Religions > Atheism > AT&T Lay Off 7,000 More. Thank You AWOL! (We Turned The Corner and Don't Forger Poland!)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2004 09:15:31 PM |
| Object: |
AT&T Lay Off 7,000 More. Thank You AWOL! (We Turned The Corner and Don't Forger Poland!) |
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/08WIRE-ATT.html?hp&ex=1097208000&en=e62a53c6a955f935&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Remember how AWOL's "stimulus" policy was supposed to have led to
massive jobs growth right about... now?
"...according to White House staff, the forecast - based on
data available at the beginning of December - predicted job growth of
325,000 a month." - Financial Times, 2/19/2004.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1066 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Megan Summers" |
|
| Title: 60 Minutes of Fame Liberals Go Down In A Flame! |
08 Oct 2004 06:43:39 AM |
|
|
60 Minutes of Fame
By BERNARD GOLDBERG
September 17, 2004; Page A14
On Feb. 12, 1996, I picked up a phone at CBS News in New York and
called Dan Rather, who was in Des Moines covering the Iowa caucuses.
It was a call that I -- then a CBS correspondent -- wasn't anxious to
make. I'd written an op-ed for this page about liberal bias in the
news that was going to run the next day. I knew I had to give Dan a
heads up. "I wrote a piece for the Journal, Dan, and my guess is you
won't be ecstatic about it." I hadn't given him any details yet, so he
had no idea what the op-ed was about. Dan was gracious; he always was
when we spoke. "Bernie," he said, "we were friends yesterday, we're
friends today, and we'll be friends tomorrow. So tell me about it."
I did, and the more I told him the more tense the conversation got.
After listening for a while, Dan told me, "I'm getting viscerally
angry about this" and the call soon ended. And then the man who was my
friend
yesterday, today, and tomorrow told a number of our colleagues that
he'd "never" forgive me for what I'd done.
What I'd done was not simply to say that there really was a problem
with liberal bias in the news (if it matters, I'd never voted
Republican in my life), I'd also broken a taboo, doing what no
mainstream journalist (to my knowledge) had ever done: I'd given ammo
to "the enemy" by very publicly saying, in effect, that the
conservatives had been right all along.
* * *
As if that weren't bad enough, it was becoming apparent that by
writing about bias, which Mr. Rather over the years had repeatedly
said was a phony issue, I had (at least in his mind) also called into
question the thing he holds most sacred -- his integrity. That wasn't
my intent. I was just writing about bias in the news, not about Dan
Rather. But if Dan thinks his reputation has been attacked,
understandably, he gets hotter than an armadillo at a Fourth of July
picnic, as you know who might put it.
That's why in the midst of this Bush memo scandal, you have to wonder:
Now that Dan's credibility really is taking a beating, why won't he
blow the whistle on his source, the one who slipped him the documents
that almost certainly are fraudulent and got him into this mess?
He doesn't have to give us the guy's name and address, just tell us
what motivated him to leak the documents to CBS News. It's a common
journalistic practice, after all, to shed as much light on an unnamed
source as possible. That's why we often read "a source close to the
administration" or "a police source involved in the investigation"
said such and such. No name. But enough info so the news consumer
understands, as they say, where the source is coming from. In the case
of the leaked memos, does the source have any connection to the
Democrats? How about the Kerry campaign? If Dan told us that, he'd
still be faithful to his source, but at least as importantly, he'd be
showing good faith to his viewers by giving them a clue as to the
source's motives, whatever they might be.
Instead, Dan and CBS News do what they'd never tolerate in a crooked
politician: They circle the wagons. First we get a statement about how
there's no internal investigation going on at CBS; then we get a bunch
of stories by CBS News backing up the original "60 Minutes" piece that
areso one-sided they'd get a junior-high journalism student an "F" for
lack of balance; then on "60 Minutes" we did get a former secretary,
"a credible voice" as Dan Rather put it, who told him that "she
believes the documents we obtained are not authentic. But . . . she
told us she believes what the documents actually say is exactly as we
reported." Put plainly: The memos may be fake, but "We stand by our
story."
We're the ones who have a right to be angry with CBS News, but it
turns out that Dan Rather is the one who's really fuming. Not at the
source who got him into all of this, but at those "partisans" who are
fanning the flames. The Washington Post quotes him as saying: "I don't
cave when the pressure gets too great from these partisan political
forces." He's absolutely right that some of his critics are partisans.
But how about Dan's source? Is he also a partisan?
Now it's possible that the mystery man (or woman) is someone who lives
in Denmark or Tibet and somehow got his hands on genuine documents
that make the president look bad in the middle of a race that might
turn out to be tighter than the rusted lug nuts on a '54 Chevy. But I
doubt it. I'm betting he lives a lot closer to home, and, who knows,
he might indeed turn out to be a "partisan political force" himself.
And this is precisely Dan's problem. This is why, I suspect, he isn't
coming clean, despite the damage to his reputation. Because Dan Rather
may be protecting not just his source, but himself; because, if the
source turns out to be a partisan, then Dan wasn't just taken for a
ride, but may have been a willing passenger.
And then Dan, and CBS News, can kiss their reputations goodbye.
Mr. Goldberg, a correspondent with CBS News from 1972-2000, is the
author of "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the
News," and, most recently, of "Arrogance: Saving America from the
Media Elite" (Warner, 2003).
--------------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kuck Ferry" |
|
| Title: Re: AT&T Lay Off 7,000 More. Thank You AWOL! (We Turned The Corner and Don't Forger Poland!) |
08 Oct 2004 09:33:12 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:15:31 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/08WIRE-ATT.html?hp&ex=1097208000&en=e62a53c6a955f935&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Explain to us how it is GW Bush's fault that AT&T laid off people?
Give details as to AT&T's decision to layoff people?
--
Bush = 4th of July
Kerry = April 15th
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doorman" |
|
| Title: The vile spewers of mindless blather thread |
08 Oct 2004 08:59:01 PM |
|
|
If you are a fellow American patriot and lover of the First Amendment, then
by these presents greetings. It is good that you seek rational and
democratic discussion of the great and urgent issues facing our nation.
Unfortunately, I think you've come to the wrong place. See the bottom of
this post for additional evidence--but this entire enormous thread is
dedicated to the display of the freshest original parts of such disruptive
anti-democratic tripe. With the witless assistance of the Bushevik trolls,
it only took a short time to build this "tower of babble".
Especially if you remember the old days of rational discussion in the
newsgroups, this triumph of noise over signal may sadden you. Hyde Park of
the world and cheap advertising are all that remain.
However, there are still alternatives. For example, there are many moderated
forums on the Internet where civil discussions and real conversations can be
found. Even better if you can build bridges to real people in the physical
world. For example, you could treat a rational RINO to a movie--like
Fahrenheit 9/11. Lots of good books still being published, or you could
write a letter to the editor for your local paper--you'll reach more real
people and have more impact than here. Or you could donate to the political
campaigns--I confess I've already made six donations. Just remember that big
money is harming democracy, that BushCo has more money than anyone, and that
if money alone decides elections then the American republic is already dead.
Last, but MOST important: VOTE! Your nation needs you NOW!
On the other hand, if you are a Bushevik troll, then in the immortal
floor-of-the-Senate words of the unloved ***** Cheney: "Go ***** yourself."
That mentality goes a long way towards explaining blather like this:
Kuck Ferry <HanoiKerry@hotmail.com> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
Explain to us how it is GW Bush's fault that AT&T laid off people?
Give details as to AT&T's decision to layoff people?
[New Bushevik troll? Anyway, playing off of Buck Fush's pseudonym.]
--
We don't know if 9/11 could have been stopped--but we do know Dubya
failed to stop it. That's the FACT.
You want steady leadership for disastrous change?
Attack, lie, spin. Dubya's REAL trifecta.
Trolls fed to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread".
('Doorman' is a role-based pen name of Shannon Jacobs, copyright
2004.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
