Bob Herbert--America the Fearful--NYTimes

[Demeter]

"In the dark days of the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt counseled Americans to avoid fear. George W. Bush is his polar opposite. The public's fear is this president's most potent political asset. Perhaps his only asset.

....The Bush crowd, which gets together each morning to participate in a highly secret ritual of formalized ineptitude....

The Constitution and the elaborate system of checks and balances were meant to protect us against the possibility of a clownish gang of small men and women amassing excessive power and behaving like tyrants or kings....

Well, I give you fair warning. This is a road map to totalitarianism. Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included an excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy, the promotion of blind patriotism, the denial of human rights, the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people."

THE CLEAREST CALL YET FOR SAVING THE REPUBLIC FROM THE REPUBLICANS--UNFORTUNATELY SELECT ARTICLE.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/opinion/15herbert.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26nQ3DTopQ252fOpinionQ252fEditorialsQ2520andQ2520OpQ252dEdQ252fOpQ252dEdQ252fColumnistsQ252fBobQ2520Herbert&OP=69c71defQ2FQ272VzQ27i_XvviQ27Q5ExxJQ27xrQ27jrQ27vRQ5ClQ5CvlQ27jrHVXzVXi,Hi.Q2F

[marmar]

1. As much as the Times has f..ked up the past few years...

Herbert and several of the other opinion people have continued to write some great pieces.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. That's why they were put behind a pay wall

I hope nobody thinks putting the NYT op/ed writers behind a pay wall was in the interest of profits. I believe it was to blunt the scathing criticism of writers like Krugman and Herbert without having to come right out and dump them for questioning the boy king. I also believe that the NYT's "Select" subscriptions generate LESS revenue for the paper than the ad dollars they got when the op/ed's were free.

[applegrove]

9. I don't agree. Though I don't know. But my guess would be to market

and get paid a bit - for all the interest out there in columnists. Surely the advertising dollars they get for their regular paper pretty much annihilates anything they could make on the web. My understanding is that most blogs do not make great money even if their writers get thousands and thousands of hits a day. I think they are just marketing to those people out there with an extra $50 a year who would not have access to or regularly buy the newspaper. Think "around the world". Then it makes sense to me.

Though I agree it is unfair. But I'd rather see them all trucking along like they are than not. And the next day - the articles and opinions - which are not so based on daily news - are available. If they make enough on the World Wide Web - maybe they will expand?

[saltpoint]

5. Not surprisingly, marmar, you are absolutely right. Herbert, Rich,

and others have shone despite the papers' troubles in some areas.

Bob Herbert is a gem.

[marmar]

6. Thank You, OC...

You're good for my ego! :pals:

[applegrove]

8. I agree. NYTimes columnists are a godsend most often.

[Loge23]

2. Great piece - worth the look

You can pick up a copy at the newsstand or check it out at a library - it's worth the read.

This criminal administration must be stopped!

[Demeter]

4. For the Whole Article Try This!

http://64.226.238.78/PA/index.shtml

Thanks to Cassandra for the website!

Demeter

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Or here - I can't see it at "Progressive American" yet

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2006/05/herbert-america-fearful.html