Wow DSF! The “YOUR government” thing again. Now I am confused. You are or are not a US citizen? If not, do you have intensions of revenge or payback on the USA for the alleged evil acts you say you were a witness to? If so, I certainly hope someone is has your number. Is your last name Kazinski or Penn cause you definitely write with an extremist viewpoint. Can I send you one of my “Sore Looserman 2000” T-shirts to dry your eyes with? Just send me your address... I promise I won’t give it to anyone else.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/phoenix/probably something Blowback should know about.

Glad you got the message, Mike... that's exactly what you were saying to me.Happened to me to hate this govnerment... hmm... how about spending time with Indigenous people who suffered at the hands of US trained and funded, knowing people tortured while US "operatives" watched and supervised, hearing the government LIE about its knowledge and sending more weapons and money to people committing the most atrocious crimes imaginable (that is just the tip of the iceberg). This is not based on some "liberal" media article or reporter. This is based on MY knowledge, experience and those of people I know and trust. I have spent quite a lot of time in many Latin American countries with communities of widows, been to prisons in South America where people suffer because of US policy and laws forced on them by YOUR government. Known human rights defenders murdered by people who enjoy complete impunity and the support of your "government". I say YOUR because you seem to support it. You defend the actions taken by this administration and conservative elements. They are returning to a time when people didn't even bother to LIE about the crimes they committed. Clinton was an ass too - don't get me wrong. But this world is quickly being divided by the raving lunatic who STOLE the White House. I doubt it could be much worse. What do you know about it anyway?

Ahem...Marlo Thomas, if I may ask, why the name change? And now that I caught this here grouper fish, what exactly am I to do with it?Sincerly,An Old Fan

DSF,I find it intriguing that you refer to it as “my” government. What are you, an American or one of the so-called “citizens of the world”? What happened to you to make you hate this country so?BTW,Nice retort. Almost as good as “I know you are but what am I”...

I wish I could get a ticket outa 110 degree–in–May Phoenix to see the show in DC. I may have had to squint my eyes and bite my tongue during some of the lyrics but I’d be digging all of the music! Hope it turns out well.

Sorry Mike, you will have to do better than that. We can go on enlessly if you like. One day maybe you will wake up and smell the shit your government has been shoveling at ya. If not... well at this point I don't really care.

That's right Franklin. So if any of you are in the DC area and want to attend, time and location are listed on the SHOWS link to the left.Here's a chance for those of you who have voiced disagreements with our music and/or political stance to come and boo us in person.The show will be FREE to all.

It's official: our next gig is in DC on Friday the Thirteenth of June. It'll be an interesting experiment as we try to put all the songs together as one performance piece, instead of separate songs. We tried this a little bit in Los Angeles.

As for the other idiots out there taken in by the ‘fake rescue’ story, even after John Kampfner denied it was ‘staged’ on CNN, I’d post the links but, jeez, why bother linking to idiots? This story seems to have become a sort of litmus test for idiocy and people who will fall for any conspiracy theory. It’s really hard to cut through all the spin in search of the truth for fear of being lumped in with people like Daily Show Fan, who is so daft would say;“On advice from PR spinmeisters, the Pentagon ignored efforts by Iraqi doctors to return Private Lynch in an Iraqi ambulance. Instead, according to the BBC, the Pentagon fired on the ambulance so they could then stage a rescue and stage a firefight at the hospital and remove Private Lynch…”Oh. Great. Imagine you are a soldier sitting in a foxhole over looking a road-block. You see a large brightly colored van moving down the road to you. You’re scared witless of suicide bombers. “Sir, shall I fire a warning shot?”“Not yet, soldier. I have a Pentagon spinmeister on the satellite phone, calling from Qatar. He can see into the back of the van using secret satellite technology that we are not cleared for. He’s about to confirm we should fire on the ambulance, in the hope it will survive, return it’s passenger unharmed to a hospital that the Iraqi military abandoned this morning, and there the passenger will await us staging a rescue with blank ammunition for the cameras.”“That’s great sir.”Note to Daily Show Fan:Pull your head out.

This is getting to be a pretty common theme with the (your) liberal press:May 20, 2003THE BBC'S JOHN KAMPFNER IS BACKING AWAY FROM THE JESSICA LYNCH STORY -- while, of course, pretending not to do so. Note that he never really answers the question about U.S. troops firing blanks -- instead he offers a non sequitur about whether Jessica Lynch was shot.The new version of his story -- even given his spin -- is simply that the U.S. military milked the story of the rescue for PR. Well, duh. But that's not what his original story charged. His original story charged that it was a fake, with U.S. troops firing blanks in a Hollywood-style extravaganza.This guy has been busted.The press wouldn't put up with this sort of spin from a politician. Let's see if it's as tough on one of its own. Kampfner says: "Well, I mean, it must be said the British are no more angels than the Americans when it comes to putting out certain messages in the war."Well, they're no angels at the BBC, that's for sure.UPDATE: Well, what Kampfner is accusing the Pentagon of doing isn't nearly as bad as what CNN has admitted doing in terms of misleading video. So will this get worldwide media attention? Hell, will it even get major play on the BBC?Don't hold your breath.ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Bill Adams thinks this point deserves more stress:If the American forces arrived firing blanks and playing tapes of explosions to create a great p.r. film, WHERE'S THE FILM? Kampfner complains that the U.S. suppressed the "rushes" and only supplied a "professionally-edited" final tape, but note the complete logical disconnect: that edited tape, the tape the military's press managers presumably wanted to put out from the get-go, doesn't show Americans firing wildly in response to explosion noises. So Kampfner's claim is--what?--that they faked combat in order to the fool the world, but then didn't show any of the fakery in order to fool the world.Bill, you're thinking too small. Actually it was all an elaborate deception to destroy Kampfner's credibility. Seems to be working. . . .ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader writes:In his non-retraction to CNN, Kampfner refers to the alleged attempt to evacuate Lynch in an ambulance as occurring the day before the rescue raid, but the BBC story he's defending says it occurred two days before the raid. Just a mistake? Or has he realized that two days before, the hospital was still in Iraqi military hands, making the scenario much less credible?Hmm.

more on the "fabircation" of the fabrication:The truth about Jessica Her Iraqi guards had long fled, she was being well cared for - and doctors had already tried to free her. John Kampfner discovers the real story behind a modern American war myth Thursday May 15, 2003The Guardian Jessica Lynch became an icon of the war. An all-American heroine, the story of her capture by the Iraqis and her rescue by US special forces became one of the great patriotic moments of the conflict. It couldn't have happened at a more crucial moment, when the talk was of coalition forces bogged down, of a victory too slow in coming. Her rescue will go down as one of the most stunning pieces of news management yet conceived. It provides a remarkable insight into the real influence of Hollywood producers on the Pentagon's media managers, and has produced a template from which America hopes to present its future wars. But the American media tactics, culminating in the Lynch episode, infuriated the British, who were supposed to be working alongside them in Doha, Qatar. This Sunday, the BBC's Correspondent programme reveals the inside story of the rescue that may not have been as heroic as portrayed, and of divisions at the heart of the allies' media operation. "In reality we had two different styles of news media management," says Group Captain Al Lockwood, the British army spokesman at central command. "I feel fortunate to have been part of the UK one." In the early hours of April 2, correspondents in Doha were summoned from their beds to Centcom, the military and media nerve centre for the war. Jim Wilkinson, the White House's top figure there, had stayed up all night. "We had a situation where there was a lot of hot news," he recalls. "The president had been briefed, as had the secretary of defence." The journalists rushed in, thinking Saddam had been captured. The story they were told instead has entered American folklore. Private Lynch, a 19-year-old clerk from Palestine, West Virginia, was a member of the US Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company that took a wrong turning near Nassiriya and was ambushed. Nine of her US comrades were killed. Iraqi soldiers took Lynch to the local hospital, which was swarming with fedayeen, where he was held for eight days. That much is uncontested. Releasing its five-minute film to the networks, the Pentagon claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated. It was only thanks to a courageous Iraqi lawyer, Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, that she was saved. According to the Pentagon, Al-Rehaief risked his life to alert the Americans that Lynch was being held. Just after midnight, Army Rangers and Navy Seals stormed the Nassiriya hospital. Their "daring" assault on enemy territory was captured by the military's night-vision camera. They were said to have come under fire, but they made it to Lynch and whisked her away by helicopter. That was the message beamed back to viewers within hours of the rescue. Al-Rehaief was granted asylum barely two weeks after arriving in the US. He is now the toast of Washington, with a fat $500,000 (£309,000) book deal. Rescue in Nassiriya will be published in October. As for Lynch, her status as cult hero is stronger than ever. Internet auction sites have listed at least 10 Jessica Lynch items, ranging from an oil painting with an opening bid of $200 to a $5 "America Loves Jessica Lynch" fridge magnet. Trouble is that doctors now say she has no recollection of the whole episode and probably never will. Her memory loss means that "researchers" have been called in to fill in the gaps. One story, two versions. The doctors in Nassiriya say they provided the best treatment they could for Lynch in the midst of war. She was assigned the only specialist bed in the hospital, and one of only two nurses on the floor. "I was like a mother to her and she was like a daughter,"says Khalida Shinah. "We gave her three bottles of blood, two of them from the medical staff because there was no blood at this time,"said Dr Harith al-Houssona, who looked after her throughout her ordeal. "I examined her, I saw she had a broken arm, a broken thigh and a dislocated ankle. Then I did another examination. There was no [sign of] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab wound - only RTA, road traffic accident," he recalled. "They want to distort the picture. I don't know why they think there is some benefit in saying she has a bullet injury." The doctors told us that the day before the special forces swooped on the hospital the Iraqi military had fled. Hassam Hamoud, a waiter at a local restaurant, said he saw the American advance party land in the town. He said the team's Arabic interpreter asked him where the hospital was. "He asked: 'Are there any Fedayeen over there?' and I said, 'No'." All the same, the next day "America's finest warriors" descended on the building. "We heard the noise of helicopters," says Dr Anmar Uday. He says that they must have known there would be no resistance. "We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital. "It was like a Hollywood film. They cried, 'Go, go, go', with guns and blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show - an action movie like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan, with jumping and shouting, breaking down doors." All the time with the camera rolling. The Americans took no chances, restraining doctors and a patient who was handcuffed to a bed frame. There was one more twist. Two days before the snatch squad arrived, Al-Houssona had arranged to deliver Jessica to the Americans in an ambulance. "I told her I will try and help you escape to the American Army but I will do this very secretly because I could lose my life." He put her in an ambulance and instructed the driver to go to the American checkpoint. When he was approaching it, the Americans opened fire. They fled just in time back to the hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch. A military cameraman had shot footage of the rescue. It was a race against time for the video to be edited. The video presentation was ready a few hours after the first brief announcement. When it was shown, General Vincent Brooks, the US spokesman in Doha, declared: "Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll never leave a fallen comrade." None of the details that the doctors provided Correspondent with made it to the video or to any subsequent explanations or clarifications by US authorities. I asked the Pentagon spokesman in Washington, Bryan Whitman, to release the full tape of the rescue, rather than its edited version, to clear up any discrepancies. He declined. Whitman would not talk about what kind of Iraqi resistance the American forces faced. Nor would he comment on the injuries Lynch actually sustained. "I understand there is some conflicting information out there and in due time the full story will be told, I'm sure," he told me. That American approach - to skim over the details - focusing instead on the broad message, led to tension behind the scenes with the British. Downing Street's man in Doha, Simon Wren, was furious that on the first few days of the war the Americans refused to give any information at Centcom. The British were put in the difficult position of having to fill in the gaps, off the record. Towards the end of the conflict, Wren wrote a confidential five-page letter to Alastair Campbell complaining that the American briefers weren't up to the job. He described the Lynch presentation as embarrassing. Wren yesterday described the Lynch incident as "hugely overblown" and symptomatic of a bigger problem. "The Americans never got out there and explained what was going on in the war," he said. "All they needed to be was open and honest. They were too vague, too scared of engaging with the media." He said US journalists "did not put them under pressure". Wren, who had been seconded to the Ministry of Defence, said he tried on several occasions to persuade Wilkinson and Brooks to change tack. In London, Campbell did the same with the White House, to no avail. "The American media didn't put them under pressure so they were allowed to get away with it," Wren said. "They didn't feel they needed to change." He acknowledged that the events surrounding the Lynch "rescue" had become a matter of "conjecture". But he added: "Either way, it was not the main news of the day. This was just one soldier, this was an add-on: human interest stuff. It completely overshadowed other events, things that were actually going on on the battlefield. It overshadowed the fact that the Americans found the bodies of her colleagues. What we wanted to give out was real-time news." Lockwood told Correspondent:"Having lost the first skirmish, they (the Americans) had pretty much lost the war when it came to media support. Albeit things had got better and everything came to a conclusion quite rapidly, but to my feelings they lost their initial part of the campaign and never got on the front foot again," Lockwood said. "The media adviser we had here [Wren] was an expert in his field. His counterpart on the US side [Wilkinson] was evasive and was not around as much as he should have been when it came to talking to the media." The American strategy was to concentrate on the visuals and to get a broad message out. Details - where helpful - followed behind. The key was to ensure the right television footage. The embedded reporters could do some of that. On other missions, the military used their own cameras, editing the film themselves and presenting it to broadcasters as ready-to-go pack ages. The Pentagon had been influenced by Hollywood producers of reality TV and action movies, notably Black Hawk Down. Back in 2001, the man behind Black Hawk Down, Jerry Bruckheimer, had visited the Pentagon to pitch an idea. Bruckheimer and fellow producer Bertram van Munster, who masterminded the reality show Cops, suggested Profiles from the Front Line, a primetime television series following US forces in Afghanistan. They were after human stories told through the eyes of the soldiers. Van Munster's aim was to get close and personal. He said: "You can only get accepted by these people through chemistry. You have to have a bond with somebody. Only then will they let you in. What these guys are doing out there, these men and women, is just extraordinary. If you're a cheerleader of our point of view - that we deserve peace and that we deal with human dignity - then these guys are really going out on a limb and risking their own lives." It was perfect reality TV, made with the active cooperation of Donald Rumsfeld and aired just before the Iraqi war. The Pentagon liked what it saw. "What Profiles does is given another in depth look at what forces are doing from the ground," says Whitman. "It provides a very human look at challenges that are presented when you are dealing in these very difficult situations." That approached was taken on and developed on the field of battle in Iraq. The Pentagon has none of the British misgivings about its media operation. It is convinced that what worked with Jessica Lynch and with other episodes of this war will work even better in the future. · War Spin, presented by John Kampfner and produced by Sandy Smith, is on BBC2 on Sunday at 7.15pm.

oh right... return to McCarthy-ism, deportating legal residents (and if Patriot Act II goes is passed - US citizens too), wars of aggression despite WORLD opposition, revitalizing the nuclear arms programs... yea those liberal PC people have really made some improvements. I suppose segregation is next on the list. "Conserve" those family values.Pulease!

Slanted reality? I think I can understand your hostilities toward the opposition. I was pretty bummed out myself for 8 long years during the Clintonista regime. I was one of the 20%'ers who voted for H. Ross Perot. You can imagine my horror, especially if you voted for Ralphy last go-around. I’m not bummed out anymore. Looking back I realize that I wasted too much time stewing over what a worthless, lying, self-serving, opportunistic, self-hating/blame America for all the problems of the world, elitist piece of crap Bill Clinton was (is...). Your cycle will come back around again and some mainstream moderate on the outside/socialist on the inside will bamboozle the sheeple all the way into the office of the President. I’m sure Tom Dasshole has some more tricks up his sleeve to regain the majority in the Senate. Hopefully GW will get enough judges through to keep the red diaper NYU and ACLU lawyers at bay for a good long time but that too will cycle your way eventually. Or maybe my side will hold on for 40 years and straighten out the mess that PC, the (not so)“great society” and liberalism, among other things has created in this country. Only time will tell. I know one thing for sure; America will continue to be and needs to be the greatest and most generous nation on God’s earth.

Yea, I also heard that Bush knew NOTHING about Iran-contra. Phew, aren't we lucky!Oh yea, the elections in FL were on the "up and up" too, right? Just want to make sure I have a full picture of what (slanted) reality you live in.

Bashing?? The guy is a partisan hack to the extreme. I wouldn’t believe a single thing he says for that reason alone. You can if you want. BTW, I heard that the first moon walk was actually filmed in a secret Hollywood studio.

u huh... right.... so then you believe the case he makes to be false. Interesting. Any chance you might say more than just bashing the guy the same way you critisize him for "bashing" others?Easier to swallow the tripe from CNN and the U.S. military.No sweat.

and for some more fun reading:http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/200108-5.html#28http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/200106-3.html#12a

Robert Scheer??!!! LMAO!!! Please... I have a surf board shop in Arizona for sale too. Scheer Deception: The Lies and Jargon of Robert ScheerBy Ben Fritz (ben@spinsanity.org)October 8, 2001Many pundits sling jargon or make blithely irrational arguments. Some, however, seem to specialize in twisting the facts to fit their ideology, continually making assertions that are at best unsupported and at worst blatantly false until they--and presumably their readers--come to accept these false tropes as truth. Robert Scheer, a nationally syndicated columnist for the Los Angeles Times, has established himself as the leader of this breed, with some of his worst spin coming since the September 11 attack. Sadly, this is only the latest iteration of a trend that can be seen in Scheer's columns throughout the year.A brief historyScheer has had an interesting career in journalism. He started at the radical left publication Ramparts in the 60s, then become a national correspondent for the L.A. Times for 17 years. For the past eight, he has been a columnist whose work appears weekly in the Times and papers across the country. He also co-hosts a radio show on an affiliate of National Public Radio in Los Angeles and writes for publications like The Nation. Throughout his career, Scheer has been one of America's leading liberal pundits, reliably bashing Republicans and many conservative Democrats.Dissemble, spin, repeatAn overview of Scheer's writing reveals that one of his favorite tactics is to create a politically potent trope and repeat it over and over until it seems true. When faced with criticism, Scheer simply dismisses his critics without addressing their arguments and continues to repeat his idea, as if the more he says it, the truer it becomes.An excellent example of this tactic can be found in what my co-editor Brendan Nyhan has labeled the "Taliban aid trope." Scheer created this trope in May, when he attacked a "gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan," saying it "makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that 'rogue regime' for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God."Drawing on work by Bryan Carnell of Leftwatch, Brendan pointed out that the $43 million was not aid to the Taliban government. Instead, the money was a gift of wheat, food commodities, and food security programs distributed to the Afghan people by agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Secretary of State Colin Powell specifically stated, in fact, that the aid "bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."Since the US began focusing on the Taliban for harboring Osama Bin Laden, whose Al-Qaeda network is the primary suspect in the September 11 attacks, Scheer has repeated this false assertion about U.S. aid to Afghanistan, and in fact twisted it even further. In a September 17 column, he says that the aid was a tacit endorsement of Bin Laden:This is typical of the mixed signals we've been sending. Call it what you will, even humanitarian aid, and funnel it through the United Nations, but the effect is the same: to send to the Taliban a signal that its support of Bin Laden has been somehow acceptable.Note how Scheer takes note of his critics' points by prefacing them with "Call it what you will," as if these points were arbitrary labels and not facts. They are facts, however, and Scheer is simply trying to avoid them.Scheer wasn't done spreading this trope, or with his irrational dismissal of critics, however. Two weeks later, on October 1, he spun humanitarian aid for the Afghan people as some sort of a fairy tale:Believe that [the Taliban convinced farmers to stop growing opium through religious appeals rather than by force], and you can believe that the $43 million in aid that Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that same week--to help the Afghans, "including those farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we welcome"--was simply humanitarian aid and not really a reward to the Taliban for helping the U.S. in its drug war.Again, Scheer does not explain to readers how humanitarian aid funneled through the U.N and NGOs can be considered a gift to a government that never receives funds or controls any food aid. Notice also how he selectively quotes Powell, avoiding the statement mentioned earlier in which Powell explicitly notes that the aid will bypass the Taliban. Even more disturbing, however, is a fact brought to our attention by Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix in an email: Powell's statement was made in response to a question about future aid and had nothing to do with the $43 million aid already provided. Once again, Scheer is twisting the truth to fit his argument.Although Scheer's use of the Taliban aid trope has been the most disturbing this year, it is not the only falsity he has repeated. In another instance, Scheer has twice tried to frame the current economic slump as a recession caused by President Bush and Congressional Republicans. This started in July, when Scheer argued that Al Gore should criticize the Bush Administration and Republicans for economic policy:The job market was never better than under Bill Clinton and it's not too much to expect Gore to hold the Republicans, who have controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, responsible for the loss of 300,000 jobs in the last three months alone.The truth that Scheer is avoiding here, however, is that the current downturn began while Bill Clinton was still President. Furthermore, in the three months prior to July, Bush's economic policy had barely begun to take effect. There is no logical reason to hold the economic policy of Bush and Republicans in Congress responsible for a downturn that began before Bush's inauguration.Earlier in that column, Scheer also dissembles when he refers to a "recession" that at the time had not been established (although it is now quite likely that we are in one). Blaming Bush for the weak economy, regardless of the facts, is a favorite tactic of Scheer's, however. He did so again just a month later, as my co-editor Brendan Nyhan pointed out, when he succinctly referred to "a recession [Bush] helped create." At this point, however, there was still no evidence that the U.S. was in a recession, nor was there evidence that the slow economy was caused by President Bush.Such facts seem to matter little to Scheer as he creates his false tropes. The truth is merely an obstacle to be illogically dismissed.Labels and framesAnother favored tactic of Scheer's, and one that can be seen in his false tropes as well, is to bash President Bush and other Republicans whenever possible. There is nothing wrong, of course, with criticizing political opponents. What is troublesome, however, is that Scheer often does so not with reasoned criticism, but irrational broadsides and unsupported allegations.When it comes to President Bush, Scheer seems to have two insights that he repeats endlessly: the President is rich and he is dumb. From global warming to economic policy, Scheer seems to always find a way to return to these two points.During a discussion of the importance of Social Security and Medicare, for instance, Scheer sees fit to state that many benefit from these programs, "[u]nless your family happens to be super rich like the president's." In a column on global warming, Scheer again takes an unnecessary swipe at the Bush family's wealth, making ridiculous generalizations about young people in the process:Here's a guy born with credit cards in his cradle, enough to take him anywhere in the world, first class, who nevertheless pointedly refused to go. Even kids without any money manage to scrape up a few bucks and go see the world, but not young George, who satiated his curiosity about foreign lands with a few beer busts down in Mexico.Scheer's ostensible point here is that Bush "never seemed to think that there was a world out there worth visiting, let alone saving," as if a vacation in Europe would necessarily make him more competent in foreign policy. Notice also the irrelevant assertion that Bush went on "beer busts down in Mexico," which is, again, hardly relevant to his current foreign policy. Also notable here is Scheer revealing his own class bias, as he absurdly asserts that even the poorest of young people manage to travel around the world.The broadsides don't stop there, though. Another one of Scheer's insights into Bush's foreign policy is that it "can more charitably be viewed as the confused performance of a struggling C student." In the same column, Scheer's conclusion about the Bush's administration's rejection of many foreign treaties is, again, that the President is dumb: "[I]t is therefore unfair for critics to hold his proposals to too high a standard of logic and sophistication," he writes. "After all, this is George W. Bush we're talking about."Scheer also plays on a common and again unsupported liberal trope: that Bush is merely a front man and Vice-President Cheney is running the country. "It's a sad measure of the president's need for adult supervision," Scheer wrote in July, "that Cheney has become the first vice president in modern U.S. history to seize control of the White House and render the president himself a public relations front man sent around the country to do photo ops." Once again, Scheer presents no evidence to support his attack, simply asserting that "[e]veryone knows that Cheney, not Bush, runs the show."To be fair, however, Scheer doesn't exclusively pick on President Bush. Vice President Cheney himself came under attack in a column on environmental policy that labels him "an oil-guzzling, intellectually irresponsible, anti-environmental oaf."Best of breedAt a time when all too many pundits engage in their share of lies, spin, and jargon, Robert Scheer stands out in a class by himself. In column after column, his favored tactics have been irrational criticism, distortion, and spin. At his worst, Scheer's false tropes spread and become part of the commonly accepted discourse. Since September 11, for instance, as Dan Kennedy noted in the Boston Phoenix, the Taliban aid trope has been repeated in The Nation, The New Yorker, The Denver Post and Salon. For those concerned about the rise of irrational discourse in American politics, Robert Scheer stands out as one of the worst offenders.

You all saw Wag the Dog, right? check this:Saving Private Lynch: take 2 Robert Scheer - Creators Syndicate 05.20.03 - In the 1998 film "Wag the Dog," political operatives employ special editing techniques to create phony footage that will engender public sympathy for a manufactured war. Now we find that in 2003 the real-life Pentagon's ability and willingness to manipulate the facts make Hollywood's story lines look tame. After a thorough investigation, the British Broadcasting Corp. has presented a shocking dissection of the "heroic" rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch, as reported by the U.S. military and a breathless American press."Her story is one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived," the BBC concluded—the polite British way of saying "liar, liar, pants on fire."Though the Bush administration's shamelessly trumped-up claims about Iraq's alleged ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11 and its weapons of mass destruction take the cake for deceitful propaganda—grand strategic lies that allow the United States' seizure of Iraq's oil to appear to be an act of liberation—the sad case of Lynch's exploitation at the hands of military spinners illustrates that the truth once again was a casualty of war.Lynch, who says she has no memory of the events in question, has suffered enough in the line of duty without being reduced to a propaganda pawn.Sadly, almost nothing fed to reporters about either Lynch's original capture by Iraqi forces or her "rescue" by U.S. forces turns out to be true. Consider the April 3 Washington Post story on her capture headlined "She Was Fighting to the Death," which reported, based on unnamed military sources, that Lynch "continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds," adding that she was also stabbed when Iraqi forces closed in.It has since emerged that Lynch was neither shot nor stabbed, but rather suffered accident injuries when her vehicle overturned. A medical checkup by U.S. doctors confirmed the account of the Iraqi doctors, who said they had carefully tended her injuries, a broken arm and thigh and a dislocated ankle, in contrast to U.S. media reports that doctors had ignored Lynch.Another report spread by news organizations nationwide claimed Lynch was slapped by an Iraqi security guard, and the U.S. military later insisted that an Iraqi lawyer witnessed this incident and informed them of Lynch's whereabouts. His credibility as a source, however, is difficult to verify because he and his family were whisked to the U.S., where he was immediately granted political asylum and has refused all interview requests. His future was assured with a job with a lobbying firm run by former Republican Rep. Bob Livingstone that represents the defense industry and a $500,000 book contract with HarperCollins, a company owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox network did much to hype Lynch's story, as it did the rest of the war.But where the manipulation of this saga really gets ugly is in the premeditated manufacture of the rescue itself, which stains those who have performed real acts of bravery, whether in war or peacetime.Eight days after her capture, American media trumpeted the military's story that Lynch was saved by Special Forces that stormed the hospital and, in the face of heavy hostile fire, managed to scoop her up and helicopter her out.However, according to the BBC, which interviewed the hospital's staff, the truth appears to be that not only had Iraqi forces abandoned the area before the rescue effort but that the hospital's staff had informed the U.S. of this and made arrangements two days before the raid to turn Lynch over to the Americans. "But as the ambulance, with Pvt. Lynch inside, approached the checkpoint, American troops opened fire, forcing it to flee back to the hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch," the BBC reported."We were surprised," Dr. Anmar Uday told the BBC about the supposed rescue. "There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital. It was like a Hollywood film. [The U.S. forces] cried 'Go, go, go,' with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions," Uday said. "They made a show for the American attack on the hospital—[like] action movies [starring] Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."The footage from the raid, shot not by journalists but by soldiers with night-vision cameras, was fed in real time to the central command in Qatar. The video was artfully edited by the Pentagon and released as proof that a battle to free Lynch had occurred when it had not. This fabrication has already been celebrated by an A&E special and will soon be an NBC movie. The Lynch rescue story—a made-for-TV bit of official propaganda—will probably survive as the war's most heroic moment, despite proving as fictitious as the stated rationales for the invasion itself.If the movies, books and other renditions of "saving Private Lynch" were to be honestly presented, it would expose this caper as merely one in a series of egregious lies marketed to us by the Bush administration. © 2003 Creators Syndicate URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15018

This all sounds so familiar it's scary:From a story by Randall Mikkelsen, WASHINGTON (Reuters) , concerning questions of al Qaeda links and nuclear weapons development by Iran."Asked how Iran had responded to U.S. concerns including al Qaeda, Fleischer said "insufficiently." He said Iran has also failed to satisfy U.S. concerns it is developing nuclear weapons, a charge denied by Iran. An exiled Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, said on Sunday it had fresh evidence that Tehran was developing nuclear weapons at secret sites. "In other words, plenty of evidence to begin amassing troops on two of Iran's borders, Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh wait, they're already there, how convenient.

I won't be sending this to anyone. Maybe if you decided to get off the anti-immigrant bandwagon i might decide to engage you on some points.

Here is some spam that mattersSubject: 2004 issueSince many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following: Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?A: The Democratic party.Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security.And the worst part about it is, people believe it!Pass it on please!2004 Election IssueThis must be an issue in "04". Please! Keep it going.SOCIAL SECURITY:(This is worth the read. It's short and to the point.)Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during electionyears. Our Senators and Congress men &women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.For all practical purposes their plan works like this:When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.This is calculated on an average life span for each.Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. Nada.Zilch.This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds-our tax dollars at work!From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) --we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000. monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equalSenator Bill Bradley's benefits!Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.How many people can YOU send this to?

Dancing With the DevilBy BOB HERBERTLet's see. Who's less patriotic, the Dixie Chicks or Dick Cheney's long-term meal ticket, the Halliburton Company?The Dixie Chicks were excoriated for simply exercising their constitutional right to speak out. With an ugly backlash and plans for a boycott growing, the group issued a humiliating public apology for "disrespectful" anti-Bush remarks made by its lead singer, Natalie Maines.The Chicks learned how dangerous it can be to criticize the chief of a grand imperial power.Halliburton, on the other hand, can do no wrong. Yes, it has a history of ripping off the government. And, yes, it's made zillions doing business in countries that sponsor terrorism, including members of the "axis of evil" that is so despised by the president.But the wrath of the White House has not come thundering down on Halliburton for consorting with the enemy. And there's been very little public criticism. This is not some hapless singing group we're talking about. Halliburton is a court favorite. So instead of being punished for its misdeeds, it's been handed a huge share of the riches to be reaped from the reconstruction of Iraq and U.S. control of Iraqi oil.A Democratic congressman, Henry Waxman of California, has raised pointed questions about the propriety of rewarding Halliburton with lucrative contracts as part of the U.S. war on terror when the company has gone out of its way to do business in three nations that the U.S. has accused of supporting terror: Iraq, Iran and Libya.In an April 30 letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Mr. Waxman wrote:"Since at least the 1980's, federal laws have prohibited U.S. companies from doing business in one or more of these countries. Yet Halliburton appears to have sought to circumvent these restrictions by setting up subsidiaries in foreign countries and territories such as the Cayman Islands. These actions started as early as 1984; they appear to have continued during the period between 1995 and 2000, when Vice President Cheney headed the company; and they are apparently ongoing even today."According to Mr. Waxman, a subsidiary called Halliburton Products and Services opened an office in Tehran, Iran, in February 2000, has done work on offshore drilling projects and has asserted, "We are committed to position ourselves in a market that offers huge growth potential."Shareholder complaints since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, particularly from the pension funds of the New York City Police and Fire Departments, have prompted Halliburton officials to agree to reevaluate their operations in Iran.The federal government has been well aware of Halliburton's shenanigans. In his letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, Mr. Waxman noted that "Halliburton was fined $3.8 million in 1995 for re-exporting U.S. goods through a foreign subsidiary to Libya in violation of U.S. sanctions."The fine was not enough to stop the company from dancing with the devil. It still has dealings in Libya.Now, with the U.S. takeover of Iraq, Halliburton has hit the jackpot. It has only recently been made clear that an "emergency" no-bid contract given in March to the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root covers far more than the limited task of fighting oil well fires. The company has been given control of the Iraqi oil operations, including oil distribution."It's remarkable there's been so little attention paid to the Halliburton contracts," said Mr. Waxman. In addition to doing business in countries that have sponsored terrorism, the congressman said, Halliburton has been accused of overcharging the U.S. government for work it did in the 1990's. And last year the company agreed to pay a $2 million settlement to ward off possible criminal charges for price gouging."Their reward for that terrible record," said the congressman, "was a secret no-bid contract, potentially worth billions, to run Iraq's oil operations."Halliburton and its subsidiaries are virtuosos at gaming the system. It's a slithery enterprise with its rapacious tentacles in everybody's pockets. It benefits from doing business with the enemy, from its relationship with the U.S. military when the U.S. is at war with the enemy, and from contracts to help rebuild the defeated enemy.Meanwhile, the flag-waving yahoos are hyperventilating over nonissues like the Dixie Chicks.

will friday the thirteenth (june) be the next Blowback gig in Washington? stay tuned....

Good thing we invaded Iraq to stop terrorism and eliminate wepaons of mass destruction. Also good thing we went there to spread democracy and self-determination.And Ari Liar is leaving. Boo hoo. So is Todd Whitman. Boo hoo hoo.And what the hell is Moseley Braun doing in the race??? She was the most sycophantic and destructive supporter of the Nigerian dictatorship of Abacha, the same dictatorship who killed Ken Saro Wiwa. What the hell is she doing in the race?? Get her ass out of there!

"U.S. Terror Alert Raised on Hints of Major Attack""The government raised the terror threat level to "high" after intelligence chatter suggested that terrorists may be planning a major attack inside the U.S."This was the headline from a CNN/Netscape website, seems they may be just picking from an AP wire, I'm not sure. Regardless, judging at first glance from this headline and secondary line one is lead to believe our government has evidence that a MAJOR, yes MAJOR, attack is being planned in the U.S..Does intelligence chatter suggest that terrorists may be planning a MAJOR attack inside the U.S.???Let's read an excerpt from the article:"Federal law-enforcement officials said that among the intelligence picked up recently were two electronic transmissions that discussed the possibility of an attack on New York, Washington, Boston and more broadly the U.S. coastlines. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there were doubts about the credibility of the threats and stressed that they were not the driving factors in the decision to raise the threat level."Reading this, would anyone describe this threat level as one hinting of a MAJOR attack???My point being. Are the news organizations trying to lure readers in by offering sensational headlines to semi-sensational stories (see also WMD discussions on earlier postings from this talk group) or is the government feeding the media sensational intelligence hints to be interpreted as evidence by individual reporters?I'm not sure myself but I don't like the tone of the original headline.In fairness to all here are the original links:The original headline site:(I don't know if this link will work, as of this posting it did but who knows if it may be changed)http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/default.jsp The story link from that headline:http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=NW_1-T&oldflok=FF-APO-1151&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20030520%2F203423581.htm&sc=1151&photoid=20030520FX107&floc=NW_1-TThe headline from that story reads:Terror Alert in U.S. Raised to 'High'A little different than a "Hint of a MAJOR Attack"

An excellent comprehensive, fair, balanced report on the search for WMDs in Iraq by the Washington Post. No silly, or unjustified, hype about finding the "Smoking Gun" just good unbiased reporting. Thank you Washington Post.Mike, even though it's long you should check it out, addresses some of what we hit on in our recent "debate". Would be interested to hear what others think as well.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4450-2003May17.html

Thanks for the link, Senyor.I assume that most everyone would agree that media ownership by more people is better than by less people?I find Nader's reminder that the airwaves belong to the people very compelling.I do believe there should be real and strict limits to how many stations or newspapers/magazines one person or entity can own directly or indirectly.

If you find the consolidation in radio a trend you'd rather not see spread to the rest of mainstream media, Moveon.org has an intiative underway to fight the scheduled deregulation of all major media on June 2. Please visit the following link to petition or find out more:http://www.moveon.org/stopthefcc/

Zippy:You are attempting to judge me through Zippy colored glasses. Which by your last 2 postings are exactly what you are accusing me of. Let me guess; you are 18, maybe 19 years old? You have a lot to learn about life, son. Take a deep breath. There is more than one way to build a piano after all.Franklin & D.S.F.:I read your posts but don’t have the time right now to respond but I will this weekend. I truly appreciate your civility toward the “conservative” visitor to this site.

Oh, no. That's the dichotomy Mike presents us. Either we support Islamo-fascist terrorism or we support the good ol' home-grown red-white-and-blue Heil Rummy version.One would think (if one were inclined to do such things) that there are other answers to the only political question, "How is life to be lived?"How about we throw out the cult of consumerism, decide that sharing is something that should be encouraged, and make "live and let live" our worldwide mantra? Oh, but how will we resist the evil Islamo-fascist terrorists, who would never go for that hand-holding tree-hugging flower-sniffing crap? I know! We become worse than they could ever be so they're too scared to do anything! Yeah, that's it!

Bad Zippy Badbut in all seriousness, opposing Bush is not tantatmount to supporting terrorism, despite the best efforts of Ari Lier, i mean, Fleischer.psst: Richard Perle is the Antichrist

Me, I support Islamo-fascist terrorism. Hell, it's better than 227 more years of this shit. C'mon, Ma - Let's go to a stoning!

Mike, sorry to say but you must not have looked closely into those events. There is more than enough information to show that the Bush brothers stole that election thru fraud. Those people who say "get over it" are just accepting an illegitimate government. I doubt you would say that if some "liberal" said, "hey, just let that guy off death row... get over it - even if he DID commit murder."It is the cruelest irony that the greatest setbacks in decades (destruction of social programs, wars of agression, return to "McCarthy-ism", the revival of the nuclear arms program), have ALL come under an illegitimate government. The American public didn't even ELECT this asshole and look at what he and his cronies are doing to the country... and the rest of the world as well!

But Mike, how is it that Gore/Lieberman won the popular vote and then were committing fraud to win the electoral vote? How is it that a county in Florida with a large majority of Jews voted for Buchanan who himself said was impossible?A great read: Jews for Buchanan.And as you know, my sympathis are much more on the "left" than on the "right" and I can tell you, Gore and Lieberman are not "leftists."And speaking of "left," I couldn't believe it when i heard Democracy Now and Amy was pitching the softest of softballs to some misguided soul who was convinced that the recent Castro crackdown involved due process and had definite proof of illegitimate activity.

Note to Daily Show Fan:I understand that you hate our President but Al Gore and all of his NYU “Red Diaper Baby” lawyers were un-successful in their attempts to steel the election through fraud. Please get over it and move on. Do you support Islamo-fascist terrorism?

Quote from President Bush's website made by Dubwa about the Saudi Arabia attacks --"These despicable acts were committed by killers whose only faith is hate. And the United States will find the killers and they will learn the meaning of American justice." Is that the "justice" that wages illegal wars and appoints presidents who don't win elections or steal them thru fraud?

i have to agree with Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida, running for prez) who's been raising a fuss about the Saudi blast, saying it shows that Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror, vs. Al Queda.meantime, i heard on Pacifica Radio that US soldiers in Baghdad are being given the instruction to shoot looters on sight...and read in the Washington Post that the Kurds are being kept from sharing in the northern Iraqi oil.

eeek! The more i read about Clear Channel, the more i despise.Code Pink is encouraging people to go to the next FCC public meeting on Thursday, May 15 at 9:30 AM.www.codepinkalert.org

Yeah, I liked the article's emphasis on steps anyone could take, like just living an honest life even when surrounded by corruption and cynicism.Speaking of The Man, here's an article on Lowry Mays, Mr. Radio Monopoly and good friend of Georgie Boyhttp://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15281

Hack - thanks for the link. here's a nice line from the article:If this normal-looking character could shake off the hangover long enough to give an eloquent finger to The Man, well, what were you doing with your time?

Interesting piece on Vaclav Havel, the "velvet revolutionary."http://www.reason.com/0305/fe.mw.velvet.shtml

Not sure. But apparently the docs were so poorly forged that CIA officials alerted the Administration that these were more than likely phonies, according to accounts in the Washington Post. On another note, resistance against Big Brother tactics by Delta Airlines:http://www.boycottdelta.org/

Is there any truth to the rumors that the documents were forged by French un-officials and done so in a way so as to be obvious for purposes of discrediting General Powell?

Nicholas Kristof wrote:"Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously."Years earlier Sy Hersh had also exposed flaws in the conventional wisdom that Saddam Hussein had tried to have Bush I assassinated in Kuwait.http://newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02

ok. thanks mike.more on the weapons of mass destruction:Missing in Action: TruthBy NICHOLAS D. KRISTOFhen I raised the Mystery of the Missing W.M.D. recently, hawks fired barrages of reproachful e-mail at me. The gist was: "You *&#*! Who cares if we never find weapons of mass destruction, because we've liberated the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant."But it does matter, enormously, for American credibility. After all, as Ari Fleischer said on April 10 about W.M.D.: "That is what this war was about."I rejoice in the newfound freedoms in Iraq. But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.Let's fervently hope that tomorrow we find an Iraqi superdome filled with 500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen Scud missiles, gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, 18 mobile biological warfare factories, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles to dispense anthrax, and proof of close ties with Al Qaeda. Those are the things that President Bush or his aides suggested Iraq might have, and I don't want to believe that top administration officials tried to win support for the war with a campaign of wholesale deceit.Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously.I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway."It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.Another example is the abuse of intelligence from Hussein Kamel, a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein and head of Iraq's biological weapons program until his defection in 1995. Top British and American officials kept citing information from Mr. Kamel as evidence of a huge secret Iraqi program, even though Mr. Kamel had actually emphasized that Iraq had mostly given up its W.M.D. program in the early 1990's. Glen Rangwala, a British Iraq expert, says the transcript of Mr. Kamel's debriefing was leaked because insiders resented the way politicians were misleading the public.Patrick Lang, a former head of Middle Eastern affairs in the Defense Intelligence Agency, says that he hears from those still in the intelligence world that when experts wrote reports that were skeptical about Iraq's W.M.D., "they were encouraged to think it over again.""In this administration, the pressure to get product `right' is coming out of O.S.D. [the Office of the Secretary of Defense]," Mr. Lang said. He added that intelligence experts had cautioned that Iraqis would not necessarily line up to cheer U.S. troops and that the Shiite clergy could be a problem. "The guys who tried to tell them that came to understand that this advice was not welcome," he said."The intelligence that our officials was given regarding W.M.D. was either defective or manipulated," Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico noted. Another senator is even more blunt and, sadly, exactly right: "Intelligence was manipulated."The C.I.A. was terribly damaged when William Casey, its director in the Reagan era, manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the Soviet threat in Central America to whip up support for Ronald Reagan's policies. Now something is again rotten in the state of Spookdom.

She is on the opposite side of the same whacked out spectrum James Carville is on.

I have to say that even though i did not watch any of the imbedded Koppel, seeing him at a forum at the Press Club sortly thereafter (thank you C-SPAN) was amazing. What an impressive man!A nugget from that: the problem with the war is that not even the fighters often see their targets but rather icons in the computer screen that are either on or off; that none of us could ever see where the fire was coming from or where we were firing at. He said that TV should show the bodies afterwards but not the faces (out of respect) because only then could people see the actual reality of the war.Who's Ann Coulter?

I completely agree with you on CNN & ABC. Lame. With the exception of Ted Koppel while he was imbedded.

Of course all you REALLY need to do is WATCH any of the lame coverage from CNN, ABC, FOX or any of the others during the illegal US invasion of Iraq too see how "liberal" they are.heh

Eric Alterman? PLEASE. . . He is a columnist for “The Nation”. Now there is a fair and balanced publication. No bias there.I’ll read him when you read Ann Coulter.

Liberal Media???? You MUST be joking.I urge you to check out the book: "What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News" by Eric Alterman Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman. In methodically shooting down conservative charges, Alterman employs extensive endnotes, all of which are referenced with superscript numbers throughout the body of the book.