Just when I thought the problems with the CPB couldn't get any worse
They give the Prince of Darknessssss himself his own propaganda vehicle.

Richard Perle, the former Bush administration adviser and Iraq war advocate, would make a ripe subject for many filmmakers. But when the Corporation for Public Broadcasting awarded a preliminary grant for a film on Mr. Perle's neoconservative worldview, it gave the money to the British producer Brian Lapping, Mr. Perle's friend of four decades.
.........
(T)he corporation took another unusual step. Seeking political balance on a charged topic, in late April it asked a half-dozen filmmakers to submit proposals for a separate film critical of White House foreign policy. Sherry Jones, who has won awards for her work on the public television series "Frontline," was chosen, with an associate. They will examine "how the implementation of the so-called Bush doctrine has alienated traditional American allies, tarnished America's image abroad and possibly made the world more dangerous," the corporation said in a news release.
.........
Of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's decision to commission a counterfilm, Mr. Lapping said, "I can understand the pressure for an opposite point of view, but I didn't see the need for it."

I bet you don't Mr. Lapping.. but it's a good thing that the CPB still does. For now anyway.

Good news on the media consolidation front.

From WaPo today

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday let stand an appeals court ruling that limits the number of television stations, radio stations and newspapers a media company can own in a single market.

"It's an enormous victory for those who seek greater diversity in ownership and greater competition in news media," said Gene Kimmelman, director of Consumers Union.

Score one for the Supreme Court.....

Why oh why, given the history of Judith Miller's prose on Iraq and her ties with the delusional machinations of Ahmed Chalibi and the fact that it was he who "discovered" the Oil For Food documents, is the New York Times allowing her to continue to write on this topic?

The "Paper of Record" continues to become the "paper for bird cages".

Now I'm just baffled.
This comes acrossed your desk and you can't see the really story here? Are these people so out of it?

The Senate offers up a resolution opposing the racist lynchings of African Americans. Because some of the senators are afraid of the political ramifications with some constituents (read: racist morons), the Senate delays the vote to the evening when no record of the vote or roll call is required. All the major networks want to cover is that the Senate is offering an apology for not previously passing legislation. Incredible.

So far it's been confirmed that there are around 80 co-sponsors of the bill leaving 20 senators who will not sign an anti-lynching resolution.
This is the list of the Pro-Lynching 20. Will they be allowed to hide in the shadows?

Bingaman (D-NM)
Conrad (D-ND)
Reed (D-RI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR) (In the clear)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)

ABCNBCCBSAPCNN... Where are you......
Reuters at least is talking about the missing signitures.

How long will it be before the MSM (Mainstream Media) starts paying attention to the numbers?
USA Today is starting to listen.

Nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, a new Gallup Poll finds, the most downbeat view of the war since it began in 2003.

Patience for the war has dropped sharply as optimism about the Iraqi elections in January has ebbed and violence against U.S. troops hasn’t abated. For the first time, a majority would be “upset” if President Bush sent more troops. A new low, 36%, say troop levels should be maintained or increased.

The souring of public opinion presents challenges for the president, who has vowed to stay the course until democracy is established and Iraqi forces can ensure security. He hasn’t suggested sending more U.S. troops.

We have reached a tipping point, says Ronald Spector, a military historian at George Washington University. Even some of those who thought it was a great idea to get rid of Saddam (Hussein) are saying, "I want our troops home."

The pattern of public opinion on Iraq - strong support for the first two years that then erodes - is reminiscent of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, he says.

... and our old buddy, Walter Jones, is taking his activism to the next level.
Go Walt!

Walter Jones … a North Carolina conservative, said on ABC’s "This Week" that he would offer legislation next week setting a timetable for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I voted for the resolution to commit the troops, and I feel that we’ve done about as much as we can do, ” said Jones, who had coined the phrase "freedom fries" to lash out at the French for opposing the Iraq invasion.

This just in:

The new ABC News/Washington Post poll, here, shows 52 percent of Americans disapprove of the job President Bush is doing overall, reports ABC News' Polling director Gary Langer, the most in more than 75 ABC/Post polls since his presidency began. His approval rating is 48 percent.

Bush's Iraq approval ratings haven't fared much better: 41 percent said they approve of the job the President is doing in Iraq, while 58 percent disapprove — matching his career-high Iraq disapproval mark.

George W. Bush’s approval rating is now a full twenty points lower than Bill Clinton's was on the day he was impeached. Dear media, that means you gotta stop referring to him as a popular president, and no less important, stop treating him like one. If you want to be wimps about everything, fine, just don't blame it on his "popularity." Blame it on yourselves.

Via Doc Alt

Of all the arrogant asses in the Bush administration... of all the neocons who put their full faith and effort into dragging America down into the depths that it is in today... it is Richard Perle who stands above all others as the one who put his own neoconservative interests above what was good for this country. He is someone who will say anything, do anything (if he actually does anything) and step on anyone to forward his agenda. To me he epitomizes all that went wrong in the planning and execution for the last five years in foreign policy. His absolute arrogance and refusal to admit any wrong, looking directly in the face of all the mistakes he has made and/or championed, makes him principal fool of this millennium.

Why the media doesn't flush this man out and exposed his bleached white flesh to the light of reason I have no idea. His failed attempt to push Ahmed Chalibi into a presidency or prime minister position in Iraq and ultimately into the Oil Minister position stands as the ultimate act counter to the interests on this country as well as Iraq.

In his latest diatribe before the AIPAC conference he begins again the rhetoric of war upon the backs the soldiers of this country, their families as well as all taxpayers.

From Dana Milbank's article in the WaPo:

"Perle provoked cheers from the crowd when he favored a military raid on Iran, saying that 'if Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, I think we will have no choice but to take decisive action.' When Harman said the 'best short-term option' is the U.N. Security Council, the crowd reacted with boos."

Where are his allegiances? What is his intent in stirring up even more the trouble in the Middle East? Under who's instructions is he acting? Who the hell is this guy?

Excellent post on Perle by Xymphora.
An excerpt assembling the following facts:

1. Perle is an integral part of the neocon crowd that actively lied to the American people about Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction, and thus has zero credibility.

2. Even if Iran had bombs, which it doesn't, they could only be used for defensive purposes, as nuclear retaliation would be fatal to the country.

3. The only nuclear power in the Middle East with dangerous bombs is none other than Israel, the country that Perle and AIPAC work for.

4. The reason we know about Iran's nuclear program is that Iran has allowed UN inspectors to inspect, something that Israel won't allow.

5. Any bombs Iran might ever have in the distant future could never pose any threat to the United States as Iran has no means to deliver them.

6. Since the Iranian nuclear program is spread out and hidden in anticipation of just the attack Perle is calling for, bombs wouldn't stop it.

7. Bombing will kill a lot of civilians, but will have no effect on dislodging the Iranian government, and will indeed strengthen the position of the hardliners in Iran.