You wrote:

Fallows' comments amount to more than fluff.

I presume you are referring to my statement which was this:

Fallows deals with the fluff of the media, claiming they have no substance. They don't.

But Fallows fails to deal with substance himself. This happens time again in comments on the media.

My statement was NOT that his comments were fluff, per se, or that he fails to deal with ANY substance, per se.

But the substance he fails to deal with is that the Corporate media is driven by their own interest and not unbiased reporting to begin with.

The substance of commenting on the media is that they are corporate controlled. They are not interested in fair representation but of advancing their own agenda.

I said further:

One is better served by going to the heart of the issues, rather talking about the artificiality of the pundits.

Fallows does indeed discuss a number of important issues that are the administrations positions, few of which I agree with. Cap and trade is foremost. It will do nothing as far carbon emissions so how could he credibly obtain concessions from the Chinese? From that vantage point Fallows does fail to deal with substance.

Then you wrote:

With his political history, Ralph Nader shouldn't be allowed to speak on anything other than consumer safety.

Which political history would that be?

The one where he repeatedly shows the DINOS to be in the corporate bag?

Or that he runs on a truly progressive program and draws votes from DINOs.

I never heard a single complaint from the DINOs about Ross Perot's 19 million votes which pulled more from the Republicans than the Democrats and gave Clinton a victory with only 42% of the vote.

The first thing Clinton did was ram NAFTA through the objections of most of his own party.

The truth of that election was that there were three Republicans running. Perot curiously was the only one against NAFTA. At least that is what he said. He hated George Bush and that is why he ran. He was spending his own money so he could anything he wanted.

I have never heard a single complaint about Perot.

I have never heard a single complaint about Buchanan in the 2000 election, and he drew nothing but Rs.

So I get very tired of people complaining about Nader's right to run or now even speak!

On that note, which Gestapo would you propose to send out to silence him?

China's or ours?

Pray tell!

The DNC and RNC in tandem act to silence Kucinich and McKinney and of course, Nader.

The Corporate Media does the same. They won't let anyone near the microphone who will not tow the corporate line.

You want to add to that, that is seriously lame shit!

---

Fallows 1
Fallows 2
Fallows 3
Fallows 4
Fallows 5
Fallows 6

Obama from #5

A town hall speech, not carried live, in which Fallow quotes a Mandarin speaking contact who describes the reach, inside the internet firewall, meaning it was restricted, as vast and deep but then says many millions or tens of millions were reached, though not necessarily positively.

I try to analyze words for their meaning and statements for their coherence, but it is very conflicted statement to attempt to make a point with.

Then the Madarin speaker references this quote from Obama as being effective inside the firewall.

'Now, I should tell you, I should be honest, as President of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn't flow so freely because then I wouldn't have to listen to people criticizing me all the time. I think people naturally are -- when they're in positions of power sometimes thinks, oh, how could that person say that about me, or that's irresponsible, or -- but the truth is that because in the United States information is free, and I have a lot of critics in the United States who can say all kinds of things about me, I actually think that that makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don't want to hear. It forces me to examine what I'm doing on a day-to-day basis to see, am I really doing the very best that I could be doing for the people of the United States.'

The truth is NOT that inside the United States information flows freely, far from it. Certainly with the MSM. Maintaining the illusion though is necessary. Obama says he would like his critics to be quiet, but in a free country they make the democracy stronger. The genuine critics, like Kucinich and McKinney and of course, Nader are hardly heard at all, almost never from the MSM. Some people would like it to be even less. This speech is purely for internal consumption. It is reported somewhat here, but it goes nowhere to mention seriously in China.

We have the freedom of internet so far. But the corporate media is long gone.

Consequently, there is a whole lot here to talk about, but I stand by my first statement.

One is better served by going to the heart of the issues.

One can save enormous amounts of time when confronting questions on the Corporate Media by the reminder that they are about manufacturing consent, but if one is an ally of the administration there will have problem, because it is sold out to the highest bidders.

For the Democrats there is a further problem. No matter how corrupt and venal they are they try to maintain at least a thin veneer of pretense that somehow, underneath it all, they are really for the little guy, but for the most part it is all lip service.

The corporations will always prefer the unalloyed corruption of the Republicans, no matter how servile the Democrats are.

The Democrats can be allowed to win and that gives an illusion of a democracy.

Trying to defend the Democrats against the attacks of the corporate media by defending the Democrats themselves is a losing cause. They are like two con men, where one accuses the other of being dishonest.

A losing cause to those familiar with the con men's cons.

That is the substance of the matter.