Reading Live Talk with Dan Froomkin and...

I love his answer to this question:

Granted, there is a certain inherent verbal jujitsu required, in the political arena. Listening to President Kennedy's speeches, he too was a master of it. How effectively do you feel that today's press is responding to/ circumventing/challenging the verbal tactics coming out of the White House?

Dan Froomkin: Those aren't diversionary phrases. Those are the meaningless words padding the diversionary phrases that punctuate the hoary soundbytes from the approved phrasebook that obfuscate the lack of any substantial response to our questions.

Today's LiveTalk seems to be mostly about the press. Why aren't they reporting on this.... why aren't they reporting on that. The answer always comes back, it's reported here and here.... and there and there.

I've got more to say about this. I agree with Dan. The atrocities of our government, their double-speak, their contrived town-hall meetings, the bankruptcy bill, the tortures. All this ARE being reported on. The difference is, there's just some outrage.

I believe it's as simple as believing that the ends justify the means or the means justify the ends. Those who are outraged believes that nothing justifies the ends if the means aren't... shall we say honorable? The other side is, oh yeah? well look at the results.

One side says, Look, NO WMDs! The other says Look! Democracy. Never mind that there were lies abundant or such stuff.

The truth is out there. It's just that if it doesn't directly impact them, immediately, the outrage just isn't there.

*sigh* Being an idealist in the age of bullies sucks.

Filed under Politics & B.S.