He said that if asked to choose between government without newspapers or newspapers without government, ''I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter.'' Jefferson knew that a free and adversarial press was the people's best defense against the excesses of their government and a fundamental building block of healthy democracy.
Unfortunately, that was 40 presidents ago.
The present president has a decidedly different view of the news media's role. His administration sees the press as a thing to be bought. In fact, while political manipulation of the news is hardly new, Team Bush has a long and singularly sordid record of trying to turn the media into a wholly owned public relations subsidiary.
Now they're taking their act on the road. And get this: They're doing it under the guise of building democracy. Which is rather like stealing from the collection plate under the guise of giving to the needy.
I refer you to last week's Los Angeles Times report that the Pentagon has been secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories, written by American troops, that reflect favorably upon the U.S. mission in that country. The stories, while basically factual, are reportedly written so as to flatter U.S. forces and the Iraqi government and to omit information or perspectives either might find embarrassing. These press releases are presented to the Iraqi people as independent reports by independent reporters.
One is appalled, but hardly surprised. After nearly five years of watching these folks' truth-optional approach to dealing with the public, one is seldom surprised anymore.
BUYING PRAISE
This is, after all, the same Bush administration that was caught buying praise from an ethically challenged columnist -- in violation of federal laws against propagandizing the public, according to a September report by the Government Accountability Office. It's the same administration that allowed into the White House press room as a reporter an Internet porn entrepreneur who wrote for a GOP website. The same one that issues video reports favorable to its policies to be broadcast without attribution as TV news. The same one that censors and quashes its own scientific studies when they conflict with its preferred worldview.
So this is just more of the same in a new ZIP Code.
It will be argued by the usual sycophantic Bush enablers that what's being done is justifiable. We are at war, they will say, and in war it is perfectly acceptable to propagandize the enemy.
So it is. But the flaw in that logic is this: We are not at war with Iraq. We are at war in Iraq against insurgents seeking to topple the government. At least, that's the line put forth by Team Bush. Iraq, they say, is a sovereign nation to which we are simply helping bring the joys of democracy -- one of which would be a free press.
That being the case, you cannot justify telling covert lies to its people any more than you can justify telling them to ours. You want to communicate something to them? Buy an ad. Drop leaflets. Put up posters. But don't produce a commercial and tell people it's news.
CREDIBILITY AT STAKE
Doing so undermines both the message and the medium. It could also conceivably encourage Iraqis to question how seriously they should take -- how seriously we ourselves take -- this whole notion of a free and independent press.
Indeed, one can only guess how this is playing with Iraqi journalists. After all, the messages could hardly be more mixed. On the one hand, U.S. officials are offering them workshops in media ethics. On the other hand, U.S. officials are violating the most basic media ethics with blithe indifference.
But then, it's a sour joke in the first place that the Bush administration purports to teach Iraqis how democracy works.
Once January 21st arrives and Obama is still alive and healthy, then I'll breathe a sight of relief and wave a long-awaited buh-bye to Bush. In the meantime, there's still so much more damage Bush can do.
WASHINGTON While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.
A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization Feminists for Life of America that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.
A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
"It's unclear how all this will affect her husband," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy group. "It's possible that he would have a different view than her. It's just that in the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."
Asked to discuss her role with Feminists for Life, Jane Roberts said in an e-mail to the Los Angeles Times: "Thanks for your inquiry. At this time, however, I would like to decline your invitation to talk."
Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue were reacting strongly Wednesday to President Bush's first Supreme Court nomination.
The president of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue, Troy Newman, said: "We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed."
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, warned that of the high court candidates considered by Bush, Roberts was one of the most extreme when it came to the question of overturning the Roe vs. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion.
Feminists for Life has sponsored a national advertising campaign aimed at ending abortion in America. One of its mission statements proclaims: "Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better than abortion."
Jane Roberts was a volunteer member of Feminists for Life's board of directors from 1995 to 1999. She has provided legal assistance to the group and been recognized as a contributor who donated from $1,000 to $2,500.
The president of Feminists for Life, Serrin M. Foster, said Roberts maintained her ties by advising the group on how to draw up incorporation and not-for-profit papers.
She also has written for the group's newsletter, Foster said, including an article about adoption. Roberts and her husband have adopted two children.
"She's a brilliant attorney, and we're really proud that she lent her legal services to us to help serve the needs of women," Foster said. "She was a very good board member. She was invaluable as an attorney for us."
Foster said that she had met John Roberts, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but that the judge had not been involved with Feminists for Life.
Judge Roberts' public positions on abortion and Roe vs. Wade appear to be inconsistent.
In 1990, as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Roberts wrote a legal brief for the Supreme Court in a case regarding federal funding for abortion providers. "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled," Roberts wrote.
His brief added: "The [Supreme] Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution."
But during the 2003 Senate confirmation hearings on his appellate court nomination, Roberts took the position that abortion rights were no longer debatable.
"Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land," he told lawmakers. "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
But abortion rights groups are convinced that Roberts is opposed to abortion.
"He's absolutely anti-Roe," Gandy said. "He believes it was wrongly decided and should be reversed." Asked then why Roberts two years ago proclaimed Roe vs. Wade a "settled" issue, Gandy responded: "You have to say that. You can't get on the court without saying you will follow legal precedent. All the most extreme nominees say that. You can't even take the oath of office [unless] you say that."
Jane Roberts graduated magna cum laude from the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., in 1976. In 1984, she graduated cum laude from the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington.
She practices and is a partner with the Washington firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw and Pittman, mostly concentrating on the firm's communications and global sourcing groups.
A close friend characterized her as an "extremely, extremely devout Catholic" who had enjoyed her antiabortion advocacy.
The Catholic News Service in Washington, which praised Judge Roberts and cited his government brief in 1990 challenging Roe vs. Wade, also spoke kindly of Jane Roberts.
"She has been active in Feminists for Life, and is a member of the board of governors of the John Carroll Society, a Catholic lay organization that sponsors the annual Washington archdiocesan Red Mass before the opening of the Supreme Court term," the news service said.
It also pointed out that if John Rogers were to be elevated to the Supreme Court, he would be the fourth Catholic justice on the current court, along with Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.
Before Jane Roberts joined the board of Feminists for Life, the organization filed amicus briefs on abortion with the Supreme Court. Records show that the group filed briefs supporting the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, a law aimed at limiting the right to abortions, particularly for minors.
Several antiabortion groups including Feminists for Life also filed a brief in support of the right of abortion protesters to picket a Virginia women's health clinic. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said the courts did not have the authority to limit protesters' access to such clinics.
And Feminists for Life filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court in support of laws in Ohio and Missouri that attempted to limit the rights to an abortion under Roe vs. Wade.
*
Times staff writers Walter F. Roche Jr. and Benjamin Weyl in Washington contributed to this report.
And kiss salvation hello! or how to kiss butt really well
++
That would be racist and we kiss the butts of
@
If we don't have a legitimate president, you can kiss
nm
Do you kiss your kids with that potty mouth?
x
Nice mouth. You kiss your mother with that mouth? sm
No, and please try and comprehend what I am saying, gt broke the truce when she attacked me. Can you comprehend that? I was staying off your board until I saw that gt actually attacked me in a thread that ended up in a truce with another poster. You are really really not a nice person. I will pray for you.
Freedom
I just want to say THANK YOU for your opinion, which is very valid.
Ah, but being a bum is FREEDOM
after all, we can cook over a fire using a wal-mart cart as a grill. We can get jiggy with nature. You must be well aware that bears aren't the only ones who "do it" in the woods. Visiting the food pantry at the local church is always a treat! All that hamburger helper and no hamburger - but a squirrel will do in a pinch, provided you can nail one of the little buggers. It is an ADVENTURE!
Freedom of speech, LOL
Freedom of speech? To get up there and state you believe A WHOLE SOCIETY OF PEOPLE, A WHOLE ETHNICITY OF PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE ABORTED? Yet, you people jump all over Cindy Sheehan when she rags on Bush, LOL..You jump all over anti war people when we scream..STOP THIS WAR..But NOW you are stating freedom of speech..LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL..Better to shut up now about Bennett, cause you sure are looking silly..
and I'd like to keep my religious freedom sm
without having to answer to the Christian right. If they had their way, we'd all be wearing babuskas and having a kid or two every year, paying homage to them at a tithe of 10% and having to hate all other religious ideologies.
Ah, yes. Freedom of speech.
I remember it well.
It was a cute joke. In case any of you missed it before it was removed from the board, one of the many places it can be found is http://www.justpetehere.com/2004/11/george_bush_pas.html.
Better do it quickly, though, because this post is sure to be removed as soon as the Cons start whining again.
Check out the St. Pete Times, Sunday, 11/13/05, The Perspective, article by Robin Blummer. Sorry I don't have the link but it is easy to find. Talk about scary. By the way, I see that there are a number of comments to posts listed on the board but they are not available to see. Is this a new policy...we know people read or responded but we can't see what the response is?
Freedom is an illusion
What is sad is the idea that an entire political party would align itself with, unite itself behind and extend its unquestioning support to a president and administration who behave like closet fascists. Thank heavens their glory days are past us now and we can begin counting down their time in office in measures of months, weeks or days.
Even more regrettable is the fact that both parties and their supporters are so blissfully unaware of and so openly hostile toward the issues that plague their fellow Americans and accept the catastrophic damage that has been inflicted as business as usual. These issues in no way are confined to the war, although it is by far the most pressing one at the moment. It is difficult to know where to begin a laundry list of the grievances, but the demise of our civil liberties, the flagrant disregard of the constitution and the disappearance of freedom of speech come to mind.
Ask any democrat just how free they have felt over the past 8 years to express their dissent and listen to the response as one American to another, not as republican to democrat. This is only one of many steps that we will need to take as a nation to heal the wounds of division that currently afflict us. We are all saddened by this state of affairs and that is the common ground from which we start our search for solutions in resolving our differences and coming together as a nation.
Who started what and why is an exercise in endless frustration. The question is where do we go from here?
do you or do you not believe in freedom of speech....
and do you or do you not believe in the right of people to have opinions different from those and voice them? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read my posts? You might be more comfortable in Russia where it is the policy of the counry to control thought that does not agree with the party line.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is freedom to all.
When watching TV if there is something I don't like I change the channel. I would suggest you do the same on this board instead of trying to silence those you don't agree with.
Keep on postin sam - you must be hitting home if there are those who want to silence you.
So is freedom of speech.
If the lady wants to talk about religion, so what? It's not like she's gonna get into office and make us all abide by her religion - Pa-leeeze!!!
Freedom of Speech? Think Again.
Religious freedom.
dd
Freedom of Choice Act
The Freedom of Choice Act would make abortion a federal issue and would basically do away with any restrictions on abortion. There are many state level FOCA acts already, but this would be the first time that it would be a federal act. I'm not a legal brain so I'm not sure if I am explaining this 100%. From reading both sides of the issue, it will basically lift all restrictions on getting abortions, meaning going in and having an abortion will be as simple as going in and having a check up.
To me that is just a new form of birth control and completely unacceptable. Yes, women have the right to choose. They have the right to choose to wait to have sex and to use good judgment. They have a right to choose to not sleep around. They have a right to birth control and requiring a man to wear a condom.
I understand there are dire situations, such as rape, incest, and in cases where the mother's PHYSICAL health is at risk. While I don't believe in abortion at all and wish it had never been thought of, I do sympathize with those mothers, and yes something should be done to help them. But to just say "hey abortions for everyone!!" is ridiculous! You know as well as I that most abortions are done simply because having a child would be an inconvenience. That is not right! If you don't want the consequence of having a child, then keep your legs closed! Sorry!
Freedom of religion....(sm)
also includes freedom FROM religion. It's funny to me that, as you said, people came to this country for freedom of religion (among other things). Now that they're here christians try to impose the very problems associated with those in Britian on the people of this nation. Christians are constantly trying to force their will upon others through politics. Please explain to me how that demonstrates freedom of religion. Doesn't that just put us back where we were?
Freedom of religion is a live and let live proposition....not a winner takes all competition.
NBC has the freedom to reject the ad!
The Catholic church has the freedom to produce the ad, NBC has the freedom to reject the ad, and everyone in this country has the freedom to choose whether or not they watch NBC. That is how it should be, freedom for everyone!
freedom of speech
Hillary said that Bill always was a hard dog to keep on the porch. So what. At least we weren't embroiled in an unjustified war, we had a SURPLUS in the treasury and the whole country wasn't going to the dogs. I believe in the 1st amendment - she can say whatever she wants. Take some cojones to talk about propriety................look at dubya and turd blossom.
Just another freedom chiseled away....sm
in the guise of healthcare.
This administration is going to do its best to make us a one party system, a people dependent entirely on the government, where over half are on the govt dole, and the other have of us slave to pay for it, and the more government there is, the less freedom we each will have.
This health plan, not to mention the rest of which is to come, is just one less freedom, that we each will have.
One day, these children will wake up and see what they have cost us, and what they no longer have.
Please name one freedom that Obama has taken away...nm
x
Oh please - no one is losing their freedom
I read the article. Their freedoms are not being taken away. However, they are treating the home like it is a business and bring the congregation to a private home conducting business there without a license. This should be kept in the churches.
The "homosexual community" had nothing to do with this and no where in the article does it say that.
You'll be the first to try and take away the rights of the gays and lesbians, but you sure don't like it back do ya.
Freedom of religion........ sm
is one of the foundation blocks of this country, not freedom FROM religion. Every person in this country is, based on the constitution, free to worship (or not worship) in any form they choose. I think that Obama's statement reflects his political viewpoint and gives us an insight into what is most important to him, which is politics at its best with no regard for God in any form or fashion.
Yes, you have the freedom to LEAVE
if you don't like the direction our country is heading. You LOST. The Good Guys Won. Deal with it!! Get behind our President and our Country. Or LEAVE! We don't need treason like this you are expressing.
Who's denying her freedom of speech.sm
What you guys want is for her freedom of speech to go unanswered. Since she is an army mom then we should worship her and allow her to dump on us because of our beliefs.
If she wants praise and high-fives she should be posting on the conservative board.
Its called freedom of speech
Hey, neocons, its called freedom of speech..part of our Constitution. Dont like it, dont read the posts, dont come on the liberal board to cause trouble..stay where you are safe on your own board..
U.S. learns to live with less freedom...sm
U.S. learns to live with less freedom
Jun. 19, 2006. 05:30 AM
TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU
MANCHESTER, N.H.The fierce cultural aversion to the long reach of government is emblazoned on every licence plate here, an omnipresent statement that should make Rich Tomasso's job easier.
But even a man who makes it his business to protect individual liberties in a state where no government would dare collect a sales tax or personal income tax or force a seatbelt around a driver or a helmet on a motorcyclist has to face some harsh realities in George W. Bush's America.
People are more afraid of terror than having their privacy violated, says Tomasso, chair of the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. For so long the rhetoric has been about fear, not hope and more traditional American values.
Live Free or Die is not just a cheesy licence plate slogan in this tiny New England state. But even New Hampshire is not immune to the national erosion of civil liberties that has permeated every part of the United States since terrorists forced their way into airline cockpits almost five years ago, taking away a nation's bravado and replacing it with fear.
The exploitation of that fear by an administration intent on inflating the powers of the presidency, at the expense of a cowed Congress and with the tacit approval of an anxious nation, may be a cautionary tale for Canadians should some of that U.S.-style fear find its way north of the border in the wake of Toronto's recent terrorism arrests.
In recent years, it has become a truism that Americans will trade away some liberties because they have been attacked. Canadians have not.
It must be starting using the military as guinea pigs. This idea of implanting chips is included toward the end of this scary trailer for America - Freedom to Fascism. I definitely recommend viewing it. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1616088001333580937
Excuse me....there is already freedom of the airwaves....
you are the one who needs to brush up. Aren't you the party of freedom of speech and freedom of the press? It is not Rush's fault that liberals do not support liberal radio stations by listening to them...that is why they go bankrupt. If you guys want a liberal radio station, you have to actually LISTEN to them so they will stay in business...not seek to silence others. That is completely undemocratic and unAmerican.
It's called freedom of choice as
I hope to have after this election. That's the beauty of freedom, you get to choose.
Right on...freedom of speech...how dare we have that right
you included, of course.
We'll all be broke with no more freedom (nm)
x
Enjoying my freedom until Obama gets in.
nm
Called freedom of speech....
both sides here have posted letters and blogs from private citizens. There are a lot of true things in the letter as well. Just to be fair.
That's the sheer freedom of our country...
we can say what we want, when we want.
Good for you - freedom speech
That's what I say! I'm not wild about Rush, and I can only take so much of Sean, but I do like a lot of conservatives who tell it like it is. Absolutely love Michael Savage (even though he is independent). I will also listen to Alan Colmes, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow. I listen to them all and make my own decisions based on what I hear. I don't go with the party line telling me what I'm supposed to think and how I'm supposed to vote.
It's called Freedom of Speech. sm
and if you don't care what she has to say, then don't waste YOUR time responding. Enjoy your popcorn!!
Religious freedom....not for long.
A bill regarding control of the Catholic Church has exploded as one of the hottest issues of the session at the state Capitol - prompting charges and countercharges about religious freedom.
Have you guys heard about this. This is just insanity.
The measure, which was raised as a committee bill by the Democratic co-chairs of the influential judiciary committee, would allow the finances of local parishes to be run by lay councils and would essentially remove power from Catholic pastors, who would serve in an advisory role. Opponents say the bill is clearly unconstitutional and would violate the First Amendment regarding the right to freedom of religion.
marks the location of current message within thread![](http://te.latimes.com/blank.gif"){kind=spacer}
