Calling Bush's Administration the beginnings of a dictatorship warrants the level of 'Cheney shooting someone in the face' coverage.

Well, there you have it. "The press hasn't covered this the way I think it ought to be covered" is certainly different from "the press hasn't covered this."

You find people who think the Bush administration can do no wrong make you angry. I almost find people who think the Bush administration is actively seeking to do evil make me angry. Instead they just make me giggle a little bit.

I think they are ignorantly doing evil and that makes me angry. Actively pursuing evil implies at least some sort of intelligent thought application, whereas ignorance is indefensible.

I often search out Faux News just to see if and how they treat a story. Sometimes, they surprise me with a relatively balanced item. It annoys the hell out of me when CNN and MSNBC put obvious spins on a story. I think to get the best picture you have to seek out all possible news sources (within reason- I won't go near Al Jazeera or any extreme right outlets) and sort out the chafe as best you can.

Al Jazeera isn't actually all that bad and it will certainly give you important information, even if from a cultural point of view I disagree with.

Scott Adams (yes the Dilbert guy; he has an interesting blog) said recently that he thinks President Bush is probably smarter than 90% of the population but that most politicians are smarter than 99% and so the difference is striking.

I don't buy the idea that Bush is stupid. I do buy into the idea that he isn't as smart as we should expect.

Al Jazeera is perceived as a mouthpiece for the Islamic extremists and as such everything they put out is tainted by that perception. It's an accurate perception, imho.

Oh, so I didn't make myself crystal clear so therefore what I'm actually trying to say can be tossed out the window. I'm talking about the press giving Bush and friends a free ride and you want to discuss what kind of car they rode in.

I'm thinking one can giggle if they don't understand how angry someone else feels. I say if you're giggling then you're not paying attention.

In the documentary 'The Control Room' Al Jazeera said the pulling down of the Saddam statue was staged and the participants weren't even from the area. They were shipped in. The press did not cover that aspect of the whole incident enough for me when you compare it to the repeated footage of the statue coming down on CNN, MSNBC, Fox...

If not being clear means saying something that was not true, then yes, you were unclear.

Personally, I don't find O'Cononr's statements all that interesting. You can find dozens of complaints every day that if X continues to it logical conclusion than totalitarianism is the result. I agree that politicalization of judicial opinion is wrong but I also don't think the gestapo is in our future.

I agree that Bush has made poor policy decisions. But I also think he has made some good ones. I don't think he is seeking to turn our government into a religious dictatorship.

If you want to see evil in everything he does, then fine. We can disagree. But if I giggle it is not because I am not paying attention as I find the histrionics silly.

Yes, Al Jazeera is not objective. I just don't think that is reason to discount it entirely.

As opposed to the idea that non-objective sources should only be discarded when you disagree with them.

I find O'Connors statements completely interesting. Here's someone who was appointed by Reagan saying that Bush is leading our country into a dictatorship. That's important to me. I think she's right.

Histrionics may be silly, but contrarians are just as comical.

When a news source is non-objective and is a mouthpiece for one way of thinking it should be discarded. I don't listen to Air America either.