“His Holiness [H.H.] thought it was prudent to make his office open and assessable to a more youth and technologically advancing audience.”

So says the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama on his brand new Twitter page, which is responsible for His Holiness’s media presence. That presence now not only includes a website, Facebook (still below the 5000 limit on friends), and MySpace.

H.H. is keeping a pretty active profile on Twitter; launched just 15 hours ago, the stats are
Following 2,704
5,498 Followers
25 Updates

Oh yes, and when I went to H.H.’s Facebook profile, I saw that he is a fan of Burmese dissident leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Somehow, even though he’s a generation younger than H.H., I can’t imagine George W. Bush having pages on these sites.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Lostremote.com has an astounding post: a traditional print journalist ranted that a TV station allowing its viewers to select one story for the nightly newscast was the death of standards. The station, in best-practices Web 2.0 fashion, invited him on the show to debate the issue publicly.

And this is how the journalist responded:

“I’m told that this multiple-choice reporter has called me out with a public invitation, on her blog or her twitter or whatever, to debate her before her ubiquitous Web camera with its on-line audience of literally dozens of voyeurs and three or four lonely, misfit bloggers who spend all their time communicating only with each other. I need not lend my experience and credibility to draw her a crowd.”

Talk about clueless! This kind of arrogance might have worked for The New York Times 100 years ago, but it sure doesn’t work now for an unknown journalist working for a newspaper in Arkansas! What he doesn’t get is that he has no credibility with the audience he’s rejecting (other than he apparently writes a blog on politics)–and that his appearance on the show might have built credibility for his position, and might have gone viral, being seen by tens of thousands.

Now, mind you–I am trained as a traditional print journalist. I have enormous respect for people who follow the old principles and standards–who do research before they write, who understand the importance of objectivity, and who try to tell the important stories that are very hard to find on mainstream broadcast media–and I’m horrified by the decline both in journalistic standards within a story and in the general willingness to go after a tough (and expensive) but important story. That failure in part led us to the Iraq debacle. Journalists absolutely need to ask hard questions, grapple with the answers, and filter the world for their public. In an era where we all have far too much information and limited ability to process it, we still need traditional journalists as intermediaries. Citizen journalism is vital, but it’s not the whole thing. Professional journalism is crucial, still.

But I think you can have both journalistic standards and an openness to listening to your readers/listeners/viewers. You can have deep investigative journalism and a viewpoint, even in nonprint media–look at the amazing radio/TV show, Democracy Now, if you want an example. And you can have dialog without threatening your position. I think this journo was extremely short-sighted.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Back in March, I got the kind of call that every writer dreams about. An editor at a major publisher telling me she loved the proposal, and could we talk? The last time I got a call like that from a major publisher was back in 1991.

Of course we could talk! We talked and talked and talked. The first contract they sent me arrived in June, and was unacceptable. I flagged over a dozen areas that I wanted changed. And we kept talking, although there were periods of several weeks when they seemed to disappear and didn’t return my calls. But then, just when I would start to think they’d changed their minds, they’d be back in my inbox and on my voicemail, ready to move forward. And usually, right about when they showed up again was when my co-author’s literary agent would go incommunicado for another few weeks.

In mid-September, another draft of the contract arrived. It didn’t give me anywhere near everything that I’d asked for, but it was a huge improvement. I was almost ready to sign, but two “deal-breaker” clauses had to be changed. One of them was the original due date of October 1, 2008, to submit the manuscript, and the other had to do with my existing intellectual property. And the co-author also had one clause to change.

Just this week, the third draft arrived. And this time, it’s something that we can all sign. Yippee!

It’s been a long process, but I’m not sorry.

As you can imagine, the temptation was strong to go flying off the handle, accuse people, or otherwise engage in behavior that might have felt good at the moment but would have done nothing except to dig myself into a deep hole. I resisted the temptation. I stayed positive and confident, even while pressing my demands in a friendly but firm way.

No matter how many times I called and got voicemail, I never left a negative message. No matter how many weeks went by with no communication, I always approached each new call without recrimination. I listened politely to the editor complain about the agent, and on other calls, the agent complain about the editor. But when I needed to complain I vented to someone who had no involvement in the deal.

And now, finally, we have a deal that all four parties–I, my co-author, his agent, and the editor at the publishing house–are all happy with.

This has been a long, drawn-out exercise in the principles I discuss in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First: of being truly people-centered, of getting what you want by being nice, and of thinking long-term.

In fact, those principles got me the contract in the first place. There’s a well-known author who originally came to me as a customer; he ordered my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit through my website. We began a relationship, I sent him an essay (unpaid) for one of his books, he did an appearance on my radio show…and he asked me, out of the blue, after over a year of corresponding, if I’d like the contact information for his editor at this publishing house.

In other words, this stuff works.

And I started work on the new book yesterday. I think it’s gong to be the best and most important book I’ve done, and I’m fully expecting that it’ll be a best-seller.

It’s an exciting journey. I’ll be sure to keep you posted.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

While we congratulate Barack Obama for his historic landslide victory, let’s remember that we marketers can take many lessons from this campaign. A few examples:

A transformative, emotion-based, positive campaign will trump a narrow,negative, issues-based campaign. Obama inspired hope, and gave millions of people a voice and interest in presidential politics that they hadn’t had before. The last two party nominees to try this were also successful: John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan (remember “It’s morning in America”?)

Take away your opponent’s advantages by neutralizing the rhetoric. McCain’s campaign claimed to put “country first”–but Obama was the one who walked the talk. His speeches were you-focused, his message was of unity and solidarity.

Stay on message. Obama was so good at this that even when he shifted the message (for example, embracing offshore drilling after opposing it), he wasn’t called on the flip-flop. Of course, this may be because McCain flip-flopped on all sorts of issues, and was pretty vulnerable.

Don’t apologize for your beliefs. Three out of the four most recent prior Democratic nominees–Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry–all crawled on their bellies with messages that basically said, “umm, I’m not really a liberal, I didn’t mean it, I’m soooo sorry!” And all three lost because doing that took the wind right out of their sails. Bill Clinton, who is not a liberal, didn’t play that game. Not surprisingly, he won. Obama never apologized, ignored the L-word, and didn’t even flinch when in the closing days, McCain revved it up and actually called him a socialist (traditionally, the kiss of death in US politics).

When you attack, don’t sling mud at your opponent’s character, but at the specific actions or positions: “You…sung a song about bombing Iran.” “That endorsement didn’t come easy. Senator McCain had to vote 90 percent of the time with George Bush and Dick Cheney to get it.

Stay clean, tell the truth, and don’t do the things you attack your opponent for. After 21 months of intense scrutiny, neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain could find much negativity of substance. The man apparently has no scandals. He’s in a strong relationship with his wonderful family, hasn’t been caught with his fingers in the till or with his pants down, and hasn’t shaken anyone down for money or votes. So the attcks were based on ridiculous stuff that didn’t stick:

  • He’s an elitist (and McCain, the son of an admiral who owns numerous houses and thinks $5 million income is middle class, isn’t?)
  • He goes (or went) to the wrong church (and we just won’t talk about the right-wing extremist demagogues like John Hagee that McCain was so cozy with
  • He’s a Muslim (and even if it were true, what’s so horrible about that?)
  • He’s not really a US citizen
  • He “pals around with terrorists”
  • He’s a socialist
  • All these vicious lies came back to bite McCain, and to draw huge turnout among Obama’s base.

    The one accusation that stuck was about his lack of experience. Hillary’s “3 a.m.” ad was extremely effective, and swung Ohio and Texas into her camp. But McCain absolutely threw that argument away when he selected the even-less-experienced, ethically challenged, and totally clueless Sarah Palin.

    Perhaps the most important lesson of all: When you really want something, work your butt off for it, be the kind of ieader that inspires others to help, and take nothing for granted. Obama’s on-the-ground organiation has been awesome since the get-go, and that was a decisive factor.

    Finally, when the universe hands you a blessing, accept it. The economic meltdown was perfectly timed to provide enormous advantage to Obama, and he was wiling and able to run with it.

    In fairness to McCain, I think a lot of the errors in judgment he showed were the result of his handlers. They apparently let him write his own concession speech, and this gracious, conciliatory, and beautiful message was not only his best speech of the campaign, it may have been the best of his career.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    You’ve just got to wonder. What are these people thinking?

    “When I started talking to them, it kind of became clear that they were kind of just telling people to leave that they thought maybe would be disruptive, but based on what? Based on how they looked,” Elborno said. “It was pretty much all young people, the college demographic.”

    Elborno said even McCain supporters were among those being asked to leave.

    “I saw a couple that had been escorted out and they were confused as well, and the girl was crying, so I said ‘Why are you crying? and she said ‘I already voted for McCain, I’m a Republican, and they said we had to leave because we didn’t look right,’” Elborno said. “They were handpicking these people and they had nothing to go off of, besides the way the people looked.”

    Let’s hear it for those good old American First Amendment values of free speech and assembly, Senator McCain. Is this kind of profiling any less despicable than racial profiling?

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

  • Good summary of all the race-baiting, commie-baiting, Muslim-baiting McCarthyistic crap coming out of many corners of the McCain campaign, most of it apparently condoned by both McCain and Palin: at least 13 separate incidents, including some real nasties, like the woman who made up the story that she was mugged and disfigured for supporting McCain and the robocalls to Jewish voters in Pennsylvania warning of another holocaust if Obama is elected (that one actually did get disavowed, but McCain personally endorsed a sleazy brochure that tried to tie Obama to 9/11). And several more dirty tricks, many targeting black voters, listed here.
  • Front-page story in The Times of London (owned by Rupert Murdoch, but still a reputable paper) has several Vietnamese involved in McCain’s capture/rescue and imprisonment denying that he was ever tortured–in separate interviews. American mainstream media has apparently been ignoring this story, and I’m not convinced it’s true, but you’d think the press would want to investigate, since the torture story has been the basis for his entire career. The closest I could find to corroboration was this anonymous report that claims to be from a fellow POW
  • According to a fellow POW, John McCain sustained some injures after ejecting over North Vietnam, but was never tortured or mistreated. Speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of what the new Republican Nazi Party might do to him and his family, he said, “Hell, they didn’t have to torture McCain. He talked incessantly. We didn’t nickname him “Songbird” because he was cute or had a pleasant voice…”

    I’ve known McCain for years and while he’s a lot of things, a straight talker he is not. Even though I was shot down twice in Vietnam, I wasn’t captured. The records show that most pilots did their very best to avoid being captured, and those who were, carried out their orders according the United States Military Code of Conduct, especially Article III. There is no record of John McCain trying to escape or aiding others in their attempt to escape. I also know that like me, McCain is one sick old man. He’s eaten up with PTSD and hate, and it’s not the North Vietnamese, North Koreans or even the Taliban he hates. He hates Americans for leaving him to rot in a POW camp. Evidently, the Pentagon didn’t believe McCain warranted being rescued to the degree that McCain believed.

  • McCain’s hypocrisy shows up on just about every issue. As one example, how about John McCain pushing Reagan to meet with terrorists without preconditions.

    In 1987, John McCain cast several votes in an attempt to force the Reagan administration to meet with RENAMO1, a guerrilla organization in Mozambique that State Department officials at the time described as a “terrorist group,” 2 without requiring that the group meet any preconditions.

    Oh, and how about Palin’s ties to a terrorist separatist group in Alaska–much less tenuous than Obama’s ties to Ayers?

  • The ridiculous and desperate attempt to pin vote fraud charges on Acorn, and by implication, Obama–while the Republicans continue the biggest disenfranchisement campaign in US history

    This is only the tip of the iceberg. I could chronicle this stuff all night. “Mr. Straight Talk” has some serious explaining–and apologizing–to do.

  • Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    Does your skin crawl every time you hear Ann Coulter, William Bennett or some other radical-right wingnut savor the pleasure of saying “Barack HUSSEIN Obama”

    Did you take pleasure in learning the famous story of World War II Denmark, when the Nazis ordered all the Jews to wear yellow stars–and the King of Denmark proudly pinned one on, as did many of his countryfolk?

    Well, we’re not alone. Mark Hussein Gordon, of sonomacreative.com, has set up a Facebook group called Hussein is my name too! All you have to do is join, change your middle name in your profile, and remember to change it back after the election, and you can show solidarity both with Barack and with the Arab and Muslim communities by being Hussein for a couple of weeks.

    I think this is brilliant. And I thank Robin Hussein Blum for drawing it to my attention.
    Shel Hussein Horowitz

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    How come we’re not hearing about this in the mainstream press? An on-the-scene blogger (and an articulate one who obviously has some journalism training) called it “the biggest political rally ever, in the history of the state.” She’s got photos and videos on the link, too (as well as over 1000 comments, so give it some time to load)

    Yet, all three pages of unduplicated results of a Google for “AK Women Reject Palin” (the name of the rally) brought up 24 blogs and one story–it’s unclear whether it’s a staff piece or a hosted blog–at washingtonpost.com. And in the Post story, I learned the delicious irony that the anti-Palin rally was held in front of the public library. Nice!

    By contrast, the first page of a search for “Welcome Home” “Sarah Palin ” brings up a different, cheerleader story in the Washington Post, as well as a mildly critical story in the Boston Globe, and coverage in the L.A. Times and Miami Herald. In all, 59,200 results versus 113 for coverage of the protest.

    Of course, in sparsely populated Alaska, whose entire population is about equal to Boston’s, that only took 1400 people. Still, it dwarfed the 1000-attendee pro-Palin “welcome home” rally held the same day.

    And I find it hard to believe that such an important event could be completely ignored by the mainstream media. Yes, we have free speech in this country (if you don’t get too close to convention halls/corporate events and your skin is the proper color, and you’re not identified as Muslim)–but the media censors the message.

    Earth to mainstream media: stop feeding us “Soma” (to use Aldus Huxley’s term) and start reporting the news!

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    I am absolutely outraged! the Republican National Convention is turning into a replay of the Chicago Democratic Convention of 1968, where cops went crazy violent against activists, who were hauled into court.

    Enough is enough!

    The first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to peaceful protest, as well as the right to freedom of the press. Here is the full text. with the relevant parts in bold:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

    abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    .

    At the RNC this weekend, legitimate journalists, credentials around their necks, were thrown roughly to the ground, handcuffed, assaulted, and arrested by police who violated all sorts of protocols. Earlier in the week, the police engaged in pre-emptive raids against citizen-journalists who have been known to record police brutality incidents.

    You can read, watch, or listen to the entire account by clicking here. But I want to share a few of the most outrageous bits.

    NICOLE SALAZAR: Cars were behind me. We were in a parking lot. And, you know, I was telling them that “I’m press. I’m press. Please, you know, don’t—you know, let me pass.” But I couldn’t turn around. And I tried to move in between the—between two cars, and instead of, you know, letting me pass and following the crowd, they instead came right after me and slammed me into the car, at which point I think my camera came back and hit me in the face. And two cops were also behind me, and they pushed me through that row of cars into the next area of the parking lot and slammed me to the ground and said, “Get your face on the ground! Get your face on the ground!” And I was, you know, at that point—

    AMY GOODMAN: So you were on your stomach, on your face, on the ground.

    NICOLE SALAZAR: I was on my stomach on the ground. And one of the officers, I think he was trying to grab me. He was trying to drag me. He was grabbing my leg. And another officer put his boot on my back and was pressing me to the ground.

    AMY GOODMAN: Had they handcuffed you by now?

    NICOLE SALAZAR: Yes, they had put me in those plastic cuffs, and my hands were behind my back. And my camera was, you know, two feet away from my face, lying on the ground. And I think shortly thereafter one officer came over and picked up the camera and took out the battery. And at that point I was worried that they were going to take my tape, but I don’t think—I mean, they didn’t, because now we have the tape, but he did take the battery out, I guess so the camera wouldn’t be recording.

    AMY GOODMAN: Finally, I made it to the police line, where the police in riot gear were lined up. I asked to speak to a commanding officer. They immediately grabbed me. I said, “Sir, I just want to speak to a commanding officer. My reporters are inside.” They’ve got their ID. I mean, we’ve done this in New York, as well, when there is confusion about a reporter. They immediately grabbed me, handcuffed me—and as you haven’t quite talked about, those plastic handcuffs cut right into your wrist, and they make those tight—pushed me to the ground.

    AMY GOODMAN: As I came in and I was speaking to the corrections officers, who did identify themselves—I kept asking every officer to identify themselves—a St. Paul cop behind them kept screaming, “Shut up! You, shut up!” And I asked—I said, “I want to know what your name is or your badge.” “Shut up! Shut up!” he said, I think to the chagrin of the corrections officers. One of the head guys in the jail came over and said, “He’s not ours. We can’t force him to identify himself. Our policy is that they identify themselves.” And stayed there for several hours.

    Ultimately, they released me, interference with, I think they said, the judicial process or with a peace officer.

    SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: I was taken to prison, as well. But I think one thing that was left out also in the story, and I think this happened to you, as well, Amy, was that while we were standing waiting to be processed and put on the bus, I was standing there with three credentials around my neck: my Democracy Now! press pass, which has my picture; the RNC press one, which gets you inside the convention; and a separate one, which I was supposed to put on Nicole, but I never actually did, was a limited RNC press one. A man walked up to me, who was not in uniform of St. Paul or Minneapolis police—I was later told he was Secret Service—came up and looked at my RNC press badge, said, “What is this?” I said, “It’s my pass to get inside the Xcel Center.” He said, “Well, you won’t be needing that to go—you’re not going to be going inside the convention center today,” and took it and walked off. I immediately protested. I said, “I want this around my neck to prove I’m an accredited journalist to go inside the convention center.” And he said, “You won’t be needing it today,” walked off.

    I asked my arresting officer, who incidentally was not my arresting officer—they just assigned some guy to take the picture of me and process me—he said, “I don’t know who that guy is. He looks like Secret Service.” I said, “Well, why don’t you acknowledge that this was taken, witness it somehow?” And he refused to do so. And I believe they did the same to you. They took that pass off your neck.

    AMY GOODMAN: Right. The Secret Service came up, and they—he ripped it off of my neck.

    SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Right.

    AMY GOODMAN: And I said, “That is my pass. I want a receipt that you have taken that.” But of course, they didn’t give it.

    SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And then, once I was put on the bus, as well—and just to reiterate what you were saying, while I was being arrested, I was, you know, slammed violently. I got scratches on my elbow and bruises on my chest and back. But the most painful part of it was these plastic handcuffs. They were extremely tight. Getting onto the bus, I asked one of the officers, I said, “Can you just cut these off and put on new ones?” because you can’t loosen those. And his response to that was to grab them and tighten them. So it was very painful on the way. I actually still don’t have feeling in part of my hand.

    In the Bush years, the right to dissent has been unnaturally restricted and restricted. As one among many examples, national political party conventions have colluded with local police departments to deny these rights of free speech, assembly, and redress of grievances, by forcing demonstrators into restricted areas where the politicos don’t have to see and hear them.

    But vicious physical attacks on and arrests of journalists is something that isn’t supposed to happen here, in the land of the free–in the dictatorships of developing countries (all-too-often propped up with the help of the U.S., unfortunately), it might be common. But here? The land to which our forefathers and foremothers gave their lives in order to ensure that it would always be free–Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his grave.

    Why there wasn’t mass outrage about the idea that you can cage up demonstrators and herd them away from the institutions they’re protesting against–or why this idiocy hasn’t been thrown out by the courts–is beyond me. But it’s time for the people to say, enough, we won’t take it anymore.

    We demand our right to assemble in public places–including directly outside the gates of those we want to reach.
    We demand an end to police violence against peaceful protest.
    We demand an end to harassment, assault, and arrest of journalists, including the mainstream press, the alternative press, and citizen-journalists
    We demand our rights under the First Amendment to the United states constitution to speak, to be heard, and to register our protests, and our rights as citizens of the United states to vote, and to have our votes counted honestly.

    Tell your Senators, your Representatives, and your local political party structure.

    And it’s not just journalists. I received this via e-mail from A.N.S.W.E.R this afternoon:

    The police have engaged in a widespread riot against social justice organizations, resulting in the arrest of around 300 protesters. Most of the arrested are still in jail, and at least one person with a serious medical condition has been refused care.

    Even before the Convention began, protesters had the organizing centers raided. Armed groups of police in the Twin Cities have raided more than half-a-dozen locations since Friday night in a series of “preemptive raids.” The raids and detentions have targeted activists planning to protest the convention, including journalists and videographers from I-Witness Video and the Glass Bead Collective. These media organizations were targeted because of the instrumental role they played in documenting police abuses the 2004 RNC Convention. Their comprehensive video coverage helped more than 400 wrongfully arrested people get their charges thrown out.

    You can go sign their petition to protest and demand the release of these hundreds of people.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    A recent front-page story in the New York Times reveals that the Pentagon has gone far beyond paying Armstrong Williams. A whole gaggle of retired military leaders posing as neutral pundits turn out to have been under the sway of the Pentagon:

    Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

    In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

    The Times stops short of accusing these military figures of taking money directly from the Pentagon. But they were, in a real sense, embedded, and these relationships were not disclosed to the electronic news outlets who hired them. Democracy Now reported two days later that the military flew some of these people to Iraq at its own expense and conducted one-sided briefings there.

    Peter Hart of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, one of two commentators on the DN segment, says the media was completely lacking in due diligence, inviting these pundits without asking questions:

    I think the extent of the briefings was somewhat shocking and the blase attitude from the networks. They didn’t care what military contractors these guys were representing when they were out at the studio. They didn’t care that the Pentagon was flying them on their own dime to Iraq. Just basic journalistic judgment was completely lacking here. So I think the story is really about a media failure, more than a Pentagon failure. The Pentagon did exactly what you would expect to do, taking advantage of this media bias in favor of having more and more generals on the air when the country is at war.

    And when the commentators were in a position to refute the Pentagon, they stayed silent. Hart again:

    One of the most shocking things in the story is that in early 2003, these guys got a briefing about WMDs, and the government said, “We actually don’t have hard evidence right now that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.” Did any of them go on the air and say that? No. The Pentagon, I think, had total control and total faith that these guys would deliver the message that they intended to deliver to the public, and that’s exactly what they did, and the media did very little to counteract this overwhelming propaganda campaign from the Pentagon.

    And there were consequences to those who strayed from the party line:

    Still, even the mildest of criticism could draw a challenge. Several analysts told of fielding telephone calls from displeased defense officials only minutes after being on the air.

    On Aug. 3, 2005, 14 marines died in Iraq. That day, Mr. Cowan, who said he had grown increasingly uncomfortable with the ”twisted version of reality” being pushed on analysts in briefings, called the Pentagon to give ”a heads-up” that some of his comments on Fox ”may not all be friendly,” Pentagon records show. Mr. Rumsfeld’s senior aides quickly arranged a private briefing for him, yet when he told Bill O’Reilly that the United States was ”not on a good glide path right now” in Iraq, the repercussions were swift.

    Mr. Cowan said he was ”precipitously fired from the analysts group” for this appearance. The Pentagon, he wrote in an e-mail message, ”simply didn’t like the fact that I wasn’t carrying their water.” The next day James T. Conway, then director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, presided over another conference call with analysts. He urged them, a transcript shows, not to let the marines’ deaths further erode support for the war.

    And still, the Democrats won’t talk about impeachment. Considering the extremely bellicose noises this same government and its media allies are making about Iran, we had bloody well put that impeachment discussion “back on the table.”

    And still, as Arianna Huffington points out, most of the mainstream media not only ducks responsibility for its many failures leading up to and continuing through the war, but doesn’t even acknowledge there’s a problem.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail