JUDGE: PRES. BUSH'S WIRETAP PROGRAM VIOLATES CONSTITUTION & MUST STOP

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The fact is that three decades later, Bush is operating in a completely different environment: everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny, and it stands up extremely well compared to what Tricky Dick got away with without even thinking about it much (up to the point he was impeached, anyway) mostly because nobody was looking, or knew how to.

Why is everything that he does under an intense level of scrutiny? Maybe because he's burned his bridges with just about everyone imaginable (the press, the left, the ENTIRE WORLD, the general populace)? Do you think, just possibly, there's a reason why his poll numbers are in the toilet?
And frankly, you're criticism of his being under the microscope doesn't hold up for most of his tenure as president. How else was he able to get us into Iraq on extraordinarily feeble evidence? Or, for a more recent example, find a comparison on major news outlets on the time spent on JonBenet last week vs. Diggs-Taylor's ruling. I already have one, but you will probably dismiss it as biased, since TP is a lefty site.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

Why is everything that he does under an intense level of scrutiny?

How about "because thirty years later the world is a very different place, and information moves thousands of times faster"? Occam's Razor...

I'm not *criticising* his being scruitnized; it's both necessary and an inevitable consequence of technological change. The same was true of Bill Clinton, to a somewhat lesser extent, and if his wife is elected in '08, it will be even more true for her. Or anybody else who might be elected then.

Do you *remeber* 1974? I sure do. Your profile says you weren't even born yet.

[headsplice]

I read implied criticism into your statement by your use of the word 'hostile.' Was I wrong?
Hooray for being born before me.
My response to you, paraphrased, is:
-1)Hostlie scrutiny of GWB is justified.
-2)The scrutiny isn't all that intense in the mainstream.
How does my age enter into the equation here? I'm pretty sure that you're implying a comparison to Nixon into my statement, but it isn't there.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

I read implied criticism into your statement by your use of the word 'hostile.' Was I wrong? Hooray for being born before me...I'm pretty sure that you're implying a comparison to Nixon into my statement, but it isn't there.

Actually HappyMonkey invoked Nixon, and my parallel construction was "thirty years later".

I think there's more hostile scrutiny for two reasons:

1) there's more scrutiny, period, and

2) the "mainstream" media has moved considerably to the left since 1974, due not in small part to the events of 1974.

That said, I'd guess that reason 1 is a vastly bigger impact than reason 2.

Your age is relevant because it's much more difficult to appreciate the profound differences in culture and mediaspace between 1974 and 2006 if you weren't around then.

Only four TV networks, with a daily news cycle rather than an hourly one. PBS/CBS/ABC/NBC news for an hour (or two, if you stayed up late) per night, but no CNN, no CNBC, no FoxNews, no CSPAN. Access to being published only if the editor or publisher of a dead-tree newspaper/magazine deems you worthy, and even your audience is no bigger than the readership of the rag in question.

Today's media environments create huge information spaces at the drop of a hat; the memetic equivalant of a flashmob. They're just not comparable playing fields.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Today's media environments create huge information spaces at the drop of a hat; the memetic equivalant of a flashmob. They're just not comparable playing fields.

Agreed.
However, I'm going to call shenanigans on saying the media has moved to the left since '74. There's always been folks willing to call the government on it's BS (Edward Murrow comes to my mind). What changed was the press's willingness to dig into what those in power were actually doing and exposing it. I'll also argue that the sunlight effect is fading with consolidation of major media (though that's another thread). Do you have some general trends (specific examples are not conclusive data) that you could point out that say the media is drifting left? I have some that say the mainstream press is moving rightish (though not through changes in demographics of reporting editorial or reporting staff), but I'd like to hear your theory.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I'll replace it in your post if you replace it in your thinking.

It's what I meant all along. No matter what the press said.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

Do you have some general trends (specific examples are not conclusive data) that you could point out that say the media is drifting left? I have some that say the mainstream press is moving rightish (though not through changes in demographics of reporting editorial or reporting staff), but I'd like to hear your theory.

I can't think of an objective measure that could be applied across the period 1974-2006...and if I could, I wouldn't think excluding demographics of the press would be appropriate...they are, after all, who they are; trying to tune out shifts in the population would distort the overall picure.

My subjective impression over that period is that the mainstream media have moved left over that time, but then I've moved away from the left over that time, so that's a moving frame of reference.

[MaggieL]

Speaking of scrutiny:

Originally Posted by Judicial Watch

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.

According to the CFSEM website, “The Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis.”

“This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment.”

(Judge Diggs Taylor is also the presiding judge in another case where she may have a conflict of interest. The Arab Community Center for Social and Economic Services (ACCESS) is a defendant in another case now before Judge Diggs Taylor’s court [Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)]. In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.)

OK, I take it back. Maybe she is Taliban.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

What makes us tired is that somehow all the findings of people like these are clearly aimed not at increasing, but reducing US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT. This "we must lose because we're, uh, America" attitude is nonsense, and must go if we really want a good world.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Maybe she is Taliban.

I had to go back to the first page (is Maggie referencing my comment?) ...and then I found this:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Who wants to force their religious views on the entire nation, and make them law of the land, like the Taliban?
Who wants to force prayer in school, like the Taliban?
Who were against the ERA, wanting to keep women in their place as second-class citizens like the Taliban?
Who wants everybody in the country to tote around an AK47, like the Taliban?
Who would never stand for same-gender marriage, like the Taliban?
Who punishes you for opposing their agenda like the Taliban?
Who has a core following who are fundamentalist religious conservative extremists, like the Taliban?
Who doesn't care if their fellow countrymen live or die, like the Taliban?
Who bypasses diplmacy, in favor of violence, like the Taliban?

ha ha ha <smilie of approval>

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

What makes us tired is that somehow all the findings of people like these are clearly aimed not at increasing, but reducing US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT. This "we must lose because we're, uh, America" attitude is nonsense, and must go if we really want a good world.

Here's an easy way to win the GWOT: All American citizens must have an identification number tattooed on their forehead, and an identifying microchip implanted rectally. Anyone in America must submit to daily body cavity searches, and weekly home and business searches, as well as random automobile searches. Then, we should just use our nukuler weapons on the rest of the world. With this strategy in place, we'll win the GWOT in a heartbeat!

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I can't think of an objective measure that could be applied across the period 1974-2006...and if I could, I wouldn't think excluding demographics of the press would be appropriate...they are, after all, who they are; trying to tune out shifts in the population would distort the overall picure.

My subjective impression over that period is that the mainstream media have moved left over that time, but then I've moved away from the left over that time, so that's a moving frame of reference.

And I've moved left
So, my general theory is that in the past few years (say, from the mid-90's, when media de-regulation really kicked into overdrive), fewer and fewer companies have controlled larger and larger percentages of the top-down, traditional media. And, though I may disagree with alot of the right's politics, they're generally better business people than the left. Therefore, the people that own top-down media have decreased in number, while simultaneously moving to the right politically, which has influenced the overall tone of media outlets.
So I wasn't trying to remove the demographic shift of the newsroom staff, I just didn't think it was relevant.
RE: Diggs-Taylor's potential links to the ACLU:
Probably not a big deal. After, Scalia didn't recuse himself from the SCOTUS case involving the VP, and they're friends.

Originally Posted by UG

What makes us tired is that somehow all the findings of people like these are clearly aimed not at increasing, but reducing US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT. This "we must lose because we're, uh, America" attitude is nonsense, and must go if we really want a good world.

And how is the prosecution of the GWOT going at the moment? Hmmm...increased hostility towards Americans? Check. Increased incidences of acts of terrorism? Check. Decreased political stability in notoriously unstable regions of the world? Check.
And BTW, how exactly do you win a war on terror? Simple answer: not by blowing shit up or undermining civil liberties (those pesky little things that make us BETTER than the rest of the world), but by NOT BEING TERRORIZED.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by headsplice

Increased incidences of acts of terrorism?

You got proof? The gubmint don't publish those no more, cuz it harms the GWOT.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

And I've moved left

Well, watch this space. The evening is young, and so are you.

Originally Posted by headsplice

RE: Diggs-Taylor's potential links to the ACLU:
Probably not a big deal. After, Scalia didn't recuse himself from the SCOTUS case involving the VP, and they're friends.

There's a whopping big difference between not recusing and not even disclosing...and this is a case of not disclosing. I don't think anyone was unaware of the Scalia-Cheney friendship.

[headsplice]

Actually, I don't think there is much of a difference, legally speaking. The judge in question is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not there's a conflict of interest (which I think is a bunch of horsecrap, but that's another thread). I'm pretty sure there's no legal requirement for a judge to even disclose if there's even of potential COI. The flip side of that is there's more than likely an ethical necessity, but since when do ethics and law coincide?