************************************************** **************

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

You know folks, unlike most of you, I don?t pretend to know much.

Actually, you DO pretend to know more than others here...all the time. An unhealthy vanity (which by nature fuels deceit) comes through loud and clear in all too many of your posts, including this one to which I am responding. You do not want people to question the administration line and you do not encourage people to assess any tree by its fruit; instead, you demand that people accept your "secret knowledge" without referrent. When you get started, you frankly sound like Dan Dierdorf on a Slim-Fast commercial. But at least the stuff Dierdorf's pushing is not known to kill people senselessly.

My knowledge base is admittedly limited to the art of war,

Yes and, with regard to anything you place under that heading of war, you demand that your audience suspend all thought and accept whatever you say uncritically, even if it is plainly false and/or has actually already been denied by the administration you blindly follow.

and I?ve long since quit caring what people think of me.

If that were true, you would not have written this post. More vanity.

But when I know a thing to be true, I say so.

More vanity. Nothing is true just because you say it is. Truth speaks for itself and must be demonstrated to others before it is known by them.

And I know that doing the type of reporting that CBS did is helping to get American service personnel killed.

Actually, let's trace back that line of death. It is the Bush administration which put those boys (and girls) in Iraq for no legitimate reason whatsoever. No American servicemen would be dying in Iraq if the Bush people had not put them there. It is not CBS' fault that the Bush people put those troops in Iraq such that those poor sods are dying for no legitimate reason whatsoever; it is purely the Bush people's fault that those poor SOBs are dying.

The sooner the poor sods are returned home, the more their lives will be saved. If everybody shut their mouths, and CBS censored itself, there would be no incentive for the Bush people to return those troops home, and that many more of them would die. The idea is to speak loudly and often such that the troops might return home sooner rather than later such that more of them might live to actually defend their country if a real threat should ever genuinely arise in the world. If CBS' mere reporting of a perfectly truthful and legitimate news item encourages an earlier return for the troops (and thus fewer of their deaths illegitimately), great. But it is a foolish to believe that the vermin in the White House will ever be swayed by any news reporting or loud opposition. They will simply continue to kill off whoever they damn well please for as long as they want. So decent people who abhor this blatantly dishonest and deceitful nonsense are confined to simply "playing a role" by continuing to defend Truth to little or no effect.

Some of you want to cut and run.

No, there is nothing to cut and run from since there is no wrong to be righted in this mercenary adventure. We simply desire to restore the proper status quo with our troops safely at home awaiting an actual attack or invasion of ths US should it ever arise. After all, that is what they volunteered for; certainly not to die as lousy mercenaries. Our ancestors hated friggin' Hessians but our "masters" in the White House may as well be reincarnated Tories.

But until such time as an order is given to execute that retreat,

We are not talking about retreat here because the US has nothing to gain from this mercenary adventure.

don?t try to tell me that this sort of reportage is not damaging to those on the ground because you are quite wrong.

Silly. It is the Bush people who put those poor SOBs there for no legitimate reason whatsoever. It is the Bush people are "damaging to those on the ground because those poor SOBs ought to all be safely home right now with their wives, children, girlfriends, parents, and friends. The only reason they are not all safely at home right now is the Bush people. All damage to those poor SOBs is the responsibility of this White House, not news reporters or anybody else.

So at the risk of sounding like another over-the-top O-6,

Actually, most O-6's I have known have not sounded over the top, but yes, you certainly do. Again, it is the vanity. Not every O-6 has a lethal dose of this vice, but you do.

it appears to me that some of you can?t handle the truth

That would be yourself as evidenced minimally by the tone of your post here. People will not blindly accept what you offer as "secret knowledge," so you get angry. You can't handle the truth because you absolutely, positively have to have your own selfish, deceitful way (all too often at the unwarranted expense of the lives and liberties of your fellow man).

and it really irritates you when someone rubs your nose in it.

You are the only one posting on this thread who sounds irritated. Everybody else seems pretty casual. And you are again projecting because it is you whose nose is being rubbed in the truth, at least insofar as people fail to accept your "secret knowledge" uncritically.

Please do continue to wag your collective fingers at me though; it forces me to pause to consider the source.

I don't know, but I don't think anybody is wagging their finger at you. This is your vanity at work again distorting reality. I think it is more likely that people are amused.



Captain, I think you would be a genuinely interesting character to meet and I would not hesitate to drink a few beers with you. But man, get over yourself. Find that valve stem on your person and release a large volume of that hot air. Bring it down to 32 psi and roll with the flow.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

[b]You know folks, unlike most of you, I don?t pretend to know much.

Actually, you DO pretend to know more than others here...all the time. An unhealthy vanity (which by nature fuels deceit) comes through loud and clear in all too many of your posts, including this one to which I am responding. You do not want people to question the administration line and you do not encourage people to assess any tree by its fruit; instead, you demand that people accept your "secret knowledge" without referrent. When you get started, you frankly sound like Dan Dierdorf on a Slim-Fast commercial. But at least the stuff Dierdorf's pushing is not known to kill people senselessly.

My knowledge base is admittedly limited to the art of war,

Yes and, with regard to anything you place under that heading of war, you demand that your audience suspend all thought and accept whatever you say uncritically, even if it is plainly false and/or has actually already been denied by the administration you blindly follow.

And Mr. Eagen does have considerable expertise on the art of war, plus inside knowledge of what goes on from the inside. I find his posts on military culture and affairs to be very educational, even if I often disagree on specific issues.

Let's stop dissing Mike Eagen. I want him to continue posting; his viewpoints need to be heard. 8)

When military investigators were looking into abuses several months ago, they gave U.S. guards a week's notice before inspecting their possessions, several soldiers said.


"That shows you how lax they are about discipline. 'We are going to look for contraband in here, so hint, hint, get rid of the stuff,' that's the way things work in the Guard," Leal said.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The story is legitimate, but they're 'doing their jobs' in playing up the sensational angle for all its worth, to maximize ratings, and in hiopes of damaging the Bush Administration. Let's not kid ourselves about their motivations.

In wartime, their actions increase the death rate among the military personnel and American civilians (and for that matter innocent bystanders) if they don't do their work very carefully. They are morally bound to a tighter standard in war coverage than in other matters.

The story could have been covered quite effectively without the semi-hysterical tone and the 'drip-drip' (quite intentional) of the photographs. Even the photos could have been shown, but note that they pick out, not the ones that make the point of the story best, but the ones that seem most lurid, esp. the ones with the females in them.

Note, too, the endless whine of 'why won't Bush apologize' that was being reiterated by almost every major news outlet in the last 24 hours. Why, or whether, Bush apologizes, and for what, is none of the media's concern, they're supposed to be covering a story, not editorializing about it. That they are making such a fuss about so trivial a detail betrays the actual agenda at work.

Well, take a look at what you just said. "They're doing their jobs." This is CBS we are talking about. They led with the story while all other news networks followed. CBS hasn't exactly been at the top of the ratings pile for its news coverage for a long time, so this was their opportunity to move ahead. This is real news too. Don't think they were keeping it tucked away somewhere waiting to use their secret wepaon against Bush. If these photos were taken in November or December, it may have taken until February until anybody from CBS saw them. Then they had to go through the process of reporting on a subject which is not easy to report on. Reporting on prison abuse in Iraq? It has to be very difficult to report on. Who are you going to ask to corroborate your story? Donald Rumsfeld?
Then you have all the other stories that were much easier to report onand have scheduled deadlines and show dates. If CBS ran with this when they got the photos, and hadn't reported it as well, then they would have been picked apart and discredited by this administration.
Since they were patient and did a good job, we may actually see some genuine reaction against this sick, perverted behavior.
If you feel the media has brandished around those photos too much, I agree. CBS (and the networks that followed) have been singing that song rather loudly - but that's the name of the game in corporate news. That's just America. Love it or leave it. :lol:
Still, many of the most disturbing photos have been kept out of news outlets and released only on websites. My parents, for example, have not seen the really disgusting stuff. So your judgement call is as good as mine. Perhaps they did know their boundaries, it is just that the boundaries have been extended due to the graphic images.

The media have been rather tight with this administration, and believe me I felt the boot of media sponsored group think as everybody was whipped up into hysterics in March 2003 right before the bombs dropped in Baghdad. In fact, that kind of relinquishing of thought to the administrations control continued right up until May 2003, when our gallant knight arrives in front of his "mission accomplished sign on an air craft carrier.
But somewhere around July, with no storehouses of WMD found, with the realization that this great threat to world security had fallen in two weeks, and with the pain of having to deal with scores of soldiers coming home in boxes every week, public opinion began to sour.
That Bush and Co couldn't rectify that situation over the past year is their fault. And in the case of the prison photos, the Bush Administration f*cked up here, not the media, just like Bill Clinton f*cked up in 1996 by letting another Intern into his back office, and continued to f*ck up over the following three years.
The media didn't throw the ball. They just caught it an ran with it. And with the nature of the press in a ultra-capitalist society, do you really blame them?

Quote: "Lets stop dissing Mike Eagen."

I second the motion.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

I'd also like to know how you feel about involking a draft. Seems to me we need one so that our wars are not fought entirely by members of a military cult. --Croak

Obviously, the draft thing begs some deeper questions. I mean, what would you liberals do when the first group of draftees declare, "Hell no, we won't go!"?

Do you celebrate their sense of individual *choice* for freedom and liberty? Do you send 'em to Canada, and later give 'em amnesty when the smoke clears? Or perhaps you say, "Ok," and bring all the troops home and have a great big orgy at West Point?

Inquiring minds would like to know WWLD? 8)

well, one thing is certain: this whole thing is the media's fault.


TK

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Seems to me we need one so that our wars are not fought entirely by members of a military cult. --Croak

Is limnology a cult? Inquiring minds really want to know! :lol:

Mike, I've read your recent posts on several pertinent subjects, which only increase my respect for your knowledge and your service. But, in all due respect, I am more convinced now than ever that we really do have a militarey-cult problem on our hands. I don't want to hear one more time that only a few have besmirched the many. This is a tired excuse (not used by you, however). I don't want to hear one more time, from Rumsfeld or anybody else, that the vast majority are military men and women are doing the right. Of course they are! I love them for that, and I fear daily for their safety. They are doing an terribly difficult job. But there were other roads to Iraq than the military kind, at least not so preemptively. I think we did the right thing in Afghanistan. But, to me, speaking as one who never served in the military, I think our military cult-ness, all the way up to the Commander In Chief, got us into this impossible mess.

Maybe there has to be a military cult--semper fi and that jazz--given the kinds tasks we ask them to perform. A draft might be the right way to temper extreme aspects of this culture. Wouldn't you say that the cult-ness of the military is precisely why these hearings are being held on TV right now, even as we write?

Once, serving as a limnologist, I tortured and humiliated several species of insects with pins and formaldehyde. Yes, we are a cult of the inquisitive kind.

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

But until such time as an order is given to execute that retreat, don?t try to tell me that this sort of reportage is not damaging to those on the ground because you are quite wrong.

Yes this sort of reporting is damaging to the guys on the ground. Should it not be done then?

But consider the treatment of those prisoners that has caused this uproar. Should it not be done? If we don't do it how will that affect are ability to gather intelligence from these prisoners. Won't this intelligence failure also be damaging?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

But until such time as an order is given to execute that retreat, don?t try to tell me that this sort of reportage is not damaging to those on the ground because you are quite wrong.

Yes this sort of reporting is damaging to the guys on the ground. Should it not be done then?

But consider the treatment of those prisoners that has caused this uproar. Should it not be done? If we don't do it how will that affect are ability to gather intelligence from these prisoners. Won't this intelligence failure also be damaging?

With umbrella held high to deflect the expected stream of shit for opening my mouth yet again, I rather doubt that what was seen in those pictures has anything to do with gathering intelligence. Any good cop will tell you that there are all kinds of ways to accomplish that mission that have nothing to do with degrading people. What you see in those pictures is maliciousness pure and simple, for no other reason than to be malicious. It is, in my opinion, the result of poor training and even poorer leadership at echelon brigade and below. But then, I am formulating my opinions, like the rest of you, based on what I am reading and seeing. My opinion is somewhat more informed by experience of a kind, but still, just an opinion. I wasn?t there, and neither was CBS. Nor were any of you, which is why it is always best to let the investigations ongoing run their course. That is, after all, the American way, is it not? Or are all of you so set on gaining political ?nanny nanny boo boo points? that you would willingly ruin lives, careers, and maybe even the possibility of mission success by convicting people in the court of public opinion? Would you deny these uniformed personnel the same access to due process and fair treatment that they are accused of denying, or is this a case of two wrongs don?t make a right, but three do?

Lest anyone think that this will be one of those white washes as sometimes occur in police brutality cases, have no fear. The military has a glorious history of hanging 50 rather than letting one guilty bastard go free. The institution is pathologically incapable of doing otherwise. So the CID, FBI, et al will get their men . . . or as it appears at this time, women, as they would have done prior to CBS?s report. Only it would have been done without the media circus, finger pointing, Arab anger, and risk to troops in the field. Regardless, in the end justice will be just as swift and sure, but had it been done in the manner I would have preferred, the degree of risk faced by our personnel would not have been as great, and numerous spleens here abouts would have had no opportunity for venting. More?s the pity. I am now in the ?lambaste receive mode.? I?ll even stand still to improve your aim. Exhale and squeeze.

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

What you see in those pictures is maliciousness pure and simple, for no other reason than to be malicious. It is, in my opinion, the result of poor training and even poorer leadership at echelon brigade and below.

How then, in your opinion, do we fix this leadership and training problem and prevent it from happening again? You may say that this should be left to the military, but the truth is that those pictures endanger the lives of ALL of us, not just the soldiers in Iraq. The public has every right to be involved in this.

So the CID, FBI, et al will get their men . . . or as it appears at this time, women, as they would have done prior to CBS?s report. Only it would have been done without the media circus, finger pointing, Arab anger, and risk to troops in the field.

Instead of blaming CBS, maybe you should be blaming the dipshits that took those pictures in the first place. Kind of like inner-city gang members videotaping their crimes, isn't it? Completely and utterly STUPID!! In the modern media and internet age, those pictures were certain to be made public eventually.

I am now in the ?lambaste receive mode.? I?ll even stand still to improve your aim. Exhale and squeeze.

Oh please, spare us the victim routine. You give as much shit as you take on these boards, and we all know it.

After seven years of mostly taking it, you are probably correct in your last statement. I am giving as much as I take, and why not? Who else restrains themselves anymore?

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

I am giving as much as I take, and why not? Who else restrains themselves anymore?

No one, save for shooting real bullets. Is that restraint to fall soon, too? Who'll fire first?

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

Any good cop will tell you that there are all kinds of ways to accomplish that mission that have nothing to do with degrading people.

Cops generally accomplish their missions by offering criminals reduced sentencing in exchange for testimony. These prisoners aren't criminals, there isn't any sentence to reduce. There is no reason for any of them to cooperate.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

Any good cop will tell you that there are all kinds of ways to accomplish that mission that have nothing to do with degrading people.

Cops generally accomplish their missions by offering criminals reduced sentencing in exchange for testimony. These prisoners aren't criminals, there isn't any sentence to reduce. There is no reason for any of them to cooperate.

So are you advocating "torture" Michael?

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

Any good cop will tell you that there are all kinds of ways to accomplish that mission that have nothing to do with degrading people.

Cops generally accomplish their missions by offering criminals reduced sentencing in exchange for testimony. These prisoners aren't criminals, there isn't any sentence to reduce. There is no reason for any of them to cooperate.

So are you advocating "torture" Michael?

I was pointing out that there are tradeoffs.

My opinion is that what happened in Iraq was reprehensive and unnecessary. I would also be harshly disapproving of the same treatment of prisoners held in Cuba.

On the other hand, I would not be critical of this treatment of al Qaeda prisoners recently captured whom we believed had knowledge of the whereabouts of still-extant al Qaeda forces, especially senior members.

In the case of Iraq, we are trying to create a stable environment conducive to nation buildng. Mistreatment of Iraq citizens, even suspected terrorists, is counterproductive and immoral and should be condemned.

In the case of Cuba any information the prisoners would have is stale by now. Mistreatment of prisoners, even suspected terrorists is pointless and immoral and should be condemned.

In the case of recently captured al Qaeda prisoners, their information could lead to capture or elimination of important al Qaeda elements. Mistreatment of such prisoners, if it gains useful information, is immoral, but also useful. I wouldn't condemn it if it helped save American lives. I know its not morally right and I am embarrassed to admit I feel this way, but I do.

I guess there's something of a Heart of Darkness lurking within me. :evil:

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/


Abu Ghraib Was Inevitable

Posted by Chris Dominguez at 10:32 PM

The degradation there was simply an extension of the dehumanization that lies at the very heart of this whole enterprise--a war built upon one lie after another, spreading slowly but surely like a cancer from the Oval Office all the way down to the lowest enlisted man. The Catholic philosopher Joseph Pieper, taking his cue from Plato's Dialogues in Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power, calls the act of lying a "corruption of the relationship to reality" whereby the liar "no longer respects the other as a human person." As a fish rots from the head, no one should be surprised that the men and women to whom George Bush bore false witness--treating them as expendable pawns--should in turn treat Iraqis in the same way. Those not respected as human persons will lose the ability to be humane.

The War Was Wrong. A simple refrain, perhaps--and virtually an article of faith for the man or woman who has eyes to see. Yet it cannot be repeated enough. No phony apologies or promises of investigations of this or that abuse can wipe the slate clean. The monstrous sin of making war upon innocent people can only begin to be healed by the most unlikely of acts: a complete mea culpa from a President who cannot bring to mind any mistakes he's made in office.

"There's no living with a killing," Shane tells Joey, after shooting three men dead in the saloon. "There's no going back from it. Right or wrong, it's a brand, a brand that sticks." I will not insult the honor of this finest of films by comparing George Bush to Alan Ladd, except to point out that Shane did indeed leave the valley. When will American guns leave Iraq?

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

With umbrella held high to deflect the expected stream of shit for opening my mouth yet again,

More vanity: you once again claim "victim" status (a big, "experienced" guy like you no less). And to clarify: you do not get criticized for opening your mouth; you get criticized for engaging in deceit (spawned of excessive vanity) when you do open your mouth.

But then, I am formulating my opinions, like the rest of you, based on what I am reading and seeing. My opinion is somewhat more informed by experience of a kind, but still, just an opinion.

Vanity again rears its ugly head with the bogus "experience" card. Still loking for some substance here, Captain.

I wasn?t there, and neither was CBS. Nor were any of you, which is why it is always best to let the investigations ongoing run their course. That is, after all, the American way, is it not? Or are all of you so set on gaining political ?nanny nanny boo boo points? that you would willingly ruin lives, careers, and maybe even the possibility of mission success by convicting people in the court of public opinion? Would you deny these uniformed personnel the same access to due process and fair treatment that they are accused of denying, or is this a case of two wrongs don?t make a right, but three do?

As far as I have seen, no one here has suggested anything remotely like that which you describe. This causes one to wonder what the point of your "over-the-top diatribe" above was.

So the CID, FBI, et al will get their men . . . or as it appears at this time, women, as they would have done prior to CBS?s report.

Um, no. The Defense Department higher-ups in Washington were made aware of this vile nonsense months ago and nothing was done. CBS (and others?) sat on the story for months and nothing was done. Thanks to CBS's report, something is finally being done.

Only it would have been done without the media circus, finger pointing, Arab anger, and risk to troops in the field.

No, no, no. Again, absolutely nothing was done before the "media circus" as you put it. Therefore, thank God for the "media circus."

Regardless, in the end justice will be just as swift and sure, but had it been done in the manner I would have preferred,

Again, nothing was being done when things were being done in the manner you would prefer (i.e. before the "media circus").

the degree of risk faced by our personnel would not have been as great,

The degree of risk faced by our personnel in Iraq would be non-existent if the Bush people had never placed them in Iraq in the first place. There was no legitimate reason for an Iraq invasion so they should not have been placed there then and they should not be there now. Bring every last one of those poor SOBs home...NOW.

I am now in the ?lambaste receive mode.? I?ll even stand still to improve your aim. Exhale and squeeze.

More vanity: the "victim" card again.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

More vanity: you once again claim "victim" status (a big, "experienced" guy like you no less). And to clarify: you do not get criticized for opening your mouth; you get criticized for engaging in deceit (spawned of excessive vanity) when you do open your mouth.

Is this your way of making yourself feel good, little seadog? Of attempting to raise your own stature among the big people, little seadog? This typical limp-wristed blather reminds me of my favorite description of the little seadog that couldn't:

• You are become a stupid old, worn out comic strip, little seadog. Tis all yellowed around the edges from extreme bitterness and decay. Not Funny is the name of it. And you are like a cheap caricature of the very supposed "human garbage" you rail against.

I just love visiting the T4T boards.

Originally Posted by Flicka

The media have been rather tight with this administration, and believe me I felt the boot of media sponsored group think as everybody was whipped up into hysterics in March 2003 right before the bombs dropped in Baghdad.

The media have been hostile to the Bush Administration since day one, though after 911 they muted their tone out of fear of public backlash. But right through the Iraq invasion, they were reporting 'facts' at variance with the reality on the ground, that's how Fox News managed to scoop them, not that they'll admit it even happened.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Seems to me we need one so that our wars are not fought entirely by members of a military cult. --Croak

Is limnology a cult? Inquiring minds really want to know! :lol:

Mike, I've read your recent posts on several pertinent subjects, which only increase my respect for your knowledge and your service. But, in all due respect, I am more convinced now than ever that we really do have a militarey-cult problem on our hands. I don't want to hear one more time that only a few have besmirched the many. This is a tired excuse (not used by you, however). I don't want to hear one more time, from Rumsfeld or anybody else, that the vast majority are military men and women are doing the right. Of course they are! I love them for that, and I fear daily for their safety. They are doing an terribly difficult job. But there were other roads to Iraq than the military kind, at least not so preemptively.

What were they?

Remember, the UN and the Europeans had already made up their mind to oppose us in our approach to Iraq no matter what. The growing scandal over the distribution of oil and money under the 'oil for food' program is probably a good indicator of part of why. So anything involving UN-based multilaterism was a dead end before we started.

Lacking a realistic, believable threat of force, why would Hussein have cared what America wanted?

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Instead of blaming CBS, maybe you should be blaming the dipshits that took those pictures in the first place. Kind of like inner-city gang members videotaping their crimes, isn't it? Completely and utterly STUPID!! In the modern media and internet age, those pictures were certain to be made public eventually.

That is one of the most interesting, and peculiar, aspects of this whole business. Taking those photographs was stupid, aside from the moral elements, whether they were acting under orders or acting on their own, or anything in between. The only semi-sensible reason I could think of to make such photographs and videos would be if you were planning to blow the whistle, and wanted documentary evidence when you did, but that doesn't fit this in any way.

I've asked myself several times what purpose was served by taking those photographs (which as Witchiepoo points out, is almost a sure thing for leaking), and the only answers I come up with seem either improbable, or really twisted. But we'll see what happens next.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Flicka

The media have been rather tight with this administration, and believe me I felt the boot of media sponsored group think as everybody was whipped up into hysterics in March 2003 right before the bombs dropped in Baghdad.

The media have been hostile to the Bush Administration since day one, though after 911 they muted their tone out of fear of public backlash. But right through the Iraq invasion, they were reporting 'facts' at variance with the reality on the ground, that's how Fox News managed to scoop them, not that they'll admit it even happened.

Fox News is part of the media, Schroder.
There are plenty of news outlets for you to get the spin you savor, and me to get mine. If you think the media should be purged of liberals than you can just raise the minimum wage so our measly salaries we call income can go up and attract more of our business-oriented, conservative friends who have a passion for the truth.
As for media coverage of the Iraq war, the only "informative" news piece I saw on the war prior to te invasion was byTed Koppel who outlined our relationship with Saddam Hussein through the 1980s and 90s.
Everything else was guns and ammo, chief. I really dug Wolf Blitzers examination of just what bombs we were using, and how they worked.
But aside again - that's not my main point.
The main point is that this is a capitalistic, independent country of many freedoms, and what you have seen with CBS and the networks that have followed is nothing than that glorious, capitalistic rush to the dollar sign, all under our cherished freedom of the press going back to the Zenger trial of 1733.
Love it or leave it, baby. Love it or leave it. 8)