Friday, November 2, 2012

Perspective

I thought I’d share with you what some consider “fair and balanced”.

The other day Governor Christie and President Obama exchanged compliments while sharing a microphone from the storm damaged New Jersey shore. It was a rare and much needed view of bi-partisan cooperation.  People expect leadership in times like this and both men were doing their job.

After they concluded their comments, we decided to see the FOX(R)’s coverage of this unusual and comforting event.

After switching the channel to FOX(R), the host muttered something about a “rude interruption” and continued his chat with a New Jersey Republican congressman.

I wonder why FOX(R) didn’t seem to care much for that story. Could bi-partisan cooperation be the problem for them? Or was it the image of intelligent, articulate and comforting leadership shown by President Obama at the heart of where such leadership is needed?

This morning we saw President Obama making a campaign speech in Ohio, but only on CNN and MSNBC, and nothing of it on FOX(R). Hmm.

Next up was Romney speaking at his campaign rally in Wisconsin. Perhaps he was speaking about his all new FEMA flip-flop, or telling one of his lies about Jeep moving all production from Ohio to China. He was on both CNN and MSNBC. And wonder of wonders. The “fair and balanced” FOX(R) decided voters needed to see a candidate. Their candidate, and only their candidate.

How’s that for a little snapshot of what is probably most wrong with America?

----

One more election note:

As we’ve been observing for the past several elections, the Guardians Of Plutocracy are feverishly fighting their war on democracy.

At the local level they have put out flyers urging people to vote on November 9th, after the election.

They have been busy at the state level too, doing all they can to throw roadblocks across the road to the polls. Voter ID laws are only part of it. They have tightened rules and restrictions for registering voters whenever possible. They love to purge voter rolls in Democratic leaning areas.

Remember Katherine Harris (R) putting her thumb on the scale in Florida back in 2000? Remember Ken Blackwell doing the same for Ohio in 2004?

Well, it looks like democracy is threatened in Ohio again.

From the Atlantic:

Didn't like having nine justices decide the 2000 election? Meet Jon Husted.

On August 31st, one day after the Republican National Convention ended in Tampa, a federal judge in Ohio issued a ruling that stymied an effort by Republican officials there to limit early voting dates for hundreds of thousands of registered voters. Citing the United States Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore ruling, the 5-4 decision which ended the 2000 Florida recount, U.S. District Judge Peter Economus wrote that Ohio lawmakers and bureaucrats couldn't, by "arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another."

Upon receiving word of the federal court order, the man responsible for implementing Ohio's election laws at first decided not to enforce it. Secretary of State Jon Husted, the Republican who had fought for years against voting rights advocates in and out of the courts as a lawmaker and, later, member of the executive branch, initially disregarded Judge Economus' order. Not just that. He defied it. He specifically ordered his county election boards not to restore the early voting hours the judge had endorsed.

It was only when the judge ordered Husted to court to personally explain his disobedience, a sure sign of judicial anger, that Husted relented. Relented -- but did not give up....


The radical Right won’t give up. That would be letting the voters decide.

It could be a long election. Something tells me the corporate media is going to listen to Republicans and not call a winner next Tuesday. You may not need to bother waiting up on election night.

31 comments:

T. Paine said...

Dave, I can come up with just as many or more instances of Democrat malfeasance when it comes to this pending election. There is plenty of guilt to go around for both major parties. Frankly I am disgusted by both sides when it comes to this nonsense.

That said, your "corporate media" sure seems to be spiking stories that would harm President Obama while touting ones that place him in a good light.

Look at the media coverage, or complete lack thereof, of the Benghazi terrorist attacks on the networks and cable news channels (other than Fox News(I) of course). You won't see mention of that story, but you sure see a lot of admittedly deserved kudos on the disaster relief after Hurricane Sandy.

I finding it interesting that the media is uncharacteristically uncurious about Benghazi. Hell, this is bigger than Watergate. Nobody died in Watergate. Just another coincidence, I am sure though.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

T. Paine: "Look at the media coverage, or complete lack thereof, of the Benghazi terrorist attacks on the networks and cable news channels..."

Maybe because there isn't a story...

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
You make a the claim of false equialancy. The Democrats don't have a 24/7 propaganda operation like FOX(R), which is a basic part of every cable and satellite service.

Customers have to pay more for MSNBC if they want any kind of balance at all.

If a story is only on FOX(R), it is safe to assume it is political progaganda rather than journalism.

They work for the Republicans, don't you know?

We've all heard about Benghazi.

Corporate media was "uncharacteristically uncurious about" Iraq's alleged WMD's and Saddam's alleged connections to al-Qaeda too.

And a lot more people died there than in Benghazi.

JG,
Of course it's a story. It's mostly fiction, mixed with accusations, allegations, and sensationalism in order to dupe American voters away from voting for Obama.

Jerry Critter said...

Here is one of the reasons republicans are trying to make it harder to register to vote.

California has recently instituted online voter registration. The article states:

"More than 1 million people used the registration site, which went live in September. More than 60 percent of users were younger than 35, according to an analysis by Political Data Inc.

Nearly half of registrants signed up as Democrats and just one-fifth as Republicans, the analysis found."


The Heathen Republican said...

I'm curious Dave, why do you write FOX (R) but not MSNBC (D)?

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
A reasonable question. For one thing, FOX has always been (R). It was born and bred to be (R) by Rupert himself. They openly supported the Tea Party to the point where they promoted "FOX Tea Party" events. FOX hosts and Republicans shared the podiums.

The line separating the Republican Party and FOX(R) is non-existent.

Five Fox News personalities are advising Romney's campaign:
• John Bolton is a foreign policy adviser. [MittRomney.com, 3/27/12; The New York Times, 6/27/12]
• Liz Cheney, according to Fox News, has "informally advised the Romney campaign." The New York Times additionally reported that she "has begun to join a weekly conference call" with the Romney campaign. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 9/25/12; New York Times, 10/8/12]
• Thomas McInerney is a member of Romney's Military Advisory Council. [MittRomney.com, 10/17/12]
• Chuck Nash is a member of Veterans and Military Families for Romney Coalition's national advisory board. [MittRomney.com, 7/24/12]
• Walid Phares is a special adviser on Romney's Foreign Policy and National Security Advisory Team and co-chair of his Middle East & North Africa working group. [MittRomney.com, 10/6/11]
Nine Fox News personalities have played key roles in Romney events: Fred Barnes, John Bolton, Liz Cheney, Al D'Amato, Mike Huckabee, William Kristol, Dennis Miller, Karl Rove, and Pete Snyder. (Bolton and Cheney have both advised the campaign and been featured in public Romney events.)


No one has seen the like since PRAVDA and the Communist Party in the Soviet Union and Russia.

Another difference is MSNBC has not been as much a (D) as FOX(R) is an (R). In fact even today MSNBC employs a number of Republicans. One even has his own show, making MSNBC far more fair and balanced in reality than the 100% (R) of FOX(R).

Anyway, those are some of the reasons why MSNBC doesn't fit a (D) anywhere near FOX(R) is befitting an (R).

free0352 said...

So Fox leans right? So MSNBC leans left? Who cares.

As for Benghazi, if you don't think a US Ambassador getting dragged out of his consulate, then being raped and killed isn't a story... well we already know Jeff you're an idiot so what can I say. Let me ask you, so how did George Bush pull this one off? I'm sure we'll get back to that soon.

As for FOX, it exists because Conservatives didn't have a voice in media prior to its creation. The networks an CNN lean left, and Murdoch saw an opportunity to give Conservatives what liberals had enjoyed for years, a network biased to their viewpoint. He knew it would make a truck load of money, and he was right. Liberals cry about it, but all they are seeing is what Conservatives had to see for 30 years, and still see on CNN and MSNBC and the networks. So I say where there is a need or a want, a business man will go answer it and get rich doing it. And so what? Media has zero duty to the American people. Say again, zero duty. If you don't like what you're watching, change the fuck'n channel and quit bitching like a teen age girl on the rag.

Steve said...

This "ballot" problem has been around since the start of our country.
Only whites who owned property could vote, just a little suppression there.
It was common way before Kennedy, to simply pay cash to get a voter to vote for your candidate.
Like today, political district leaders counted the vote, that always invited a slanted count.
Paper ballots were easily falsified and people thought counting machines, punch ballots, or computers would solve that problem. Enter the hanging chad and computer hackers.
A Social Security number would seem a good ID for voting, but those are so faked now it wouldn't help.
Actually, voter fraud is less a problem now, than in most of our history.
This election is close, and I expect another problem like 2000.
Should be fun.

Shaw Kenawe said...

It is not true to state that "the media are not curious about what happened in Benghazi:


E-mails: White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attack ... www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html


New Detailed Account of Benghazi Attack Notes CIA's Quick ...abcnews.go.com/.../new-detailed-account-of-benghazi-attac...


Libyan witnesses recount organized Benghazi attack - CBS News...6 days ago – Witness accounts suggest militants may have used the anti-Islam film controversy as a cover for the deadly attack.www.cbsnews.com/.../libyan-witnesses-recount-organized-benghazi-a...



David Ignatius: CIA's Benghazi timeline reveals errors but no ...
www.washingtonpost.com/...benghazi.../a84c4024-2471-11e2-9313-...1 day ago – A story of CIA misjudgments and courageous officers waiting for help that never arrived, but no signs of conspiracy.


www.msnbc.msn.com/.../libyan-witnesses-recount-organized-bengha...6 days ago – FILE - In this Thursday, Sept. 13, 2012 file photo, a Libyan man investigates the inside of the U.S. Consulate after an attack that killed four ...







Timeline of events, comments surrounding Benghazi - US ... - msnbc

www.msnbc.msn.com/.../timeline-events-comments-surrounding-ben...Oct 20, 2012 – The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, focused on the evolving Obama ...


No Specific Warnings in Benghazi Attack ... - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/.../no-specific-warnings-in-benghazi-attack.html?...



Suspect in Benghazi Attack Scoffs at U.S. ... - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/
.../suspect-in-benghazi-attack-scoffs-at-us.html?...

What the rightwingers are trying to say is that the news about the Benghazi attack hasn't sunk President Obama's re-election, and that's why they're angry.

There's been plenty of coverage on that tragedy--but not the sort that rightwingers hoped for.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,

Your Right Wing talking points need perspective.

1. Conservatives didn't have a voice in media prior to its (FOX(R) creation,
2. The networks an CNN lean left, what Conservatives had to see for 30 years,
3. Media has zero duty to the American people


1. You haven’t been around long enough to know any differently, apparently. William F. Buckley had his own show on PBS, for Pete’s sake. Limbaugh and Right Wing talk radio were around before FOX(R) as well.

2. So say the people on the Right. Moderates lean left from their perspective, therefore unbiased journalism is a leftist plot to them. They needed to establish the “liberal media” myth in order to create a “fair and balanced” illusion for Right Wing media. What amuses me is the fact that no conservative can understand, or acknowledge, the corporate leanings of corporate media. It’s against their indoctrination and belief system.

3. Ever hear of the “Emergency Broadcast System”? How about FCC licensing for use of the public owned broadcast spectrum?

This Manual is published by the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC” or the “Commission”), the federal agency directed by Congress to regulate broadcasting. It provides a brief overview of the FCC’s regulation of broadcast radio and television licensees, describing how the FCC authorizes broadcast stations, the various rules relating to broadcast programming and operations with which stations must comply, and the essential obligation of licensees that their stations serve their local communities.

I seem to remember correcting you on this before. I know it’s difficult to remember information contrary to one’s belief system.

And speaking of crybabies, the Right's boohooing, about a media that is liberal only to their eyes, has been the loudest and most persistent bellyaching I can remember.

Steve,
The problem historically has been if a presidential election is close, Republicans win, thanks to activist crony judges.

Shaw,
Thank you for some real perspective.

Leslie Parsley said...

T. Paine: "Dave, I can come up with just as many or more instances of Democrat malfeasance when it comes to this pending election."

Examples?

More links to Benghazi:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130950/-If-diplomatic-attacks-are-a-sign-of-weakness-Bush-was-the-weakest-of-all

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/republicans-have-no-shame.html?_r=0

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghazi-attack/

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghazi-attack/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/the-amazing-story-of-what-happened-in-libya/263597/

But, getting back to the subject of Dave's post, which is about needed bipartisanship, and something that most Americans desire, except for the fright-wingers of course, here's Brian Williams ripping that fat head, drug addicted, addle brained Limbaugh and former FEMA director, Michael Brown.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/brian-williams-rush-limbaugh-sandy_n_2065218.html?utm_hp_ref=media

Dave Dubya said...

Leslie,
Your request for "just as many or more instances of Democrat malfeasance" will not be granted. It cannot be granted. While Democrats are certainly guilty of "veracity impairment" at times, there's nothing to compare with GOP dirty tricks, deception and voter suppression.

That's simply how the party of the economic elites must operate in order to win.

The radical Right's foaming at the mouth over Benghazi and their ranting about it as if it is more critical to the American people and election than Sandy, demeans and insults the hundered lives lost, and the millions affected by this massive storm.

Leslie Parsley said...

Here's proof of what you're saying, Dave (don't think you'll see any Democrats here):

"We’re just four days away from Election Day, and voter suppression schemes continue to strike—as does the push back against them. The aftermath of Hurricane Sandy may mark an additional, and unforeseen barrier to the vote. Meanwhile, everyday people will contribute to the way we understand this election than ever before.

As seen above, Video the Vote is empowering communities to document what happens Tuesday, from long lines to voter machine failures. Their new promo video encourages voters to sign up, monitor hot spots, and hashtag shared social media content with #VideoTheVote.

The Advancement Project has also released a short series of films, produced by Stanley Nelson, that focus on people whose right to vote was threatened this year. The inspirational films encourage people to get out and vote.

But the lead up to this election is still marred by attempts to keep certain people from casting ballots. Here are some of this week’s most important voting rights updates, including many from our community journalists in key states:"

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170992/ready-vote-rampant-suppression-threatens-already-tight-race

free0352 said...

So say the people on the Right. Moderates lean left from their perspective, therefore unbiased journalism is a leftist plot to them.

Thats funny because the truth is the exact opposite. Since "moderates" lean right to your perspective, journalism is biased to the right in your world.

Truth is, I'm the only person here being objective. Yes Fox leans right, some other networlds like MSNBC lean left. So what? Its a free country, and if you don't like it don't watch.

Its not just a stretch, but an adventure into idiot land to equate the emergency broadcast system to a duty of private companies to be fair and balanced. There is this little thing called the First Amendment (maybe you've heard of it?) that prevents the FCC from dictating content during normal broadcasting. And of course you know this.

But you've never supported the First Amendment on this blog Dave, unless it served your political agenda so I'm not too surprised you have no support of it on this issue. Networks may be biased, and we could argue till we're blue in the face about which ones are and aren't. Fact is, it doesn't matter. They have a right to broadcast literally what ever they feel like broadcasting.

You have a right to change the channel. I suggest you use it.

Dave Dubya said...

Leslie,
Thank you for the latest on the Right's war on democracy.

Free,
There you go again, arguing against what you think I said, and not against what I really said.

you've never supported the First Amendment on this blog Dave

Then what the hell is this crazy claim doing here?

Dave Dubya said...

journalism is biased to the right in your world.

No it isn't, but corporations have a corporate bias.

I was right, you guys are blind to that simple fact.

free0352 said...

Dave,

You only defend free speech when it suits your political agenda. When it doesn't you consistently call for the voice in question to be silenced, often with violent force. The usual excuse for such frankly shocking disregard for human rights is the voice in question is "corporatist" or the suggested victim is its self a "corporation" and therefore not worthy of protection under the law, as if corporations were not peopled with human beings but some sort of robots bent on... something. In fact in all my years of blogging I have NEVER encountered a more anti-free speech blogger as yourself. Even when I've had the unfortunate luck to run into neo-nazis.

Dave Dubya said...


you consistently call for the voice in question to be silenced, often with violent force.

If you can't back this with an example your accusation rings as hollow as a corporate heart.

Oh, that's right, corporations have no heart. They are not human.

shocking disregard for human rights

Here's your confusion. You confuse corporate rights and human rights.

I bet if I mention "eminent domain" you'd find a distinction.

Noam Chomsky said...

"In the last, 10 or 20 years, there has been massive research documenting the fact that the media are extraordinarily subordinated to external power.

Now, when you have that power, the best technique is to ignore all of that discussion, ignore it totally, and to eliminate it, by the simple device of asserting the opposite. If you assert the opposite, that eliminates mountains of evidence demonstrating that what you are saying is false.

That's what power means. And the way we assert the opposite is by just saying that the media are liberal."

free0352 said...

If you can't back this with an example your accusation rings as hollow as a corporate heart.

Thats right, a "corporation" is, translation: Anyone who does not support the socialist agenda to which you subscribe. You support of free speech is entirely selective. This is why you feel strongly Michael Moore -and the corporations through whom he works such as

Lions Gate Films
IFC Films
Dog Eat Dog Films
Miramax Films

have freedom of speech. But woe to those whose speech doesn't fall into your agenda. This is why to you, Miramax -a very large corporation- should have the freedom to make a blatant anti-Bush film during an election year. However when a conservative -non profit no less- "corporation" makes a film you demand the Federal Election Commission shut them down with the full force and power of federal law enforcement and scream bloody murder when the Supreme Court upholds their right to speech.

This isn't about "corporations" at all, its about what party the corporation in question is supporting. You're fine with corporations like MSNBC, but in this very post you imply Fox should be forced to change or better shut down, as well as imply Murdoch should be silenced. Of course there is only one way to silence anyone. With a gun or the threat of one. And clearly that is what you want to see, the "corporations" which of course is simply any group of people who don't toe the socialist line- lose equal protection under the law, remain silent, or be punished by the government which you fully support- so long as its punishing those same "corporations" whose members' rights you hold in contempt.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
And there you go once again, arguing against what I didn’t say.

you demand the Federal Election Commission shut them down

Still no examples.

Show us where that happened, sport...in the real world so everyone can see it.

I don’t care about your movies. I never advocated censoring any film. And I’ve told you this repeatedly.

It’s about corporate “personhood” and secret money as “free speech”. You still can’t see corporate media having a corporate bias?

You’re too invested in the “liberal media” propaganda.

Mother Jones is “liberal media”. Why? Because they challenge the disinformation from the radical Right and employ real journalism. Compare accuracy with FOX(R) for the difference between journalism and propaganda, You Righties actually seem to think accusations and assertions alone are proof. Amazing. This is why we don’t like them in power. While you were getting your rocks off killing brown people, we liberals were accused of being “unpatriotic” by calling out lies and openly disagreeing with the bellicose and dishonest regime you served.

That kind of accusation used to get liberals sent to camps in other countries. We don’t want them, or their authoritarian, uncompromising rule.

Mauigirl said...

The efforts to disenfranchise voters this year have gotten worse than ever. Unbelievably long lines in Ohio and Florida. To say nothing of the voter ID laws as you mention. I hope it is an Obama landslide and that the polls were underestimating his leads. It would serve all of them right.

Dave Dubya said...

MG,
I saw images of those long lines of voters. I'm sure many didn't have all day to stand in line to vote. I'm also sure those folks had lots of time to consider why they had to wait in those long lines for reduced open poll hours.

They have all learned first hand about Republican voter manipulation and suppression. One veteran said he didn't know he still had to fight for his right to vote. The blowback is coming. Republicans are winning this round in their war on democracy, but the tide will turn. Courts are starting to have their say, and the people are waking up.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya to Free0352: "It’s about corporate 'personhood' and secret money as 'free speech'. You still can’t see corporate media having a corporate bias?"

Dave, unfortunately you cannot make someone pay attention to something that he does not want to notice. As the proverb goes, "There's none so blind as those who will not see."

Remember this, also. Tools aren't expected to think or analyze. They're only there to be applied as an apparatus to make the user's agenda easier and more productive.

Dave Dubya said...


JG,
I must credit our dear Mr. Myste for first pointing out a characteristic of Right Wing mentality. They construct an image of liberals and our thinking in their mind, embodying all the negative attributes they care to imagine. This image becomes real to them, more real than the person and his actual philosophy. As does their perception of what liberals say. Our words read differently to Righties than to open minded folks. They see and read what they want to see and read. And then they proceed to attack the fabricated attributes and words.

Happens all the time. This is why I like to say to them, "If what you say is true, then I would agree with you". If the Right were right, we'd agree with them. But the Right is usually wrong.

Liberals have been demonized so long in their world, there's little chance they can comprehend the true picture of what we say and what we are.

It's exactly like a cult of true believers clinging to their dogma, no matter what is really true.

Corporate media is the "liberal media". Bush didn't lie. Cheney's a wise man. Rush Limbaugh speaks the truth. FOX(R) is fair and balanced. The "free market" (sacred be thy name) knows best. "They" hate us for our freedom. Liberals hate America, have no family values, are commies, hate business, hate corporations, hate freedom, etc. Obama's a Marxist Kenyan Muslim who wants to destroy America... ad nauseum.

These are fanatically held beliefs. They are a cult, and a lot of Big Money goes into feeding them their propaganda.

free0352 said...

Still no examples.

There have been hundreds on this blog. You hate the Citizens United vs FEC decision. Yet that is what this decision states. You've raged against it 100 times. You're either pitifully ignorant or trying to wiggle out of spotlight. Which is it?

No, you've said it, on nearly every post you've ever made. You are one of the biggest hypocrites I've literally ever read. I used to think your double think was astounding until I came to a simple conclusion. Its about sides with you. Your side must win, zero sum game, and damn how that happens. Ends are everything. You're fine with that. Destroy Citizens United, you'd cheer. The "corporations" lose. Support other corporations like Media Matters. Thats fine too, because they advance the agenda. There is no code or morals involved. You are a profoundly amoral man, with a freighting relativistic mindset. I've had the opportunity to see it before, after all I've lived in Iraq, Japan and Germany. I've seen this mindset before. I'm sure Myste will pull the adhom card, and thats fine. It is adhom. But sometimes, you have to call it like you see it, and you have to call a bully a bully. And a member of a liberal mob using votes like clubs is just a mob.



Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Thank you for exemplifying my previous comment.

One more time.

I don’t care about your movies. I never advocated censoring any film. And I’ve told you this repeatedly.

It’s about corporate “personhood” and secret money as “free speech”.

CU v SEC is more than a case of a damn movie. I don't care if, when or where the movie plays. I have no problem with the damn movie, as I've told more times than I can remember.

Here's a word for you.

Ramifications.

CU v FEC overturned what little limits there were on Big Money and secret money in our elections.

There were ramifications resulting from the decision that went way beyond a movie. Do you comprehend this?

As destructive as the decision was in contaminating our elections, it is a clear line. Now we need to address the ramifications and legislate or amend the Constitution to say a corporation is not a human being, and money itself, especially dark money, is not free speech. Rights for "we the people" are individual human rights. The only other rights specified are for a free press. I see no other non-human entity endowed with Constitutional rights.

Super-personhood and super-rights for corporate power are antithetical to a democratic republic. It is corporatocracy.

I'm wasting my time here. You can't even understand corporate media have a corporate bias, let alone what I'm saying here.

Yet, I'm morbidly curious to see how you process my words into "never" supporting the First Amendment, and my being a hypocrite and an amoral bully bent on silencing people at the point of a gun.

Wow.

But thanks for your opinion. I value it and support your right, and any other person's right, to say whatever crazy thing you like.

Really.


Jerry Critter said...

"You're fine with that. Destroy Citizens United, you'd cheer. The "corporations" lose."

It is not about corporations losing. It is about people winning.

okjimm said...

Free said... "Truth is, I'm the only person here being objective."

gees....gotta go clean the screen....that was funny.

Hey... tell us again why you do not have your own blog. I could use another laugh.

Dave Dubya said...

Jerry,
Note how Free follows the pattern I explained. Because we don't want corporate money buying elections, that must mean we liberals "hate" corporations, you know.

Never mind we give them money for goods and services, and are vested with them in our 401(k)'s

okjimm,
Perhaps he meant he's the only "objectivist".

Ayn's Randroids embrace her reptilian "objectivism" as their belief system.

okjimm said...

Free is the least objective person on your blog.... and so many others here go to great lengths to back up /cite other sour1ces. I guess he is no longer as amusing... somethings get stale... Hey..this place is still a great read