reporting what the administration talking points want to happen. What is it that's so hard to understand?

- the white house doesn't want an ugly incident killing Bush's chance at reelection
- they asked media to "look at the positives" and stop report what is really going on

As an example, if there was a civil war outside your door and people were dying on your front lawn but you just finished up a really dandy backyard BBQ, guess what the notes would urge you to report? The mean steaks and good times out back.

Any lens as a filter is not objective, but if objectivity is lost because one is told that a particular story is too harrowing and not good for the pres, are you happy to hear it's not reported?

Didn't you just make my point?

Cowperson

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Actually, I disagree. So I'll spell it out, though I fear being labelled a fringe element, which you recently seem to use in abundance to dismiss opinions that lie outside your own.

- Information should not be guided.

There. You said guided information is good, because maybe it somehow provides some lovely wonderful neutral point.

But if people are dying, the news is thus. By telling media outlets that they should just tell a happy story, shucks, that just sorta goes against the grain of telling stories, now doesn't it.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Oct 15 2004, 03:10 PM
Actually, I disagree. So I'll spell it out, though I fear being labelled a fringe element, which you recently seem to use in abundance to dismiss opinions that lie outside your own.

- Information should not be guided.

There. You said guided information is good, because maybe it somehow provides some lovely wonderful neutral point.

But if people are dying, the news is thus. By telling media outlets that they should just tell a happy story, shucks, that just sorta goes against the grain of telling stories, now doesn't it.

- Information should not be guided.

There. You said guided information is good, because maybe it somehow provides some lovely wonderful neutral point.

No. I didn't say guided information is good.

I said I can't stop someone or some institution from saying: "Please print a nice story." If they want to ask, that's their business.

A responsible media will ignore the request or even report it, as we saw with the two original links provided by Lanny, and get on with their own business.

As I noted in my original reply, government trying to control spin is hardly a bulletin in any country. And, I have news for you, it would extend down right to hospital boards in small communities.

Everyone wants to control spin. Everyone asks. That's their business.

Whether or not its heeded is another thing. That's the point.

As an example, Theo Fleury's substance abuse issues were probably known among Calgary media but never reported, likley by mutual consent. Should it have been a public issue? Did it help or hurt the Flames that it wasn't?

Cowperson

[TheCommodoreAfro]

But that's just that - a nice story isn't what journalism is - that's business. Journalism is to report what's going on, and things that have impact.

Steriziling something because someone told you is not how it should work.

Comparing Iraq to Theo Fleury's drug problem is a good example. What should have they done? Report it - was it a problem? How could they truly know? The whole issue of slander comes into play if they slip up so the risk is there so of course they back off.

But underneath all of the coverup the truth is he was whacked out on the stuff. And in the same way, bad things are happening in Iraq that have impact, as are good things. I think journalists should report on the both if they have impact. If they are told to fluff something up, I don't like that.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Oct 15 2004, 03:42 PM
But that's just that - a nice story isn't what journalism is - that's business. Journalism is to report what's going on, and things that have impact.

Steriziling something because someone told you is not how it should work.

Comparing Iraq to Theo Fleury's drug problem is a good example. What should have they done? Report it - was it a problem? How could they truly know? The whole issue of slander comes into play if they slip up so the risk is there so of course they back off.

But underneath all of the coverup the truth is he was whacked out on the stuff. And in the same way, bad things are happening in Iraq that have impact, as are good things. I think journalists should report on the both if they have impact. If they are told to fluff something up, I don't like that.

If they are told to fluff something up, I don't like that.

Who would?

Its simply human nature to try to control the message, to have yourself presented in the best light possible. Being President of the USA or President of a Minor Hockey Association makes little difference.

So "they" ask. "They" threaten intellectually or even physically. "They" cajole. "They" limit access. "They" provide only threads of information but not the whole story. It happens all the time.

All pretty normal whether its a Democrat or a Republican president or whether its some contentious issue at a county council meeting or even a minor hockey association. Honestly, you see it at the highest levels and the lowest level imaginable, the gravest of issues and the stupidest of issues.

The frailty of human nature on display 24/7. They can certainly ask or threaten. There's not much you can do about it but expose the request or the threat, as we saw in the links Lanny provided.

That's different than a media source aquiescing or falling for it or stopping in its tracks.

Lanny posted another link earlier in the week of the small town paper, The Iconoclast, in GW Bush's hometown endorsing John Kerry with a ripping editorial of the Bush administration.

I posted the follow up story of businesses refusing to carry the newspaper in their stores anymore, of advertisers withdrawing, of subscriptions being cancelled and hundreds of letters to the editor.

Regarding Fleury, one could argue the Flames benefited from media not going after the substance abuse issue, sending damaged goods to the Avalanche for an attractive package that is now a bedrock of the franchise. Meanwhile, the Avs couldn't get rid of Fleury fast enough.

But is it the media's business to help the Flames?
Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Man I had such a great rebuttal typed up... and %$#*ing Explorer crashes on me. It was long and detailed and had several examples of subtle media control. Let me just say that the media is controlled through the corporate enterprises that run them and that the government is owned by these same corporate enterprises. It is a matter of you wash my back and I'll wash yours. The tradeoffs come in the form of tax breaks ($136 billion this week alone) and failure to enforce guidelines on the corporations (see Sinclair), in return for the promotion of the "positive" message when they want it. People down here don't even recognize it for the most part. The funny part is that when you bring it up they will even defend it believing that it is part of the game.

Here's a very quick example of supressing a message. Green Day has a new album out, and it is likely the best of their career. Its a concept album has a distinct message behind it. Its anti-war. This album has been very hard to find from the large chains (Walmart, Target, etc.) and "shortages" have been a problem according to managers (not so according to the specialty stores). The single is one of the top three requested of the stations I listen to, yet the song doesn't make the regualr rotation. Finally the truth came out when the morning drive guys (top rated in the market) were discussing a request for the song and they stated it doesn't fit with the "positive message" the station is trying to promote. Right. They play Slipnot, Marilyn Manson, Rob Zombie and Nine Inch Nails, but are worried about the message they are promoting? Clear Channel strikes again (the same Clear Channel that brought you Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge). Its subtle, but it contributes. Having said that, here's American Idiot.

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation under the new mania.
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind"boink" America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alienation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

Well maybe I'm the "limp wristed winnie" America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along in the age of paranoia.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alienation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
One nation controlled by the media.
Information age of hysteria.
It's calling out to idiot America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alienation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 15 2004, 04:35 PM
Man I had such a great rebuttal typed up... and %$#*ing Explorer crashes on me. It was long and detailed and had several examples of subtle media control. Let me just say that the media is controlled through the corporate enterprises that run them and that the government is owned by these same corporate enterprises. It is a matter of you wash my back and I'll wash yours. The tradeoffs come in the form of tax breaks ($136 billion this week alone) and failure to enforce guidelines on the corporations (see Sinclair), in return for the promotion of the "positive" message when they want it. People down here don't even recognize it for the most part. The funny part is that when you bring it up they will even defend it believing that it is part of the game.

Here's a very quick example of supressing a message. Green Day has a new album out, and it is likely the best of their career. Its a concept album has a distinct message behind it. Its anti-war. This album has been very hard to find from the large chains (Walmart, Target, etc.) and "shortages" have been a problem according to managers (not so according to the specialty stores). The single is one of the top three requested of the stations I listen to, yet the song doesn't make the regualr rotation. Finally the truth came out when the morning drive guys (top rated in the market) were discussing a request for the song and they stated it doesn't fit with the "positive message" the station is trying to promote. Right. They play Slipnot, Marilyn Manson, Rob Zombie and Nine Inch Nails, but are worried about the message they are promoting? Clear Channel strikes again (the same Clear Channel that brought you Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge). Its subtle, but it contributes. Having said that, here's American Idiot.

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation under the new mania.
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind"boink" America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alienation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

Well maybe I'm the "limp wristed winnie" America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along in the age of paranoia.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alienation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
One nation controlled by the media.
Information age of hysteria.
It's calling out to idiot America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alienation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

An imaginative reply.

Let me just say that the media is controlled through the corporate enterprises that run them and that the government is owned by these same corporate enterprises.

If you believe the above then it would be difficult to explain some of the links to the mainstream press you've been posting lately, all slamming Bush, exposing troop morale problems in Iraq, etc, etc.

Hoisted by your own petard.

If you had said government attempts to control spin I would say "Fine."

If you had said the mainstream media can be accused of gangpiling or herd mentality on occasion, I would say: "Fine."

There's too much Bush bashing out there on a daily basis to really believe your statement though.

By the way, an example of gangpiling would be how the press is handling the Arthur Leavitt Report. Although he has a great reputation for honesty there is no way to independently verify his claim that 73% of NHL revenues go to players. At the time his report was issued, most media were skeptical and said so. Somewhere along the way, however, things changed. Today, it is routine for columnists to use the 73% number without a qualifier, as though it were a confirmed truth. I object to that even though I favour owners in this dispute. But its an example of how a "maybe" becomes a "fact" through gangpiling.

Did someone in corporate kingdom tell all those columnists throughout North America to use that as a "fact?"

Nope.

Cowperson

[arsenal]

I have not bought the new Green Day album, but it is one that I definately will purchase at some time.

I don't see how that song is for or against anything really. It really is just stating that people will take what they see in the media as truth, with out doing any research. That goes for both sides of the political spectrum.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 15 2004, 04:47 PM
If you believe the above then it would be difficult to explain some of the links to the mainstream press you've been posting lately, all slamming Bush, exposing troop morale problems in Iraq, etc, etc.

Hardly. It would just mean that one of one thousand stories that SHOULD be told daily is finally being discussed. Iraq has been a perfect example of how the government has managed to control the press and not report the facts as they are going on. You think that by having one story in one paper is having a responsible media. And exacty how does that counter the storry that is being told in 175 other papers, all thell the same and conflicting story? It does what you tend to do at times Cow. It marginalizes the story and pushes the truth to the fringe. You have done it yourself on many occassion in attempting to discredit much of what I say. I'll post one link that says something, you'll post five that all have the exact same story. Mine becomes marginalized and pushed to the fringe, no matter who the source or what was said. All I know is that I can sit back and laugh because the media is finally starting to report, little by little, pretty well everything that I've been saying all along. The fringe finally starts to make the mainstream.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 15 2004, 05:05 PM
I have not bought the new Green Day album, but it is one that I definately will purchase at some time.

I don't see how that song is for or against anything really. It really is just stating that people will take what they see in the media as truth, with out doing any research. That goes for both sides of the political spectrum.

Wow. Really. Time to wake the hell up. Maybe you will do just that when you get the album and read the lyrics sheet. I'll save you the trip to the store. Here, go a head and read the lyrics.

American Idiot

And what part of the album cover DON'T you get?



It's a bloody heart-shaped grenade!

[arsenal]

Its an art form, just like writing, painting etc. A form of expression that is open to interpritation. I view it a different way than you. But apparently I am not aloud to.

You are spouting about freedom of speech, that messages are being suppressed. But it seems that the only message that matters, is the one you wish to spread.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

This from the guy that has President Bush as his avitar!

[arsenal]

Really? I thought it was Kerry. :wave:

[Cowperson]

A good essay discussing concentration of media ownership, written in January 2004. It discusses the FOX issue and other matters of relevance on the topic:

http://reason.com/0401/fe.bc.domination.shtml

Mudoch owns 175 newspapers WORLDWIDE. You appear to be attempting to convince people those are in the USA.

As you can see from global opinion polls, and assuming your charge is correct that his newspapers deliver a uniform message, then you're certainly getting mixed results as you move out of the USA in terms of support for the war.

In the USA, Murdoch owns the New York Post, the Boston Herald, the Chicago Sun-Times and the San Antonio Express-News and a few others. All of those locations have alternative newspaper competition.

His most famous rape was turning the notorously liberal New York Post into a right wing rage which had a famous editorial on Sept. 12, 2001 of "Just Nuke 'Em."

I'll post one link that says something, you'll post five that all have the exact same story.

Your common modus operandi is to link a story and say its not being reported. All I do is come along and post five links from the year previous to show that it was. You marginalize yourself with fastballs right down the middle of the plate.

Besides, your common accusation is that everyone is wrong and that you're right. That's marginalizing yourself as well.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Definitely not. That's Dubya's posture and scowl from each of the debates. There is no doubt about that.