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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by pudge (1) on 2005.05.10 17:36 (#40308) Homepage Journal
    There is nothing wrong with saying Bill Clinton did it. As a defense of the practice it doesn't work, but most of the times I've seen it used as a defense against the cries of fascism etc.

    That is, when someone says, "Bush is a fascist because he does $X," it is perfectly reasonable to respond that "your guy did $X too."

    I personally have no problem with the practice, in general, except for financially (it seems like a waste of money for the government to be doing PR of any kind). Some particular instances I've seen might be considered egregious, but I don't buy that it is covert propaganda simply because the government never misrepresented itself. The facts were accurate (as much as any other government statements), and they always identified the materials as coming from the government. Yell and scream at the people who broadcast them without revealing that information, they are the ones who screwed up on that front.

    If people really have a problem with it, pass a law forbidding it. I doubt the administration will put up a fight. But you'll also need to find out how to distinguish this from "anti-drug" and "army of one" propaganda, or risk throwing those out too (not that I would mind).