Media seems to be making much of his decision to go.
We can dither around in Afghanistan longer to no real effect other than
loss of life and incredible waste of money, but we can't afford to screw
up the climate much longer.

Reduce carbon hard and fast *AND* start up the new energy industries.
No more bailouts.  $s should go straight into green jobs.

Saw Barak in an ice cream parlour
Drinking milkshakes cold and long
Smiling and waving and looking so fine
Guess he saw they'd brought cameras along.

-mason

--- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "fasbinder 62"
<algernon_starkly@...> wrote:
>
> What? You mean he's not going to reduce America's dependence on oil
imports by 90%?
> Have faith, Obama's going to pull something significant out of the bag
regarding climate change, it's an important issue for him.
>
> --- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "mason" wittgenludw@ wrote:
> >
> > As Barak continues his slow motion cave in to the same old same old
> > trickle down, it appears he is willing to fly smack dash against the
> > face of reality and common sense. Time already, i think, to clean
out
> > some cabinet folks and advisers.  When the the middle path between
their
> > respective views continually favours the same interests and their
> > reckless corporate games, one has to wonder if Obama's lost his
nerve or
> > if he's been hornswaggled, as in:
> > beguiled, betrayed, bluffed, circumvented, deceived, deluded,
diddled,
> > double-crossed, duped, forestalled, gammoned, humbugged,
outmaneuvered,
> > outsmarted, outwitted, overreach, pigeoned, played one false,
snowed,
> > strung along, taken in, tricked, two-timed. Hillary and Gates and
others
> > seem to be smiling a lot lately, for no particular reason.
> > Anyhoo,
> >
> > Blurb for Upsetting the Offset: The Political Economy of Carbon
Markets
> > <http://mayflybooks.org/?page_id=194>
> > 'If you wondered whether capitalism could ever produce the perfect
> > weapon of its own destruction, try this heady mix of carbon fuels,
the
> > trade in financial derivatives, and more than a dash of
neo-colonialism,
> > and boom! But this book is far from resigned to that fate. After
> > examining the case against carbon trading. the book turns to
> > alternatives, to hope, to sanity, and to the future.' Professor
Stefano
> > Harney, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
> >
> > http://mayflybooks.org/?page_id=194
> > <http://mayflybooks.org/?page_id=194>
> >
> > The book is free!
> > Read it and weep.
> >
>

What? You mean he's not going to reduce America's dependence on oil imports by
90%?
Have faith, Obama's going to pull something significant out of the bag regarding
climate change, it's an important issue for him.

--- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "mason" <wittgenludw@...> wrote:
>
> As Barak continues his slow motion cave in to the same old same old
> trickle down, it appears he is willing to fly smack dash against the
> face of reality and common sense. Time already, i think, to clean out
> some cabinet folks and advisers.  When the the middle path between their
> respective views continually favours the same interests and their
> reckless corporate games, one has to wonder if Obama's lost his nerve or
> if he's been hornswaggled, as in:
> beguiled, betrayed, bluffed, circumvented, deceived, deluded, diddled,
> double-crossed, duped, forestalled, gammoned, humbugged, outmaneuvered,
> outsmarted, outwitted, overreach, pigeoned, played one false, snowed,
> strung along, taken in, tricked, two-timed. Hillary and Gates and others
> seem to be smiling a lot lately, for no particular reason.
> Anyhoo,
>
> Blurb for Upsetting the Offset: The Political Economy of Carbon Markets
> <http://mayflybooks.org/?page_id=194>
> 'If you wondered whether capitalism could ever produce the perfect
> weapon of its own destruction, try this heady mix of carbon fuels, the
> trade in financial derivatives, and more than a dash of neo-colonialism,
> and boom! But this book is far from resigned to that fate. After
> examining the case against carbon trading. the book turns to
> alternatives, to hope, to sanity, and to the future.' Professor Stefano
> Harney, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
>
> http://mayflybooks.org/?page_id=194
> <http://mayflybooks.org/?page_id=194>
>
> The book is free!
> Read it and weep.
>

     beguiled, betrayed, bluffed, circumvented, deceived, deluded, diddled, 
     double-crossed, duped, forestalled, gammoned, humbugged, outmaneuvered, 
     outsmarted, outwitted, overreach, pigeoned, played one false, snowed, 
     strung along, taken in, tricked, two-timed.

"Si se puede! Pero, no estoy dispuesto a hacerlo!"

"Yes, we like the passive tense, but if we are to speak in the active tense you have something else coming!"

The reflexive. Use Se habla español for "Spanish is spoken" [literally, "Spanish speaks itself"].Constructions with the reflexive pronoun se are very common in Spanish. Remember a few details here:

1. For non-personal subjects, the verb agrees with the subject in number:

2. If an animate being is involved, use the personal a for this object and use the verb in the singular.

          - From The Passive Voice in Spanish (And How to Avoid It) 
             As if . . . . .

Hence, "No estoy dispuesto a hacerlo."  That is to say " I am not arranged to do it!"  Which is to say, "It is not gonna happen.  Sorry Kid."  "Lo siento"  I'm sorry, i feel for you cabrito, but no dice...

"Hey, look!
Over there!
It's Barak Obama
Sitting in a chair.
And he's blowing perfect smoke rings
Up into the air.
And he sings
'Smoke makes a staircase
Etc . . . . . ' " 

Drum Dance (index 0:00) establishes  beat parameters for Smoke Rings (index 1:01)
That is all.

Stand by!
You are on the air!

-mason

1. For non-personal subjects, the verb agrees with the subject in number:

   Se vende un coche magnífico en la subasta.		A magnificent car is being sold at the auction.
   Se venden varios coches.		Several cars are being sold.

2. If an animate being is involved, use the personal a for this object and use the verb in the singular.

   Se ve a mi hermana en la clase.		My sister can be seen in the class.
   Se ve a mis hermanas en la clase.		My sisters can be seen in the class.
   [Without the personal a, the first sentence above would mean "My sister sees herself in class", and the second would be grammatically incorrect.]

These days the ratio for me seems like 1:1
Nothing is coming easily, but things are coming.
Nice job at the web 2.0 Expo Douglas.

-mason

--- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, rushkoff@... wrote:
>
> Program or be programmed. Anxiety is just the currency.
>
> and conversations surrounding the health care debates have got me
> thinking about what lies ahead for America. What do we really know about
> all those dead Puritans, Indians, Corporatists, Slaves, Adventurers and
> the rest of the Mixed Multitude lying beneath our town halls, markets,
> schools and bedrooms? As much, perhaps, as we understand how they are
> conjured forth from our imagination or in the media?
>
> While i have learned more about the smidgen of Old Dutch Traders
> reputedly sharing my blood, recently, i was extra pleased when my
> stepfather sent me this
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?_r=2&scp=1\
> &sq=shorto&st=cse>   from  The Times Magazine
> <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/index.html>  .  It's provided
> no hard and fast answers, but sure adds questions about who we think we
> are and where we might be headed.
>
> <snip>
>
> "I spent my initial months in Amsterdam under the impression that I was
> living in a quasi-socialistic system, built upon ideas that originated
> in the brains of Marx and Engels. This was one of the puzzling features
> of the Netherlands. It is and has long been a highly capitalistic
> country — the Dutch pioneered the multinational corporation and
> advanced the concept of shares of stock, and last year the country was
> the third-largest investor in U.S. businesses — and yet it has what
> I had been led to believe was a vast, socialistic welfare state. How can
> these polar-opposite value systems coexist?"
>
> <snip>
>
> Marx and Engels too wrestled with their own ghosts and, to this day,
> remain largely conjured forth in our spectral unease. And unease can
> certainly become disease. That is what so many conjurers half suspected
> or forgot or neglected to mention at the peril of the civilisations they
> dreamed. Other, Freud is certainly one, seems to have said merely just
> this: unease can become disease. "Let us hope they've found mercy in
> their bone-filled graves."
> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http://popup.lala.com/popup/504684642128518\
> 564&ei=FzwIS5nWEY-3ngefh425Cw&sa=X&oi=music_play_track&resnum=1&ct=resul\
> t&cd=2&ved=0CAgQ0wQoADAA&usg=AFQjCNFdXuBjt-ZOE4VQbhk2qgJb1sltrQ>
>
> For the living, there is a corollary sentiment or wisdom we might wish
> or understand for ourselves. David Mamet touches upon it when he remarks
> upon the proper aim of religion:   "Religion came into being to supplant
> the anomie and excess of paganism.  Humans individually, and all
> religions they create, are always in a dynamic struggle between the
> desire to revert to, and the desire to supersede, the pagan."
>
> This urge is difficult to experience let alone resist when we think or
> talk with each other about going forward.  I think that for a very few
> religion has assisted.  I sense, however, that we need a new discourse
> or narrative or attitude about the objective.  I think the objective is
> learning to manage our unease. Because if we don't manage it
> ourselves, dollars to donuts, dollars to buttons, dollars to dumplings,
> and dollars to cobwebs someone will manage it for us.
>
> -mason
>

Program or be programmed. Anxiety is just the currency.

and conversations surrounding the health care debates have got me thinking about what lies ahead for America. What do we really know about all those dead Puritans, Indians, Corporatists, Slaves, Adventurers and the rest of the Mixed Multitude lying beneath our town halls, markets, schools and bedrooms? As much, perhaps, as we understand how they are conjured forth from our imagination or in the media?

While i have learned more about the smidgen of Old Dutch Traders reputedly sharing my blood, recently, i was extra pleased when my stepfather sent me this  from  The Times Magazine .  It's provided no hard and fast answers, but sure adds questions about who we think we are and where we might be headed.

<snip>

"I spent my initial months in Amsterdam under the impression that I was living in a quasi-socialistic system, built upon ideas that originated in the brains of Marx and Engels. This was one of the puzzling features of the Netherlands. It is and has long been a highly capitalistic country — the Dutch pioneered the multinational corporation and advanced the concept of shares of stock, and last year the country was the third-largest investor in U.S. businesses — and yet it has what I had been led to believe was a vast, socialistic welfare state. How can these polar-opposite value systems coexist?"

<snip>

Marx and Engels too wrestled with their own ghosts and, to this day, remain largely conjured forth in our spectral unease. And unease can certainly become disease. That is what so many conjurers half suspected or forgot or neglected to mention at the peril of the civilisations they dreamed. Other, Freud is certainly one, seems to have said merely just this: unease can become disease. "Let us hope they've found mercy in their bone-filled graves." 

For the living, there is a corollary sentiment or wisdom we might wish or understand for ourselves. David Mamet touches upon it when he remarks upon the proper aim of religion:   "Religion came into being to supplant the anomie and excess of paganism.  Humans individually, and all religions they create, are always in a dynamic struggle between the desire to revert to, and the desire to supersede, the pagan."

This urge is difficult to experience let alone resist when we think or talk with each other about going forward.  I think that for a very few religion has assisted.  I sense, however, that we need a new discourse or narrative or attitude about the objective.  I think the objective is learning to manage our unease. Because if we don't manage it ourselves, dollars to donuts, dollars to buttons, dollars to dumplings, and dollars to cobwebs someone will manage it for us.

-mason

I generally don't like Megan McArdle (since she's basically a proponent
of market corporatism) but this profile in the Atlantic of Dave Ramsey
and his anti-debt evangelism made me curious:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/mcardle-ramsey-debt

On the one hand, he's yet another "cult advice guru" of the kind that
you've made a point of exposing for a while.
On the other, his advice seems mostly to be good and sensible, and
indeed diametrically opposed to the consumption fixation typical of such
people.

I'm not sure how I feel about it either - using the language of religion
and marketing to help people avoid debt? It's counterintuitive at least,
and the price tag to see him speak makes me wonder.

So what do you make of him Douglas?

"Construction workers line up for pay beside the first Rockefeller Center Christmas tree in New York in this 1931 file photo. The Christmas tree went on to become an annual tradition and a New York landmark. St. Patrick's Cathedral is visible in the background on Fifth Avenue.

Can the human mind be used as a weapon of war? It would be cheaper than a pilotless drone, for one thing, though not necessarily smarter. Those who wish to pursue this exciting possibility are advised to see "The Men Who Stare at Goats," which is based on a book by the British journalist Jon Ronson. What Ronson discovered, in his researches, was a section of the United States military that was solely and specifically tasked with mental combat. "More of this is true than you would believe," an opening title declares. What a tease.

Our Ronson-like protagonist is an American reporter named Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor). He works in Ann Arbor, but craves a wider beat; the craving takes him to Iraq, or, at any rate, to a Kuwaiti hotel. There he meets Lyn Cassidy (George Clooney), who claims to be one of the Jedi Warriors, men who stared at goats until they—the goats, that is, not the men—fell down dead. ("What's a Jedi warrior?" Wilton asks. So that's why McGregor was hired: for the sake of an in-joke.) Staring was just one of the indispensable skills that were drilled into Cassidy and his comrades, years before, by Bill Django (Jeff Bridges), who vowed, "We must become the first superpower to develop super powers." Django was a ponytailed visionary—if that's not a tautology—who, following an epiphany in Vietnam, founded the New Earth Army, in order to establish whether love and peace can win wars. The answer is "They can't," but that didn't stop his recruits from trying to run through walls, or the government from sponsoring the program.

Most of these training sessions are viewed in flashback. The film's director, Grant Heslov, flips constantly between the Django regime and the recent situation in Iraq, as Cassidy—who says he has been reactivated—crosses the border, with Wilton in tow, on a mission too secret to be revealed. If Heslov and his screenwriter, Peter Straughan, prefer to linger on the early days of the unit, it's because that is where the action is, or was. Hence the quick, perfect scene in which an ambitious psychic named Hooper (Kevin Spacey) congratulates the happy couple at a wedding reception, and adds, "Sorry it doesn't work out between you two."

At moments like this, the movie feels rich in satisfactions. To watch actors as nimble as Bridges, Clooney, and Spacey clashing wits as if they were lightsabers is precisely the kind of fun—grownup fun, delivered by men, not kids, and lit not by special effects but by a serious love of the joust—that I demand from Hollywood and, for the most part, no longer get. Each man vies to be the most deadpan, determined to present his character, a solemn clairvoyant fruitcake, as nuttier than the rest. Clooney is probably the winner here, even turning to McGregor and wielding the famous "sparkly eyes" technique, as taught to super-spies, without a smirk. The most handsome and capable star in the world, and he doesn't mind coming across as a total dork. It's not fair.

It's also not fair that the movie lets him down. Clooney gives it everything, but what does he get in return? A void where the story is meant to be. For a while, everything ambles along like a mashup of "Three Kings," the 1999 Clooney film about the first Gulf War, and the Three Stooges, with Heslov dishing out roof tumbles, car smashes, and cheek slaps. Much of this is neatly framed—an eye poke, for some reason, is funnier in long shot—and you sit there for an hour, in good humor, waiting for the narrative to stop noodling around and get going, only to realize, to your consternation, that it's winding down. In truth, there just isn't enough motion here to sustain a motion picture. The material is a gift: Considering the mileage that Robin Williams got out of "military intelligence" for his radio riffs in "Good Morning, Vietnam," you can imagine the glee with which he would have feasted on the news of psychic soldiering. As for Joseph Heller, it's only the thought that some targets are just too pitifully easy that might have restrained his hand. In both cases, however, the Jedis would surely have supplied no more than a telling subplot, or a skit. After all, it's not as if they ever achieved anything.

Late in the day, efforts are made to knock up a makeshift finale. In a covert facility in the desert, Wilton and Cassidy, the logic of whose actions is roughly half of that allotted to Hope and Crosby in "Road to Morocco," stumble upon Django and other figures from the past. We get a communal acid trip—always a clear sign of a movie with nowhere to go—followed by pounding volleys of rock music, as a herd of goats, which have been shot at rather than merely stared at, are set free, together with a cluster of orange-suited enemy prisoners, who have been tortured. This sideways glance at a deeply uncomical and still potent issue is one hell of a misstep on Heslov's part. Having urged us to take nothing seriously throughout, how can he expect us to switch, for a couple of minutes, to a thoughtful and disapproving frown? What is this, "Road to Guantánamo"? Safely back in America, Wilton pledges to "tell everybody what happened." But that's the problem, Bob. Nothing did.

Please make sure, when you buy a ticket for "Precious: Based on the Novel `Push' by Sapphire," to pronounce the title in full. I know you will. There was a plan to call it "Push," until another movie got there first. But why not call the new one "Precious," and leave it at that? After all, Deborah Kerr didn't star in "The Innocents: Based on the Novella `The Turn of the Screw' by Henry James," and Dustin Hoffman didn't star in "Rain Man: Based on the Overwhelming Desire to Win an Academy Award by Dustin Hoffman," so why the change in rubric?

The heroine is Clareece Jones (Gabourey Sidibe), a Harlem teen-ager better known as Precious. She is grimly overweight, her face so filled out that the play of normal expression seems restricted; yet Sidibe does wonders with that sad limitation, and we learn to spot the flare of anger in her eyes. She has much to be angry about: aged sixteen, she already has one child, who has Down syndrome, and is carrying another. The father is her own father, who later turns out to be H.I.V. positive. We are forced to watch as she is violated in livid closeup, complete with squeaking bedsprings, a belt being unbuckled above a sweating belly, and—lest the seething aggression of the rape escape us—a shot of eggs sizzling in grease. If the subject were not so grave, you would be tempted to laugh at this desperate overkill of detail. Does the director, Lee Daniels, not realize how such industrial-strength images tend to weaken, rather than fortify, the moral case?

Expelled for being pregnant, Precious seeks alternative schooling at Each One Teach One, a local program for those undesired elsewhere. Her classmates, especially Jo Ann (Xosha Roquemore), whose favorite color is "fluorescent beige," and Rhonda (Chyna Layne), with her fabulously broad Jamaican accent, are the most naturally uplifting people in the film—far more so than their teacher, Blu Rain (Paula Patton), whose powers of uplift feel like make-believe. She is a vision of tolerant gentleness, who wears a new set of soft fabrics every day and plays Scrabble in the evening with her equally lovely lesbian partner. "They talk like TV stations I don't watch," Precious says, but that tart line is not borne out by the film, which drinks in Ms. Rain without demur. The same goes for the fantasy sequences—hugely ill-advised dream clips, showing a richly clad Precious at a movie première or slow-dancing with a hunk. One of them even finds a slender white girl gazing back at her from the bedroom mirror. What we have here is a fouled-up fairy tale of oppression and empowerment, and it's hard not to be ensnared by its mixture of rank maleficence and easy reverie. The gap between being genuinely stirred and having your arm twisted, however, is narrower than we care to admit.

The vid (and only the vid) is up at one of your fellow's sites.
http://hermenaut.org/2009/10/22/digital-nation-predator-drones/

I've emailed you info re the guy that put up the text ripped untimely
from the womb.

-mason


--- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...>
wrote:
>
> I'd love it taken down. Don't know where to request it. Let me know
what
> procedure the person wants me to go through.
>
> It's not my piece. I wrote something, a bunch of hypothetical ideas
were
> added in for me to go over, and then the piece got posted by mistake.
So it
> was taken down. I understand the edits and what sorts of facts they
were
> looking for me to get, but these weren't them. There was no Afghan
wedding
> bombed by drones, and so on. (There was a Pakistani wedding bombed by
> drones, which I would put in a finished piece.)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:56 PM, mason wittgenludw@... wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Strange, the minor buzz about the removal of the piece from the
Daily
> > Beast. Instead of following the issue thru the usual channels i had
to
> > google my way around. Still no reasonable reason what happened. What
> > did happen? One fellow reposted the piece and rather abrasively
> > declared if Doug wanted it taken down he could request it. I don't
> > quite understand what that's about.
> >
> > -mason
> >
> >
> >
>

Cripes! Thanks for the insights. Sounds like things are more similar
across the pond than i had imagined.  Our PBS is much more cowed so they
glide merrily along feeding us Ken Burns Documentaries and such. OTOH
the black shirts over here don't boast about the new recruits, but if
you listen carefully you can hear them licking their lips.  Take care
Whippy and your mate!

-mason

--- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "avarice" <algernon_starkly@...>
wrote:
>
> I was taking the Noam Chomsky position, (I also like to defend the BBC
which seems to be constantly under attack from every possible angle
24-7, the useless ex-home secretary David Blunkett was the culprit
yesterday, issueing veiled threats like a mafia don) but then my friend
told me that Nick Griffin had been boasting about how many new recruits
the furore had given the BNP.
> I ended up convincing my friend to go when he started wavering and
walked him most of the way there.
> As for the show, they creamed him. Griffin barely managed a coherent
sentence.
>
> --- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "mason" wittgenludw@ wrote:
> >
> > Whippy!
> > Hardly seems British to fear one's actions being construed as anti
free
> > speech!
> > Not when there were such lively exchanges on the show!
> > Americans could learn so much by sampling the discourse in other
nations
> > or even in some of our own less frequented book stores.  But, alas,
we
> > are all as non violent as David Duke or at least as intellectually
> > incurious as he.  I think my favourite line was Straw's: "This guy
is
> > the Dr Strangelove of British politics."  Well damn straight he
isn't
> > the farking Peter Sellers of British politics. See if the average
Fox
> > Network or Limbaugh devotee can ascertain the difference.  I wunder
how
> > cuz?
> >
> > -mason
> >
> > --- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "avarice"
<algernon_starkly@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Bang on wscratch, well said.
> > > As for the folly of engaging with the right; I had this debate
> > yesterday with a friend who was on the way to protest Nick Griffin's
> > (leader of the far right BNP) appearance on Question Time last
night.
> > >
> > >
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6411563/BNP-on-Quest\
\
> > ion-Time-Nick-Griffin-greeted-with-boos-and-jeers.html
> > >
> > > We were on the road to Shepherds Bush and squadrons of
police-bikes
> > where screeching past en route.
> > > While I'm generally in support of any demonstration against this
evil
> > group my concern was that the demo would be construed as a protest
> > against the BBC's decision to have him on the panel and thus an
attack
> > on free speech.
> > > The BBC's position is that the BNP have passed a legally
determined
> > threshold of votes and are therefore entitled to representation.
> > > The perils of democracy.
> > >
> > > Fasbinder 62
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zombies_March_On/
> > >
> > > --- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "wscratch" wscratch@
wrote:
> > > > I think it's cowardly the way they are treating Fox. If they
> > disagree with Fox's commentary, Obama's people should do what the
> > Clinton's did/do and send people to go on that network to openly
debate
> > them.
> > > >
> > > > During any weekday evening, Fox's ratings are so outrageously
high
> > that their ratings are better than all the other cable news channels
> > COMBINED:
> > > >
> >
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_friday_octobe\
\
> > r_16_140604.asp
> > > >
> > > > anytime Fox took a swipe at either of the Clintons, they send
> > someone intelligent and articulate to Fox & Fox always backs down.
WHY
> > CAN'T OBAMA DO THE SAME? Send your best debaters, put them on Fox,
and
> > kick their asses. Don't sit back like cowards. Show some guts.
> > > >
> > > > Last week, one of my local news anchors said in passing that the
> > Obama administration isn't "going after" Fox, instead "it's almost
like
> > the Obama White House is lying down in front of them".
> > Whaaaaaaaaaat??????
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I was taking the Noam Chomsky position, (I also like to defend the BBC which
seems to be constantly under attack from every possible angle 24-7, the useless
ex-home secretary David Blunkett was the culprit yesterday, issueing veiled
threats like a mafia don) but then my friend told me that Nick Griffin had been
boasting about how many new recruits the furore had given the BNP.
I ended up convincing my friend to go when he started wavering and walked him
most of the way there.
As for the show, they creamed him. Griffin barely managed a coherent sentence.

--- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "mason" <wittgenludw@...> wrote:
>
> Whippy!
> Hardly seems British to fear one's actions being construed as anti free
> speech!
> Not when there were such lively exchanges on the show!
> Americans could learn so much by sampling the discourse in other nations
> or even in some of our own less frequented book stores.  But, alas, we
> are all as non violent as David Duke or at least as intellectually
> incurious as he.  I think my favourite line was Straw's: "This guy is
> the Dr Strangelove of British politics."  Well damn straight he isn't
> the farking Peter Sellers of British politics. See if the average Fox
> Network or Limbaugh devotee can ascertain the difference.  I wunder how
> cuz?
>
> -mason
>
> --- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "avarice" <algernon_starkly@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Bang on wscratch, well said.
> > As for the folly of engaging with the right; I had this debate
> yesterday with a friend who was on the way to protest Nick Griffin's
> (leader of the far right BNP) appearance on Question Time last night.
> >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6411563/BNP-on-Quest\
> ion-Time-Nick-Griffin-greeted-with-boos-and-jeers.html
> >
> > We were on the road to Shepherds Bush and squadrons of police-bikes
> where screeching past en route.
> > While I'm generally in support of any demonstration against this evil
> group my concern was that the demo would be construed as a protest
> against the BBC's decision to have him on the panel and thus an attack
> on free speech.
> > The BBC's position is that the BNP have passed a legally determined
> threshold of votes and are therefore entitled to representation.
> > The perils of democracy.
> >
> > Fasbinder 62
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zombies_March_On/
> >
> > --- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "wscratch" wscratch@ wrote:
> > > I think it's cowardly the way they are treating Fox. If they
> disagree with Fox's commentary, Obama's people should do what the
> Clinton's did/do and send people to go on that network to openly debate
> them.
> > >
> > > During any weekday evening, Fox's ratings are so outrageously high
> that their ratings are better than all the other cable news channels
> COMBINED:
> > >
> http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_friday_octobe\
> r_16_140604.asp
> > >
> > > anytime Fox took a swipe at either of the Clintons, they send
> someone intelligent and articulate to Fox & Fox always backs down. WHY
> CAN'T OBAMA DO THE SAME? Send your best debaters, put them on Fox, and
> kick their asses. Don't sit back like cowards. Show some guts.
> > >
> > > Last week, one of my local news anchors said in passing that the
> Obama administration isn't "going after" Fox, instead "it's almost like
> the Obama White House is lying down in front of them".
> Whaaaaaaaaaat??????
> > >
> >
>

You're quite right, the quote should have read "twenty-four attendants or
lictors". You came, you saw, you corrected.

Mr Whippy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zombies_March_On/


--- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "mason" <wittgenludw@...> wrote:
>
> You mean "attenders" of the fasces?
>
>     * The lictor, derived from the Latin ligare (to bind), was a member
> of a special class of Roman civil servant, with special tasks of
> attending and ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lictor
> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lictor&ei=Zeff\
> Sr2eIIeoMZ2hqMMI&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&ved=0CBIQpAMoAA&usg=AFQjCNHiDJ6\
> OOMtB5O_TViLQ9yPgTj-VQA>
>     * An officer in ancient Rome, attendant on a consul or magistrate,
> who bore the fasces and was responsible for punishing criminals
> en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lictor
> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lictor&ei=Zef\
> fSr2eIIeoMZ2hqMMI&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&ved=0CBMQpAMoAQ&usg=AFQjCNFpqh\
> iryYXnN5AV3XnTF2QygS508g>
>     * In Roman times, an official who attended a magistrate and carried
> out his orders to arrest, flog, execute etc. malefactors
> www.exclassics.com/foxe/foxegls2.htm
> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.exclassics.com/foxe/foxegls2.htm\
> &ei=ZeffSr2eIIeoMZ2hqMMI&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&ved=0CBQQpAMoAg&usg=AFQ\
> jCNG_-NtQg3H9IcbbDup8IKnJ-8m0QQ>
>     * a public officer, who attended on the chief Roman.' magistrates.
> The number which waited on the different magistrates is stated in the
> article fa-sges^.
> www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/0714.html
> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/07\
> 14.html&ei=ZeffSr2eIIeoMZ2hqMMI&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&ved=0CBUQpAMoAw&\
> usg=AFQjCNH1rCXMZgFSuI_4r3rSeKFh7voCeQ>
>     * lictors - public slaves; bodyguards to consuls & praetors.
> intraweb.stockton.edu/eyos/page.cfm
> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http://intraweb.stockton.edu/eyos/page.cfm%\
> 3FsiteID%3D78%26pageID%3D21&ei=ZeffSr2eIIeoMZ2hqMMI&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&c\
> d=1&ved=0CBYQpAMoBA&usg=AFQjCNGM40wkFrwDI3TrMhB2c9w-onHb-A>
> i thought they were all lickin their *personal* pops for a moment.
> what do you do with 12 lictors these days?
> you would have to be a  mobster or in mid level management to require
> those services.
>
> -mason
>
>
> --- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "avarice" <algernon_starkly@>
> wrote:
> >
> > So recently I've been enjoying 'In The Name Of Rome' by Adrian
> Goldsworthy. There I inadvertantly came across yet another definition of
> the word Fasces. ..
> >
> > From the beginning Fabius made it clear that he expected to be treated
> in a manner appropriate to the full dignity of his office. He was
> accompanied by twenty-four attendants of lictors, who carried the
> fasces, bundles of rods tied round an axe which symbolized a
> magistrate's power to dispense corporal and capital punishment.
> >
> > What's that now, three different meanings?
> > What a wanton word.
> >
> > Mr Whippy
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zombies_March_On/
> >
>

Strange, the minor buzz about the removal of the piece from the Daily
Beast.  Instead of following the issue thru the usual channels i had to
google my way around. Still no reasonable reason what happened.  What
did happen?  One fellow reposted the piece and rather abrasively
declared if Doug wanted it taken down he could request it.  I don't
quite understand what that's about.

-mason

Dead Nuts DJ!
That is where i live 24/7 until i can't bear it any longer.  I responded to one of Doug's posts at Arthur with this comment, which applies here, my italics.

The old agonal warfare was between brothers; con­ducted according to rules; limited in objectives, and limited in time, in a necessary alternation of peace and war; the brothers need each other in order to fight again another day. The new warfare is total: it seeks an end to war, an end to brotherhood.  - Norman Brown

Hiroshima, 1945, August 6, sixteen minutes past 8 AM.

Who really gave that order?

Answer: Control.

Answer: The Ugly American.

Answer: The instrument of Control.

Question: If Control's control is absolute, why does Control need to control?

Answer: Control… needs time.

Question: Is Control controlled by its need to control?

Answer: Yes.

Why does Control need humans, as you call them?

Answer: Wait… wait! Time, a landing field. Death needs time like a junkie needs junk.

And what does Death need time for?

Answer: The answer is sooo simple. Death needs time for what it kills to grow in, for Ah Pook's sake.

Death needs time for what it kills to grow in, for Ah Pook's sweet sake, you stupid vulgar greedy ugly American death-sucker."

Yes you stupid vulgar greedy ugly jesus-fucking american death suckers, there is not perpetual victory any more than there is an enduring defeat

"We have a new type of rule now. Not one man rule, or rule of aristocracy, or plutocracy, but of small groups elevated to positions of absolute power by random pressures and subject to political and economic factors that leave little room for decision. They are representatives of abstract forces…

[Ah Pook picks up a double-barrel shotgun and opens the breech, where two shells are chambered. It closes the breech.]

…who've reached power through surrender of self. The iron-willed dictator is a thing of the past. There will be no more Stalins, no more Hitlers. The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident…

[Ah Pook is caressing the shotgun.]

…inept, frightened pilots at the controls of a…

A[h Pook puts the shotgun into its mouth, and its voice continues]:

…vast machine they cannot understand, calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push.

[Ah Pook pulls the trigger.]

 

Dead Nuts DJ!
That is where i live 24/7 until i can't bear it any longer.  I responded to one of Doug's posts at Arthur with this comment, which applies here, my italics.

The old agonal warfare was between brothers; con­ducted according to rules; limited in objectives, and limited in time, in a necessary alternation of peace and war; the brothers need each other in order to fight again another day. The new warfare is total: it seeks an end to war, an end to brotherhood.  - Norman Brown

I'm not afraid of Ailes'  money or his network.  I am unhappy that he and the people who support him seem completely ignorant of what it is that they do.  What they will do is whatever their victory requires.  And since, in reality, there is not perpetual or eternal victory, it is evident they can accept nothing less than the illusion of absolute control.

Uncle Bill ought to serve to remind them: "Death needs time for what it kills to grow in"

Hiroshima, 1945, August 6, sixteen minutes past 8 AM.

Who really gave that order?

Answer: Control.

Answer: The Ugly American.

Answer: The instrument of Control.

Question: If Control's control is absolute, why does Control need to control?

Answer: Control… needs time.

Question: Is Control controlled by its need to control?

Answer: Yes.

Why does Control need humans, as you call them?

Answer: Wait… wait! Time, a landing field. Death needs time like a junkie needs junk.

And what does Death need time for?

Answer: The answer is sooo simple. Death needs time for what it kills to grow in, for Ah Pook's sake.

Death needs time for what it kills to grow in, for Ah Pook's sweet sake, you stupid vulgar greedy ugly American death-sucker."

Yes you stupid vulgar greedy ugly jesus-fucking american death suckers, there is not perpetual victory any more than there is an enduring defeat

You stupid vulgar greedy ugly jesus-fucking american death suckers, like this

"We have a new type of rule now. Not one man rule, or rule of aristocracy, or plutocracy, but of small groups elevated to positions of absolute power by random pressures and subject to political and economic factors that leave little room for decision. They are representatives of abstract forces…

[Ah Pook picks up a double-barrel shotgun and opens the breech, where two shells are chambered. It closes the breech.]

…who've reached power through surrender of self. The iron-willed dictator is a thing of the past. There will be no more Stalins, no more Hitlers. The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident…

[Ah Pook is caressing the shotgun.]

…inept, frightened pilots at the controls of a…

A[h Pook puts the shotgun into its mouth, and its voice continues]:

…vast machine they cannot understand, calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push.

[Ah Pook pulls the trigger.]

Put this in our pipes and smoke it

o to have even a bad trip with roger and rushbo would do us all so much good . . . . .

"and fripp!" 

DJ Wrote Re: [media-squatters] Re: This being the squat,

There's something else at work too though. The right doesn't consider it a game.
They don't consider themselves fictional, nor their antics. That's our hangup.
They consider their antics real. And valid. The power they have is apparent simply
by virture of the fact that we are talking about them, and the Obama Admin has to deal
with them. That said, I know that the Obama Admin is concerned more about
perception and opposition than Fox propaganda. There have been rumblings for awhile
about a possible Roger Ailes presidential bid. I can't help but think that they are launching salvos
at Fox for that reason alone. And, today this popped up on Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/23/roger-ailes-2012/

Again, this isn't really new information. But, if true, and if there are financial campaigns raising money
for him in any form, I'd expect the Obama Admin is aware of it.
Hence, the attacks on Fox. It makes sense, as it's Ailes podium.



mason wrote:   True enough.
Sounds like a video game.....

I'm content to sit on higher ground, albeit beneath Rich and and
Douglas, and endorse (what is it?) non-engagement. Nonetheless, i have
to ask Doug, "Should not others engage Fox?" I think we all agree Fox
and Limbo wants to drag any foolish soul into their pathetic but sizable
virtual realms and account the battles and victories and armies as real.
They then turn over their scores and other "real world" booty to the
party on capitol hill who seem to accept it and make use of it.

And, well, that's who we and Obama are working with. The honorable
opposition are no longer acting like sullen adolescents and i don't mean
like a Rebel Without a Cause. Frankly, it's the dark dark side.

Should some folks go in and hack the game or are Stewart and Colbert as
far as the gentlemanly left can go? Heck, Stewart and Colbert are not
even grey opps!

Unless we actually believe they will rot from the inside out because of
some ethical or spiritual perversion, why don't we (or some willing and
able among us) go and frolic in their VR?

And Douglas, i'm so bewildered by the stand off, i can't really imagine
what "winning" would be like. Given the point to which we have arrived,
would not winning appear to be both sides talking about facts,
aspirations and the socio\political will to acheive (perhaps) slightly
more than we can pay for but enough that working a bit harder and
smarter makes the desirable, and just seem completely reasonable?

-mason

--- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@..

.>
wrote:
>
> It actually reminds me of Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown.
>
> Somehow, the Obama folks think they are engaging with a non-fiction,
> real-world enemy. But they're really engaged with fictional characters
> on a fantasy landscape. There is no way to win.

The old agonal warfare was between brothers; con­ducted according to rules; limited in objectives, and limited in time, in a necessary alternation of peace and war; the brothers need each other in order to fight again another day. The new warfare is total: it seeks an end to war, an end to brotherhood.  - Norman Brown

Hiroshima, 1945, August 6, sixteen minutes past 8 AM.

Who really gave that order?

Answer: Control.

Answer: The Ugly American.

Answer: The instrument of Control.

Question: If Control's control is absolute, why does Control need to control?

Answer: Control… needs time.

Question: Is Control controlled by its need to control?

Answer: Yes.

Why does Control need humans, as you call them?

Answer: Wait… wait! Time, a landing field. Death needs time like a junkie needs junk.

And what does Death need time for?

Answer: The answer is sooo simple. Death needs time for what it kills to grow in, for Ah Pook's sake.

Death needs time for what it kills to grow in, for Ah Pook's sweet sake, you stupid vulgar greedy ugly American death-sucker."

Yes you stupid vulgar greedy ugly jesus-fucking american death suckers, there is not perpetual victory any more than there is an enduring defeat

"We have a new type of rule now. Not one man rule, or rule of aristocracy, or plutocracy, but of small groups elevated to positions of absolute power by random pressures and subject to political and economic factors that leave little room for decision. They are representatives of abstract forces…

[Ah Pook picks up a double-barrel shotgun and opens the breech, where two shells are chambered. It closes the breech.]

…who've reached power through surrender of self. The iron-willed dictator is a thing of the past. There will be no more Stalins, no more Hitlers. The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident…

[Ah Pook is caressing the shotgun.]

…inept, frightened pilots at the controls of a…

A[h Pook puts the shotgun into its mouth, and its voice continues]:

…vast machine they cannot understand, calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push.

[Ah Pook pulls the trigger.]

.>
wrote:
>
> It actually reminds me of Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown.
>
> Somehow, the Obama folks think they are engaging with a non-fiction,
> real-world enemy. But they're really engaged with fictional characters
> on a fantasy landscape. There is no way to win.

 

True enough.
Sounds like a video game.....

I'm content to sit on higher ground, albeit beneath Rich and and
Douglas, and endorse (what is it?) non-engagement. Nonetheless, i have
to ask Doug, "Should not others engage Fox?" I think we all agree Fox
and Limbo wants to drag any foolish soul into their pathetic but sizable
virtual realms and account the battles and victories and armies as real.
They then turn over their scores and other "real world" booty to the
party on capitol hill who seem to accept it and make use of it.

And, well, that's who we and Obama are working with. The honorable
opposition are no longer acting like sullen adolescents and i don't mean
like a Rebel Without a Cause. Frankly, it's the dark dark side.

Should some folks go in and hack the game or are Stewart and Colbert as
far as the gentlemanly left can go? Heck, Stewart and Colbert are not
even grey opps!

Unless we actually believe they will rot from the inside out because of
some ethical or spiritual perversion, why don't we (or some willing and
able among us) go and frolic in their VR?

And Douglas, i'm so bewildered by the stand off, i can't really imagine
what "winning" would be like. Given the point to which we have arrived,
would not winning appear to be both sides talking about facts,
aspirations and the socio\political will to acheive (perhaps) slightly
more than we can pay for but enough that working a bit harder and
smarter makes the desirable, and just seem completely reasonable?

-mason

--- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...>
wrote:
>
> It actually reminds me of Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown.
>
> Somehow, the Obama folks think they are engaging with a non-fiction,
> real-world enemy. But they're really engaged with fictional characters
> on a fantasy landscape. There is no way to win.
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:42 AM, avarice wrote:
>
> > Bang on wscratch, well said.
> > As for the folly of engaging with the right; I had this debate
> > yesterday with a friend who was on the way to protest Nick Griffin's
> > (leader of the far right BNP) appearance on Question Time last
night.
> >
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6411563/BNP-on-Quest\
ion-Time-Nick-Griffin-greeted-with-boos-and-jeers.html
> >
> > We were on the road to Shepherds Bush and squadrons of police-bikes
> > where screeching past en route.
> > While I'm generally in support of any demonstration against this
> > evil group my concern was that the demo would be construed as a
> > protest against the BBC's decision to have him on the panel and thus
> > an attack on free speech.
> > The BBC's position is that the BNP have passed a legally determined
> > threshold of votes and are therefore entitled to representation.
> > The perils of democracy.
> >
> > Fasbinder 62
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zombies_March_On/
> >
> > --- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "wscratch" wscratch@
> > wrote:
> > > I think it's cowardly the way they are treating Fox. If they
> > disagree with Fox's commentary, Obama's people should do what the
> > Clinton's did/do and send people to go on that network to openly
> > debate them.
> > >
> > > During any weekday evening, Fox's ratings are so outrageously high
> > that their ratings are better than all the other cable news channels
> > COMBINED:
> > >
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_friday_octobe\
r_16_140604.asp
> > >
> > > anytime Fox took a swipe at either of the Clintons, they send
> > someone intelligent and articulate to Fox & Fox always backs down.
> > WHY CAN'T OBAMA DO THE SAME? Send your best debaters, put them on
> > Fox, and kick their asses. Don't sit back like cowards. Show some
> > guts.
> > >
> > > Last week, one of my local news anchors said in passing that the
> > Obama administration isn't "going after" Fox, instead "it's almost
> > like the Obama White House is lying down in front of them".
> > Whaaaaaaaaaat??????
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

True enough.
Sounds like a video game.....

I'm content to sit on higher ground, albeit beneath Rich and and
Douglas, and endorse (what is it?) non-engagement.  Nonetheless, i have
to ask Doug, "Should not others engage Fox?"   I think we all agree Fox
and Limbo wants to drag any foolish soul into their pathetic but sizable
virtual realms and account the battles and victories and armies as real.
They then turn over their scores and other "real world" booty to the
party on capitol hill who seem to accept it and make use of it.

And, well, that's who we and Obama are working with. The honorable
opposition are no longer acting like sullen adolescents and i don't mean
like a Rebel Without a Cause.  Frankly, it's the dark dark side.

Should some folks go in and hack the game or are Stewart and Colbert as
far as the gentlemanly left can go?  Heck, Stewart and Colbert are not
even grey opps!

Unless we actually believe they will rot from the inside out because of
some ethical or spiritual perversion, why don't we (or some willing and
able among us) go and frolic in their VR?

And Douglas, i'm so bewildered by the stand off, i can't really imagine
what "winning" would be like.  Given the point to which we have arrived,
would not winning appear to be both sides talking about facts,
aspirations and the socio\political will to acheive (perhaps) slightly
more than we can pay for but enough that working a bit harder and
smarter makes the desirable, and just seem completely reasonable?

-mason

--- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...>
wrote:
>
> It actually reminds me of Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown.
>
> Somehow, the Obama folks think they are engaging with a non-fiction,
> real-world enemy. But they're really engaged with fictional characters
> on a fantasy landscape. There is no way to win.
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:42 AM, avarice wrote:
>
> > Bang on wscratch, well said.
> > As for the folly of engaging with the right; I had this debate
> > yesterday with a friend who was on the way to protest Nick Griffin's
> > (leader of the far right BNP) appearance on Question Time last
night.
> >
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6411563/BNP-on-Quest\
ion-Time-Nick-Griffin-greeted-with-boos-and-jeers.html
> >
> > We were on the road to Shepherds Bush and squadrons of police-bikes
> > where screeching past en route.
> > While I'm generally in support of any demonstration against this
> > evil group my concern was that the demo would be construed as a
> > protest against the BBC's decision to have him on the panel and thus
> > an attack on free speech.
> > The BBC's position is that the BNP have passed a legally determined
> > threshold of votes and are therefore entitled to representation.
> > The perils of democracy.
> >
> > Fasbinder 62
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zombies_March_On/
> >
> > --- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "wscratch" wscratch@
> > wrote:
> > > I think it's cowardly the way they are treating Fox. If they
> > disagree with Fox's commentary, Obama's people should do what the
> > Clinton's did/do and send people to go on that network to openly
> > debate them.
> > >
> > > During any weekday evening, Fox's ratings are so outrageously high
> > that their ratings are better than all the other cable news channels
> > COMBINED:
> > >
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_friday_octobe\
r_16_140604.asp
> > >
> > > anytime Fox took a swipe at either of the Clintons, they send
> > someone intelligent and articulate to Fox & Fox always backs down.
> > WHY CAN'T OBAMA DO THE SAME? Send your best debaters, put them on
> > Fox, and kick their asses. Don't sit back like cowards. Show some
> > guts.
> > >
> > > Last week, one of my local news anchors said in passing that the
> > Obama administration isn't "going after" Fox, instead "it's almost
> > like the Obama White House is lying down in front of them".
> > Whaaaaaaaaaat??????
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

 

It actually reminds me of Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown. 

Somehow, the Obama folks think they are engaging with a non-fiction, real-world enemy. But they're really engaged with fictional characters on a fantasy landscape. There is no way to win. 

On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:42 AM, avarice wrote:

Bang on wscratch, well said.
As for the folly of engaging with the right; I had this debate yesterday with a friend who was on the way to protest Nick Griffin's (leader of the far right BNP) appearance on Question Time last night. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6411563/BNP-on-Question-Time-Nick-Griffin-greeted-with-boos-and-jeers.html

We were on the road to Shepherds Bush and squadrons of police-bikes where screeching past en route.
While I'm generally in support of any demonstration against this evil group my concern was that the demo would be construed as a protest against the BBC's decision to have him on the panel and thus an attack on free speech.
The BBC's position is that the BNP have passed a legally determined threshold of votes and are therefore entitled to representation.
The perils of democracy.

Fasbinder 62
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zombies_March_On/

--- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, "wscratch" <wscratch@...> wrote:
> I think it's cowardly the way they are treating Fox. If they disagree with Fox's commentary, Obama's people should do what the Clinton's did/do and send people to go on that network to openly debate them.
> 
> During any weekday evening, Fox's ratings are so outrageously high that their ratings are better than all the other cable news channels COMBINED:
> http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_friday_october_16_140604.asp
> 
> anytime Fox took a swipe at either of the Clintons, they send someone intelligent and articulate to Fox & Fox always backs down. WHY CAN'T OBAMA DO THE SAME? Send your best debaters, put them on Fox, and kick their asses. Don't sit back like cowards. Show some guts.
> 
> Last week, one of my local news anchors said in passing that the Obama administration isn't "going after" Fox, instead "it's almost like the Obama White House is lying down in front of them". Whaaaaaaaaaat??????
>