Yahoo, another liberal outlet

[RickM]

Kind of funny how certain headlines make there way onto there headlines...and how certain titles stay on the there for alot longer than others. How subtle.
This is becoming more and more obvious as the election draaws nearer.

Seem a bit one sided to you?

[bryanthompson]

The whole Rush thing pisses me off. It's a matter principle and constitutional rights. He _has_ the right to privacy with his medical records. he hasnt been charged of anything, he admitted his drug problem, and he's cleaned himself up. Look at the rediculous amounts of work it takes to release a medical record. When I was trying to get into the military, every page had a disclosure warning, and I had to make sure that whatever I put could be made available to the gov't.

As a matter of principle, Why would a drug addict go to get help if they're going to be investigated or charged with a crime when they do so? Shouldn't addicts be encouraged to do exactly what he did? You go after the dealers and crooked doctors, not the addicts.

[gaijinda]

Yahoo headlines are useless! Very much one sided.

[Neilk]

Originally posted by RickM
Kind of funny how certain headlines make there way onto there headlines...and how certain titles stay on the there for alot longer than others. How subtle.
This is becoming more and more obvious as the election draaws nearer.

Seem a bit one sided to you?

Reality sucks doesn't it?

[red ufo]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
The whole Rush thing pisses me off. It's a matter principle and constitutional rights. He _has_ the right to privacy with his medical records. he hasnt been charged of anything, he admitted his drug problem, and he's cleaned himself up. Look at the rediculous amounts of work it takes to release a medical record. When I was trying to get into the military, every page had a disclosure warning, and I had to make sure that whatever I put could be made available to the gov't.

As a matter of principle, Why would a drug addict go to get help if they're going to be investigated or charged with a crime when they do so? Shouldn't addicts be encouraged to do exactly what he did? You go after the dealers and crooked doctors, not the addicts.

Not under the new Patriot Act or the new TIA databases.

Soon everyone will be shaken until some criminal element comes out. What are you?

Enemy of the state, terrorist sympathizer, dissenter, MP3 downloader, copied VHS tapes illegally, have unlicensed software on CDR, drugs with no prescription, browser cookies Ashcroft don't like?

[Superman]

Yes it is, indeed, inconvenient for the Monkey Administration that things are going very badly in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is further unfortunate that Howdy Doody has completely dropped the ball on virtually every domestic issue. Hey, let's pretend that it's all a big conspiracy between the several large and hundreds of small media organizations.

Bryan, I'm going to disagree with you in a moment but first... I do agree that medical records should have some confidentiality, on the other hand public figures are public figures. Rush is not exactly and "accidental" public figure. If he's going to make millions spewing dissent and division and criticism and namecalling and lies, then he's going to come under some scrutiny. "Does the name-caller commit the same sins as those he thrashes for commercial gain?" is a legitimate question. Each morning, Rush teaches lemmings the phrases to use that day in political discussion. This arguably does little to objectify or substantiate our national political dialogue, so I say Rush has painted a target on himself.

Okay, the War on Drugs focuses on the pushers and traffikers. Let's take a look at what a victory looks like in that "war." We assasinate a drug lord, or arrest him or whatever. This creates a power vacuum in Colombia or wherever. So, there's a blood bath to determine the successor. In the meantime, the desired effect is achieved...there is a temporary reduction in supply. Any economists out there? What happens when demand stays constant and supply decreases? What happens to price?

Okay so the blood bath is finished and a new kingpin rises to the top. Supply is restored. Price is higher. And gentlemen, this is a "victory" in the War on Drugs. And some of you should be applauding. This is creative opportunism at its best. This is a situation where government spends money to keep prices high and limit the entry of competitors, while allowing demand to stay level or rise. Gosh, it's almost as if the interests of this very very lucrative industry are reflected in polioticians' decisions. Oh, but how could that be? How could it be that politicians would focus on money and power?

Some would argue that, as long as you've got millions of Americans with money who want to use drugs, then there will be an industry to supply that lucrative demand. Some would say that the only way to effectively shrink the recreational drug industry is to deal with the demand side. Some would say this is more of a health problem than a crime problem. Some would reject the argument that this fight should not be on the "supply" side.

[RickM]

Top headline was on most of the day yesterday. Something we haven't heard before?

Not too one sided, right guys?

[Neilk]

Rick,

How is that one sided? It's the biggest news of the day. Shouldn't it stay at the top?

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by Neilk
Rick,

How is that one sided? It's the biggest news of the day. Shouldn't it stay at the top?

Come on. That story was up for almost one entire day (it’s gone now). Now if that isn’t proof of a liberal media conspiracy aspiring to control the election I don’t know what is.
And that’s not even mentioning the subliminal soundtrack.

[red ufo]

Your crazies need to stop reading Coulter and following the rest of the hate mongers who program you with crappy talking points.

[djmcmath]

Hmmm ... drug demand is high, and we can't reduce it? Maybe there's a better answer? Maybe if we legalized drugs? Then US pharmas could go into business producing drugs. Designer drugs, popular new drugs, good quality control, legalized distribution, the whole works. What would that do to South American economies? We could put tarriffs on imported drugs, perhaps?

Some jobs, obviously, would probably still maintain their drug free requirements. I can't imagine the military ever relaxing it's stance on drugs, for example. I'd like to see, say, airline pilots maintained drug free as well.

As to the media's bias on W's "failures," it's largely a matter of perspective. The fact that the media can spin it to convince people that he's failed miserably is admittedly evidence that he hasn't been fantastic. It's a lot easier to spin mediocrity into a failure than it is to spin brilliance into a failure. Either way, I don't think he's been anywhere near as bad as the media likes to portray him. The consistently negative reporting, including extra weight assigned to anti-Bush headlines, is pretty clear evidence of that bias, despite it's guise of "plausible deniability."

Just some thoughts.

Dan