Well said. How different will we be from China, if ATT is allowed to filter the sites we have access to? Particularly when ATT is already freely allowing the NSA to tap their equipment to do warrantless spying on Americans.
And, it is amazing how thin-skinned the MSM has become.
Posted by JR at May 2, 2006 01:53 PMMc Curry was with Clinton. Now he's for corporate profits and tamping down speech on the internet.
The blogs are having an effect.
The members of the press who complain are the same ones who used to repeat over and over again that Americans were apathetic.
The Clintons used to go on those self pity rants against the press.
These folks play musical chairs depending on who's paying them.
I heard Howard Fineman say that before the Iraq War, they (the press)d were giving the president the benefit of the doubt.
And they wonder why they get emails.
Maude
Let me get this straight - McCurry says that the blogs didn't support the MSM on the Iraq WMD claims and the wars inside the intelligence community over fixing the claims?
Oh for fuck's sake.
The man's not pissed about that - he's pissed that a fair share of the liberal blogs wanted Judy Kneepads and Matt Cooper to spill their sources when it became obvious that the White House wanted to smear Wilson (and Plame) and to hide behind the first amendment when carrying out what is arguably a crime of treason.
While the Plame Affair is important, the case of the outing has little relavence to the WMD claims, other than motive.
Of course, McCurry wrote even more inflammitory things in his post that weren't quoted . . his contempt for the Internet is beyond description. How the hell does Arianna Huffington justify his contribution to her web site? The man's as progressive as Barry Goldwater.
McCurry, should one of your flunkies deliver this to you, because I'm sure you'd never bother slumming, I hope you earn the life you deserve - as a pointless nobody working outside of every future Democratic administration that comes in your lifetime.
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 2, 2006 02:56 PMi've read mike mccurry's opinion piece in the huffington post a couple of times now.
the language in it seems strained.
at this point i am convinved it was never intended as a genuine statement of the telecommunication companies' position.
i suspect that mccurry wrote it, and it will be used as, a fund raising letter, perhaps by mccurry's fake "grassroots" organization attacking net neutrality.
on a general note,
it seems to me that more and more political lobbyists, public relations, and advertising people are arrogating to themselves the right (and duty) of an attorney to tell his clinet's side of the story only.
attorneys may be sanctioned to get away with this.
political lobbyists, public relations, and advertising reps are not.
mccurry's appearance in the huffington post was likely a business strategem and
and the opinion pieces he published there were calculated propaganda to be employed later where most useful.
Posted by orionATL at May 2, 2006 03:10 PMBTW - Hate to point out one thing: Just because he was with Clinton doesn't mean he was a strong democrat.
Remember Clinton was a disaster as a political leader of the Democratic party. He might have been a pretty good President but his track record either in partisan terms or as a progressive leader is horrible.
When Clinton took power the Democrats had the Presidency, the House and the Senate. When he left they had lost all 3. And nothing helped afterward.
Let's keep that in mind when listening to the Clintonite advice.
Posted by Samuel Knight at May 2, 2006 03:15 PMtoo bad about Knight_Ridder. My local daily used to be owned by them. Now it's Gannett. Quite a dropoff...
Posted by scottfree at May 2, 2006 03:44 PMWhen Clinton took power the Democrats had the Presidency, the House and the Senate. When he left they had lost all 3. And nothing helped afterward.
Good grief. These are freeper talking points. Yes, and during that time the Dem's lost Presidential elections in landslides, there was no leader before Clinton either. I don't know why people pine for those days. Most people don't "get" the Clinton years. You aren't going to flip a country from left to right overnight. Clinton was a transitional figure and the sooner people start realizing that and moving forward the better we'll all be.
Posted by Ga6thDem at May 2, 2006 03:54 PMSteve,
Mind if I post a portion of this at the Post "blog"?
I put it in quotes for a reason -- the Post blog is to blogs what truthiness is to truth.
But we keep trying to get through to them.
Posted by AJ at May 2, 2006 07:14 PMNet neutrality? Cool. I needed a reason to get a satellite modem. INMARSAT BGAN, here I come.
Posted by phidipides at May 2, 2006 07:46 PMSteve, great post.
I found it interesting today that Tweety finally "got it" about the admin lying us into war. Kept slowly asking his guests to repeat the affirmation of this as though he were teaching it to a kindergarten class, then, just as the point was being brought home to hundreds of thousands of American TVs -
"breaking news" - warning will robinson - passenger jet circling an airport (the gw bush airport at that) for 45 minutes because of a blown tire Oh, the horror.
Tweety did not get to continue making his point with the same fervor.
Pricks. The lot of them.
Posted by Anjha at May 2, 2006 08:32 PM