If Dan Rather types a forged memo in the forest, and nobody reads it, does it make a sound?
As reality starts to sink in with Dan Rather and CBS News that they've been peddling a phony bill of goods, a more reticent, introspective Rather is emerging, now that he's been caught planting evidence on a suspect. More noise is being made that Rather may be walking the short plank on the issue as well.
"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story. Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong'."
There's Scoop Rather for you - after he's laid out a political hit piece based largely on phony documents, he wants to be the one giving the hard-hitting interview to himself, asking himself the tough questions about what he knew, and when he knew it.
"This is not about me" - please, sir. Rather and CBS have made it definitively clear that it's all about them - their integrity, their gravitas, and their disdain for anyone outside the secret society that questions them.
"I recognize that those who didn't want the information out and tried to discredit the story are trying to make it about me, and I accept that."
Well, accepting IS the first step to recovery, Dan... and YOU discredited the story when you used cooked evidence to make your case. The pressure Rather feels is due to his own intransigent defense and haughty dismissal of anyone who pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes. CBS and Rather have continued to argue and deflect, stating that we need to accept their story at face value, and that our attention should be focused where they attempted to aim it.
Just ignore that man behind the curtain...
UPDATE: Dan Rather interviewing himself is not a recent phenomenon - and Bloom County was the greatest comic strip, EVER.
You ain't working here no more...
A man who heckled President Bush at a rally has found himself among the nations newest job seekers.
Most of us have been given tickets to events from time to time, be it a baseball game or another sporting event, a concert, or another special gathering. And most of us manage to behave with a modicum of decorum (double Latin word usage bonus), not only because we have standards of dignified comportment, but because we know that how we behave reflects on those who gave us the opportunity to attend.
But not this man, who shows up, and decides he wants to heckle Bush. Now mind you, political protest is a seriously important right, and one we would not deny to anyone. Few things can compare with the sheer political joy of showing up at a Kerry rally and clapping together a pair of flip-flops, or carrying signs with the Vice-President's sobriquet at a Cheney speech. But when you ride someone else's line, you have to pay the rail tax - and he was shocked, shocked I dare say, when the client who provided the tickets got upset that he decided to heckle the President, and furthermore, that his employer valued the client's right to spend money with them more than his right to act like a ne'er-do-well with someone else's bus pass.
This is purely a function of common sense. Yet he'd do the same thing again. Why? Because it's all about him... Marcia Marcia Marcia!
With judgement and insight like that, this person is sure to quickly find a top flight position in either the food service or housekeeping industries (hat tip to Dr. Peter Venkman)...
But enough about me... what do YOU think of me?
A teacher in New York is under fire for using a moment of silence in memory of Ronald Reagan to attack the man and his policies.
Another example of not knowing where you end and the rest of the world begins. Surely, a discussion of the Reagan presidency with seniors is a natural adjunct to his passing. But in a moment of silence, it absolutely, positively isn't about you and what you think. Certainly someone so discomfitted by Reagan and his policies can do so in quiet silence - if not just for a moment of solemn reverence.
What arrogant presumption presumes that your opinion on a man is worthy of a noisy outburst? If silence is golden, then this teacher has impoverished herself...
But enough about the New York Times... what do YOU think of the Times?
The New York Times has morphed from the nations paper of record into a self-important pamphleteering fishwrap. Not to put too fine a point on it...
In it's opinion column about Ronald Reagan, the Times cannot help but cast the memory of Reagan through it's own warped lens. The resulting image of Reagan resembles more a carnival funhouse mirror reflection than the image most Americans remember.
Of course, with the Times editorial board being composed of individuals utterly juxtaposed politically from Reagan, it's unsurprising that they fall short of a glowing endorsement of Reagan and his conservatism. But they go far beyond this, chalking up his notable success as President as chance fate, and casting Reagan in the guise of a happy-go-lucky beneficiary of events and cat's-paw of the real agents of change.
We don't recall the Times editorial board ever predicting the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union. But Reagan did. Of course, the Times chalks this up to Gorbachev, who voluntarity dissolved the Soviet empire in order to reduce international tensions, or so they'd have you believe. Reagan's easygoing style is also a Times target, and a criticism they level against the current President - a snarky, disdainful criticism it should be noted is commonly aimed at people in charge by people who think they ought to be in charge...
Of course, Reaganomics cannot possibly get a pass - and once again, the opportunity to shiv the current administration is too juicy for the Times to pass up. The only praise related to the Reagan economy the Times finds noteworthy is a brief moment of lucidity to raise taxes - no mention of breaking the back of inflation, nor the enormous growth of the 80's economy - just a brief but fleeting moment of perspicacity in an otherwise Times-derided policy.
The Times closes by noting how America and the times have outgrown Reagan's black and white simplicity and patriotism. There seems to be no need for moral clarity in the age of relativism and shades of gray.
Perhaps what there is no need of is self-important hubris disguised as informed opinion, expressed in a medium that is more suited as cage liner than record of enlightened American political thought. The Times has had this a long time coming - an inward focus that seeks only to express but not examine itself, culiminating recently with the pointless and gauche self-flagellation at having been duped by reports of Saddam's bad tidings, to this myopic and specious re-imagining of history and the Reagan Presidency. It's all about the Times and their outlook - it's all about Marcia.
And in their honor, we dedicate a new category at The Art Of Politics inspired by the Times - Marcia, Marcia, Marcia !!! - reserved for those who demonstrate a true center-of-attention deficit disorder...