X. Benedict

I am ignorant about the logistics of a repeal. What would be the biggest logistical problem? This was in Joint Forces Quarterly a year ago. an air Force Col. BTW - 12,500 service members dismissed under DADT since it was made law. http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/EfficacyofDADT.pdf

Technically it isn't. In many cases homicide is perfectly legal. Smoking pot isn't illegal either; having it over a certian quantity is.

I feel honored to have witnessed the greatest theological sporting non-miracle of the last century.

Certainly not the only one...but perhaps the most likely. The biggest hurdle is not the general election, it winning the Republican nomination. A well-timed presidential scandal is never out of the question either. If she made it to the general, she would be extremely credible. The backing of the entire Republican Party still carries clout.

I might be in the minority, but I think that there are enough people that would consider voting for Palin that a serious presidential run is not out of the question. With a third party candidate from the Left that could split the Democratic vote in a general election - A President Palin is not inconceivable.

Interesting Answer. But if the rationale today for not overturning DADT is morale. Wouldn't the morale of the services from 1948 to ??? serve as a precident for gauging such a thing. Let's ignore the matter of social justice for a moment - (I believe that when Truman signed the order in 1948 he stated plainly that it wasn't a matter of social justice). If not allowing gays to serve openly is detrimental to esprit de corps , (which in the short term, I don't dispute, I only wonder how valid the argument is given the Army's history) It would seem to me that as gays are already integrated (just not serving openly) as in that 300 movie I saw. Perhaps I just have the sense that a morale argument is a short term impediment.

I was there, and I believe it was caught. I Billieve in the 3-7 Bills. The is a conspiracy to prove that Johnson dropped it.

Looking at at this from an historical perspective, Do you think it would be a bigger morale problem for the Services integrating Gays today, than integrating Blacks in 1948?

Was anybody planning more than 25 minutes with her?

There was a story about a man who was on his roof during a flood when the police, the fire-boats, and the national guard helicopter came to help him, but he said, "No thanks, God will save me." But the guy died and God said, what are you doing here? I sent the police, the fire-boats, and the national guard helicopter. I don't really have a point other than during the press conference God told Warrow that Johnson was open.

Too bad we didn't draft Pedro Cerano.

He's the guy with the cool album collection, right?

Since you brought her up, would you vote for her in a primary?

Blah, blah..... How quickly this becomes ad hominim I'm not arguing away bias at all. What you haven't shown is omission. All the networks covered these stories. You can argue that your darling network Fox was in he lead, and I don't dispute it. But all networks covered this stuff. My point (adopting an arguement I don't necessarily share) was that the same stories are covered - the bias exists in a very narrow spectrum of media conventions. You have failed to show that there was omission, and moreover I think you just nicely buttressed Tom's argument for sensationalism . BTW....do you understand what it means to "play the foil" or "Devil's advocate"?

I blame Ayn Rand for the Exit Stage Left Album. Real stinker.

I must be living on another planet. Bristol Palin is a star dancer? A guy shooting his TV I kinda get, though. I had a girlfriend once that liked star-search with Ed McMahon, but I didn't have a 12 Gauge at the time.

I guess I don't know her very well, but I don't think her criticisms were alone. Mike Radasky (sic) won a Peabody for his work on it for 60 minutes and Dan Abrams was a constant critic on MSNBC. Although he annoyingly started every sentence with "As a Duke grad..blah blah blah" But honestly, I never really saw what was liberal or conservative about an alleged rape. But I didn't follow that one very much.

I like how you put that. It can be like 3 months of Sweeps week. And I have to admit, it is hard not to feel intoxicated. BTW remember Wolf Blitzer in Jan. 1991 when he was at the Pentagon during the first reports of success during the aerial bombardment of the Persian Gulf War. "We all feel euphoric" and went on to report "total decimation" (sic) and nearly 100% success. And then the bombing went on for 5 more weeks and eventually had to retract nearly everything he said that night, one day at a time.

Although..being scooped is different from not reporting at all Every network reported ACORN and TEA party. (Heck, I'd bet my dog I can't watch cable for 22 minutes without hearing Palin...who is not exactly anything right now but a former Governor? but that is why they are looking the same even if their opinions may diverge on her meaning). I think many liberals would answer it this way. Which network is the most pro-labor? I think it is very hard to tell. Which network is pro-tariff? Hmmm? Human rights issues? Doesn't really jump, unless it is an enemy regime. Generally this stuff isn't on the everyday spectrum of big media reporting. Big media is mostly the same. (I'm playing the foil, of course, but the argument that the wrestling is over only a narrow piece of radio bandwidth is compelling).

I would characterize the gulf differently. "Conservative Media" and what conservatives label "Liberal Media", are generally reporting on the same stuff. Generally, what leads at all main media outlets, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, etc. is the same stuff. This creates a very narrow spectrum of things reported on. Allowing for nuance in perspective, all media networks are reporting the same stuff. While Conservative critique of what they label "liberal media" amounts to: they are reporting "this stuff" wrongly. Liberal criticism usually bends this way: the mass media faithfully represent a pro-corporate, pro-capital worldview - that is: covering the wrong things all-together. This sin is not so much in the bias in coverage, it is in the omission of subject matter. Thinking liberals are not cheering their hold on the News, but quite the opposite, they lament that it does not represent their perspective one bit. I say this not because I necessarily share that viewpoint (I sometimes find it a very valid criticism), but to expand on why your schematic is more than liberals "not getting it" in terms of news, and to take the "what conservatives don't get" perspective.

I really think Tom makes a great point. I would make a similar distinction between the difference between a bias, and overt partisanship. Cable as I see it, has put a premium on punditry at the expense of news-gathering. I can see some merits in OC's argument of a new decentralization through the internet, but I would bet that even internet grazing today leads to most of the same news-gathering sources, and then that raises questions of verifiability. The internet may make more data accessible - but the internet is a behemoth, with no clear mission to gather news; and with decentralization comes multiple problems with sourcing. Seeing news-gathering through a liberal/conservative dichotomy doesn't really hit at the idea that their are fewer professional journalists engaged in news-gathering itself. (as resources are limited). I have to wonder if unpaid citizen journalists throughout the world populating the internet news streams of the future an idea that I think OC hints at, or presupposes happening one day) doesn't really change that probably paying Glen Beck and Rachel Maddow their millions may mean not having a bureaus gathering news in Beijing, Jakarta, and Rwanda (or wherever).

I thought many of you would appreciate this. The void left since Ted Koppel retired has never really been filled in my opinion. an interesting read on the how newsrooms became profit centers, and news-gathering has been replaced by punditry. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html?sid=ST2010111203190

This is why people should get larger swimming pools.

One of them is never justified. The other, well, depends on who you play with. Hope that helps.

Sleestaks. I never liked Sleestaks.