Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

MediaCulture

Right-wing Coup at PBS?

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted May 3, 2005.


The new Public Broadcasting boss either has an inappropriate sense of humor or he's the latest participant in what the FCC called a 'right-wing coup' of PBS.
Advertisement

Is Pat Mitchell the Martin Niemoller of public television?

You may recognize this quote from the Lutheran anti-Nazi activist, who formed a resistance movement and was then arrested and spent years in prison for his beliefs:

"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

The ongoing conservative coup at the quasi-governmental Corporation for Public Broadcasting seems to have come at last for lame duck PBS president and CEO Mitchell. The evidence is everywhere, as detailed recently in articles in such mainstream mouthpieces as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Mitchell is being publicly criticized as "tone deaf" by CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, after having been "jokingly" told by him to ensure that PBS programming better reflect a Republican "mandate."

Meanwhile, as the Post noted (in an April 22 article "PBS Scrutiny Raises Political Antennas" by Paul Farhi):

"Liberal commentator Bill Moyers is out on PBS stations. Buster the animated rabbit is under a cloud of suspicion. And right-wing yakkers from the Wall Street Journal editorial page have been handed their own public television chat show."

In addition, CPB officials recently appointed for the first time in history two "ombudsmen" to review PBS news and public affairs programs (such as the award-winning "Frontline" and "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer") for evidence of bias -- without bothering to inform Mitchell. They also insisted for the first time on tying new federal funding (CPB provides nearly $30 million annually to PBS) to an agreement that commits PBS to strict "objectivity and balance" in each of its programs -- something that, according to the PBS general counsel, amounts to: "government encroachment on and supervision of program content, potentially in violation of the First Amendment." And recently Ken Ferree, a top Republican operative and former FCC media bureau chief under Chairman Michael Powell, was named as an interim replacement for CPB chief executive Kathleen Cox. Ferree is meant to keep the seat warm until Tomlinson's choice for the post -- Assistant Secretary of State (and former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee) Patricia Harrison -- receives approval from CPB's board members, many of whom have been appointed by President Bush.

"We don't want to be alarmist, but I would be less than honest if I said there wasn't concern here," one senior executive at PBS, who insisted on anonymity because CPB provides about 10 percent of its annual budget,' told the Post. "When you put it all together, a pattern starts to emerge."

A week and a half later, Mitchell went on the record, telling The New York Times "I do think there have been instances of attempts to influence content from a political perspective that I do not consider appropriate."

Among the attempts cited by the Times: the hidden hiring of a consultant by CPB Board Chairman Ken Tomlinson to "review" the content of "NOW with Bill Moyers"; Tomlinson's assistance in lining up $5 million in corporate financing and subsequent PBS distribution of "The Journal Editorial Report," the weekly chat show featuring members of the conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal; his penchant for involving the White House in matters ranging from legislation affecting the CPB board to addressing concerns about "objectivity and balance;" all the way to remarks at a "fun occasion" -- a post-election meeting last November -- when Tomlinson told PBS officials, including Mitchell, that they ought to make sure their programming better reflected the Republican "mandate."

"I was in that room," Mitchell told the Times. "I was surprised by the comment. I thought it was inappropriate."

An unnamed senior FCC official went further, however, telling The Washington Post that CPB under Tomlinson "is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the truth, but to impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It's almost like a right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated."

Ken Tomlinson dismisses such concerns, however, as "paranoia," telling the Post that his critics should simply "grow up," remarking in the Times, "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters that there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance."


Digg!

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from MediaCulture! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
'Reality-based' information apparently not part of New GOP?
Posted by: owlbear1 on May 3, 2005 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Tomlinson kept hidden the results of two "National Public Opinion" surveys indicating that the overwhelming majority of the U.S. public is happy with PBS programming. The documents, buried in an annual report to Congress, were neither released to the press nor shared with PBS."

And this FUCKER has the audacity to tell people to 'Grow up'?


Tell you what COWARD, when YOU stop lying like a fucking rug maybe I'll consider stop treating you like a 10 year old.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A lion with no teeth
Posted by: churchofone on May 3, 2005 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The major media in this country chooses to NOT put their teeth into their treatment of the GOP and Bush Administration. Whether it is the lack of investigation by major news corporations or the lack of backbone at PBS, they are essentially rolling over and playing dead.Tomlinson's remarks that his goal is "to see programming that satisfies a broad constituency" smacks of the right wing's cry that the wishes of the majority must rule. However, our system is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The GOP's goals appear to be to silence the voice of dissent, while imposing their views and moral outlook upon everyone.Independent media is perhaps the last, best hope to keep healthy debate alive in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A lion with no teeth Posted by: cin9713
Definitions
Posted by: sharonsreed on May 3, 2005 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1 "Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform."
2 "Having, expressing, or following views or policies that favor the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing."
And the definitions go on in a similar and appealing vein in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Would someone please explain to me, in terms I can understand and accept, how the angry, right wing has managed to turn the word LIBERAL into a frightening, four letter word? I feel that my country of origin has been hijacked by reincarnated souls from the 17th Century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Definitions Posted by: Edward George
Send Tomlinson a message, and pass it on
Posted by: pubradiocat on May 3, 2005 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell CPB how you feel about this, and pass this link to people you know who care about PBS, NPR, PRI. The smarmy Republican minions who are trying to put Rabid Radical Right Wing propaganda on listener-supported airwaves have to be stopped.

http://www.cpb.org/talktous/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saving CPB
Posted by: goldbeme on May 3, 2005 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The way to save CPB from rape by the Republicans is to fund it ourselves. CPB is intelligent, literate, and a few degrees to the left of center - I love it, and I subscribe to it. But I don't think that the government should pay for it. If satellite radio can pay Howard Stern 500 million, enough to support all of CPB, we should be able to raise, by subscription, enough to fund it and all of PBS and NPR, all things considered. And then we wouldn't have to bemoan that the Neanderthals are keeping Bill Moyers off the air.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Saving CPB Posted by: nothreat
Sharon
Posted by: Sharon on May 3, 2005 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The conservatives tried to stop funding for public broadcasting. They failed. So, now they're just taking it over and will make it their own. it's a greedy bunch, and we're letting them gobble up everything in sight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Repubican POV
Posted by: wadavis on May 3, 2005 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Publicans can't stand anything that differs with their narrow-minded, bigoted, ignorant point of view. If only the Founding Fathers had not tacked that pesky Bill of Rights onto the Constitution then these fascist pricks would not have anything to bitch about!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: epubican POV Posted by: mjm3iii
"Tone and balance"
Posted by: CJC on May 3, 2005 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The public airways already have the Fox News version of "fair and balanced' news.
Isn't that enough?

Now they're putting other foxes in charge of the chicken coop.
What kind of 'ombudsmen' aren't familiar with the service they are 'monitoring?'
"Monitoring" is not an ombudsman function.

"Ombudsman. 1. A man (person) who investigates complaints and mediates FAIR settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as comsumers or students and an institution or organization. 2. A government official, especially in Scandanavian countries, who investigates citizen complaints against the government or its functionaries." Am Heritage Dictionary. Emphasis is mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They Never Tell You
Posted by: nakis on May 3, 2005 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ken Tomlinson dismisses such concerns, however, as "paranoia," telling the Post that his critics should simply "grow up," remarking in the Times, "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters that there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance."

The invader never admits what they are really up to. Using the example the author cites in the beginning of the article. The Nazis didn't start off telling everyone what they had planned. They lied and deceived to keep people off guard. They use the laws that support freedom to subvert and elminate those laws. Whatever it takes to support their agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Armagedon" Posted by: Cybernalt
Going down the path like Italy?
Posted by: oaktowngrrl on May 3, 2005 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Prime Minister, Berlusconi, has learned well that "if it isn't shown on TV, it doesn't exist." He owns the three major media companies in Italy, plus two football/soccer teams, thereby giving Italy enough entertainment (flashy dancing girls,etc.) and pride to diffuse any serious protest about his illegal manuverings. What has Berlusconi done with Italy's public TV station (RAI)? Water it down, make it so bland that no one wants to watch it. And the government wants to partially privitize it. Sound familiar?

[Italians have become unhappy with their failing economy. Though Berlusconi recently resigned, forced by the center right parties who did not fare well in recent elections, he did get a vote of confidence to form a new government. ]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "Mission" of PBS
Posted by: Roger Király on May 3, 2005 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's another perspective on PBS from the point of view of an old lefty, radical composer of "classical" music: As far as I can tell, PBS is in violation of its charter (which I've read.) The charter states that PBS was created to provide a television outlet for programming that couldn't be found on commercial television. I don't see that happening on PBS. Once in a while, they'll broadcast an opera or a ballet, but the majority of these broadcasts feature works from the standard 18th or 19th century repertoire. What have I seen on PBS? James Taylor, The Beach Boys, Willy Nelson, Lawrence Welk (?!?), and stuff like that. I don't have anything against music like this (well, except Lawrence Welk!), but it has no relevance to the PBS charter. The last jazz I saw on PBS was the "spectacular" by Ken Burns. Where are the regular jazz shows? Where is the non-commercial rock? The avant-garde classical music? World music? Usually nowhere to be found on PBS. Or, at best, a trickle.

Considering PBS "leftist" or "radical" is a joke. Maybe Bill Moyers seems "radical" to the Neo-cons running the GOP but, to me, he seems more like a centrist. There's nothing wrong with being a centrist, but let's see Moyers for what he actually is, not the bugaboo the GOP is trying to create.

The problem with PBS is NOT that it is too leftist or radical, but that it's not radical enough. We don't need PBS to hear James Taylor or The Beach Boys.

Where are the discussions on PBS of the museum system and its relationship to living artists, the co-opting of the arts by academia, the marginalization of radical art, or the myopia of grant givers?

If people want conventional political discourse, let them watch Fox or MSNBC or, for that matter, the networks. The GOP wants everything to reflect only their limited worldview and have all media homogenized and sanitized---remove wrapper before watching. I would have the same opinion if the Democrats were trying to do the same thing.

I encourage people to support magazines like The Nation, The Progressive, The Progressive Populist, The Hightower Lowdown, among others, and support Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, AlterNet, and WorldLink TV instead of PBS. Don't rely on PBS for much of anything.

If PBS keeps ignoring its charter and continues with its watered-down, bland, conventional programming, it should be abolished.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The "Mission" of PBS Posted by: Cybernalt
» RE: The "Mission" of PBS Posted by: Lochinvar
» RE: The "Mission" of PBS Posted by: sterlingwisdom
Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: Reality Chick on May 3, 2005 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At first, I thought all this uber-conservatism we are experiencing in this country today would overreach and the majority of reasonable Americans would stop it in its regressive path. Now I'm not so sure. With every day, some new affront to civil discourse and liberties is perpetrated by the Fundamentalists, seemingly without any push-back from the Progressives. And now They are worming their way into the last bastion of balance, PBS? Where does it end? Is it not enough to have virtually all the American media slobbering at their heels? Is this country really as backward as it is ever more appearing to be? What happened to the half of the country that didn't drink the Kool-Aid?

One wonders where the spirit of Revolution that founded this country and that reared its head in the 60's has gone. Are we all just fat and happy, with our SUV's and flat screen TV's that we either don't want to upset the apple cart or are convincing ourselves that, seriously, it can't REALLY happen that we, America, could regress back to the early 20th century, where Americans routinely died of curable diseases for lack of care, sold our children into economic bondage for lack of money and education and elevated snake oil salesmen to lofty esteem for lack of better presidential and senatorial candidates?

It sickens me to see what is happening and I don’t know what to do about it. I’ve put my money where my mouth is. I’ve voted in every election I have been eligible to since coming of age in 1977. I’ve worked for my candidates, licked the envelopes, dialed the phones, waved the placard. For naught? Apparently.

What will it take to return to the culture of fairness, equality for all, the promise of the American Dream? For good people to rise up and say ‘No More.’ No more shoving your religion down my throat. No more discriminating against people who are different from you. No more theocracy where democracy is supposed to live. No more Ms Nice Guy.

Throw down, Progressives. Claim your Liberal outlook proudly. Write to companies who pander to the Frightened Fundamentalists. Start a revolution. Or kiss this Great Experiment good-bye. Next year, we have the opportunity to throw the American Taliban regime out on its ear. But it has to start yesterday, with commitment, vision and fearlessness. Start talking and don’t stop until you are heard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fear and Loathing in America Posted by: trapped in twilight zone
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America Posted by: Reality Chick
Historical Accuracy
Posted by: Robert on May 3, 2005 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the sake of preserving respect for Historical sources and their proper use, I have to say that Pastor Niemoeller was misquoted. His actual words began with :"First they came for the Communists....Then they came for the Socialists..."

The KPD, or Communist Party of Germany, was the first political party that was attacked wholesale by the Hitler regime shortly after he became Chancellor. If we do not understand this, we cannot understand the reason for the Reichstag fire, or be properly aware of the significance of the wholesale anti-Communist propaganda attack, combined with the arrest and imprisonment of Communist political figures. Not to be aware of it also is not to be aware of how Hitler forged his dictatorship in part by taking advantage of and benefiting from the political rivalry of the KPD and SDP (German Socialist Party). The most militant, most determined anti-Nazi force was isolated and largely destroyed in February of 1933, a month before the passage of the Enabling Act and its aftermath, which brought about the extinction of all other opposition parties and the arrests of many of their leaders and members. The beginning of the Nazi "divide and conquer" drive for power that Niemoeller describes begins with the Reichstag Fire of 2/33, not with the Enabling Act of March of the same year. The technique of anti-Communism has been used effectively to consolidate political power in many countries, including the United States.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mandate?
Posted by: calebhummell on May 3, 2005 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm always amazed when people like Tomlinson use "mandate" to refer to a group (Republicans) that received, at most, 51-52% of the popular vote. Whatever happened to "evenly split"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mandate? Posted by: Cybernalt
Video on Demand. NOW.
Posted by: Molly McRae on May 3, 2005 2:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always enjoyed PBS documentaries, especially Frontline. When the second plane crashed into the WTC , confirming that the first was not just an accident, I knew who was likely responsible thanks to Frontline's excellent series since the first WTC bombing.

Now the local station has many more infomercials for obscure products than documentaries. I am anxiously waiting for when I can truly pick and choose what I want to watch when I want to watch it. Maybe PBS can lead the way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The major media in this country chooses to NOT put their teeth into ... the GOP and Bush ...
Posted by: Cybernalt on May 3, 2005 4:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The major media in this country chooses to NOT put their teeth into their treatment of the GOP and Bush Administration." ... BECAUSE the major media has been steadily consolidated into the GOP fold - Big Business owns in all. NPR and The Farmers Almanac being the two exceptions, and I'm not sure about The Farmers Almanac.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The truth shall set you fleeing
Posted by: skinstretcher on May 3, 2005 4:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What did anyone expect? America was based on a flawed premise, so why is anyone surprised that it's come to this? It'll get worse, folks, much worse. We can bitch to one another all we want - it won't make any difference, because 1) no one has the balls to do anything about it, and 2) there IS no solution. It's not just a question of human nature, but simply nature. We're a pathetic species but our inherent biases blind us to that reality. So, while many of us have virtuous qualities, as a collective, we've got what's coming to us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You Ain't Seen Nuthin' Yet!
Posted by: Kajamian on May 3, 2005 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides hiring spies, Chairman Tomlinson hired Mary Catherine Andrews, then director of White House Office of Global Communications to draft the guidelines for the alleged ombudsmen to "review the content of public radio and television broadcasts." She also prepared news releases, etc. but "was careful not to work on this project during office hours" at the White House. I hope that reassures everyone that there's no administration involvement in this latest move.

According to Tomlinson, former editor-in-chief of Readers Digest, his aim is to help public broadcasting "gain financial and political support" but "not removing shows or tampering internally with shows." However, one of his ombudsmen is Ken Bode, former NBC correspondent. The other is William Schulz, a former editor at (surprise) Readers Digest.

Can we hope Mr. Bode can also be a spy on the spy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You Ain't Seen Nuthin' Yet! Posted by: spyderbaby
Blow Up Your TV!
Posted by: Sojourner on May 3, 2005 5:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do miss the bits of outstanding programming I recall from the years when I supported PBS. But I am happier with the selectivity offered to me by the coastal Timeses, public radio and the net.

The talking heads on PBS invariably represent the predictable positions, since they get the invitations. You can get that anywhere.

Moyers is an exception, and he perfected his craft when access was available. I regret that his like will find it harder to get visibility.

I shut down my tv for everything but videos five years ago. My life is better. You might want to try it, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Republican Attacks on PBS Succeed - An Example
Posted by: thirdmg on May 3, 2005 5:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Education Secretary Margaret Spellings' recently attacked the PBS series "Postcards From Buster" for featuring a gay family, PBS caved in to her demands and dropped plans to distribute the half-hour episode. It now appears that Spellings received quite a lot of encouragement for her actions from the religious right, but comparatively little criticism from gays and their progressive allies. According to USA Today, Spellings received nearly 200,000 e-mails, letters and postcards with 81% supporting her position. (Most of that 81% came from supporters of the radical-right American Family Association.)

Unfortunately, that kind of response is why Republicans and their religious right allies can get away with so much and can intimidate so many. On hot-button issues, their side appears numerically large, passionate, highly organized and alert to protecting their interests, while our side looks diminutive, half-hearted and unconcerned. Unfortunately, our side still doesn't seem to know how to wage war and go on the offensive. If Spellings had been deluged with protests from progressives about "Buster," maybe the Bush administration would have been intimidated for a change and backed off from attacking PBS any further.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the top on down the tide is turning
Posted by: hoverz on May 3, 2005 9:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A musician friend of mine sent me a link to this blog because she new about our involvement in this from a different perspective. My wife and I have produced a documentary film called "Strange Daze" following the trials and tribulations of the Austin Music Network. This city owned PEG/Hybrid channel 15 in Austin Texas has been home to a 24/7 music network for over a decade— and is actually the birthplace of public access "free speech" television. Just as the station had begun to turn the corner on its development, efforts to cast shadows on the networks quality level by local print media and certain city officials have resulted in its contract being cancelled and a new corporate sponsored version of the station would take its place, no longer running any of the wonderful homemade videos, films and Texas Music. They would be running government approved programs and corporate sponsored educational programming.

The efforts to replace The Austin Music Network is being done at the same time as Austin Access Television assumes management of the music network and has boldly attempted to push changes to the Constitutional Guarantee of Freedom of Speech that was drafted as a preamble for Community Access Television Resources in 1991.

The city awarded the contract to another company who missed their deadlines to have a signal on the air. Austin has allowed the music network to stay on the channel for the time being but they have no money and only run media from their archives.

Many believe that the new network was never really supposed to happen, that TW wanted the channel back from the city and wanted to create a situation that would break the charter. The attempts to change the Free Speech Guarantee by controlling content and pulling shows that are critical of any religion or faith among other things.

If you would like to hear this story from some really expressive artists and media personalities who are directly involved.. oh and they play some great music along the way too. goto STRANGE DAZE http://www.musictexas.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You are all bunch of Pussies
Posted by: naturalbornflyer on May 4, 2005 12:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many of you have actually had to physically defend yourself in an altercation......I am curious? How many of you would walk up to some trash talking bitch(male or female), and level them out......I am curious? How many of you believe in the right to arms. How many of you could use them?....I am curious?

It is a parallel that we can also see in our government's unofficial view on Muslims and their power over women.
Frankly they wonder how they can keep those mouths from ever opening up against them. The Saudis ultimate control is looked at in awe, as we publicly mock them. It is said, that the
only thing that an Arab man understands and respects is power and force.
So when we look at how our military conducts itself in other countries, and what types of results they claim......maybe we should take a good hard look at ourselves, and say......What is it worth? When words no longer serve a purpose.....you never see in the news, a headline that reads, "Man arrested for typing on the internet". That is because it WILL NEVER GET YOU ANYWHERE. So as long you understand that words can only do so much, then know that is all you are capable of, and leave the real work to the men who have the guts to put it on the line. For good and evil are just as relevant as your geographical location. It is time......., and if you can't fight for it, you deserve what you get.

HISTORY IS NEVER WRITTEN BY THE LOSERS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Life is a jungle... Posted by: Sojourner
Barbarians at the Gate
Posted by: BobbyV on May 4, 2005 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We’ll know the barbarians are at the gates when PBS drops its GLBT oriented “In the Life” series. Should that occur, look for monster truck programming to replace science based programs like Nature and Nova. And the last remaining vestige of public high culture will fall victim to the leveling of the marketplace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MEDIA CONSOLIDATION
Posted by: familyfarm on May 4, 2005 10:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHY is it that NOBODY has brought INTO the spotlight the fact that Bush has been using taxpayer funds to pay for his re election? He handed over MILLIONS to Pat Robertson, and Pat pushes the Bush agenda on his 700 Club...Falwell also has his tv and radio programs, and FOX and RUSH also, do their brainwashing and propagandizing of the Bush demands or proposals as well, including alot of pre election grandstanding on his behalf, SO that IS one sided, and is electioneering FOR BUSH, non stop, 24/7 isnt it? ISNT that a major violation of FEC rules, and FCC rules, and also CRIMINAL of Bush to be supported for re election BY RUSH on taxpayer funded Armed Forces programming as well? I DOUBT that RUSH gave equal & complimentary kudos to John Kerry or Ralph Nadar, not then and not now either...SO contact your Congressmen, Senators, local party heads, and DEMAND this be MADE PUBLIC and let the public THEN find out just where their taxes have gone to....and how illegal it is...and they might change their minds about how much HONESTY or INTEGRITY is being shown by this regime..THE FCC is ALSO blatently violating its own rules by allowing this as well..Im floored that the DEMS have NOT even made a peep about this SCAMMING of America by the Bush team..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First Nazi removals
Posted by: arlete27 on May 25, 2005 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let us all remember that the first to be removed were those with mental handicaps. This is also going on in this contry in the name of less funding for the developmentally disabled. It is the new medicaid reform.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]