![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
What the... all day today Google News's top stories regarding the last domestic spying thing that the NYT blew open has actually been editorials that look like they were written by LGFers. I especially like this gem from Scripps-Howard about how THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS KILLED YOUR CHILDREN.
polemics: what they good for?
Date: 2006-06-28 11:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-28 12:31 pm (UTC)I was really annoyed this morning by a piece on NPR's Marketplace which is usually very well balanced. This commentator was saying that the only reason Iran wanted nuclear weapons was to be able to control the global oil markets. Nothing at all about how they might be pissed off that the US helped Iraq's war against Iran in the 80s, or how they might be scared to death that Iran is the next invasion target by Herr Bush.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-28 02:38 pm (UTC)The lies about Iran's nuclear program have been repeated so often and uncritically that even folks who know how utterly dishonest the Bush administration and it's lackies in the press are have bought into them.
I know the Iranians are not nice people. But just as "everyone knew" that Iraq had WMDs, it seems that "everyone knows" that Iran has ambitions to build a bomb. Perhaps they do. But a uranium enrichment program is no proof of that, and their large oil reserves are no proof of that, and while it is technically true that "enriched uranium can be used to build nuclear weapons" is is equally true that "enriched uranium cannot be used to build nuclear weapons." It all depends on what kind of enriched uranium you're talking about, and yet in every story on Iran's nuclear program the editors fail to make that crucial, and quite possibly vital, distinction.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-28 02:52 pm (UTC)