Op-Ed Pages and Lying
Here's how it should work: I'm a columnist and I have a right to my opinions but, in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, I don't have a right to my own facts. And so every column I write is checked assiduously by Time Magazine researchers. Occasionally, we screw up. Left-wing readers still haven't let me forget the mistake I made on a FISA column (it was corrected as soon as I double-checked my sources, including the Democratic source I'd misinterpreted, and figured out where I had gone wrong). You may not like my opinions, but you can pretty much rely on the fact-based portions of any given column.
That is not true with newspapers. Several years ago, the first New York Times ombudsman, Dan Okrent, created a stir by pointing out factual errors in the columns of Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd. (We all make them, by the way--being human and all that.) But those sorts of checks are few and far between--and today we have examples of two mainstream newspapers, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, retailing outright whoppers on their op-ed pages.
First, the Journal. It is a mainstream, often excellent, newspaper--except for its editorial and op-ed pages, which are somewhat to the right of King Louis the XIV. Today, the Journal devotes the top 40% of its op-ed page to a meretricious piece of crap by Fred Barnes about the great success of the Republican Party's effort to block President Obama's agenda. He has a right to cheerlead, even if it's decidedly premature to assume that the President's agenda will be blocked. (I'm still convinced that some form of health reform will pass this year.) In any case, I suppose it's borderline ok for Barnes to celebrate Dick Cheney's repulsive effort to demagogue the attempt to close Guantanamo--although the relentless Alexandra Silver, my frequent fact-checker, would probably have emailed Barnes to say, "But isn't it true that we already have [insert-precise-number-here] convicted terrorists and terrorist suspects being detained in the domestic U.S.? Don't we have to mention that?")
The lack of editorial rigor at the Wall Street Journal is lamentable. What is reprehensible is Barnes' reassertion of Sarah Palin's death panel fantasia: "Columnists disputed her claim, then realized she had a point. The death panels are dead, for now." Of course, it has been widely established that the death panels never existed. Doesn't the Wall Street Journal have some responsibility to point out--as the pathetic Charles Grassley did on Face the Nation--that "pulling the plug on granny" was never part of the program? Is there an ombudsman in the house or do we, as a society, have to live with the fact that the newspaper read by the nation's business elite is willing to print blatant lies for political effect?
On to the Washington Post, which does have an ombudsman, and today offers valuable op-ed space to Michael Steele, the chair of the Republican Party. Now, granted, the standards for these sort of advocacy pieces by partisans are lower than by normal op-ed columnists. But again, what about the facts? Steele starts out with this blatantly false statement:
President Obama's plan for a government-run health-care system is the wrong prescription.
Needless to say, there is no such plan. In fact, the single biggest mistake Obama has made has been his reluctance to set out a plan: some specific requirements--without writing a 1300 page piece of legislation, as the Clintons did--that he deems necessary in a signable health care reform bill. But that's another column.
What makes Steele's column especially hilarious is that it's about health care for senior citizens--actually, it's an attempt to scare senior citizens--but it never mentions that Medicare is "a government-run health-care system." One would think that the Washington Post's intrepid editors would have force Steele to cut or modify Steele's lie about Obama's "government-run" plan, and one would hope that the Post's editors would ask Steele to point out the Medicare--the program he wants to "save"--is precisely such a plan.
One last point: A strong argument can be made that Obama isn't being honest about all this, either. Medicare is going to require some drastic reform if isn't going to (a) go broke or (b) break the bank. The most plausible reform would be to abandon the current fee-for-service system and put doctors on salaries, as the excellent Mayo Clinic does. But doctors oppose that. So no go....Meanwhile, paging an ombudsman!
-
1
Obama has focused on plenty of Medicare cost reform measures, including eliminating fee for service reimbursement.
-
1.1
Obamacare?
Simple enough to understand:
YOUR kids get to pay for HIS smoking habit.
-
1.2
actually hulu, it's not Obama that your kids will have to pay for, even if he does hit $2T.
.
Appearently, you specialize in gilding your own excreta and trying to pass it off as gold.
.
Did you forget that Bush left a far larger legacy in the form of approximately $8.5T (minimum) from the Bernanke handouts prior to Feb 20, 2009 and his deficit - approximately $1.2T itself!
.
I guess you don't mind if your kids are saddled with debt, just so long as it is GOP debt
-
-
2
Whew, I was afraid we were going to have a whole post without a "Dems/Obama are bad too" sentence. Last paragraph saved the day.
-
3
One would think that the Washington Post's intrepid editors would have force Steele to cut or modify Steele's lie about Obama's "government-run" plan, and one would hope that the Post's editors would ask Steele to point out the Medicare--the program he wants to "save"--is precisely such a plan.
One might well hope so; but what reason is there to think/expect it? This is the Washington Post op-ed page we're talking about here. Home to serial liars George Will, Michael Gerson, and Charles Krauthammer.
As Yglesias put it, "Michael Steele offering some nonsense in rare form. The venue, naturally, is the op-ed pages of the Washington Post whose editors once again display the casual contempt for the truth and for their readers that is the hallmark of their approach to journalism."
Thanks for continuing to push the truth-based approach to journalism, Joe.
-
4
"Now, granted, the standards for these sort of advocacy pieces by partisans are lower than by normal op-ed columnists."
.
Why?-
4.1
Why? Because the editors assume, perhaps naively, that readers are sufficiently informed to know that the writer is advocating his side's version of whatever. (Even if you've never heard of Michael Steele, there's a little tagline at the bottom of the column giving his current position.)
.
There remains, of course, the question of whether the readers are sufficiently informed to realize how far from the truth the writer has strayed. It might be useful if the Post imported its lie-meter (or whatever they call it) into the rating of op-ed columns. I'd give Steele's at least three Pinocchios. -
4.2
Op-eds, by their very nature, advocate a specific point of view or position.
.
A lie is a lie, regardless of party or organizational affiliation. A partisan lie shouldn't be treated with any more respect than a non-partisan lie.
.
So, I'll ask again: Why are there different standards?
-
-
5
Query: Is "WIKIPEDIA! [...] THAT'S LEFTIST" a fact or an opinion?
-
6
One of the major problems a lot of us have with the way all this garbage works is the people who get caught lying never get punished. there is no risk to lying in your industry unless you take it to Jayson Blair levels.
George Will has told some whoppers about Global Warming in the last 6 months in his Post column. Even the wet-noodle Post ombudsman was eventually forced to call Will a liar. Has that encouraged his other employer, ABC, to tell him they no longer wanted his opinions on 'This Week' because they couldn't be trusted? Hell no.
And when Sonya Sotomayor was first nominated, Jeffrey Rosen wrote a nasty article based on anonymous sources (that may have been republican staffers and his brother-in-law who worked for another Supreme Court hopeful) basically calling her a stupid b*tch. Now another word for "anonymous source" is "lie-by-omission", as your buddy Pete Hoekstra taught you. Therefore writing this innuendo laden and anonymity cloaked hit piece indicates Rosen is dishonest.
The pushback against Rosen's terrible article eventually forced him to sort of walk back from it, although not before TIME Magazine decided he was just the person to write an op/ed on Sotomayor for the magazine.
I am sick of hearing about journalistic ethics. Some people simply need to get fired for lying, just like would happen in any other business.-
6.1
Jihad Joke Klein vs The Washington Cookes?
That's tougher than choosing which side to lose in Syracuse vs Miami.
-
-
7
geez, talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
_
I'm a columnist and I have a right to my opinions but, in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, I don't have a right to my own facts. And so every column I write is checked assiduously by Time Magazine researchers.
_
yet, just about every week, Klein makes up his own facts -- like this week's column...
_
This year, the liberal insistence on a marginally relevant public option has been a tactical mistake that has enabled the right's "government takeover" disinformation jihad.
_
LIES. Here are the facts ---
the "public option" was central to Obama's health care reform proposal during the campaign, and has been consistently supported by Obama as necessary to keep costs controlled and insurance companies honest. The far right was spewing the 'government takeover' nonsense LONG BEFORE the "liberals" finally made an issue out of the public option when Sibelius said that it might not be included in reform.
_
There have been times when Democrats have run demagogic scare campaigns on issues like Social Security and Medicare.
_
Joe can't name any.... this is pure BS.
_
There are more than a few Democrats who believe, in practice, that government should be run for the benefit of government employees' unions.
_
a flat out LIE from Klein -- no factual basis whatsoever.
_
There are Democrats who are so solicitous of civil liberties that they would undermine legitimate covert intelligence collection.
_
NO FACTUAL BASIS AT ALL -- JOE IS MAKING STUFF UP.
_
you can read virtually any column that Klein writes and find similar falsehood, misrepresentations, lies, and "unfacts". -
8
Klein conveniently leaves out that the VA does in fact again use a Clinton-era euthanasia screening process ("Sarge, would you like to die now without pain, or next week in unpredictable quarters?"), banned by Bush, and quietly re-instituted by Obama?
ANONYPUSS ACCOMPLISHED.
-
8.1
Don't worry, the wounded soldier will get a Purple Heart bandage left over from the 2004 GOP convention.
-
8.2
I hesitate to engage fact-challenged trolls like hulagate, but will do so just to show how easy it is to demonstrate they are completely full of crap. For a detailed takedown of this ludicrous lie see
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/23/771489/-Foxs-death-book-lie -
8.3
Hulagate busted for lying again. Big surprise.
-
-
9
"In fact, the single biggest mistake Obama has made has been his reluctance to set out a plan..."
Math.
Never a liberal strong suit.
-
9.1
You have got to be kiddings. Most of our national debt occurred under Reagan and Bush(s).
Fool.
-
-
10
Joe,
What is a civil liberties "absolutionist"? I'm thinking its one who believes that ALL people--no matter race, creed, religion, etc--have civil liberties in ALL situations (innocent until proven guilty, ever heard of it??). But it appears as though you feel differently. Please explain.
-
10.1
all civil liberties are constrained by some things. Take the right to free speech; constrained in some ways - not allowed to yell fire in a cinema and all that. Right to life? not if you've been sentenced to the death penalty. Right to liberty (is that one?), not if you've been convicted of a crime etc. you point this out in your comment itself!
and on and on. Agree with Joe or not, absolutists of any type are dangerous imho and in all honesty I don't believe that there are many around. Glenn Greenwald, for all his passion is not an absolutist in the way I've described - at least I don't think so. The debate on this issue often comes down to where people think the balance lies. In reality I don't actually think that there is too much divergence on this (I'm leaving aside the birther crazies et al).
-
10.2
"Absolutist' in this context means 'taking words that are written in law' at face value and not pretending they don't mean what they say.
Quoting from an AP article about Holder reopening torture investigations:
Justice report is said to reveal how interrogators conducted mock executions and threatened at least one man with a gun and a power drill. Threatening a prisoner with death violates US anti-torture laws.A 'centrist' understands the 'balance' that comes from recognizing that threatening to poke a guy's temple with a power drill is indeed 'threatening a prisoner with death'
It takes an 'absolutist' to understand that waterboarding is exactly as threatening for exactly the same reasons and is hence just as illegal!
Silly words - always getting in the way!
-
10.3
pd, i guess it's a matter of context. Personally, i think waterboarding is more akin to what I would think of as torture than someone having a gun to his head although I do think that both qualify. I was just making the point that civil liberties are not, by their nature, absolute. We all recognise limitations to civil liberties and once you do, the rest becomes a question of balance. I think there are some who deliberately misstate where the balance should lie but that's a different matter.
anyway it's just words. it's one of those "I know it when I see it" type things.
-
10.4
Actually you are helping to identify what the problem is with Joe calling people absolututists.
While there is indeed a spectrum of views over how much the presumption of innocence should affect police procedures or how much privacy a reasonable reading of the Bill Of Rights should afford, the areas where Glenn Greenwald has made a name for himself and where people like Joe Klein have failed miserably is in understanding that in a 'democracy' finding and striking those balances should be an open political and legislative process.
.
What happened with FISA (and the Torture Statute as well) is that the President unilaterally declared an important law null and void and began violating it routinely. Everything that has happened since has been due to the complete mismatch between what the law reads and what 'reasonable' Centrist Villagers think it ought to mean.
.
There can be significant disagreement over where a proper civil liberties 'balance' may lie but ignoring the balance that has already been written into the US code should not be an option. -
10.5
As always Paul, I do not disagree with a word of your post.
-
-
11
I think it is important to remember that the courts have ratified, I believe all the way to the Supreme level, the right of journalists to lie. For some strange reason, Fox News felt that is was necessary to not only admit their lying but to have it specifically protected by the first amendment. This was in response to a lawsuit filed by an employee discharged for refusing to report the fabricated stories.
I don't disagree with the court rulings, there is no such thing as a "little censorship". It's all or nothing and I'll take it all. I think it incredible however that Fox would go to the lengths of having themselves certified liars by the federal courts in order to win a lawsuit. Obviously they realize that for those of us who knew that , it would make no difference and for those who didn't , they won't believe it anyway.-
11.1
I don't disagree with the court rulings, there is no such thing as a "little censorship".
.
I guess that makes you a civil liberties extremist.
-
-
12
BTW, libwits:
Any DOLT that spends $50,000 bucks for a week's rental on Martha's Junkyard really can not be taken seriously, on ANYTHING.
Obama has lost sight of reality, likely some Time ago.
Unfortunately, it has taken 6 months of his useless, expensive, leftist domestic elitist crap for the taxpaying majority to awaken from their 11-2008 slumber to figure that out.
His math is AWOL, his plan MIA, his spastic term a POW.
On the bright side, he will be joined in the 2010 and 2012 early retirement line by a slew of Congressional lib dregs, state level lifer burrocraps, and union thugs -- mostly of his own doing, to his extreme merit.
He reverts of course to the staple McGovernite mantra of Blame America 1st, if not the media alone, for his self-immolating legacy troubles, but we've seen the Jimmy Carter show before, eh?
Enough of The Once.
Congress needs to, must grab the reigns back from this czarist fool, before his quiet Putinesque riot becomes a national and international disaster from which we may never recover.
The change then means massively LESS government spending, outside of DOD's valid requirements, including consolidation or elimination of departments, health insurance tax credits instead of another DC managed unionized bailout scam, and powering down the decision making process to the local level, NOT orchestrated from on high as though he were the 52% Jesus.
And when I want to tithe more than 10%? I will, as I see fit -- not as The Once dictates.
Engage.
-
12.1
I present for your consideration, the modern conservative, as typified by hulagate:
.
"And when I want to tithe more than 10%? I will, as I see fit -- not as The Once dictates."
.
The central philosophy of the modern conservative, "@#$% you. I got mine, You're on your own."
.
"massively LESS government spending, outside of DOD's valid requirements"
.
You heard hula, he no longer wants to get mail, have police or fire department protection, or serviceable roads to his house. Tho, if the ruskies attack, he wants someone to shoot them for him.
.
"libwits", "DOLT", "lib dregs", "spastic". "leftist domestic elitist crap", "czarist fool", etc
.
At least he's in favor of a rational discussion.
-
-
13
"meretricious piece of crap"
mmmm. Thank you, Joe, for the tasty morsel of wordsmithing. It's like scotch on vanilla ice cream. (Don't knock it until you've tried it.)
-
13.1
...I make brandy alexanders with vanilla ice cream instead of regular cream. I also enjoy a scoop of lemon ice or sorbet in a glass of red wine (courtesy of Rachael Ray, she recommends rioja).
-
13.2
I'm partial to mudslide/banana/peanut butter milkshakes. They produce a cholesterol count in the millions, but they are tasty.
-
-
14
"This year, the liberal insistence on a marginally relevant public option has been a tactical mistake that has enabled the right's "government takeover" disinformation jihad.
_
LIES. Here are the facts ---
the "public option" was central to Obama's health care reform proposal during the campaign, and has been consistently supported by Obama as necessary to keep costs controlled and insurance companies honest. The far right was spewing the 'government takeover' nonsense LONG BEFORE the "liberals" finally made an issue out of the public option when Sibelius said that it might not be included in reform."To be fair to Joe, this is his view; not a factual assertion (same with the other examples). Now, you may argue they are not based on fact, but nonetheless these are his opinions.
In this example, if you replace "liberals" in Joe's statement with "Obama", your complaint would be baseless. I know, I know you don't consider Obama to be a "liberal" because he's in hock to corporate interests, blah blah blah, but the FACT is he's probably the most liberal president to be elected in modern times.
-
14.1
The only Public Option that's going to take place is the Public's Option to send Reid, Boxer, Burris, and Obama back to the tarred & feathered bench for Bozos where they belong.
-
14.2
To be fair to Joe, this is his view; not a factual assertion (same with the other examples). Now, you may argue they are not based on fact, but nonetheless these are his opinions.
In this example, if you replace "liberals" in Joe's statement with "Obama", your complaint would be baseless.
_
unfortunately, Klein states its as fact, not as opinion... and he uses the word "liberals" not "Obama".
_
In other words, your hypothetical are irrelevant. Klein made factual assertions that are demonstrable untrue -- if you change the wording, they might (or might not) be true, but you have to judge him on what he wrote, not on what you wish he'd written.
-
-
15
In the US lack of access to facts and truth with today's corporate media is every bit as as much a problem as our lack of access to affordable health care. We need a REAL public media and something akin the Fairness Doctrine. Both the corporate media and the D.C. madams that pose as reps of the people are out of touch and to the right of the public on MOST of the major issues...including war, health care and the environment. The hard-working, long-suffering, civilized majority is dismissed and often abandoned by their govt and the media alike.
-
15.1
We need a REAL public media and something akin the Fairness Doctrine.
.
I'm opposed to the fairness doctrine for plenty of good reasons. How about a "public option' designed to force competition and improve service........oh wait! -
15.2
Ditto, Paul.I mean, what happens when conservatives claim they have equal time to scream that Obama was born in Kenya? Screw the fairness doctrine, let's have a Facts Doctrine.
-
-
16
Joe, you say this: "In fact, the single biggest mistake Obama has made has been his reluctance to set out a plan: some specific requirements--without writing a 1300 page piece of legislation, as the Clintons did" and this has become one of the leading memes in the press.
What about this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/
this is a pretty specific list of requirements it seems to me. what he hasn't done is get into the nitty gritty of clause 4.56 of the bill should be; and in my view he shouldn't do that.
He has also talked many many times about the advantages of the public option. It seems to me that the real complaint (and I am not necessarily saying that it is wrong) is that Obama hasn't nailed his colours to the mast on the public option as strongly as people would like. This apparent "lack of passion" then gets turned, via public mistrust, dishonest op-eds etc., into Obama is betraying his principles (or, Obama is a socialist fascist who wants to impose good healthcare on everyone!). The fact that there are two very strong and ultimately inconsistent and competing complaints signify to me that Obama is eluding definition on this issue. It reminds me of the way in which he was subject to numerous inconsistent attacks from the repubs during the campaign; they could never get him completely in their sights and every week it was a different angle. At the end of it all, when he won convincingly, it didn't matter what names he had been called or how he had been criticised. he got the job done and he got it done with style.
-
16.1
the problem with that list is that its easy to achieve all those reforms -- as long as you are willing to throw "affordability" out the window. (For instance, one of the principles is that the insurance company has to renew your policy -- but it doesn't say that the insurance company can't increase your premiums by 10,000% when it comes times to renew.
_
in other words, without cost controls, "insurance reform" is a joke. And its the means by which costs are controlled -- and how subsidies are paid for -- that turns ar "joke" into a serious proposal.
-
-
17
A refreshing piece in spite of minor quibbles. Joe, the Post's op-ed section has long been a propaganda outlet for the likes of Kagan, Krauthammer and Kristol plus assorted Republican hacks.
Opinion is now the go to word when one wants to lie blatantly. Opinion is a cover for all kinds of intellectual dishonesty. We have been saying this here and elsewhere for sometime now. What set you off???
-
18
Joe Klein: "You may not like my opinions, but you can pretty much rely on the fact-based portions of any given column."
ROTFLMAO!
Joe Klein and Time magazine, while providing no evidence, alleged (falsely) that LTG David McKiernan fell asleep in the presence of Donald Rumsfeld, and then according to the false allegation of Klein and Time magazine, Rumsfeld declared that McKiernan would never command another unit.
FACT: LTG David McKiernan, while Rumsfeld was secretary of defense and after the falsely alleged nap by McKiernan, was promoted to General and took command of U.S. Army Europe.
-
18.1
FACTS SHMACTS.
This is the realm of Klein, Cooke, Barnicle, and Blair we're talking about.
Take your Doris Kearns Goodwin blinders off, grab a dose of Dan Rather, and enjoy the lib Alinsky fiction.
At least until the 2010 mid-terms.
-
-
19
And you sat in a room with Chris Mathews, who has a long history of repeating debunked lies on his show that conveniently fit the conventional wisdom, and sagely acted like it was some people who happen to write more on the internet that don't fact-check. Glen Greenwald, who is one of those bloggers you claim don't fact-check, would be drummed out of his own comment section if he tried to push the sort of lies and nonsense we hear from Mathews on a routine basis.
-
20
GG mentions Chucky T's confrontation on Bill Maher and how his "reputation" was damaged . I did not know he had one to lose.
-
21
Absolutist:
Someone who reads this:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; andand doesn't pretend that forced sleep deprivation and waterboarding somehow don't actually qualify.
-
22
Is this the same Joe Klein who admitted that Time.com DOES NOT FACTCHECK to Chris Matthews? The same Joe Klein who tried to get away with channeling Hoekstra?
The same Joe Klein who was caught pretending to be a liberal recently?http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2009/08/no-wait-i-know-this-one-answer-to-who.html
So what was his strategy to recoup the manhood he felt he'd lost in our argument? He told them that just that day he had received an obscene email from a right winger on the death panels issue. In retaliation for this he had “posted the entire email, with the guys name and email address” on his blog at Swampland so that his loyal readers could attack and destroy this poor, moronic, foul mouthed schnook. “So you see,” he said happily (and this is pretty much what he posted on his blog) “Attack this man for me! I'm really a liberal, if the right wingers hate me. And I do too have friends. I think.” Best moment of all was when our English friend rolled over on the sand and said, blandly and gently “oh, are you a liberal?”
-
23
Anyone who wishes to see Joe Klein admitting that his readers have to do the fact-checking that Time.com doesn't do, may find this interesting:
.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/chris-matthews-thinks-bloggers-dont-do-any-
23.1
That was priceless. "Bloggers don't fact check" except the ones correcting my columns from the comment section.
.
Speaking of which:
"...Left-wing readers still haven't let me forget the mistake I made on a FISA column (it was corrected as soon as I double-checked my sources, including the Democratic source I'd misinterpreted, and figured out where I had gone wrong)."
I'm pretty sure it was Republican Pete Hoekstra who fed you the lies which led to your most embarrassing "facts" on FISA (let's leave aside your opinions entirely). And it doesn't look like you misinterpreted your source so much as repeat his lies verbatim. That's where you went wrong.
-
23.2
One more thing. Although getting it's facts straight hasn't been a very strong suite for your industry for quite some time, I wouldn't want to see anyone lose focus on the more important issue. Journalism is the job of conveying the important truth of important things. Plenty of Beltway ink has been spilled in the past few decades that may have been factually true but was otherwise godawful.
-
23.3
However did Joe manage a correction? I thought he had neither the time nor the legal expertise required - and now we know that he didn't have a fact-checker either. Complex indeed, Mr Klein. Complex indeed. Tell me, does Pete Huckster...I mean Hoekstra.. know that you are no longer BFFs and that he's been given a Democratic makeover?
-
23.4
That correction only came after Joe threw a temper tantrum for a week or two and GG put up the rather clear-cut text from the FISA bill for all to see. Someone needs to fact-check Joe's timeline.
-
23.5
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/23/joe_klein/index.html
.
Can we get a howl of "Evil, evil!" from you, Joe? Go ahead, make my day!
-
-
24
Joe:
.
We are all familiar with the GOP's interchangeability in regards to facts, fiction, and opinions.
.
There is one fiction that you seem to still ascribe to, and that is false equivalence.
.
A bit of advise:
.
Get OFF it and get OVER it!-
24.1
He can't.
.
This is Time Magazine, after all.
~
-
-
25
[...] Much has been said about Michael Steele’s patently dishonest piece in (where else?) the Washington Post, but I liked what Joe Klein had to say: [...]
- TIME Tiger Woods makes our list of the top 10 apologies | http://su.pr/9H9xcB - 1 hour ago
- TIME Tiger learns why personal sins do require press releases (by @poniewozik) | http://su.pr/24cNPj - 2 hours ago
- TIME A brief history of the Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree | http://su.pr/1Relcr - 4 hours ago
Most Popular »
- "Personal Sins Should Not Require Press Releases"
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- The 'Alice' Interview: A Very Different Brand of Wonderland
- Congress's Tepid Reaction to Obama's Afghanistan Plan
- Tiger Speaks
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- State Dinner, Uh, Fashion
- White House Hypocritical Attack on Politico
- The Dreaded X
- First Look: 'Lovely Bones' and Peter Jackson's Virtuoso Vistas
- Can Attack Dogs Be Rehabilitated?
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Rachel Uchitel: Tiger Woods' Alleged Affair Connection
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- Europe's Secret Nuclear Weapons: What Should NATO Do?
- Why Fritz Henderson Resigned as GM's CEO
- Ireland: Lack of New Catholic Priests Spurs Campaign
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
- Study: Loneliness Can Be Contagious
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?
Quotes of the Day »
RSS