23.6.04
WaPo Full of Poo (Surprise, Surprise)
In a remarkably poor assessment of what is going on in the world today and hence what their role should be as one of the leading manufacturers of consent in that world, the WaPo today decides they should use their lead editorial to attack Bill Clinton because...um...they don't like what he said. Most egregiously:
Not that we should be surprised. But...sigh...okay, I'll do it.
The WaPo's assessment that Clinton showed contempt for the law is, at best, their highly disputable opinion. What Clinton did was lie about sex. That is all. He lied about getting a blow job. That is all.
Now - there have been other administrations in recent times who HAVE shown open contempt for the law. The now-late leader of said administration has in recent weeks been getting the equivalent of a big sloppy one from the WaPo.
And - there is an administration currently lodged in power whose entire approach to governing can best be described as "contempt for the law."
What happens when the WaPo goes around throwing out very powerful terms like "contempt for the law" and slapping them on any which thing (e.g., lying about getting a blow job), is that in the cases where the term is actually applicable (e.g., a lengthy dialogue within the administration trying to figure out how torture is legal; an Attorney General testifying before Congress who flat-out refuses to either provide information or invoke privilege; I really could go on here, but I'll stop at a simple; etc.), even when it is then used, its meaning is diluted. Because you can't get a whole lot worse than "contempt for the law", the WaPo is therefore saying, essentially, that the leaders of this country can't really do much worse than lying about a blow job; that lying about the pretext for a war is, at the very worst, only as bad as lying about a blow job.
Most fundamentally, Mr. Clinton showed contempt for the law.All together now: THEY...STILL...DON'T...GET...IT...
Not that we should be surprised. But...sigh...okay, I'll do it.
The WaPo's assessment that Clinton showed contempt for the law is, at best, their highly disputable opinion. What Clinton did was lie about sex. That is all. He lied about getting a blow job. That is all.
Now - there have been other administrations in recent times who HAVE shown open contempt for the law. The now-late leader of said administration has in recent weeks been getting the equivalent of a big sloppy one from the WaPo.
And - there is an administration currently lodged in power whose entire approach to governing can best be described as "contempt for the law."
What happens when the WaPo goes around throwing out very powerful terms like "contempt for the law" and slapping them on any which thing (e.g., lying about getting a blow job), is that in the cases where the term is actually applicable (e.g., a lengthy dialogue within the administration trying to figure out how torture is legal; an Attorney General testifying before Congress who flat-out refuses to either provide information or invoke privilege; I really could go on here, but I'll stop at a simple; etc.), even when it is then used, its meaning is diluted. Because you can't get a whole lot worse than "contempt for the law", the WaPo is therefore saying, essentially, that the leaders of this country can't really do much worse than lying about a blow job; that lying about the pretext for a war is, at the very worst, only as bad as lying about a blow job.
perma-linky posted by jkd : 14:22
