Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Revisionist History 5 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • Major (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pudge (1)
    The White House changed the headline "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended" to include the word "Major" before "Combat".

    This is absolutely true. However, the second headline was entirely accurate, while the first headline was false. Bush never said that combat operations in Iraq had ended, he said MAJOR combat operations in Iraq had ended. They fixed an error, because the headline said Bush said something he never said. That hardly qualifies as revisionist history. I can find

    • I stand corrected about the White House site changing the headline. I did some research on the speech and you are correct, though it makes me wonder why they had an erroneous headline in the first place. Since so many people merely scan headlines, it's easy to paint a false picture and then later claim "that's not what was said". I've often had fun reading articles and seeing how closely they match the headline. Frequently they don't and I think that is also a form of dishonesty.

      I also agree that poli

      • Political parties suck.

        That's the truth. So why wring your hands over their perpetual failure to
        deliver democratic control of society? Just admit that capitalist republics
        don't deliver democracy, and look for something that does.

        • Just admit that capitalist republics don't deliver democracy, and look for something that does.

          I can't admit that because I don't believe it. From my perspective, there are three major things wrong with the US system: money, media, and machines (political ones, that is). The media is an obvious problem. The yellow journalism of Fox News is just the most obvious example. Make the media truly competitive or, better yet, permanently publicly fund the media as a public resource (rather than forcing the

          • Re:Major (Score:2)

            by pudge (1) on 2003.12.31 15:17 (#26936) Homepage Journal
            The main problems with the media are far greater than simple bias or "yellowness." Ben Franklin's newspaper was horribly biased and sensationalistic, by our standards. The real problem is the media control of the information the citizens need to make choices. Why did Bush and Gore get so much more coverage than Nader, for example?

            I find it funny you call the Democrats "Republicans Lite," as lately, I'd say you have it backwards. :-)

            As to money, I like how you say it there. It's not that money itself is bad, it's that the only way to be in power is to have a lot of money. And your concerns about the soft-money bans are well-founded: they will have no impact. Now the PACs will spend the money themselves, with LESS accountability, instead of giving it to the candidates. And we try to lessen the negative impact of this by ... infringing on free speech, by disallowing advertising a certain number of days before an election! It's a ridiculous bill.

            What I really want to see is a complete lift on spending limits, with 100%, immediate, reporting. I think if individuals can give more, then that will allow more voices in the process. And if we try that and it doesn't work, then, we clamp down and say all money comes from the government, so everyone is on equal footing. No limits, or complete limits, one way or the other has GOT to work. :)
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.