Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000780.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000780.php on line 106
August 12, 2003
Fair and Balanced

As I read through the old blogroll, I see that quite a few of us are Fair and Balanced today. I approve. I may just buy me a Fair and Balanced book to read, to commemorate the occasion.

Here's a Fair and Balanced watchdog for civil liberties. The offer a listing, in chronological order of the towns, cities, and states that have pass resolutions against the so-called Patriot Act.

In the interests of being Fair and Balanced, I think I should also mention that I'm waiting for a formal and official investigation, complete with employment termination, of the people who broke the law by revealing the name of a CIA undercover operative. Also, for what it's worth, I think said exposure was a move in a completely unfair and unbalanced war between the intelligence community and the White House.

I don't think that conspiracy theory-sounding articles are Fair and Balanced and this one is no exception. I really don't think 9/11 was planned or permitted by the Administration in order to give themselves a reason to go to war. After all, it's well-known that Clinton wanted to go after al Quaida and that the incoming Bush Administration wasn't interested in a fight.

It was only some time after that that they got excited about getting their war on. Of course, then their interest wasn't really in al Qaida, which probably explains why they ignored Clinton's advisors. After all, Clinton and his guys had bombed the heck out of Hussein's known and suspected WMD sites, so they weren't going to be able to give the Bush-Cheney boys a reason to target Iraq.

I also refuse to believe that we're all off killing and dying today in order to divert the American Peeple from the lousy state of the economy. They already know Bush I tried that and it didn't work.

I don't know if it's Fair and Balanced or not, but Maureen Farrell has "Dubya Jeopardy" on offer over at Buzzflash. (On second thought, I take that back. It's completely Fair and Balanced to tot up the various, errr, misdemeanors and inaccuracies of the current Administration.)

WaPo is often Fair and Balanced, and here,E J Dionne offers a Fair and Balanced comparison of the Right's current hypocritical speechmaking about the nature of "patriotism" to their unfair, unbalanced, and, indeed, unreasonable behavior during the Clinton years.

Not all coverage of current events is Fair and Balanced, of course, but I think many people and publications are raising questions that need to be answered. Don't get me wrong. I don't think for one instant that there's anyone at the military who isn't very, very worried about the recent illnesses among our soldiers in Iraq. But I don't see much discussion of it in the national press, which bothers me.

There was talk, in a Fair and Balanced way, of course, recently about that weird televangelist, Pat Robertson's connection to and support for Liberian President Charles Taylor. I suppose it's too much to hope for that Robertson's affinity for the deposed dictator would move him to transfer himself to Nigeria? (Robertson is a real prize as a business partner, as Scotland discovered.)

And, finally, there's nothing Fair and Balanced about the conflicting messages sent to women these days. Fortunately, most of the women I know don't have the time or neurotic insecurity that would drive them to the pages of the New York Post during an identity crisis.

Posted by AnneZook at 10:10 PM


Once again, the NY Post "sexes up" what might have been a good point in order to make it stupid and pointless. Yes, the fact that many of us (male and female) now work at sedentary professions instead of labor-intensive ones has probably been a contributing factor to weight gain (again, among women and men), but so have these incessant diet crazes that screw up metabolism to the extent that many folks wind up fatter than before they started dieting. That mentality certainly didn't exist 50+ years ago to the extent that it does now.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at August 13, 2003 09:19 AM

One thing I was going to comment on was the perception that only women are doing less physical labor than they were in the past. The article (as so often happens in the NYP, was struggling too hard to draw the attention of women and to appeal to their "women in the kitchen, dammit" male readership.)

Also, while the diet industry has harmed women more than men, it's had an effect on both genders. I was running out of (work) time to spend posting blogs, so I didn't get to it but I may someday rant about the subject.

Posted by: Anne at August 13, 2003 11:43 AM