What you don't know

An interesting piece from the WSJ editorial page, on a reporter being held hostage in Gaza:

A Reporter's Fate: The BBC held hostage in Gaza

Yet the BBC also seemed to operate in the Palestinian Authority with a sense of political impunity. Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti described Mr. Johnston as someone who "has done a lot for our cause"--not the sort of endorsement one imagines the BBC welcoming from an equivalent figure on the Israeli side. Other BBC correspondents were notorious for making their politics known to their viewers: Barbara Plett confessed to breaking into tears when Arafat was airlifted to a Parisian hospital in October 2004; Orla Guerin treated Israel's capture of a living, wired teenage suicide bomber that March as nothing more than a PR stunt--"a picture that Israel wants the world to see."

Though doubtlessly sincere, these views also conferred institutional advantages for the BBC in terms of access and protection, one reason why the broadcaster might have felt relatively comfortable posting Mr. Johnston in a place no other news agency dared to go.

By contrast, reporters who displeased Palestinian authorities could be made to pay a price.

   This brand of journalism, in which journalistic values are traded for access, is rampant. One of the worst examples of this came back in April of 2003 when CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan admitted to keeping many of Saddam's crimes against humanity out of the headlines for fear of getting kicked out of Baghdad. What good is your news if you aren't reporting it? The media has become a joke, or perhaps it is just the ability to see past them now that has revealed their worthlessness. The ability to trust sources of information is a luxury these days, you must analyze the source and question everything. Heck, question the link I put in this post. Just by doing that, you are already miles ahead of the herd.

My politics

   Many have already bent themselves out of shape for the 'upcoming' presidential election. Despite being much over a year away, our army of empty suits has taken center stage in the non-news news media. If you watch any television, every day you get assaulted with 5 minute blurbs of candidates belting out 10 second scripted answers to even shorter scripted questions. And thats only if you watch the news; otherwise, go back to finding out which second rate performer gets booted off American Idol (gag) or your Bonanza! reruns.

   I am a true conservative. For those of you who seem to have forgotten the true nature of conservatism, its not about killing babies or whether 'islamofascists' want to murder me. Conservatism is about restricting the powers of government. Conservatism is about personal liberty. Some people call this Libertarianism, but labels are irrelevant in this case; the point is that the conservative ideology, along with its main party, has become a farce.

   Looking at the 10 G.O.P. candidates, a number do not believe in evolution. Many support a national ID. Only one candidate, the one I support, has demonstrated an inkling of comprehension on American foreign policy. The two alleged 'front runners' are liars and have consistently changed their positions on issues simply for political convenience. The rest of the field merely baa's like Orwellian sheep, whoring themselves for face time, promoting some single issue, or hoping to angle for administrative positions if their party wins the election. The party has been actively moving to silence my candidate, and if successful will lose me forever. While I will not say that if they kick Congressman Ron Paul out of future debates that I will not vote for another Republican ever again, but my decisions will definitely venture further out into the (I) category... much further. I am really quite mad.