That (title) is not my (Humble) opinion! That's what I gather from Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's statement to a middle-eastern audience today (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.21c84721b2a4459b107dfbfb9ada315a.7b1&show_article=1). As the prestigious top-diplomat for the United States, saying that (paraphrased, a little) Israel is causing violence by taking active measures in the Gaza strip, is tantamount to saying they are inciting more attacks from Palestinian militants, and justifying past attacks as well.
As I (Humbly) recall, during the 2008 campaign, the jewish community was heavily pro-Dem (many were rabidly anti-GOP). See the irony here? The knee-jerk liberal community might have to watch their choice of ruling party cater to ravening vicious militants and their enablers, while they throw Israel under the bus. The jewish community is unwittingly standing elbow-to-elbow with anti-semites who would be thrilled to hear about mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv.
Also, as President Clinton was declared "the first Black president" for his popularity among the Black populace, Senator Clinton was de facto "the first Jewish First Lady", having gone to extreme measures to win, overwhelmingly, the New York senatorial race in 2000, largely with the nearly unanimous vote of the NY jewish community. My (Humble) guess is, they're starting to wonder where "Hillary the Jew" went.
I guess there is enough irony to go around. President Bush, in supporting stability in that region, got cozy with many enemies of Israel. History will (Humbly) consider this to be dealing with the Devil. I (Humbly) suspect the Obama administration will simply be the Devil. Unless you like dead jews, that is.
My Humble Opinion is that Israel has a right to exist free of continued attacks, a right to respond to attacks that have occurred, and a right to deal with threats to their very existence in a substantial way. I (Humbly) guess this is where Secretary Clinton and I disagree.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
You Can't Neglect Someone to Death Unless You're a Health Care Professional!
[Please note that I am commenting on the news, not reporting it. I make no claim for the accuracy of the story any more than the source should state support for my (Humble) opinions. Please visit the URL noted in the story for the source article. ]
In a Fox News story, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490857,00.html, a Washington man was arrested for leaving his wife of more than 50 years to die on the floor. The 73 year-old woman fell more than 10 weeks ago, and was fed and cared for by her 82 year old husband. She remained on the floor where she fell after attempts to move her caused great pain. When she passed away, he called 911.
She was reported to have ulceration on her hip and legs. The husband was arrested for failing to summon aid. I realize this may be just, but is it fair? People frequently end up in hospitals with ulcers caused by neglect. Sometimes the caregivers are to blame for not wanting to go to the trouble of calling for an ambulance. Sometimes the patients themselves are to blame (yes! it's true!) for NOT wanting aid to be summoned. Some patients were otherwise healthy people, for whom summoning aid caused their major illness. Some were unhealthy people who contributed to their own unhealthiness. In every case, these were people who were helpless, and in the care of someone else.
I was struck by the bizarre double standard here. The state of Washington may pursue nursing homes who let elderly infirm patients die, but I've never heard of it. This comes across as a case where ordinary citizens are not allowed to neglect their family until they die. You have to work for a nursing home to have that kind of authority.
I strongly suspect (not based on anything in the story, just my own cynicism) that the woman who died requested that no emergency response be summoned. The husband (in my opinion) may have unwisely followed her wishes. Which would have been easier? Calling 9-1-1, and having her taken away? Or feeding and cleaning her for 10 weeks to avoid having to explain to the police? I suspect this man did what he did out of love and respect. No nursing home in existence can claim the same thing. And, having licensing requirements for qualified and certified personnel, have far less legal defense to explaining the deaths or severe injuries to their patients.
An 82 year-old man in jail with a dead wife probably won't be comforted by all this, though.
In a Fox News story, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490857,00.html, a Washington man was arrested for leaving his wife of more than 50 years to die on the floor. The 73 year-old woman fell more than 10 weeks ago, and was fed and cared for by her 82 year old husband. She remained on the floor where she fell after attempts to move her caused great pain. When she passed away, he called 911.
She was reported to have ulceration on her hip and legs. The husband was arrested for failing to summon aid. I realize this may be just, but is it fair? People frequently end up in hospitals with ulcers caused by neglect. Sometimes the caregivers are to blame for not wanting to go to the trouble of calling for an ambulance. Sometimes the patients themselves are to blame (yes! it's true!) for NOT wanting aid to be summoned. Some patients were otherwise healthy people, for whom summoning aid caused their major illness. Some were unhealthy people who contributed to their own unhealthiness. In every case, these were people who were helpless, and in the care of someone else.
I was struck by the bizarre double standard here. The state of Washington may pursue nursing homes who let elderly infirm patients die, but I've never heard of it. This comes across as a case where ordinary citizens are not allowed to neglect their family until they die. You have to work for a nursing home to have that kind of authority.
I strongly suspect (not based on anything in the story, just my own cynicism) that the woman who died requested that no emergency response be summoned. The husband (in my opinion) may have unwisely followed her wishes. Which would have been easier? Calling 9-1-1, and having her taken away? Or feeding and cleaning her for 10 weeks to avoid having to explain to the police? I suspect this man did what he did out of love and respect. No nursing home in existence can claim the same thing. And, having licensing requirements for qualified and certified personnel, have far less legal defense to explaining the deaths or severe injuries to their patients.
An 82 year-old man in jail with a dead wife probably won't be comforted by all this, though.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Sometimes the "Right" to End a Life Isn't Right
It's been 3 months since my last post. The bizarre hijinks of the 2008 general election, and the new Obama administration have left me wondering if anything has a point anymore.
In the last couple of weeks, there have been several significant news stories. In Florida, an abortionist is under investigation for completing an "abortion" after the baby was born alive (in 2005), and the state medical examiner is being questioned as to how this was not a suspicious death. In California, quadruplets, some or all of whom were not expected to survive, ALL celebrated their first birthday. The mother stated how happy she was that she didn't listen to the people who urged her to terminate one or more of the fetuses. In Oceanside, California, a comatose man woke from a coma just after the family gave permission to stop life support. Tragically, an 11 year old Pennsylvania boy has been charged with two counts of homicide for the killing of his father's girlfriend and her unborn child. That's just in the last two weeks.
The unborn, the elderly, the injured, and the vulnerable depend on society as a whole to protect them. Our society has been failing to meet this obligation, even encouraging abdication of responsibility where inconvenient. Families are encouraged to hasten the deaths of those supremely vulnerable lives, who are not even aware of their plight. Calm deliberation is not encouraged. Platitudes about how, "It's for the best," and other options being worse, defy rational thinking. Perhaps the worst aspect of rushed, life-altering decisions is the lifetime of regret and anguish that follows those who make a terrible and irreversible decision to end a life.
I am not calling for an end to abortion, or keeping the terminal alive beyond sane limits. All I am suggesting is that the decision to end a life be taken very very seriously, and the decision to council someone to end a life be very thoroughly considered. Sometimes, tragic as it may be, the decision to let a life end is the right decision. Even Christ himself said, "Leave the dead to the dead," when a would-be follower asked him to wait a day for him to bury a family member. Yet, when is this suggestion wise, and when is it just out of a petty desire to keep the lives of others as simple as possible? Ethics is not an exact science. Ethics is a fundamental determination to strive to make the right decisions after carefully considering all aspects of the question. All the news stories mentioned above have one thing in common. Someone callously decided that an innocent, helpless person should die.
And they were wrong.
In the last couple of weeks, there have been several significant news stories. In Florida, an abortionist is under investigation for completing an "abortion" after the baby was born alive (in 2005), and the state medical examiner is being questioned as to how this was not a suspicious death. In California, quadruplets, some or all of whom were not expected to survive, ALL celebrated their first birthday. The mother stated how happy she was that she didn't listen to the people who urged her to terminate one or more of the fetuses. In Oceanside, California, a comatose man woke from a coma just after the family gave permission to stop life support. Tragically, an 11 year old Pennsylvania boy has been charged with two counts of homicide for the killing of his father's girlfriend and her unborn child. That's just in the last two weeks.
The unborn, the elderly, the injured, and the vulnerable depend on society as a whole to protect them. Our society has been failing to meet this obligation, even encouraging abdication of responsibility where inconvenient. Families are encouraged to hasten the deaths of those supremely vulnerable lives, who are not even aware of their plight. Calm deliberation is not encouraged. Platitudes about how, "It's for the best," and other options being worse, defy rational thinking. Perhaps the worst aspect of rushed, life-altering decisions is the lifetime of regret and anguish that follows those who make a terrible and irreversible decision to end a life.
I am not calling for an end to abortion, or keeping the terminal alive beyond sane limits. All I am suggesting is that the decision to end a life be taken very very seriously, and the decision to council someone to end a life be very thoroughly considered. Sometimes, tragic as it may be, the decision to let a life end is the right decision. Even Christ himself said, "Leave the dead to the dead," when a would-be follower asked him to wait a day for him to bury a family member. Yet, when is this suggestion wise, and when is it just out of a petty desire to keep the lives of others as simple as possible? Ethics is not an exact science. Ethics is a fundamental determination to strive to make the right decisions after carefully considering all aspects of the question. All the news stories mentioned above have one thing in common. Someone callously decided that an innocent, helpless person should die.
And they were wrong.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Those Who Ignore History
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it," the saying goes. Foolish people are most foolish when they believe themselves wise, and thus ignore wisdom. The lessons to be learned from the 2008 general election are out there, ready to be learned, but those who most need to learn them seem to be most ignoring them. The leadership of the Republican Party appear to be too entrenched in the Grand Old Way of doing things to consider the fact that they lost an election they should have easily won. The winners of the election also fall short of wisdom. Their leadership ignores the fact that they barely squeaked out a win, and an organized, effective opposition would have wiped the floor with them.
The Republican Party needs to just finally accept the fact that the Conservative movement has made them its home. Who disagrees with this??? Senator McCain did. You see where it got him. His running mate was more popular than he was. Since 2000 Senator McCain has been betraying the Conservative movement with moderate, compromising politics. This was no surprise to anyone who paid just a little attention to the news. Senator McCain betrayed his oath to defend the Constitution with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which forbids political free speech in certain circumstances, such as general elections.
It is arguable (I don't have the data, though) that McCain lost by a smaller margin of votes than those he himself lost with his own legislation. In other words, CFRA took away his own win. Poetic justice, but hardly best for the nation. In another irony, President-Elect Obama ignored and loop-holed his way through those same regulations, bringing more than three humdred million dollars into his campaign than Senator McCain did. A huge portion of his campaign donations were from "unidentified small contributors". The figure I saw was close to $360M. Since CFRA does not specifically require vetting of contributions of $200 or less, anyone on earth can contribute, including fictional characters, dead people, and foreign citizens. And they did.
Attempts to call attention to these dirty tricks were labelled "political propoganda", and hence were forbidden to all but the mass media, most of whom blithely ignored all news not advantageous to Senator Obama. Only talk radio and internet newsgatherers (bloggers and online publications) seemed at all interested in unbiased news reporting. Even FoxNews seemed to blow where the popular winds blew it. Talk radio, ironically, is not by any means obligated or considered to be unbiased. Yet, they were among the only ones to report the news stories that the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the alphabet networks seemed happy to bury.
So, the Republicans lost. It's not the first time. They ignored their conservative base. Again, it's not the first time. What is disappointing is that the last time, they said it would be the last time.
Here's a history lesson: Midway through President Clinton's first term, Speaker Newt Gingrich and the GOP caucus came up with their "Contract For America". They clearly spelled out their conservative agenda, and pratical goals for accomplishing this agenda. The liberals viciously attacked, calling it the "Contract ON America". The conservative people of the United States, however, said (collectively) "It's about time!", voted a House majority for the first time in 20 years or more, and a Senate majority in the next two elections. Then the Beltway mentality kicked in. Lobbyists and cocktail luncheons, gifts, favors, and LOTS of pork corrupted the movement. By 2002, the conservative base knew they had been betrayed. President Bush was talking about a "New Tone" while he was being savaged by the other side. McCain, and the Gang of Twelve derailed the "nuclear option" which would have forced a vote for a Supreme Court nominee by Constitutional means, increasing his own power at the expense of his party, and the wellbeing of conservatives. President Bush was so lost, he nominated Harriet Meyers. After the bitterly contested elections of 2000 and 2004, hardly a voice was to be heard saying it was all just a conspiracy theory (which it was). No one who claimed violations of federal campaign law either provided real evidence, or was called to task for a false accusation! Again, GOP voters were left hanging out to dry, unsupported by the diminishing numbers of elected Republicans.
Over and over, the GOP has regrouped, reinvented itself, and had an epiphany, showing the way to go in the future. Here's a thought: Stop being liberals, and start fighting for your constituents.
If I had to give some advice to the Democrat party, it would be to tell them to be fastidiously, fanatically in compliance with all federal law. Otherwise they may see some of their hard-earned wins reversed. Although, historically, that's pretty unlikely.
The Republican Party needs to just finally accept the fact that the Conservative movement has made them its home. Who disagrees with this??? Senator McCain did. You see where it got him. His running mate was more popular than he was. Since 2000 Senator McCain has been betraying the Conservative movement with moderate, compromising politics. This was no surprise to anyone who paid just a little attention to the news. Senator McCain betrayed his oath to defend the Constitution with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which forbids political free speech in certain circumstances, such as general elections.
It is arguable (I don't have the data, though) that McCain lost by a smaller margin of votes than those he himself lost with his own legislation. In other words, CFRA took away his own win. Poetic justice, but hardly best for the nation. In another irony, President-Elect Obama ignored and loop-holed his way through those same regulations, bringing more than three humdred million dollars into his campaign than Senator McCain did. A huge portion of his campaign donations were from "unidentified small contributors". The figure I saw was close to $360M. Since CFRA does not specifically require vetting of contributions of $200 or less, anyone on earth can contribute, including fictional characters, dead people, and foreign citizens. And they did.
Attempts to call attention to these dirty tricks were labelled "political propoganda", and hence were forbidden to all but the mass media, most of whom blithely ignored all news not advantageous to Senator Obama. Only talk radio and internet newsgatherers (bloggers and online publications) seemed at all interested in unbiased news reporting. Even FoxNews seemed to blow where the popular winds blew it. Talk radio, ironically, is not by any means obligated or considered to be unbiased. Yet, they were among the only ones to report the news stories that the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the alphabet networks seemed happy to bury.
So, the Republicans lost. It's not the first time. They ignored their conservative base. Again, it's not the first time. What is disappointing is that the last time, they said it would be the last time.
Here's a history lesson: Midway through President Clinton's first term, Speaker Newt Gingrich and the GOP caucus came up with their "Contract For America". They clearly spelled out their conservative agenda, and pratical goals for accomplishing this agenda. The liberals viciously attacked, calling it the "Contract ON America". The conservative people of the United States, however, said (collectively) "It's about time!", voted a House majority for the first time in 20 years or more, and a Senate majority in the next two elections. Then the Beltway mentality kicked in. Lobbyists and cocktail luncheons, gifts, favors, and LOTS of pork corrupted the movement. By 2002, the conservative base knew they had been betrayed. President Bush was talking about a "New Tone" while he was being savaged by the other side. McCain, and the Gang of Twelve derailed the "nuclear option" which would have forced a vote for a Supreme Court nominee by Constitutional means, increasing his own power at the expense of his party, and the wellbeing of conservatives. President Bush was so lost, he nominated Harriet Meyers. After the bitterly contested elections of 2000 and 2004, hardly a voice was to be heard saying it was all just a conspiracy theory (which it was). No one who claimed violations of federal campaign law either provided real evidence, or was called to task for a false accusation! Again, GOP voters were left hanging out to dry, unsupported by the diminishing numbers of elected Republicans.
Over and over, the GOP has regrouped, reinvented itself, and had an epiphany, showing the way to go in the future. Here's a thought: Stop being liberals, and start fighting for your constituents.
If I had to give some advice to the Democrat party, it would be to tell them to be fastidiously, fanatically in compliance with all federal law. Otherwise they may see some of their hard-earned wins reversed. Although, historically, that's pretty unlikely.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Glass Planets Revisited
A few months ago, I wrote a post, Monday, January 21, 2008 Governments Living on Glass Planets..." My point was, basically, when the biggest market in town goes down, the competition shouldn't party too hard. There may be a reason the market went down, and others may find themselves bailing out the same sinking boat. Also, there might just have been some major, but invisible, benefit from that first market existing and doing business in the first place. In other words, your own imagined shine may just be a reflection of someone else's glow.
A few months ago, I didn't foresee bank collapse Armageddon looming on the horizon. Last week, politicians were saying, "Unless we stick a $700 BILLION patch on this boat, it will sink." Today, the DJIA dropped under 9000, the lowest in 5-1/2 years. No, I didn't expect all this.
What I said, what I'm seeing, and what I expect to see more of, is the horror in other markets as our own struggles to recover. News across the international board is bad. No national or regional stock market is raking in big windfalls as American markets tank. Why is this not so? Isn't all economics a "zero sum game", where every loser creates a winner? Shouldn't all world markets surge as NYSEX, AMEX, and NASDAQ draw down?
I'm starting to get the idea (massive sarcasm intended) that all markets are interdependent!
The Russian president is out there making comments about the failures of capitalism, and the loss of superpower status. Leading a nation which dived so deep they couldn't pay public servants or military, President Medvedev should, perhaps, tone down the smug rhetoric.
Bottom line, thrown stones come back in other nasty forms. Isn't that so, Nikkei?
A few months ago, I didn't foresee bank collapse Armageddon looming on the horizon. Last week, politicians were saying, "Unless we stick a $700 BILLION patch on this boat, it will sink." Today, the DJIA dropped under 9000, the lowest in 5-1/2 years. No, I didn't expect all this.
What I said, what I'm seeing, and what I expect to see more of, is the horror in other markets as our own struggles to recover. News across the international board is bad. No national or regional stock market is raking in big windfalls as American markets tank. Why is this not so? Isn't all economics a "zero sum game", where every loser creates a winner? Shouldn't all world markets surge as NYSEX, AMEX, and NASDAQ draw down?
I'm starting to get the idea (massive sarcasm intended) that all markets are interdependent!
The Russian president is out there making comments about the failures of capitalism, and the loss of superpower status. Leading a nation which dived so deep they couldn't pay public servants or military, President Medvedev should, perhaps, tone down the smug rhetoric.
Bottom line, thrown stones come back in other nasty forms. Isn't that so, Nikkei?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Superdelegates! Assemble!
Following the disastrous candidacy of George McGovern in 1972, the DNC decided on a major rule change to ensure that the will of the people (Democrat primary voters) would never again saddle the Party with a loser candidate. How's that working out for ya??
Despite all the tragic, maddening, outrageous, blatant, horrific, anti-democratic antics perpetrated by the seemingly immune Democrat Party, rarely challenged by anyone other than Conservative talk radio and bloggers, which just destroys my faith in this future of this country, I am nonetheless laughing myself to tears about this topic.
The power elite of the DNC gathered together (I imagine) in a meeting room somewhere. "We cannot allow another McGovern to happen!" they would cry. "We must have delegates who are not slaves of the people. Delegates who can vote for the best candidate!" Who could be trusted with such power? Anyone who can be relied upon to follow the DNC leadership. Let's not get bogged down with details at this point. Let's create the "superdelegate", then worry about how to control them. People like Susie Estrich, law professor at my own one-time stomping grounds of USC, and erstwhile head-honcho of the renowned Dukakis campaign, will ALWAYS pick a winner.
The success of this effort is, um, less than evident. Who have the Democrats selected as presidential candidates? Jimmy Carter, the least effective Democrat president in history. Mondale. Dukakis. Bill Clinton, the Democrat Party's version of Nixon. Al Gore. John "Swift Boat" Kerry. And now, Senator Barak Obama. Carter won once. Clinton won twice. After each one, the country was so disgusted with the Dem administrations, it elected a GOP candidate just to get the foul taste out of its mouth.
Senator Obama, a freshman senator?? His main qualification is his complexion?? A Chicago "machine" politician?? A "Neocom" (to coin a phrase) socialist with NO understanding of how to run ANYTHING??? Good choice, Superdelegates. Way to do your Superjobs.
Please, do NOT take this as a pro-GOP rant. The GOP has lost what should have been easy wins because of their own weanie-ness. But their candidates have been selected by the voting public (mostly). Most GOP candidates have held the office of governor, which tends to be a decent indicator of ability to run something. Senators don't have that. Perhaps McCain wasn't a great choice by GOP voters. GW Bush was a governor, but took his "New Tone" policy to such an extreme that it crippled and finally killed his bi-cameral advantage. No GOP president in how many decades had ever enjoyed a same-party Senate AND House?? And he lost it??? When given a chance to pick a SCOTUS Justice, he picked his legal advisor?? Okay, maybe the GOP picked less than perfectly. But it was the PEOPLE (mostly) of the GOP who were imperfect, not (mostly) the power elite.
Do Superdelegates work? (Laugh, guffaw, chortle!) Yeah, sure!
Despite all the tragic, maddening, outrageous, blatant, horrific, anti-democratic antics perpetrated by the seemingly immune Democrat Party, rarely challenged by anyone other than Conservative talk radio and bloggers, which just destroys my faith in this future of this country, I am nonetheless laughing myself to tears about this topic.
The power elite of the DNC gathered together (I imagine) in a meeting room somewhere. "We cannot allow another McGovern to happen!" they would cry. "We must have delegates who are not slaves of the people. Delegates who can vote for the best candidate!" Who could be trusted with such power? Anyone who can be relied upon to follow the DNC leadership. Let's not get bogged down with details at this point. Let's create the "superdelegate", then worry about how to control them. People like Susie Estrich, law professor at my own one-time stomping grounds of USC, and erstwhile head-honcho of the renowned Dukakis campaign, will ALWAYS pick a winner.
The success of this effort is, um, less than evident. Who have the Democrats selected as presidential candidates? Jimmy Carter, the least effective Democrat president in history. Mondale. Dukakis. Bill Clinton, the Democrat Party's version of Nixon. Al Gore. John "Swift Boat" Kerry. And now, Senator Barak Obama. Carter won once. Clinton won twice. After each one, the country was so disgusted with the Dem administrations, it elected a GOP candidate just to get the foul taste out of its mouth.
Senator Obama, a freshman senator?? His main qualification is his complexion?? A Chicago "machine" politician?? A "Neocom" (to coin a phrase) socialist with NO understanding of how to run ANYTHING??? Good choice, Superdelegates. Way to do your Superjobs.
Please, do NOT take this as a pro-GOP rant. The GOP has lost what should have been easy wins because of their own weanie-ness. But their candidates have been selected by the voting public (mostly). Most GOP candidates have held the office of governor, which tends to be a decent indicator of ability to run something. Senators don't have that. Perhaps McCain wasn't a great choice by GOP voters. GW Bush was a governor, but took his "New Tone" policy to such an extreme that it crippled and finally killed his bi-cameral advantage. No GOP president in how many decades had ever enjoyed a same-party Senate AND House?? And he lost it??? When given a chance to pick a SCOTUS Justice, he picked his legal advisor?? Okay, maybe the GOP picked less than perfectly. But it was the PEOPLE (mostly) of the GOP who were imperfect, not (mostly) the power elite.
Do Superdelegates work? (Laugh, guffaw, chortle!) Yeah, sure!
Oops! There goes the First Amendment!
An ABC News producer was arrested at the Brown Hotel for not obeying their "no cameras" policy. The Denver Police chose to uphold the desires of the hotel over the rights of the press, and of the public to use sidewalks. The Brown Hotel is reported to have called police to charge the ABC producer with trespassing. The DPD officers on site sternly advised the prodicer to leave, and failing to do so, "roughed and cuffed" him. He's okay now, ABC says. He wasn't injured, and has been released on bond. I'm betting Legal is working up a lawsuit which will close nonessential Denver services for the next five years.
Other than Denver taxpayers and customers, no one suffers. Oh, a few poor people won't be using the City to stay comfortable when the pool closes, or busses cut back on their routes. But the Obama supporters who wanted to ensure they weren't shown on Nightline sneaking into a hotel meeting with Senator Obama's campaign staff, they won't be embarrassed.
Perhaps all of us will lose an opportunity to know a little more about the reality of the Democrat candidate for president. ABC might lose a few potential viewers. What does any of that matter? ABC wants Obama to win. They won't complain about one little rogue producer.
First amendment? It's a relic.
Other than Denver taxpayers and customers, no one suffers. Oh, a few poor people won't be using the City to stay comfortable when the pool closes, or busses cut back on their routes. But the Obama supporters who wanted to ensure they weren't shown on Nightline sneaking into a hotel meeting with Senator Obama's campaign staff, they won't be embarrassed.
Perhaps all of us will lose an opportunity to know a little more about the reality of the Democrat candidate for president. ABC might lose a few potential viewers. What does any of that matter? ABC wants Obama to win. They won't complain about one little rogue producer.
First amendment? It's a relic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
