Photo of Bill Moyers Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Watch & Listen The Blog Archive Transcripts Buy DVDs

« Register to Vote | Main | Bailout Blues? »

What Issues Aren't Getting Addressed?

(Photo by Robin Holland)

Conversing with Bill Moyers on the JOURNAL this week, media experts Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Brooke Gladstone discussed the language and narratives that have shaped and dominated the 2008 campaign, including the economic bailout legislation and this week’s vice presidential debate.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson suggested that the candidates’ discourse has been ignoring key issues that will face the next administration:

“We’ve now had two debates in which candidates have been asked a significant question... that in changed financial circumstances, with an unprecedented deficit and debt, with the public deficit foreign-held, now about to increase over the huge level that it’s already at, these four candidates – two presidential, two vice presidential – don’t have the courage to tell us that if elected, they will change their spending and taxing plans.”

What do you think?

  • What issues aren’t being addressed by the candidates?
  • What questions are the press not asking?
  • In your opinion, why is this the case?

  • TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    what issues arent getting addressed?.. UNcharitable charities, before funding any charity. please visit. REFORM MARCH OF DIMES.ORG (learn how charities misspend research dollars) and MRMCMED.ORG, read what the march of dimes spends 30 million dollars a year on, thank you for your time. ps, animal research has NEVER been validated. "work on prevention of polio was LONG DELAYED by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on MISLEADING experimental models of the disease in monkeys" albert sabin, m.d., during a 1984 house subcommittee. (cancer) "if curing mouse cancers were enough. we would have cured cancer IN THE 60S" dr. donald morton, john wayne cancer institute.

    The scornful nostril and the high head gather not the odors that lie on the track of truth. - spoiled teen - nude female sketch

    Forget givin up watchin TV. How could I have heard Bill and Mark C. Miller tonight? [All the new TV-radios no longer have channels higher than 13]. Thank God Almighty for that interview. Sure was a lot of "comment" on Washington Week re ACORN without one single peep about FL's
    4 million dollar felon scrubber (and scrubber of names similar to those of felons). I got a better idea...take your cable money and get a printer soley for labels with your Rep and Senators' DC addresses...or a camcorder to take to the polls.

    I know Nader will eloquently speak the truth like nobody's business, but no 3rd party for this cat this year, LG. Jacques Ellul was interesting on 3rd parties in America in "The Technological Society" written some yars ago.

    Gail Kanaga, Oct 5 8:05:
    I was just thinking about something related to your point about people displaced by foreclosure voting. I was wondering where people who've lost their homes would vote. I remembered that if we move we usually can go back to the precinct where we registered for 2 years. My husband pointed out that this is currently an issue in New Orleans where thousands are displaced. They may not have registered at their new address, because the felt it was temporary. At any rate, the media should be informing folks in these situations what they should do.
    Coley, your post on Peak Meat is insightful and powerful. Thou almost persuadest me...

    What can Bill Moyers possibly discuss this week he hasn't already said, but that he is "allowed" to say? "What's the Matter With Kansas?" still persists on the archive, signifying election fixation.

    Peter Joseph, the producer of Zeitgeist and the Zeitgeist Addendum, might make a good guest. I invested 2 hours in the Addendum yesterday on you tube and heard about a man who won against foreclosure in court on the grounds that the bank had no "consideration." Joseph challenges the "givens" of modern life without threatening power directly. His solutions, such as "Don't watch TV" and "Boycott Bank of America" sound pretty harmless. Zeitgeist projects a utopia of 1960s futurism according to the visuals, and a religion of diffuse Stardust Buddhism with George Carlin as guide. The coolest thing Joseph asks is "Why do we have to work?" That is a good question for Bill Moyers. Why do you have to "work", Bill?

    Anyway, maybe Bill will doff his coat and street shoes this week to don sneakers and a zippered sweater. Everything else is in place: King Friday, McFeely, Lady Elaine (Jamieson), etc. He could sing to a frightened Henry Paulson, "You're much too big, much too big, too big to fit down the drain..." and then use Legos to show us how derivatives work. I'm getting bored with Mr. Moyers' Neighborhood. We all need a trolley ride, like over on PBS NOW.
    But where is the PeeWee Herman of PBS public affairs when you need him/her? (Not Gwen Eyefull!)

    Third parties dont thrive because the media is controlled by Democrats or Reublicans! Furthermore money/media income is another objective of the media! They air what the viewers want to hear about! The TWO PARTY SYSTEM blocks any third party potential! When you vote, vote for a third party candidate!

    Richard Mercer: Thanks for pointing out that mulp is an astute genius. (Find names on edit button)
    How's about we revalue our currency based upon the use-value of labor. Then conniving business employments could sink to their just recompense level, and people would abandon them for a real job. At the same time let's make our elected officials philosopher statespersons by relieving them of excess personal property for life, starting with the Supreme Court. (Relatives would be subject to similar regulation.) That way those in authority might find purer motives, and the truly greedy be exempted.

    Peak Meat is not being addressed. I have plotted a graph that indubitably illustrates that good table meat is decreasing in availability and quality. All the easy meat has been produced, so we come to the difficult meat in an era of increasing demand. Chinese and Indians are demanding meat at every meal, at snack time and just before bed. In Europe some fat Germans may be using dead frozen sheep as pillows. The innate appeal of Sarah Palin is bolstered by her personal ability to find, shoot, dress and serve delicious wild meat. So that is our increasingly desperate state of affairs. The freezer case is not as dramatic as the petroleum pump with all its digital displays, bells and whistles, and discounted car washes, but we as just as screwed by it, and feel the same sort of emptiness.

    If you had your fill of vegetables, fruits, breads, cereals and sweets, to the point of running out your nose, your meat hunger would remain, acute and aching. The metallic twang of fried bologna, the pungent zest of canned tuna, and the aged hark-bark of jerky haunt all our appetites. It is obvious that many men would eschew sex for the grinding of beefsteak. The hormones, antibiotics, cloning and genetic engineering cannot deter us, and rumors of organ failure resultant from bacterial contamination and melamine additives never slow our consumption. In the final analysis we are ADDICTED TO MEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    But Peak Meat is here and it’s undeniable. Some conservative ideologues have claimed there are vast deposits of meat under our most beautiful parks and verdant sanctuaries, but they are wrongheaded and crazy, just hungry for more meats. The truth is we’ll have to muddle by with meat shaped greaseballs and soy substitutes. Maybe the Chinese adulterators will stumble onto something really tasty that is no more dangerous than cigarettes, but we can’t count on that. As the meat factories get nastier and the illegal alien employees more diseased by poverty we’ll all cringe slightly as we suck a drumstick or cram a sausage biscuit down our gullet, but even the horror of creeping up prices won’t slow us. Finally the experimental efforts to breed fatter and quicker maturing animals will backfire and all living meat will become inedible, except human flesh. Aborted babies (baby back ribs) will be in high demand, as will corpses. (Eat a little of Grandma to keep her memory alive.) Religions will adapt to provide fruitful sacrifice. (Aztec mass-butchering will replace steroid sports and NASCAR.) Humanity has always been resourceful and adaptive, so we will find a way. Any extraterrestrials landing here will be dead meat. I can see the new cooking shows and recipe books now. Africa will be depopulated by a CIA merchandizing dark meat. Container ships will distribute cannibalized delicacies around the globe. Yum-yum, eat-‘em-up!

    So what is the appropriate response today, by socially conscious individuals itching to act? Just drop some delicious cooked meat products into those trick-or-treaters bags. They’ll love you for it because they can’t resist. It’s so satisfying… to conform completely, and to rule out any other way of life.
    We could never give up meat any more than we could abandon global monopoly capitalism. We are it, and it is us.

    Third parties have had an extremely tough time in this land. That's why I wrote to Sherri that I looked forward mainly to helping lay the groundwork. Nevertheless, the latest swindle has moved the Global South closer to more American doorsteps than anything in recent memory.

    A cherished philosophy must be crashing for those angry people at the McCain rallies. They have mimicked the people for so long they thought they should become, and now there's no room at the top. The class is at graduation, and then they learn there are no jobs waiting. How can we help them? Oh man, the chagrin. Bigger and bigger waves [of refutation] keep rolling over ya; gotta turn that nose around and ride soup in to shore.

    Do I remember that phrase correctly from Klein's Chapter One...."learned helplessness"? Has the system attempted to learn all of us this helplessness at less extreme levels? From this book alone you could anticipate the karma. "Investigative reporting" (television) may not flash us back through Operation Cyclone for years. But that's ok. It's in print. In the meantime, with analysis like Klein's and others simply on the economic score...we don't even need to know whatever particulars regarding WTC 7.

    Yesterday it didn't occur to me how to thank you, Jack Martin. But fact is we will not make it through without attitudes like yours. Back to the silo dust in your eyes and clothes. And the numb fingers too! The challenges of America have been too extreme for too many for too long true, but for those of us lucky enough to get'em in moderation...we gotta pass on and encourage what in reality were our greatest blessings.

    mulp your essay on taxes is a gem.

    I have never heard someone disect the republican double speak on economics so well.

    Yes, the republicans wil cut the working class's taxes, by cutting their wages. I hear you loud and clear

    What is an equitable formula?

    More prison overcrowding should not IMO be allowed as means to meet budget even in this time of emergency. That was one of the most heinous hallmarks of the
    trickle-down society to begin with...that it tolerated same all along. Nor IMO should any transitory period (getting to "equitable") utilize cuts to institutions for the developmentally disabled. As best I can gather, friends, such institutions have been underfunded ever since
    farm-out-to-private became the preferred pie in the sky of the Reaganites.

    Prison guards should not receive more work for same pay. A Constitutional Amendment should prohibit during the
    so-called "rescue" any curtailment of services rendered to the sick or to the developmentally disabled, and should prohibit any prospect of paycuts for caregivers in both cases. These are your last nets, folks, and have born the effects of economy-by-dividend most heavily all along
    from the get-go. Consider doing the lifting and the paperwork.

    They painted over the social realist mural in the old post office when it became the administrative headquarters of county social services. The brawny arms of the farmers and steel workers, the marathon hips and sure fingers of the gracile gleaners and seamstresses, are snowed under by Sherwin Williams; Cover the Earth! The truth that people need labor is lost on the stiletto heels kicking the electric heater under the desk and the marbled souse bellies craving barbeque for luncheon with imported beer.

    Employments that would have benefitted the claimants are overseas now, or occupied by disposable visitors. Labor is imagined a repugnant bodily function, like painful convulsing defecation.

    If the waterline or sewer to your house failed, could you take up the shovel and trench it out? Does that frighten you? Is it beneath your station or ambitions? When the hallway drywall is punctured, are you as panicked as by a discolored facial blemish near your right eye?

    I wonder if the correspondents on this blog could ever really work, would want to know the satisfaction of a challenging physical task. In merchantilist Spain, labor (the act and the performer) were despised. Are we as decadent now?

    Our infrastructure crumbles as we clutch at cybertronic amusements. I anticipate great fun and fulfillment in rebuilding the United States but I suspect most of you don't. The cost accounting may be more your thing.

    I'm warning you because I believe the people who do the real work deserve the highest rewards, whether they restring the broken electrical cables or pick the peaches. We can live without commodities traders and insurance brokers, but maybe not without conscientious dishwashers. It is time to consider a living minimum wage and limits upon the disparity of recompense. What is an equitable formula?

    In the thirties the Social Realists had the insight of dignified labor. The images were idealized and crude. We painted them over before they could mature conceptually. We expected everyone who deserved it would win the capitalist game and then recline in opulence. But another day comes and the cows must be milked and the oil must be changed in the bulldozer. Maybe we are paying for our delusions with a second greater Depression. Put your bodies to their proper use and you'll fell better in every way.

    Cont from below 8:55 AM

    What's fair or not fair...what's equivalent or not equivalent in terms of the Keating thing strike me as small quibbles compared to the alternate views on history we should be hearing. We get no attempts on overarching critical re-caps of various economic zeitgeists or military zeigeists in most media; we get hints of such with Brooks and Shields. As far as what we've done over the long term that's hurt our image I have a feeling Hannity and Colmes aren't even getting close (I only listen to Colmes' radio show).

    Nevertheless, Jamieson's right to stress the differences of the candidates on Social Security and healthcare reform. The transcript's a great outline.

    Some things lately that have helped me get a view of America from outside America are John Perkins' book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman," Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine," and a few interviews at Frontline's "Saudi Time Bomb?" site. In the past there was an article by Zoltan Grossman on the Balkans; see "Erecting the New Wall..." now at Grossman's site under "1994." In html it's here in Google Groups. In the past before that past there were tomes by William Greider and before that Richard J. Barnet. Also, I seem to remember some "Town Meetings of the Air" with Fred Friendly back in the 60s.

    Hey, and I'm ok with regulated market forces. Just let's not spend the pensions ahead'a time and the rest of the world's savings along with'em.

    Jamieson seems right to probe the particulars of each position on healthcare. Unfortunately, I view the agents germane involved in as big a ball of confusion as those tied up in the credit meltdown. If there's a page here at the Journal or PBS, or NPR that breaks down what each healthcare position would provide...and their cost...and if "unfunded," how they would get funded...could someone please link it here?

    "The Bush proposal would have put you into a category of investments that are not experiencing the same kinds of decline that you're seeing right now." Jamieson

    Would someone explain to me which, and why?

    As far as this Ayers thing goes, wouldn't it be amazing if Mark Shields or Alan Colmes one day said something like, Hey, the Reagan administration organized the most radical Islamic extremists it could find anywhere in the world and brought them to Afghanistan to train them, arm them. [Chomsky quote]

    I don't care about McCain's tacit involvement with the Keating Five. Though McCain was a progressive Republican on a number of issues, the main thing is that he was in the de-regulation camp. I haven't seen the web ad (slow hook up), but will most folks draw the inference that he was "most responsibile"?

    "While no two financial crises are exactly alike, the current financial meltdown and the S&L debacle were both arguably the results of deregulation; it is not much of a stretch by conventional campaign standards to point out during a major financial crisis that your opponent played a prominent role in the last major financial crisis." F.A.I.R. 10/10

    Questions not being asked...
    If it's a felony to steal a purse or wallet, why is it perfectly legal to steal someone's life's savings through gambling on Wall Street? Because it's just paper, maybe? Ah, but the hours and hours they spent earning it aren't just paper.
    If it's patriotic to go shopping, is it then treason to sabotage the American economy?

    The questions not being asked is, how much monies the CEO's..CFO's..Boards of Directors..corporate Governors are going to take home and why those very people are not being investigated as they are the ones who OK and or request loans from the very institutions they are members of. This has happened due to the SPP, because of the financial restructuring that will take place world wide,first those greedy citizens grabbed all they could and now when they have INSIDE knowledge of these changes are saying the system is overloaded. Seems strange that the housing bubble started in 2001 with the advent of JOBS ONLY IN HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, the one thing the media are NOT ASKING is how convenient for the towers to go down and with it ANY AND ALL RECORDS TO FIND OUT WHO IS BEHIND ALL THIS. Also seems funny that the S & L debacle involved the first bush and now we have the second bush with the same type of failure GREED.
    There is no such thing as Government, there is only Grifters we erroneously call our politicians. I would like to see a full accounting of the SPP financial recomendations made last Aug.2007.

    So Jim, the Impaler is adept at "stealing the bacon" but would not be capable of pulling our chesnuts out of the fire. I pretty much agree. Hugo Chavez would make us a better VP, I'd say.
    I wanna see a grudge match between Raoul Castro and John McCain, both creepy little shin kickers. I hope Dub gets his in prison. I hear Robbin Island is available. It worked on Napoleon.

    Normally, qualifications for office are not considered an issue. However, in the present case of Palin for VP, there is a real issue. In the NOW video which is one of few we can trust, see,

    it appears that Sarah Palin believes that Alaska owns the natural resources in that state. Didn't the USA buy Alaska from Russia? Not to quibble about all of US history, I checked the US lands map, see

    and this seems to show that much of the land in Alaska is federal land of one sort or another. This is especially the case for the North Slope lands.

    So in the NOW video where it is shown as a great and popular thing that Palin raised taxes on big oil, surely this is good politics, but does it really amount to leadership?

    The word might better be opportunism. She saw corruption which was operating to limit taxes on oil and moved in like Robin Hood. She raised taxes on oil company profits, which effectively means she taxed a federal resources. So Alaskans get an even bigger check and continue to pay no income taxes.

    NOW says she is wildly popular. So is Hugo Chavez.

    This seems to be what is meant by the word "maverick". Maybe it is not really a qualification for President.

    McCain says he will "cut taxes".
    Obama says he will cut taxes for 95% of house holds.

    How much money does this mean to a household of four earning $60,000 a yr., etc?

    Both candidates do not address details. They do no more that paint their canvas background, & Impressionism does not get my vote!

    There may not be SURE answers in these troubled days, but to answer with Party Platform retoric does not get my vote!

    Neither candidate gives me cause to feel secure with them as President!

    Obama-No matter whats,
    always give an a+-
    No matter what!

    Republicans are shooting from the hip & hit targets as one might expect.

    The "News-Media" is so biased, and out of touch with Mainstreet, they think we believe what they say.

    The Financial crisis has been in the works for years & the Treasury Sect. believes Mainstreet belives this was a SURPRISE & $700 billion in Unmarked Bills in his hands will save us!

    It doesn't seem to be addressed that No one in the World can believe Washington.

    It does not seem to be addressed many that profess to be journalist are in fact PUNDITS!

    As I read these posts I acquire hope that Americans can increase their understanding of events. There are too many good ones here for me to ask all the questions that arise in my mind as I scan them over. To begin with I forgot to thank Linwood for his contribution on Oct 4. Those who've posted after my last messages here that have proven IMO the public can understand are: Mumia, Grady, Bill Johnson, John, Stephen L., Hancock, and of course a number more.

    Am beginning to think the meltdown could not have happened if it weren't for five ingredients: resources (shrinking), foreign policy based on access to oil, manufacturing jobs leaving US & EU, overly speculative instruments, and "shock doctrine" having enhanced problems associated with first two factors...Nigeria and Venezuela for example.

    PS The old "Now" message bds wouldn't work for my computer, whereas these do. There are some extremely tough anti-spam code words to read and type-in however. Wish I had freeze frame software to capture this one and let you see what I mean.

    Still dream of a Wikipedia which either uses simpler language or provides examples with perhaps photos in a sidebar or something. I could read this for instance, and have no idea of the actual, literal, tangible, step-by-step process an actual individual goes through to obtain credit default swaps (or used to go through).

    Thanks for your post, Bill Johnson. I'll paste it in my latest TextPad collage hoping it gets to the root as much as it appears to. You used these terms UBS, CDAR (struck out). "SIV" I take to be structured investment? You mentioned this forum at Daily Kos.

    Norm S, I am also pasting your 10/5 message re healthcare in this big mess'o stuff [I am composing post from the mess platform].

    Paul Solman got me a little straight on the bond factor re CDSs on NewsHour 10/6. Why didn't reporters do this stuff right off the bat [Solman's was melodramatic; it coulda been way more accurate/explanatory]?

    @Robin D'Ursis, your criticism of Jamieson is unfair. Lehrer, Ifil and Brocaw never asked the candidates what they would do within the first 100 days. They were asked how the financial crisis would affect their proposed programs.

    Honest answers would involve rhetoric such as "we'll have to shrink this, and we'll have to cut that," and there were a few (very few) honest answers; however, they never admitted that major plans they had for America would likely have to be canceled due to the financial crisis.

    For example, national health care for all Americans would probably cost less than $100bn, but we've spent fifteen times that this year bailing out financial institutions. The money for national health care has already been spent.

    Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon in a few years. Militarily confronting a nuclear Iran would cost a minimum of a trillion dollars, but more than that was spent this year, so the money for militarily confronting Iran has already been spent.

    We will be in a recession for a few years. Government income tax receipts will be reduced for several years. The next president will likely have to deal with four years of recession and high levels of interest payments. It's possible that the majority of government tax income will be taken by interest payments, so little will be available for anything else.

    What the moderators wanted to highlight was the fact that the economic downturn might mean that none of the candidates proposals will be doable. Jamieson's criticism of the candidates' unwillingness to openly confront this fact was legitimate.

    This Economic crisis reminds me of the S&L debacle in the 80s. I remember you did that "Listening to America" series on it and I have such a strong sense of deja vu. I would dearly love to see a comparison of the then biggest robbery of tax payers in history and today's gargantuan robbery of tax payers. How can we learn from history if we don't know what happened in the past. The right wing is preparing a massive ad blizzard blaming the Dems, and brown people for the current crisis. At the same time, they are launching a whisper and smear campaign against Obama as a secret muslim. It would be helpful to shine a little sunlight on the current crisis and how it came about.

    This Economic crisis reminds me of the S&L debacle in the 80s. I remember you did that "Listening to America" series on it and I have such a strong sense of deja vu. I would dearly love to see a comparison of the then biggest robbery of tax payers in history and today's gargantuan robbery of tax payers. How can we learn from history if we don't know what happened in the past. The right wing is preparing a massive ad blizzard blaming the Dems, and brown people for the current crisis. At the same time, they are launching a whisper and smear campaign against Obama as a secret muslim. It would be helpful to shine a little sunlight on the current crisis and how it came about.

    In past programs I agree with Ms. Jamieson, however this time I do disagree with her characterization that the public opposed the 700B (now 820B) package by "not understanding the seriousness of the problem". The public resoundingly objects to rewarding the exploiters and want a call for ideas as solutions during the interim (we got 200 economists that objected and no real push for idea submissions). During that week we did get some good ideas. one in particular characterized as "part of the package" is as obvious as day - up the fdic to 250k (or an amount one might have to put in a bank after a house sale). It was obvious with fear, one had 2 options for these larger amounts - treasury or commitment to cd's via cdars. That fdic change was a no brainer and should have been enacted immediately and was never a "trade" for inclusion in the bill. If the public could get a clean bill without the poison attached they would endorse it. it was like a robber pressuring the bank president with his accomplices holding his family at home under gunpoint. the public was pressured with loss of jobs, factory closing etc if they didn't give to wallstreet.

    another issue with the passed bill was that, contrary to buffett on rose, this bill offered to value cds on something other than market valuations. buffett suggested taking 1/10 of a lot to market to set value of the 9/10 the govt would buy. that contradicts the plan in the bill as now written.

    When earlier paulson demanded 700B "by monday" saying cdo's and siv's were too complex to untangle, I disagree ( then cds's were the excuse of fear that could collapse the markets. Apparently there are roughly 6-7 dollars of "insurance" traded about for every dollar of underlying asset (much like "22 barrels of oil are traded for every one delivered). I suspected then and now, that paulson is hiding yet another fiasco of yet another example of unregulated and mismanaged finance operations - hedge funds. it was reported ubs demanded one of their hedge fund underwriters prove they could cover the cds "insurance" they were party to. hedge funds became investments for pension funds, school endowments and produced positive returns when the general market tanked. they are the types that could resist booking assets by "mark to market" and hide the underlying problem - that is until the last withdrawlers find out what is really left. Paulson's vagueness in the 4 page original document could have been envisioned as a tool to continue the hiding of the problem by making sure the "insurance" was never called upon. foreign markets who bought our bad paper set up the global system for another ltcm crash.

    Bill Moyer's discussion with Jamison and Gladstone was terrific. I was so impressed with their analysis of the debates and the press. (I listen to Brooke G on Public Radio sometimes and like her alot). They are two very intelligent women who brought some great insite into their analyses. One of the best conversations I have heard or seen in a long time.

    I was disappointed that Bill didn't challenge Ms. Jamieson when she asserted:
    "When the public doesn't have any sense about what's really going on, this is very confusing and very complicated. Framing matters. If this is described as a taxpayer bailout of Wall Street, it's not popular. If it's described as taxpayer investing in the well-being of the economy, it's far more a more positive."
    The notion that the public didn't understand what was happening is, I think, a fundamental misunderstanding of public reaction to the bailout. The public did understand that the bill before Congress made sense only when seen as bailing out the very people who created the mess. I don't think that a shift in framing would have affected the negative groundswell one bit.
    Warren Buffet is an odd poster boy to use on the bailout's behalf, since Buffet demanded and got far more favorable conditions for the use of his money than the taxpayers are getting. His cardiac arrest analogy was both condescending and wide of the mark.

    I was disappointed that Bill didn't challenge Ms. Jamieson when she asserted:
    "When the public doesn't have any sense about what's really going on, this is very confusing and very complicated. Framing matters. If this is described as a taxpayer bailout of Wall Street, it's not popular. If it's described as taxpayer investing in the well-being of the economy, it's far more a more positive."
    The notion that the public didn't understand what was happening is, I think, a fundamental misunderstanding of public reaction to the bailout. The public did understand that the bill before Congress made sense only when seen as bailing out the very people who created the mess. I don't think that a shift in framing would have affected the negative groundswell one bit.
    Warren Buffet is an odd poster boy to use on the bailout's behalf, since Buffet demanded and got far more favorable conditions for the use of his money than the taxpayers are getting. His cardiac arrest analogy was both condescending and wide of the mark.

    Not being addressed:
    1. The systematic hollowing out of government by the imposition of debt for war and elite bailout, corporate welfare and targeted expenditures to benefit certain firms or individuals, with the costs being loaded onto taxpayers.
    2. The general erosion of civil and human rights through legislation (ex. Patriot Act), practice (ex. Police pre-emption of peaceful protest, surveillance), court decisions (ex. erosion of individual right and class action right to sue corporations over damages and practices ie. pending protections for pharmaceutical companies selling dangerous drugs) and other (such as the glorification of garden variety soldiers and police as being above the general citizenry) Other panic inducement (ex. the President's false presentation of the bailout, threatening a meltdown)
    3. The allowance of right wing religious politics without tax penalty, as at Liberty University, while threatening tenure of progressive academics.
    4. The real and permanent damage to community, infrastructure and environment by Global Climate Change events such as Katrina and Ike. (ex. The massive gulf oil spills from Ike are being ignored as fools scream "Drill, Drill, Drill!")
    5. The fact that the carry trade,derivatives and hedging have generated a debt many times that from the "housing crisis." Elite gambling is the primary hazard. Only wealth disparity reform can stop the destruction.
    6. The basic contradiction of corporate global capitalism: The fact that it cannot provide basic subsistence for the majority of people, but can only concentrate wealth to a point where it seizes up. (ie. What other purpose is there to building houses except for people to live in. Why is the price then higher than the average Ahmeerikan earning 32K can afford. Price should reflect demand, but there is a demand that shouldn't exist because speculation is favored by law and custom.
    7. The fact that this 21st Century Depression is PERMANENT if we don't switch quickly to sustainable non-emiting energy and worker ownership and management.
    8. The fact that we are wedded to Earth ecology and will never travel far in space because of our physiology. The space program is basically an aspect of mass control and escalating warfare.

    Infrastructure... Not just the physical structures that support a society, such as roads, bridges, water supply, wastewater, power grids, flood management, communications, etc.

    The HUMAN Infrastructure that supports and makes possible the American Way of Life... The Middle Class, The Working Class, The Middle Income!

    What will you do to:

    1) Stop job outsourcing?

    2) Bring outsourced jobs back?

    3) Make quality health care available to all citizens?

    4) Make quality education available to all citizens?

    5) Promote, support and protect small business growth?

    6) Protect consumers from banking, lending and credit bureau abuse?

    Writing on The Wall

    Even before the Bailout bill was signed, a major shift in spin on the initiative had begun. It came from many directions in the mainstream media, even from the new media darling Warren Buffet. On Thursday, Buffet proclaimed that $700 billion was probably not enough to solve the crisis. A number of other pro-bailout economists chimed in, including one representing a Globalization institute who is a regular contributor on's Arena

    Then as the we got to the point where signatures were be rushed forward, the stock market dropped - people announced there was no change on the credit markets and other bad economic news was streaming in. Just hours later, some of the same people who said that this action was absolutely necessary to prevent a crisis said the bailout would likely not prevent a crisis anytime soon (many months) and perhaps not at all and we were sure to suffer a serious recession which only hours before had been given as the reason why we had to approve it (to avoid one).

    The expectation level for success on the Bailout has effectively already been set to zero. This is easy to do because it has no accountability, success criteria or oversight, and no one will ever be able to pin anyone down as to why it didn't work. The expectation level for the need for further measures like the one we've just taken is rising rapidly. This is Spin at its best - driving public opinion with a complete disregard for the underlying issues. In the media today we see this "meta-dialog" continuing, or a debate about the spin as opposed to a debate of the actual issue of what's in the bill and how it will work or not.

    • How effective was the message?
    • How effective was the messenger?
    • What do the polls say?
    • The hysteria was Congress reacting to angry voters who didn't properly understand the issue because they hadn't properly been trained how to think.
    • The leadership expectation was passing the bill, rather than solving the issue.
    This communication breakdown or the fundamental lack of the nation's ability to actually develop a forum for real policy discussions is the most frightening aspect of the past two week's events. We had come to expect this inane dysfunction within the presidential campaigns and they haven't disappointed, sinking to their lowest most uninformative level ever, but this dysfunction has now infected all of governance with campaign-style spin mongering.

    The spin is king - governance of the spin, by the spin and for the spin. And the Spin is telling us that hard times are coming and that it is our turn to feel the pain (actually Tom Brokaw just said it), even though we've been the only ones thusfar who have had to feel it and Washington just made sure that the folks who inflicted that pain won't feel anything.

    Long live the Spin!

    copyright 2008

    Although I had watched Fridays program with my usual interest [I have been a fan for years] I was somewhat dismayed by your panel that night. The 1st 2 women.....were quite the pair? I couldnt believe what I was hearing out of them? One was comparing our Vice-Presidential candidates..and used the phrase "Biden was trying to out-female Sarah Palin"..when talking about the debates..and him mentioning his life history.
    This kind of baiting from left-wing sexual-banding so-called "Informed" woman smack of the kind of hate-mongering weve grown accustomed to from the Right. I havent a clue what her particular problem is with males..but voicing it on a quality show such as yours isnt the proper forum. One might hear that sort of rhetoric on "In The Life"..and it would be more in keeping with ITS politics

    And that brings me to her co-panellist. I found HER particular jargon concerning the upcoming election to be full of misunderstandings and misquotes. Opinions are one thing..but do they have to be so narrow-minded? Her comments about how the 2 candidates are lying to the American People about raising she that short-sighted that she doesnt imagine that whomever is elected HAS exactly 4 years to accomplish their ideas for America.......NOT 5 she would have us believe. She reminded me of someone that wouldnt impliment the proper help to anyone as it would take too much time to acomplish.
    VERY short-sighted...dont you think Bill? Of course our President..whomever it will be..wont be able to hit the groupd running....not in this current political and economic climate..but he'll have time to do things right. Sorry its not good enough for her..but it will just have to do.

    I think Bill...that these 2 werent your best panel for discussions at this time. ive seen better...Ive seen YOu do better. I look forward to more quality from you in the future. Best of Luck..and Vote like someones life depends on it..because it DOES!!!


    Perhaps by her very position as an media analyst, Brooke Gladstone seems to disregard the institutional bias of the mainstream media in its relationship to political and economic power blocs which provide access and funding. She sounds narrow-minded when she proclaims that, "we are all Meta and can't move away from it if we wanted to." (Or words to that effect.) To her credit, she does concede that there is probably the possibility of substance being addressed in media coverage, but she doesn't go after the power relationship at the root of this lack of substance. It strikes me as the posture of someone who is wed more to her role than to her insight. She is clearly intelligent, but unfortunately this quality does not necessarily bring wisdom.

    In this climate, it is good to develop a perspective that questions the information that we are receiving, and the motivations of those who are providing it. Along these lines, why was there so little coverage of the views of those who credibly opposed the 700 billion dollar bailout, and had radically different proposals and interpretations of the crisis? These people include, Dean Baker, co director of CEPR, Naomi Klein, Journalist, Rob Johnson, former chief economist of the Senate banking Committee, Representative Dennis Kucinich, Senator Bernie Sanders... the list goes on.

    Why are 3rd party candidates not included in the presidential debates? Journalists should question their bosses as to why 3rd parties do not received credible coverage.

    Why have we not had a serious discussion about the US healthcare system, contrasting it with others? Why is the role of insurance companies and the price of drugs not under greater scrutiny?

    Why are we not having a national discussion on the rising disparity of wealth in this country? The reasons behind the loss of influence of the labor movement?

    What are the implications of privatizing all our public services, most especially the military?

    There is no end to issues of substance, but we aren't hearing about them in depth in the mainstream media.

    If you believed that only $700 billions dollars will restore the financial System an keep the country out
    of DEPRESSION, think again!

    The 60 minutes report of 2008 10 05 states,

    "Well, we really don't know. There's... voluntary survey that claims that the market is in the range of 50 to 60 or so trillion dollars. It's sort of alarming that, in a market that big, we don't even know how big it is to within, say, $10 trillion."

    "Sixty trillion dollars. I know it seems incredible. It's four times the size of the U.S. Debt.”

    “The people at the top of these firms chose to look away, to take more risk, to enrich themselves and to put the shareholders and, indeed, the country, itself, ultimately, the country's economy at risk. And it is truly not only a shame, it's a crime."

    Not only “The people at the top of these firms chose to look away”, but also The regulating agency,
    The Congress and Senate turned blind eye. “THE FINANCIAL CRIME OF CENTURY” and
    have the audacity tell you “that you have not loss a penny”.
    Senior citizens saving invested in income securities- living on “FIX INCOME” run into THOUSANDS of dollars in losses.

    Virtually any issue that actually matters is not being addressed.

    The totally absurd and impossible story told by the 9/11 Commission.

    The lies that led to Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are we still fighting there?

    Our economic system of The Federal Reserve, and Fractional Reserve Banking guarantees wealth for the few and poverty for the many. Why do we tolerate this?

    The endless propaganda coming through the media, and our schools, and our churches.

    The surveillance society.

    The largest prison population in the world.

    The maddening war on drugs.

    The war on terror that in fact is terrorism.

    Obama and McCain are not going to address these issues because their masters, the bankers and corporates will not let them.

    Palin, was deceptive when she asked Mr. Biden if she could call him, "Joe". She did this just to set up her, "Say it ain't so, Joe", comment. That was the ONLY time she called him Joe. So, she began her whole "debate" with a lie. She didn't answer questions, she deflected them.

    About the "Bailout", unless you dig deep enough and get to the New World Order treason plan for a One World Fascist Government, you will be as deceived as you were about 9/11. It all works together. I was telling people last Spring that a total U.S. Economic Collapse had been scheduled for September.
    Their method is like the cowhand herding the cows for the slaughterhouse. Park the truck, open the gates to the shoot, scare the cows into the shoot. Some call it; Problem, Reaction, Solution; but it is really Solution, Problem, Reaction, close trap door.

    To really understand all that is happening in America since 2000; you have to start with this question... Why hasn't every school child studied how Hitler seduced Germany into becoming a Nazi country and attacking the world? The answer is that the people who had already gained power in America had plans to implement the SAME METHODS HERE! WAKE UP AMERICA, your FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP SPOT IS READY NOW!

    To straighten this mess out; you would have to go back to the 1913 Federal Reserve Bank creation and stop it; or dismantle it NOW! Anything else, would just be delaying the inevitable enslavement of the Citizens of the U.S. and thereafter the World.

    Charles Michael Couch

    Voter registration depends upon address. What about those people who have lost their homes to foreclosure...or are out of them, about to lose them. Will they be unlikely to vote, being concerned with shelter, renting, living with relatives, etc. What a terrible number of unidentified voters must be involved.

    Brooke Gladstone repeats (if I understand her correctly) something that she often seems to say via On The Media that analysis should be left to those who "are paid to do it".

    Sadly, On The Media and very nearly _every_ other major American media organization (NPR, ABC, CNN, New York Times) has been consistently wrong -- dead wrong -- for seven long years (not to mention the dismal track record before that).

    This penchant for giving preference to a _select_ group of so-called experts drastically undermines American democracy.

    One would think that, after seven years of "joe six-packs" scooping paid professionals like Brooke Gladstone, we might _finally_ hear a measure of humility.

    Brooke Gladstone has many interesting things to say, but she still buys into the patently false line about the distinctive qualifications of "expert" analysts.

    We should be thankful that in 1776 Thomas Paine was not dismissed as insufficiently expert.

    I fear that because Americans are so angry - but feeling betrayed, you see them giving up and just focusing on a single issue to determine their vote.

    We cannot let this frustration and sense of betrayal cause us to spiral down into fighting each other as those in power want. I have a friend who has yet to decide whether to vote or not - but if he does it will be because he see's one candidate that supports one issue he can cling to as part of his belief system. That a candidate could destroy the working poor, we call the middle class, while boosting his own pocket becomes secondary to that one issue. This, I deem IMO, is what will keep the Americans acting as sheep while the wolves watch the flock.

    In the midst of this, typically, we are looking for the one "golden" person who will step forward and solve our problems. Power corrupts - Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

    (sorry about the all caps in that one statement - I usually find them a nuisance and just ignore any post done in all caps)

    Any single issue I believe in comes secondary to the whole. Americans will suffer no matter what 'sell-offs' our politicans choose. When your choice is the lesser of two evils - you find another choice.

    I am one tiny voice amongst millions of voices. All I can do is talk to friends, community members - whether on-line or in person. Open dialogue and in our frustration and anger try to find that 3rd choice. No candidate actively running is suitable.

    One step - IMO: I see a serious rethinking of how campaigning is done will help us to get Real leaders who answer to the People. Eliminate ALL political commercials. Eliminate All soundbites. Any politician wanting to go on the air to express their ideals, beliefs, plans and goals should be given a minimum of one half hour FREE by the media - and then All others given equal time to do the same. Not just 2. A permanant ban on all Ads that attack candidates. Any ad that isn't the candidate sitting there telling you his plans - is banned. I don't want to know you hate your opponent for his ideas - I want to know what you are going to do that is better! Freedom of speech is only valid for them when it affects the profit margin.

    Of course - this won't happen. There's too much money to be made by media in political advertising. And with so few major corporations running all media - they will promote those candidates that will continue to help them make their money.

    I have lots of ideas - but none will work simply because they require a change in attitude and others (including myself) coming out of our 'safety' zones and ruts and taking our freedoms seriously. Too easily we give our freedoms away in the name of keeping our little rut safe. We've settled in it, put in the carpet and plasma tv and hate anyone that says time to get out.

    We've been warned for over 20 years this was coming. I can pick a book off my shelf from 25 years ago written by a very esteemed historian that completely told this whole disaster coming, what causes it and that they don't think Americans will do anything about it but roll over and take it. History repeats - repeatedly because we refuse to learn.

    The golden calf has few worshipers - but those worshipers own the world. :(

    I recently discovered Ms. Jamieson's, and love both it, and her appearances on your show.

    In using it to enhance my understanding, I've actually bumped into a place where it has supplied the relevant facts and quotes, but may have missed the gravity economic implications of the matters being discussed.

    Since they add up, in my own analysis, to the McCain proposals actually being a MELTDOWN of the health care system, I figure I'll point them out.

    That is, from, here, ,
    factcheck has the quotes. (I was unaware of these quotes: than you,

    Here is that quote, taken by factcheck from a recent article in an actuarial magazine:

    McCain: " I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation. Consumer-friendly insurance policies will be more available and affordable when there is greater competition among insurers on a level playing field. You should be able to buy your insurance from any willing provider—the state bureaucracies are no better than national ones. Nationwide insurance markets that ensure broad and vigorous competition will wring out excess costs, overhead, and bloated executive compensation."

    And here it is confirmed by a line on the current McCain website, as factcheck indicated it would be: "Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines. "

    That idea sounds very all-American, pro-competition, and innocent enough. But if you check details, and actually THINK THROUGH the mechanisms that most states have set up to try to make the system protect people somewhat (I admit, they are very flawed, but they have some effect), then you see that MELTDOWN OF HEALTH INSURANCE SYSTEM is really the issue.

    Specifically, several states, NY, NJ, MA, VT, ME have some form of community rating or modified community rating on individual insurance, requiring coverage regardless of pre-existing condition. Under the McCain proposal, this system will completely break down. (People in those states in good health now would buy insurance in a mininal-regulations state, leaving the sick to buy in-state policies, which only have sick people in their pools, so it costs perhaps $150,000 a year per person for those people for insurance.)

    Further, In states without community rating on individual insurance, most of these states have high-risk-pools which are subsidized by payments from the insurance policies of healthy-people who pass the insurer's pre-existing-condition screen. Under McCain, the healthy people can get cheaper insurance out of state from states with no high risk pool. Thus, the high-risk-pool (which already is weak enough in that it runs up to $25,000 a year per person in many states and keeps many sick people ineligible in most states) loses the subsidy, and so runs up to $100,000 a year per person.

    The scary thing is, I'm not making this up. Further, I'm not basing this on a verbal analogy with the word "deregulation". I'm thinking through the mechanism. MELTDOWN is the word.

    And this is from the candidate on the ticket with more policy experience.

    People, wake up!


    dyeoff should read dieoff

    Peak oil, Americas unsustainable economic and resource depletion path, overpopulation, the dyeoff, our future food shortages...just to name as few.

    This morning on 'Face The Nation' they discussed how Obama was talking down America and was too critical. In short he was guilty of the crime of not saying America has no limits. He was guilty of the crime of not saying Americans can do it all. He was guilty of the crime of not saying Americans can have it all.

    I thought that was kind of funny. I think both candidates hide their heads in the sand and go out of their way to lull an ignorant public into a comatose state of delusion with their unrealistic 'vote for me' promises of pie in the sky.

    Have you ever heard of either candidate mention peak oil? No, you never will. Just as they won't address any of the substantive issues that are in our future that may destroy America as we know it in the not so distant future.

    One candidate may have better spin on a certain question - so you vote for him or her. But when it comes down to it - politicians are pretty much all lying the ignorant public just votes for the best liar!

    The three unwholesome roots of delusions, greed and hate are very basic to a Buddhist practice. Out of these three, delusion is the foundational root, for without seeing delusions for what they are, you cannot distinguish the other two unwholesome roots of greed and hate.

    But this is only restating the Buddhist eightfold path of right actions, right thoughts, right view,..and the rest. In short, taking the right path helps lead one to freeing themselves from a delusional life.

    Now, whether you are a Buddhist, Christian or Atheist - no one can dispute there are right and wrong ways to live life. And this right / wrong directions goes for nations as well as individuals. But it seems 'Face The Nation' has determined that America can never do the wrong thing, so it must never be challenged as making a mistake or taking the wrong path.

    You can always determine a truth based person by this fact. If a truth based person gets corrected for making a mistake they are thankful for the correction and readily adopt the truth. No so with the lying, deceitful ego based individual. They fight truth, as it did not originate from within themselves. Their ego blocks truth at every step and instead of gratitude for the bearer of truth, they try to destroy such bearers of truth.

    Do you know what you get when a government thinks it can do no wrong?

    And a populace is trained to believe their leaders are god and never question their actions?

    You get...

    Always remember, the difference between an authority and an authoritarian is this. An authority speaks from a place of truth and such speaks as an authority. Whereas an authoritarian rules by fear and not by truth. For the truth stands on it own and the authoritarian stands on their ego.

    'Face The Nation' never asked whether Obama spoke truth or spoke lies...they did not look at what was said...but looked at who said what.

    There is no such thing as negative or positive attitudes. What is viewed as negative to one person may be viewed as positive to another. There are no such things as 'opinionated' - 'provocative' 'controversial' subjects.These are only subjective and prejudicial states of mind.

    Psychologist William James once said, "A great many people believe they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

    Either what Obama said was true, false or we don't know...that is the bottom line.

    If one sticks to: true, false or don't know in one's evaluations, they can avoid this trap by arguing facts and not personalities.

    And for those that can't argue facts..they must argue personalities.


    I do not support or endorse Obama nor McCain

    I have enjoyed the Moyers Journal very much. On Gwen Ifuls comments about the changing face of Voting patterns of the African Americans, I am dissapointed to report I failed to get a friend to register, this year. He claimed he learned in high school 60's in GA that there's no point ever to register. I am hoping there is a new southern vote to counteract that and the segregationist past conservative block.

    About that Congress passed the bailout over the opposition expressed by an overwhelming majority?

    Prediction. They're going to tell us that we elected them to lead and that's exactly what they're doing.

    Why do I think that? Because that's what they've done in the past.

    Personally, I can't hope that the American electorate will solidaritize in a fashion so as to enable the legislating of utopia. IMO the abortion issue is a cubby hole with a black hole in the back. Republican public servants IMO like to send all the zealots without outstanding "merit" to this place. Thus, the latter examine no other issues. In a triage world one can't just choose one injustice and demand that that horror be erased. That demand is arbitrary. Read "The Shock Doctrine," and take a look at all the augmenters of human mortality. IMO media barely cover and only remotely comprehend the majority of these assaults, so I don't favor any more fixation on their part with just one. It shouldn't be that high on the triage treatment list because the
    split-down-the-middle-factor renders any change on this score doomed to failure (or at least to wasting precious time, energy, and resources in a triage this world).

    Is it in Leviticus or Deuteronomy where abortion is punishable by fine only?

    You're welcome, Sherry. I hope we both have a few things nailed down re the bubble, and that what's right-off will be corrected on down the line. Your crayon/coloring book analogy embodies what I am saying, writing, and thinking. As far as taking control back goes, I'm way too weak a human to suggest how to do it. I come from an old fashion school that wishes to lay the groundwork to do this. The groundwork in terms of understanding. Arguing over the colors is a very good example to explain what I mean. We should be sure that this is the case IMO, and the analogy should be expanded.

    Financial institutions should be greasing the wheels of commerce and prosperity like they claim to be doing. Media should be exposing plutocratic enroads as they imagine themselves so engaged. But something went awry and the center isn't holding. For me failure of the media is more important. I must go back to laying the groundwork of understanding...of concept. Except for guys like Moyers, media on the whole has failed to fulfil this task lately. That's why I have to invest more time in doing it myself than I would have otherwise, say, than in the best of all possible worlds. Personally, I can point to one paradigm that explains the argument over colors (there are others). See Marko's answer to Francis here (it's late and I can't take on the task of this pointing in my own words this morning).

    Sure, I say we must use everyday language, but it is true I have my wonks that I rely on just like most other folks. Only...I understand that I am not them! Bill spent a lot of time with Joseph Campbell, but to me Rene Girard's every bit as heavy (in the anthropology dept).

    for example (not home page of site)

    What issues aren’t being addressed by the candidates?


    What questions are the press not asking?
    The press speaks of a DEMOCRACY but are ignoring the main ISSUES. In a “TRUE DEMOCRACY” people should be “Empower to participate in power”.
    In your opinion, why is this the case?
    Prime examples: “The BAIL OUT”! The CONGRESS and SENATE approved the “BAIL OUT” bill over people objections. The “WAR” - CONGRESS and SENATE approved the WAR on falls pretense.
    The WAR is ongoing over objections by the people, The Health care ISSUE, The people living in a
    Tent City in Nevada – this is as close as the evictions of people from Kosovo or Darffue and etc.

    If the people were “ENPOWER to participate in POWER” by “EXPRESSING THEIR WILL”
    on ALL ISSUES we would not be putting the blame on others for the problems that we are facing now.
    The people will be approving or denying the solution to the problem by being
    This is only possible in a true DEMOCRACY! We do not have true DEMOCRACY!
    We have Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Capitalism or anything in between all four!
    In all four systems, The system works only for the special interest groups!
    “The Truth as always it hurts”!

    Thank you David H for one of the simplest clarifying statements, on part of what is going on, that I've read so far. I've spent a lot of time reading economists input and will admit yours coincide with what they are saying.

    I think we can all agree that the American people are upset at what we see as a 'railroading' of democracy by the few for the few.

    It is at times like this that our focus on Parties, individual candidates, single issues etc must take a back seat to what is right for the US. As it was said - the best way to keep Americans immobile is to keep them going after each other and missing the big picture.

    Frankly - if a person is in need, I do not ask what religion/single issue belief/party they belong to and base my choice to help on that. I use the same criteria for our country.

    It reminds me of children agruing over which is the better crayon color - red or blue - while the school teacher walks off with the coloring book. Now - what can we do as a people to take control of our country back from Wall Street?

    Once we do that - I'll gladly debate issues with you.

    Two issues:
    1. Greater detail of Constitutional interpretation by the Candidates;
    2. Abortion.

    1. One must uphold the Constitution (by oath) to be a Senator or President. Does Sen. Obama believe that the Constitution is the Rule of Law? This is his penultimate quote:
    "'Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision,' Obama declared during debate over the Roberts nomination. 'In those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.'"
    In those critical cases, a Justice shouldn't use his/her heart, s/he must use Constitutional Amendments 9-10 which say that the States (or people) must decide if the answer to the question is not in the Constitution.

    2. Abortion will become as it is in Russia if Sen. Obama has his way as President. He will sign the "Freedom of [Abortion] Choice" act as his first action as President. This will strike down all limits on abortion in all States (since abortion is declared a "fundamental right"). Sen. Obama is a radical on this issue. We will have abortion numbers like Russia in no time (~64% of all pregnancies end in abortion partially due to free abortions to all provided by the State).

    And the bailout money is going toward the continuance of an imaginary game.

    Oh yeah...that too for sure, Sherry.

    Returning to the issue everyone was concerned with last night, I'll give it my best shot in common, everyday language according to what I have gleaned, which may not be 100% accurate in every respect (no one in the media does this or has come close save Michael Greenberger, Ellen Brown, Walden Bello and a few more I guess in print...Greenberger was on the radio). Then I'll shut up for a while. My PC has glitzy spells anyway. Here goes...

    Folks did or bought or procured what are basically insurance policies on bundles of bonds they purchased [stocks too if I'm not mistaken but the lousy little 30 sec definitions the wonks bestow on us like so much fine print code talk...usually mention bonds only probably so as not to incite public wrath any more than it already is]. Say they got these "insurance" policies (termed "credit default swaps") from AIG. And say it turns out the instruments they happened to insure were comprised of thus and such percentage...of many, many, many payments which were supposed to come in against many, many, many mortgage debts. Because these instruments relied on the paid-in mortgage payments to this extent potential buyers got leary of them. The instruments thus fell in value. The AIG "insurance" kicked in, and, turns out, it kicked in all over the place. AIG took in money from folks trying to deal with out-in-the-open arrangements. Meantime, though, while many of us were not aware of what "puts" and "bets" actually were...stock investors received large hunks of this dough that everyday blokes had paid in dutifully...received it as insurance compensation for their tanked stocks! It all happened because the arrangement was never explained (by media). Thus, it resembled black markets run by Communist parties (in a number of countries) which ostensibly reaped from folks only according to their natural abilities, and distributed only according to their needs.

    Oh man, Americans sit and type. Palin stands and talks. Everyone thinks a message has been conveyed. It takes me back to William Stringfellow going on about doublespeak, overtalk, expertese, shibboleth, argot and on and on. The way it seems to me is that while people will not give Le Carre credit for his insight into global spite of this everyone wants to write and talk like his most evil villians. How did it happen? IMO you gotta work at speaking plainly. Forget the abbreviations. Just write or speak the truth.

    Ok, Douglas, who or what part of the media might speak to your issue? How do you suggest they break into it so their plug doesn't get know the pressure's on'em to maintain the mind candy. What's an alternative to the drug laws? There are so many factors; the issue's joined to so many facets. There aren't enough exports, eg, so folks resort to selling dope. In American biz in general there's not enough black ink. The issue is so huge. One thing I never saw media cover is hoods where back in the 90s illegals would get outta jail (after getting popped for selling crack) in 4 hrs because they had no identification papers. But in general, Douglas, re minorities I believe your points are very valid.

    Ms. Jamieson - why is there no media discussion on the mobilization of the military around the US? They are questioning why when they come back from Iraq they don't get their "stand down" but are mobilized around the country. My nephew had looked forward to spending time with his family - but is being deployed in the US, and isn't allowed to say where.

    Why has the topic of BlackWater - a mercenary army paid by our government - suddenly gone quiet? I don't believe in 'conspiracy theories' - but things are happening in this country that are valid concerns. The next 3 months scare me for what we don't know is going on.

    We've already given up freedom after freedom because of a sudden crisis. Every time the American People quesion our governments choices - another crisis shows up. Now we've socialized our finance industry. What will the next crisis be - and how will our government react?

    re: Jim Bullis posting 10-4-08. John McCain is not illiterate. He is VERY literate, especially in the romantic literature of American history, war, and heroism. Check out his background. Don't limit literacy to just what you read or your own language. That makes the world too small.

    The biggest problem in America is illiteracy. How else can one explain a vice presidential candidate not being judged as a standby for the president?

    This illiteracy seems to plague many, all the way up to John McCain.

    Why doesn't Bill Moyers ask PBS to give Ralph Nader's reps time to present his positions on the issues. PBS has aired the campaign workers of the majors. If substantive answers are desired, PBS and Bill Moyers can get them from Nader's people (or Ralph himself!)

    Since Kathleen Hall Jamieson is so big on followup questions I wish someone would ask her one. Is she really advocating that a candidate step forward to tell the truth to the American people even if it costs him the election?

    Did she see this Obama quote:

    “Does that mean that I can do everything that I've called for in this campaign right away? Probably not. I think we're going to have to phase it in. And a lot of it's going to depend on what our tax revenues look like.”

    What is he supposed to say? "All bets are off, things are only going to get worse, but vote for me anyway?"

    Sometimes I wonder if you folks watch your own programming.

    And by the way, has anyone checked the fence that's growing along our southern border lately? I worry they've locked it from the other side.

    What issues aren’t being addressed by the candidates?

    Candidates are only speaking prepared speeches. They will not tell us that because our economy is in the tank, there will be no change in DC...only more taxes and military/industrial expenses. People are beginning to realize that we are in for a very tough several years. My group and I spend our time telling people that this is a special time in history, a time in which all of our institutions are decayed and corrupt. Everyone wants to know what is coming next? We tell them that a world wide stock market crash is coming next because the world's economies are lashed together and when one or two collapse, they take the others down with them.

    Maitreya will soon appear and give suggestions as to how to change the world so that everyone will have the basic necessities of life, food, shelter, healthcare and education, as human rights. No more will corporations exploit the people with fear and threats of disaster if the people don't pay ever more in taxes and labor. No more will freebooters, with distain, reign over the rights of others. He will advocate sharing the world's resources, creating trust through justice, and creating peace through that trust. This period of trauma is of man's making. People must wake up to that fact.

    What questions are the press not asking?

    The press needs to ask the people what is needed, not candidates. We already know their scripts. The press should give coverage to the volunteers at Share International so that the public hear this message of hope. Candidates can give promises, but little hope in the long run.
    Maitreya will offer profoundly simple and effective ideas which will spark hope in our hearts and galvanize enough of us to change this disaster into triumph of the human spirit.

    In your opinion, why is this the case?

    Maybe media is in the tank for the market forces which are strangling humanity.

    Remember back in the day when magazines like Newsweek would feature illustrations/diagrams that attempted to explain things like money laundering? Never has there been a need for such illustrations as now in regard to this financial meltdown. Never has it been easier to create such illustrations as it is with our software tools today. But it's a funny thing, unless I've been off in my own sleepy seems that print media have not provided ANY. Oh yes, we have on the net the buckets analogy (that illustrates how which tranches get what share of the payback), but I mean any in regard to CDOs, CDSs, CMOs, etc., etc., etc. Since Republican interests own media it must be that they don't want the people to know the truth. Cause with all the vast powers of electronic media at their fingertips they sure don't seem in any hurry to break it down.

    Stephen Rose once did two books with a large poster in each. One on incomes and one on the entire American economy. That was the last time anyone attempted to use graphic art to explain anything. Forget YouTubes. What in the world did I study Venn diagrams for???

    This vast dearth of teaching tools unfortunately seems to point to a scary prospect. But I should have figured...all the layout software is capable of putting editors' head shots right along with their screed, but it cannot diagram the bubble! But that's not what I mean; what I mean is these editors don't understand the bubble themselves and therefore cannot create an illustration to depict it.

    I'm not an artist, nor an economist, and I have never even used Power Point. But I hope, if some folks are out there, that they will get on the stick and put up the real deal on as many message boards as possible.

    [type-in check words are getting a little difficult]

    Jamiesson and Gladstone spent too much time on analyzing the media, their specialzation, with Moyer's encouragement. Warren Buffet, as an example of good framing, was OK, but the encomiums led one to believe that his content, not just his framing, was approved. Many fine economists (eg Joseph Stieglitz) disagree. Buffet knows about investing in stock. He is not especially qualified in how to invest in an economy.

    Jamiesson and Gladstone spent too much time on analyzing the media, their specialzation, with Moyer's encouragement. Warren Buffet, as an example of good framing, was OK, but the encomiums led one to believe that his content, not just his framing, was approved. Many fine economists (eg Joseph Stieglitz) disagree. Buffet knows about investing in stock. He is not especially qualified in how to invest in an economy.

    I was also in dismay by the fact that in neither debate was anyone going to talk about what they will have to change in their agenda after incurring this new trillion dollar debt . Now I'd like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt , because all this did happen rather quickly and perhaps he has not as yet reformulated his plans . However , after hearing him repeatedly say that politcians need to start being honest with the American people on these serious issues . I feel he missed a golden opportunity to embrace his own ideas and stand up and say , well plans will have to change now .
    Pressing the candidates for these answers , especailly when they are avoiding them , is what I would like to see the press do more of . HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE. Insist on answers , that is the job of the press as far as I'm concerned . As a voter I have a right to have these questions answered to my fullest satisfaction .

    In answer to the first question, the republican VP wannabe stated she didn’t have to answer the questions but came to deliver straight talk to the American people. The last question by Gwen Ifill concerned the constitutional role of the VP which has been in debate these last few years. Governor Palin gave a rambling non answer ending with how the mavericks will approach this with flexibility. I couldn’t figure out whether she just plain didn’t grasp the significance of Gwen’s inquiry or she believed that her role aboard the “change is coming express” will be far more than what the constitution intended. Now I’m sure someone will write in saying how “biased” this observation is. One evening the two co anchors on our news wore the same red colored outfits. When the weatherman commented on this, one quickly changed into a different color top. I guess in our democracy today when one points out that what occurred, actually occurred, one is subject to the claim of bias. We want there always to be the illusion of a balance of differences.

    Wednesday I watched Rick Sanchez (CNN) interviewing the independent candidate for Alaska governor’s election two years ago and answering his question why he lost, he explained how Sarah Palin during their debate was not only able to avoid answering questions directly, but directly turned them into PR issues, without her opponents even realizing what she was doing.
    While watching the Palin-Biden debate I must admit how skillfully she did the same and wondered how many pundits, judging her performance, realized what she was doing.

    Thanks for the sharp comments from your guests last night regarding the Palin/Biden debate, and particularly the comment that the debate rules set by the parties contribute.

    I am afraid that even other PBS TV sources (Lehrer, Rose) are not rising to a high enough level of critical thinking, and thus are judging debate quality based on the horse race, and not the issues.

    Walter Lippmann's worst nightmares seem realized.

    Hopefully, with the Internet, the better books and periodicals, at least some of us can manage to understand the issues.

    I am counting particularly on Ms. Jamieson and to help keep me informed.

    And I will be ordering a copy of Ms. Jamieson's book from Amazon in a minute.

    Keep up the good work.

    Last night watching your panel discussion was like watching a Obama Rally. Bill, with all due respect, you are drinking the koolaide. One expects more substance than having Gov Palin the center of your dislike. It is obvious that the issue of the bailout failed to be a honest topic of discussion. The NPR guest was so bias. Shame on you!!

    Except for her comment that people for once were ignoring and pushing past the media message on the bailout, Ms Gladstone was about useless, saying nothing but the usual, fripparous "don't want the Republicans to cut our funding" airy "meta" talk. Yawn. Ms Jamieson deserved a higher-caliber fellow guest.

    Kathleen Hall Jamieson was naive in asking the question: what would you curtail out of your program now that we have allocated $700 to Rescue Plan. Then she proceeded to anecdote about Mondale saying he would raise taxes and lose while Bush said read my lips, won and backtracked. If either party wants their person elected they have to tell us what we want to hear to get the throne. I feel that the White House and Congress were told in short words, Depression in 2 weeks or pass the Rescue. No one shared that, would cause panic. Why else if constituents voices running 9-1 against did Congress pass it anyway? Let's get cynical and truthful.They knew the bottom was about to fall out.


    Sorry...below at 11:46 AM I should have written neither Gladstone or Jamieson got into the jackleg mechanics of the bailout.

    Since I grew up in Nebraska, Brooke Gladstone's comment that (apparently to her amazement) Warren Buffett is from Nebraska caught my attention. Her previous and subsequent words made this comment a non sequitur. What did Nebraska have to do with anything in the conversation? Is it possible that Ms. Gladstone does not know the difference between Nebraska and Alaska? If so, this goes a long way toward explaining why people outside of Washington, New York and San Francisco have rallied to support the Vice-Presidential candidacy of someone who was so cynically and irresponsibly chosen by John McCain for just this purpose.

    Neither network TV [save perhaps Moyers' Journal in conjunction with this site, and Michael Greenberger one day on Fresh Air] or candidates have explained the nature of the bubble. No one breathes the word "derivatives." When they do it's at the end of a paragraph. It's an airtight opaque zone, and into it TV journalism does not enter. But there's a ton of material on it on the net.

    I love Gladstone's voice, but she and Jamieson did not get to the mechanics of the bubble or the mechanics of the rescue [Moyers & Jordan did]. The folks on Washington Week did not acknowledge that there is a whole universe of explanations on the net...which many net viewers have encountered...but which TV wonks cannot get into on-air due to what...time???

    Biden to me is a far, far, far safer bet than Palin re foreign entanglements, though I question the commonplace history we get, for example, on the Balkans War. Media in general gave us one Hollywood flick on the history of our involvement in Afghanistan since Charlie Wilson. That's about it. Where's anything re "Operation Cyclone" or
    Ziaul Haq? Check this...

    But I guess how we got where we are now doesn't matter.

    BushCo stole the cookie jar while we helplessly watched and left nothing not even crumbs to feed our poor hungry children. They stole our future, the bad guys took it all.


    "The paradox is now fully established that the utmost ABSTRACTIONS are the true weapons with which to control our thought of concrete fact." Alfred North Whitehead.
    Enough metaphor Mr Buffett... "dying patient, super athlete, Pearl Harbor, tsunami, a tragic play, cinderella at the ball, oxygen, jump start, spigot". Say what you mean, ie Profiteering Profiteering Profiteering. There is more to EARNING a living than merely making a buck.

    Politics today is not about addressing issues in a meaningful way, it is about getting elected.

    First - if Warren Buffet is so altruistic - let him donate the 700 billion himself. It's his money at stake so of course he wants a bail out of Wall Street.

    Framing it - I don't care what pretty words you give it - we aren't fools to be played. Truth matters. Just once - will a candidate be honest?

    The past few times I've listened to Ms. Jamieson she has come to appear more and more biased. In listening to the 'after debate' discussion involving Ms. Gladstone - I had to wonder which one she saw, because it surely wasn't the same one I heard!

    I do not watch TV - I listen to what is said and don't make my decisions based on sound-bites, false folksy idioms or who makes a better screen shot. Just because Ms Palin knew where the camera was - doesn't make her better than anyone else.

    I started listening to the so called debates. In 15 minutes it was obvious debating had nothing to do with it and it was just political commercials - on both sides - without substance. I will NOT waste my time listening to anymore speech/debates.

    Here are a few questions for the distinguished guests that came to mind during the discussion. Love you both, but...

    Brooke: You referred several times to "leaders" and wishing to see them *lead* rather than (paraphrasing) obey a national referendum of their constituents. Am I mistaken, or is 1.) the word "leader" not in the Constitution, and 2.) isn't their title *Representative*? Therefore, maybe listening to the vast majority of their constituents' calls and emails is actually what they are supposed to do, and thus not be disparaged?

    Kathleen Hall Jamieson:
    You repeatedly emphasized how much *Framing Matters*, and I agree. But it begs a simple question: does **truth** matter? And if so, more or less than framing?

    Finally for all of the adulation of Warren Buffet and all of his cheerleaders: has it occurred to anyone that just perhaps he might have a conflict of interest and might have needed the bailout to pass in order for his investment to make money? News flash: the star athlete in his analogy is most likely DEAD and the electrodes (in the form of this bailout, anyhow) might make it jump, but won't bring it back to life -- regardless of where they are placed.

    the comment was, "neither candidate would say what he or she would change."

    but one might consider the realities of the US electorate. No candidate ever gets elected if a tax cut is not promised. Even when it takes deficits to accomplish that tax cut. Really, the greed of the electorate is to blame. "I want a tax cut even if it means stealing from our children and grandchildren." It's a sad comment on our country that we're not able to live within our means, either individually, or nationally.

    What has happened to us? Our parents, grandparents, etc built an astounding country for us. What are we going to say we've done for those who follow us? We should be ashamed of our actions for the last few decades.

    Prof. Jamieson is completely wrong in the describing Warren Buffet. Framing matters only if it matches reality. No way the bailout is going to fix the issue with short term liquidity.

    Watch this learn the real issue.

    When you are paying more than market value of an asset it is a bailout not rescue. Are these progressives, they don't sound like it.
    When the bailout fails will Warren Buffet get the blame.

    Mr. Buffet keeps crying about not paying
    more than 15%. He can easily fix this himself
    by paying himself in salary only. He doesn't
    have to take stock option. It is height of hypocrisy.

    I'm sitting here watching the three of you discuss media bias while the three of you are showing obvious bias against Palin in your discussion of the debate last night. You are so a part of the problem. Outrageous.

    If I understood Prof. Jamieson correctly, she was arguing that the Bush/Paulson sales pitch would have been more palatable (easier to swallow) if they had "framed" their con in marketing terms. If I didn't know better, I would blame her for the euphemism "death tax."

    Furthermore, her praises for Warren Buffet, who probably knows a thing or two about marketing, were misplaced. His analogy of our economic crisis as an athlete who suffers a stroke is far off the mark.

    This assumes that the patient was as healthy as a fine-tuned Olympian, under constant medical care while training. Our professional athletes have our finest medical professionals at their disposal night and day. Alas, this is not the case. Wall Street is as sick as our health-care system.

    The truth lies in a depiction of Wall Street as obese, out of shape, and uninsured. Its health is not regulated. It gorges itself on the richest food, junk food, and, well, everything. It smokes too much. It drinks too much. And it yada-yada-yadas too much.

    Without regulated health maintenance, Wall Street ends up where it is now -- in the emergency room. The price tag for an emergency room visit: $800 billion. And counting.

    A well-tuned athlete? Hardly. Perhaps that's just Mr. Buffett's way of framing his reality.

    The dance of this legislation is a fine example of what is wrong with "Warshington" and why neither candidate will be able to fix it unless the ppl return a fiscally sound Congress. Besides logrolling it illustrates the use of the misinformation, or if you wish disinformation, we've come to expect, which the media again bought hook, line and sinker, and it appears these two ladies still believe. I trust Moyers is already gearing up for an expose of the role of the press in rushing to this judgment as he did the last one. All this talk served to make the problem worse, feeding a panic, then followed by the response that we MUST do something equally dramatic to stop it, as if there were too few lifeboats on the Titanic. If from the beginning officials had correctly assessed the situation and made it plain to the ppl, it is much less likely that this would have happened, but I think they were concerned to save their friends and investments at any cost, even that of scuttling the vessel so they could apply for the insurance. My guess is that examination will find the wealthiest were the ones doing the most actual bailing out, and will leave the salvage costs to the public. As for the ship, itself, if it hadn't been considered unsinkable and going 21 knots in a field of pack ice, this might not have happened.

    There was through mid-Sept no change in consumer and real estate lending, and it was, in fact, higher than a year ago. Loans between banks are a problem, but they are an insignificant part of it all. Other commercial paper had also increased. In short, it was mainly the financial sector, which doing the squeaking, so the term Wall St bail-out remains exactly appropriate regardless of the images used by Buffett (an Obama supporter it must be said) and the administration.

    The bail-out pkg ended up being even worse for the country than it was before. It is not only inflationary and unworkable, it doesn't reach either the objective of getting ppl into houses, or shoring up the banks. What has frozen the inter-bank lending is indeed the mortgage valuation problem, but the only way to address that is to do something directly to the mortgages. If Paulson meant to do that, he should have explained exactly how, because as it stands it appears that he wants to keep them at full value, which is either unworkable or will be extremely expensive, unless they can be bought with depreciated dollars.

    By adding this to the public debt we will have an equal amount of inflation, the monetary effect of the plan being to spread the bad debts by depreciation over anyone holding dollars. This will also boost the price of stocks, houses and commodities.

    I don't know if Buffett had this in the back of his mind when Rose flew to San Diego to get this interview on the air at the critical moment. He has made his money by buying distressed cos and holding them until the value increases by inflation in a similar process. I suspect, btw, that he invested in Goldman and GE for the same reason and in no way was putting his money where his mouth is, since to hold it would allow it to depreciate. I'll leave it to you to decide then whether he was disinterested. The amount stock prices appreciate over the rate of return for what they do is inflation, nothing more nor less. When the avg price of stocks rises, it is due to inflation. To believe otherwise is what Fisher and Keynes called money illusion, but was very familiar to Locke, Hume, Smith, Paine and Cobbett, et al. If the economy falls there will be ppl unfortunately who will say we didn't throw enough money at it. Saying that all we lack is confidence - a term which in this sense dates at least as far back as the 18th c - suggests that we can ignore reality and is mania, something you expect of an enthusiast or an ideologue, and the term we correctly apply to bubbles.

    Every American seems to expect credit for whatever they do, no matter its outcome. As Tocquevile observed, we live "in the perpetual practice of self-applause." The resulting permissiveness has undermined our self-reliance and forced us to replace it with bribery. Converting such credit into money means the money-lenders are our masters.

    I am sorry that you have Kathleen Hall Jamieson on to tell me, like so many talking heads, what I have heard and what I should think about it. I disagree on her assessment of the question ask of the candidates what they would do to cut back. Obama answered some things would have to be slowed down. Kathleen's crystal ball tells her exactly what going to happen. I would prefer a candidate to answered there is no way to foretell the future as Kathleen obviously has done. Also, if she would check, Warren Buffet's comment was very similar to Senator Obama's comment about an accident you tend to the injured then determine who is at fault.

    You missed the most telling issue raised by Joe Biden and brought up by Sarah Palin.

    We have Joe Biden saying:
    Paying taxes is patriotic.

    Sarah Palin suggested that not paying taxes is more patriotic.

    The liberals have failed to really attack the conservative's argument that taxes are not merely an infringement, but now are called unpatriotic.

    Now if I were Joe Biden, I would have responded with:
    "Look George Bush and his Republicans in Congress have cut the taxes of many Amercans by cutting their wages.

    "As Warren Buffett has pointed out, the people who earn their living by wages are taxed the heaviest, because Warren Buffett with almost all of his income from capital pays have the tax rate, about 15%, that all the people who labor for their income and far less pay about 30% in of their earning in taxes.

    "It is said, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and the Republican tax cut for not working while leaving taxes on work high, is destroying the incentive labor to make and serve, while rewarding speculating and promoting bubbles in the stock market and real estate.

    "The Republican tax system rewards the speculation that created the current economic crisis, because of the view that taxes are unpatriotic, while maintaining high taxes on working to build and serve - clearly Republicans must believe that labor is unpatriotic, and have left taxes on labor high in order destroy the incentive for people to work for a living."

    Now that doesn't get to the point of taxes, but it does get to the conservative economic dogma that calls for cutting taxes - you raise taxes on the things you want people to not do.

    Bill Moyers, I think you would really ask some very good questions about taxes and why taxes have such bad rep. Please do so.

    I will not be really sarcastic. Hey, taxes are too high, let's cut taxes. But hey, the price of food it so high, I want the government to cut the prices of food. And gasoline. But the reason the price of food and other things is so high is that the cost of labor is so high. So the government should cut wages. And you know, if the government cuts prices and wages, then the taxes based on prices, sales taxes, and wages, income and FICA taxes, will be cut. So, let's all be conservatives and call for the government to cut taxes by instituting wage and prices controls to cut prices, wages, and taxes. That, according to Gov Palin is patriotic.


    Prof. Jamieson was incorrect when she said none of the candidates has responded to a question about the effect the bail might have on their proposed social welfare/health plans. When asked this question Sen. Obama tersely stated that there might be a delay in the implementation in some of his proposed programs.

    I am not sure how the candidates would address it directly, but I am increasingly concerned about anti-intellectualism in this country. We want the best ball player on the team, but when it comes to public service, smarts are a detriment. The first glimmer that this may be changing is the reaction to the candidates since the near-collapse of the banking industry. NO one seems to understand what is going on, so anyone who can think us out of this mess has a "get out of jail free" card. (Think the movie "Idiocracy".)

    I would also like to see candidates address voter suppression. Our state (WI) attorney general (and McCain co-chair) has a case in the courts to suppress voters registered since 2006. I am sure other swing states are facing similar measures, but there is little reported. Where are the UN poll watchers when you need them?

    If Prof. Jamieson wants to crticize others about getting the facts straight then she needs to get hers straight. Warren Buffet said that he invested in Goldman Sachs because he believed the bailout would go through. He added that if he hadn't have thought that the government would bail out he would have been divesting. Let's get our facts straight

    You and your panelists act surprised at the charge of media bias. And yet almost every point of what/who was wrong with the debate highlighted where Palin was wrong. Do you have the courage to have an independent non-journalist to evaluate this program for bias? Do you really care that jouralist ratings are where they are? As a long time NPR/public television viewer, I look forward to your follow-up.

    Gay marriage, balanced budgets, spying on Americans, Bill of Rights, Constitutional rights, the homeless, drug war, drug addiction, Overcrowding of jails, etc, etc, etc....

    I haven't heard one word about GMOs or the threat they pose. While there is some controversy in the scientific community about the danger transgenics hold for our nation and the planet, it is illuminating that almost all independent studies find some risk while industry funded studies invariably are the ones that caim it's all safe. But why can't we at least have labels on the products that contain these modified organisms? Aren't most companies proud of their product and eager for the consumer to know what they're buying?

    Post a comment

    THE MOYERS BLOG is our forum for viewers' comments intended for discussing and debating ideas and issues raised on BILL MOYERS JOURNAL. THE MOYERS BLOG invites you to share your thoughts. We are committed to keeping an open discussion; in order to preserve a civil, respectful dialogue, our editors reserve the right to remove or alter any comments that we find unacceptable, for any reason. For more information, please click here.

    A Companion Blog to Bill Moyers Journal

    Your Comments


    THE JOURNAL offers a free podcast and vodcast of all weekly episodes. (help)

    Click to subscribe in iTunes

    Subscribe with another reader

    Get the vodcast (help)

    For Educators    About the Series    Bill Moyers on PBS   

    © Public Affairs Television 2008    Privacy Policy    DVD/VHS    Terms of Use    FAQ