John McCain's brother's angry 911 call: a short family fuse

You can't make this stuff up

John McCain's brother's angry 911 call: a short family fuse | The Dish Rag | Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/10/john-mccains-br.html)

Is this a joke? If it is not I assume his frontal lobes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobes#Function) haven't fully developed. Once again, god save us from the imbeciles.

He's representing all the Joe the Dumbers of the world.

We dont vote for the siblings of the men running.

We dont vote for the siblings of the men running.

If we did, ol Bill woulda never got in cuz Roger was a quite the screw up.

Ah, I long for the days of Billy Carter... now there was a "first brother" of the people. He was more like "Joe 12-pack."

Like I said the liberal media is going to be throwing all this crap out to help Obama in any way they can. Matty is just making my point by posting this stuff.

Like I said the liberal media is going to be throwing all this crap out to help Obama in any way they can. Matty is just making my point by posting this stuff.

Ah, thanks for helping me see the light.:doh:

Ah, I long for the days of Billy Carter... now there was a "first brother" of the people. He was more like "Joe 12-pack."

I have a six pack of Billy Beer.

Like I said the liberal media is going to be throwing all this crap out to help Obama in any way they can. Matty is just making my point by posting this stuff.

(Note: FD, I'm not saying you're a complete skeptic about the media, but I wanted to comment on this sort of charge.)

I think this ongoing line from the right is dangerous. Here's why: it's the place where they come closest to the loony left. The loony left (as my father in law calls them (me?)) do not believe the press either. They think they are largely controlled by corporate interests and only publicize those stories supportive of the capitalist status quo (see Noam Chomsky, for example). They are now very prone to embrace conspiracy theories of the nuttiest kind. This is not a good step.

It drives irrational behavior--accepting a crazy story just because it comes from the MSM and rejecting good stories for the same reason. So, if you think the MSM is biased and untrustworthy, and then someone says Obama is a closet muslim, you take it as EVIDENCE that the story is true that it's not reported or it's denied by the MSM. Same if you hear Palin is a snake handler or something: it WASN'T in the news, so it MUST be true, or anyway more credible.

No doubt the media has issues. My suggestion is to cross-reference stories from lots of sources. I read both the NY times and the WSJ. I also check the Drudge Report on a regular basis. And I try to followup on stories with longer things when I can--books, long-form articles, etc.

But if you don't get your news from the MSM, where do you get it? Why think that source is better? The press plays a vital function in democracy, and attacking it is dangerous. What, should political parties get to vet the media? Should they have editorial control? That serves the parties, but damages the nation. And yes, I do think in general that the MSM is biased. NY Times, WPost, NBC--liberal. Fox, NYPost, WashTimes--conservative. Knowing this allows for some cross-calibration. And I take try to take all these reports with a grain of salt.

It makes sense to be skeptical of what we get from the MSM, but it doesn't make sense, it seems to me, to become an out-and-out skeptic about the media. There's an important difference.