Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Hey there,
Following my previous statement of promising to be more vocal, i have submitted my first editorial on the subject of Gannon/Guckert to the Augusta Free Press. They have posted other editorials with a critical eye on propagannan, and hope that they publish mine. In the case that they do not, i offer it here.
It is in response to a specific article they placed on their site to address some of the other comments they have recieved on the matter of Guckert/Gannon.
You can find it here:
click here to read the article in question
Here is my comment:
------------
I read your article ‘VIEWS ON THE NEWS: Play nice’, and feel compelled to apologize for the excessive letters you have received from my ‘liberal brethren’. That you would be subjected to such treatment is not only wrong but pointless. But while I cannot dismiss all of the venom you have received, let’s engage in a mental exercise that might help illustrate what is happening here. (This is not another attack, but is directed toward both sides of the issue, although one might not appreciate it as much as the other, with full respect to the forum you offer your readers at large.)
We go back in time now, but back to an ‘alternate’ history.
It is 1998, and Bill Clinton is under fire for his definition of the word ‘is’, and it comes to light that one afternoon, at a presidential press conference, that there was a reporter who Mr. Clinton called on who asked a ‘soft’ question of the president himself in that open forum. This question could have been anything really, but lets say for instance it went something like this: ‘Don’t you think that the republicans in congress owe you and the American citizens an apology for making an issue of your sexual indiscretions the end result of an investigation that cost over 80 million dollars of the tax payer’s money for something that was initially supposed to look at a failed real-estate venture?’
This reporter, for the sake of argument, knew a friend of a friend of a white house staffer, and had a history of asking such questions, ‘soft’ questions of the administration when all they could look forward to were ‘hard’ questions from other reporters.
Later in this scenario, it is brought to light not only could it be construed that someone in the Clinton administration had planted that reporter in the press room for that purpose, but that the reporter in question was in his/her past a prostitute, or gay, or just not really a reporter (any of those things will due for our purposes). Based on the climate in the media surrounding the impeachment proceeding, what was most likely to have happened next?
My supposition is that gallows would have been built on the capitol steps so fast that the check for the lumber involved wouldn’t even have had time to clear the bank, and the major media would have been the prime contractor.
I hate to think that liberals are sending this open forum prejudiced comments about Jeff Gannon’s sexual history in order to make their point, but I understand that they would given how this story has been handled by the mainstream media. They are frustrated by the overall coverage by the media, or lack there of, of the administration’s long established behavior concerning he press at large. And, given the anti-gay marriage position of the Bush administration, Guckert’s past homosexuality becomes, in some minds, a glaringly obvious talking point.
That Mr. Guckert has a certain sexual aspect to his life that he doesn’t wish discussed in public is immaterial to the subject at hand, quite understandable, and it is indeed wrong to make that the heart of the argument by either side. That this sort of thing would not have flown for one minute during the Clinton years is why liberals are angry. There is a clear double standard here, and that is the reason liberals are foaming at the mouth over this incident.
Bill Clinton’s sexual life was brought into our living rooms via the mass media, and forced many parents to explain what ‘oral sex’ was to children who were too young to need to know such information, but the media kept putting that information in front of them on a daily basis. Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior alone was not the reason we were inundated with that information. It stemmed from a notion (and totally unproven charges by the way) of financial improprieties by Bill and Hilary Clinton and their friends.
This Guckert thing needs to be addressed because it was the same notion of ‘perceived impropriety’ that allowed Ken Starr to run riot through the legal system using any and all means to tear down and discredit a president’s administration using a shifting rational that any magician trained in slight-of-hand would envy. To imply that the conclusion of the Whitewater investigation was acceptable, but to give the Bush administration a pass on one more in a long line of examples of media manipulation is irresponsible on the side of the press, and foolish for any citizen that thinks they live in a free and just society.
Guckert being used as a tool of the administration to influence public opinion is as I have said only the latest example. Other examples include this administration’s payments for phony news programs to support its policies, sending phony letters to the editors of local news papers across the country falsely addressed from deployed troops in Iraq to down play effects of the war, payments to journalists and commentators to support their policies, leaking classified information to the ‘press’ (a federal crime) in an attempt to discredit an opponent of their invasion of Iraq, most of that done with taxpayer’s money. That all of this is discussed briefly and then shoved to the side is frightening.
I would like to thank Augusta Free Press for allowing people to voice their concerns on this issue, and hope they continue to support the opinions of their readers of all types. AFP is an institution that truly serves the interests of the citizens of this country by letting people be heard in an open forum. That being said, I would like to ask that liberals try to take the high road as much as possible, though I know to them it may seem difficult as the established battlefield tends to be in the gutter. While the Guckert issue cannot be allowed to be swept under the rug, remember that his presence in the White House press room and access to classified memos is the heart of the matter, not his sexual identity. Don’t retract you’re claws, but please reduce the venom. When you lose your temper, you lose the argument.
---------------
Hopefully this statement will do some good. While this is not as 'rabid' as i would normally be on a subject that has so angered me speaking to those who know me well. Consider it an opening salvo in a larger war, and an attempt to maitain focus on the nature of our common enemy, addressed to conservatives and liberals both as all american citizens will regret this administration's actions done in our names for one reason or another over time.
I promise, to myself and you all, that there will be more soon.
love,
tomkitty
Following my previous statement of promising to be more vocal, i have submitted my first editorial on the subject of Gannon/Guckert to the Augusta Free Press. They have posted other editorials with a critical eye on propagannan, and hope that they publish mine. In the case that they do not, i offer it here.
It is in response to a specific article they placed on their site to address some of the other comments they have recieved on the matter of Guckert/Gannon.
You can find it here:
click here to read the article in question
Here is my comment:
------------
I read your article ‘VIEWS ON THE NEWS: Play nice’, and feel compelled to apologize for the excessive letters you have received from my ‘liberal brethren’. That you would be subjected to such treatment is not only wrong but pointless. But while I cannot dismiss all of the venom you have received, let’s engage in a mental exercise that might help illustrate what is happening here. (This is not another attack, but is directed toward both sides of the issue, although one might not appreciate it as much as the other, with full respect to the forum you offer your readers at large.)
We go back in time now, but back to an ‘alternate’ history.
It is 1998, and Bill Clinton is under fire for his definition of the word ‘is’, and it comes to light that one afternoon, at a presidential press conference, that there was a reporter who Mr. Clinton called on who asked a ‘soft’ question of the president himself in that open forum. This question could have been anything really, but lets say for instance it went something like this: ‘Don’t you think that the republicans in congress owe you and the American citizens an apology for making an issue of your sexual indiscretions the end result of an investigation that cost over 80 million dollars of the tax payer’s money for something that was initially supposed to look at a failed real-estate venture?’
This reporter, for the sake of argument, knew a friend of a friend of a white house staffer, and had a history of asking such questions, ‘soft’ questions of the administration when all they could look forward to were ‘hard’ questions from other reporters.
Later in this scenario, it is brought to light not only could it be construed that someone in the Clinton administration had planted that reporter in the press room for that purpose, but that the reporter in question was in his/her past a prostitute, or gay, or just not really a reporter (any of those things will due for our purposes). Based on the climate in the media surrounding the impeachment proceeding, what was most likely to have happened next?
My supposition is that gallows would have been built on the capitol steps so fast that the check for the lumber involved wouldn’t even have had time to clear the bank, and the major media would have been the prime contractor.
I hate to think that liberals are sending this open forum prejudiced comments about Jeff Gannon’s sexual history in order to make their point, but I understand that they would given how this story has been handled by the mainstream media. They are frustrated by the overall coverage by the media, or lack there of, of the administration’s long established behavior concerning he press at large. And, given the anti-gay marriage position of the Bush administration, Guckert’s past homosexuality becomes, in some minds, a glaringly obvious talking point.
That Mr. Guckert has a certain sexual aspect to his life that he doesn’t wish discussed in public is immaterial to the subject at hand, quite understandable, and it is indeed wrong to make that the heart of the argument by either side. That this sort of thing would not have flown for one minute during the Clinton years is why liberals are angry. There is a clear double standard here, and that is the reason liberals are foaming at the mouth over this incident.
Bill Clinton’s sexual life was brought into our living rooms via the mass media, and forced many parents to explain what ‘oral sex’ was to children who were too young to need to know such information, but the media kept putting that information in front of them on a daily basis. Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior alone was not the reason we were inundated with that information. It stemmed from a notion (and totally unproven charges by the way) of financial improprieties by Bill and Hilary Clinton and their friends.
This Guckert thing needs to be addressed because it was the same notion of ‘perceived impropriety’ that allowed Ken Starr to run riot through the legal system using any and all means to tear down and discredit a president’s administration using a shifting rational that any magician trained in slight-of-hand would envy. To imply that the conclusion of the Whitewater investigation was acceptable, but to give the Bush administration a pass on one more in a long line of examples of media manipulation is irresponsible on the side of the press, and foolish for any citizen that thinks they live in a free and just society.
Guckert being used as a tool of the administration to influence public opinion is as I have said only the latest example. Other examples include this administration’s payments for phony news programs to support its policies, sending phony letters to the editors of local news papers across the country falsely addressed from deployed troops in Iraq to down play effects of the war, payments to journalists and commentators to support their policies, leaking classified information to the ‘press’ (a federal crime) in an attempt to discredit an opponent of their invasion of Iraq, most of that done with taxpayer’s money. That all of this is discussed briefly and then shoved to the side is frightening.
I would like to thank Augusta Free Press for allowing people to voice their concerns on this issue, and hope they continue to support the opinions of their readers of all types. AFP is an institution that truly serves the interests of the citizens of this country by letting people be heard in an open forum. That being said, I would like to ask that liberals try to take the high road as much as possible, though I know to them it may seem difficult as the established battlefield tends to be in the gutter. While the Guckert issue cannot be allowed to be swept under the rug, remember that his presence in the White House press room and access to classified memos is the heart of the matter, not his sexual identity. Don’t retract you’re claws, but please reduce the venom. When you lose your temper, you lose the argument.
---------------
Hopefully this statement will do some good. While this is not as 'rabid' as i would normally be on a subject that has so angered me speaking to those who know me well. Consider it an opening salvo in a larger war, and an attempt to maitain focus on the nature of our common enemy, addressed to conservatives and liberals both as all american citizens will regret this administration's actions done in our names for one reason or another over time.
I promise, to myself and you all, that there will be more soon.
love,
tomkitty
