Democrats are unhappy with an ABC miniseries on the events that lead to Sept 11. They're unhappy because most of these events occured when their man, Clinton, was in charge and too busy getting blown by interns to pay attention. Also, they just plain don't want people thinking about Sept 11 this close to an election they hope to win.
If ABC won't cancel "The Path to 9/11," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Friday, local ABC stations should.

Durbin is one of several Senate Democrats who wrote ABC earlier this week urging that the miniseries be scrapped. http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-ftr-path09a.html
This letter the senators wrote threatened to pull ABC's license if they ran the show! Screw freedom of speech. Screw doing honor to those who died on Sept 11.

Censorship you say?

Republicans attempt to censor the whole medium of TV and Radio.

The latest assault on cable TV’s creative freedom comes from octogenarian Republican Senator Ted Stevens, chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Stevens and his committee are considering a censorious House-passed “indecency” bill regulating radio and TV broadcasters — legislation cooked up in the wake of the furor over Janet Jackson’s boob flash during the Super Bowl. And now, the weighty senator wants to extend its provisions — including a draconian new government-imposed ratings system. With an ironclad Republican Senate majority, Stevens usually gets what he wants.

The effect on cable-TV programming would be enormous. The Republican-controlled FCC has, in the Bush years, already been heavy-handed in targeting what it deems broadcast speech too impure for you to hear. Its rulings go way beyond the traditional “Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV” made famous by George Carlin’s uproarious comic riff. That’s why Howard Stern — after getting a $495,000 spanking from the FCC — chose to exile himself from broadcast radio to his upcoming new home on Sirius Satellite Radio. But if Stevens has his way, Howard will be subjected anew to the same censorship on the Net. And so will cable.
The already-passed House bill calls for sharply increased new fines for violators — the whopping $1.18 million FCC fine imposed on the Fox network for airing a wild guys’ night out on Married by America would be doubled under the new law.
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/censor-alert/806/

More republican censorship
http://www.lizkrueger.com/news/news92.html

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/031506SenateCensorship.html

Democratic Lawmakers Expose Censorship In Bruno’s Senate

ALBANY---With “Sunshine Week” as their backdrop, State Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan) and several of her Democratic colleagues called for an end to the heavy-handed censorship the Republican Majority inflicts on Minority members.

“The Republican Majority not only controls the resources we receive, they control our efforts to communicate with our constituents. They determine what we can say in our newsletters and on our websites, and they often use a double standard when determining what is appropriate,” Krueger said.

Etc etc etc...

Now personally I have been listening to that crap you'all were spewing about freedom of speech and liberty in the USA.

How come so much is censored?

Censorship you say?

Republicans attempt to censor the whole medium of TV and Radio.
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/censor-alert/806/
More republican censorship
http://www.lizkrueger.com/news/news92.html
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/031506SenateCensorship.html
I'm completely against that, and all censorship. Fortunately, the bill you made reference to hasn't passed and hopefully never will. But I'd say there's a better than even chance that ABC will fold and not run the Sept 11 piece. At the very least, they'll remove any segment Democrats are unhappy with. Isn't that nice. The government getting to edit shows before they air. Prior restraint, anyone?

Why are there then so many people (or so it seems) keen on censorship of these trivial issues (or so it seems to me)?

What's your take on that?

i guess you people never heard of the MPAA have you.

Democrats are unhappy with an ABC miniseries on the events that lead to Sept 11. They're unhappy because most of these events occured when their man, Clinton, was in charge and too busy getting blown by interns to pay attention. Also, they just plain don't want people thinking about Sept 11 this close to an election they hope to win.

This letter the senators wrote threatened to pull ABC's license if they ran the show! Screw freedom of speech. Screw doing honor to those who died on Sept 11.
do you think lies honor those that died on 9/11?

if this show is a political right-wing hack job, is that ok?

I suppose this war on terror is working out, I just loved the trial of OBL, the oratory, the drama, oh??! yeah, haven't caught the little rascal yet, darn

Why are there then so many people (or so it seems) keen on censorship of these trivial issues (or so it seems to me)?

What's your take on that?
These congressmen and Senators are drunk with power. They see something they don't like, and say, "That should be banned". The constitution is supposed to prevent this, but the supreme court is doing a poor job defending free speech these days.


do you think lies honor those that died on 9/11?
if this show is a political right-wing hack job, is that ok?
Have you seen it? It was produced by ABC. Not known for its right wing views. I doubt it's full of lies. Just, as Al Gore would say, "inconvienient truths".

These congressmen and Senators are drunk with power. They see something they don't like, and say, "That should be banned". The constitution is supposed to prevent this, but the supreme court is doing a poor job defending free speech these days.

It's seems like an impossible task though to change anything in this particular system. Both sides equally abusing the system. Both sides reluctant to give up any power.

Can there be a reversal to the values of the constitution intended? Or have things gone out of control?

You haven't given any information on why this program is an issue, so I have no opinion yet.

If it really is about blaming Clinton, that is a complete joke. As republican head anti-terrorism advisor to Bush AND Clinton, Richard Clarke said, Bush didn't see terrorism as urgent before 9/11, but with the Clinton administration it was.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/911.commission/index.html

In that memo -- detailed in a commission staff statement -- Clarke told policy-makers to "imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home or abroad after a terrorist attack" and to ask themselves, "What else they could have done?"

Clarke began his testimony with an apology to loved ones of those roughly 3,000 people killed in the attacks on airliners, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"Your government failed you, and I failed you," he said. "We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed you. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."

Later, on CNN's "Larry King Live," Clarke said the Clinton administration's approach to a similar threat before the turn of the millennium -- on which top officials held daily interagency meetings and actively sought information from within their own agencies -- shows that a similar approach might have worked to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks.

From what I've heard from the guy who either wrote the miniseries or directed it, everyone is upset from the first episode of it -- as obviously it's the first episode and Clinton was in power before Bush -- without seeing the 2nd one that was given to the people during the screening. In the later episodes, it shows the faults of the other side, Bush 'n Co, supposedly having no political bias.

But yes, I really hate these power-hungry politicians; punk bastards. Why they even have to address anything in regards to our rights is beyond me. Freedom is freedom, there shouldn't be any limitations yet they have no problem trying to limit numerous ones every single day. And with those cable channels and satellite radio, it's a paid service, so it's not like kids are seeing/hearing the so-called "bad stuff" during daytime hours on free television, so limiting what they can show or talk about is bullshit.

- N

http://www.youtube.com/v/JuH1xwLUnbg

If it really is about blaming Clinton, that is a complete joke. As republican head anti-terrorism advisor to Bush AND Clinton, Richard Clarke said, Bush didn't see terrorism as urgent before 9/11, but with the Clinton administration it was.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/911.commission/index.html
Fighting terrorism was urgent under the Clinton administration? :eek:

I can't wait for the montage where it shows Bush readin "My Pet Goat" while terrorists destroy America.

This is an example of why Democrats shouldn't stoop to the level of Republican politics. I seem to recall a movie about Ronald Reagan that was pulled under GOP pressure; I thought it was indecent then, and the exploitative indecency of 9/11 entertainment aside, it is indecent to protest ABC's latest trash-of-the-week.

There was some pretty sloppy journalism in that thing. It was very hastily prepared and did seem to have a right-wing bias. In one segment it mentioned a document that was damaging to the Bush administration being published in the Washington Post, a newspaper so far to the left that all the ads for stereo systems only have one speaker. In fact it was published in the Washington Times, which is equally far to the right, one of the few papers in the country that runs the Mallard Fillmore comic strip--the right wing's answer to Doonesbury.

I'm impressed that ABC stood up to the bullies in the Senate. Now let's see if the Dems follow thru with their bluff and get ABC's license pulled.

The ABC series was pure propaganda, but so what. Better documentaries will come out eventually, at least now their pandering to the cons is made obvious.

spidergoat, proof of your statement? everything that is stated in the movie has a basis in fact, and can be found with a little research, but then I forget that you only read the left side of the pages.

spidergoat, proof of your statement? everything that is stated in the movie has a basis in fact, and can be found with a little research, but then I forget that you only read the left side of the pages.If something presents the neocon/Bush perspective it's of course rooted in FACT! Jesus even checks the stats for them! If the movie, series, book, etc. is critical of neocons and Bushdom it's a bald face LIE concocted by turrurists and godless heathens! :rolleyes: Let us all be thankful BR isn't Minister of Information.

Genji, you didn't present any facts, you need to present proof that what the movie showed didn't happen, yes it is a movie, but it is based on historical fact that can be confirmed with research, so if you have proof that the things presented in the movie are a bald faced lie please provide proof, it will have more weight than you prejudice's.

spidergoat, proof of your statement? everything that is stated in the movie has a basis in fact, and can be found with a little research, but then I forget that you only read the left side of the pages.
And I think you only listen to Hannity or Savage.

Anyway, mediamatters.org (http://mediamatters.org/items/200609110001) has some good articles on this:

Summary: In its miniseries The Path to 9-11, ABC retained a controversial scene that depicts Clinton administration officials declining to authorize the CIA to capture Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, despite the fact that the scene is contradicted by the 9-11 Commission report, on which the network originally claimed the film was based.

More:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/the_path_to_9_11

everything that is stated in the movie has a basis in fact

Dude, "basis of fact", just like movies that are based on many books and other events. It's a freakin' miniseries and they can add and tweak whatever they want so long as they don't claim it to be a documentary. This is also why Fox News sued to be able to not be required to tell accurate news because all the commentators are commentators giving their "opinions", yet people believe all of what those commentators say to be fact. Hannity and Colmes is no different than Larry King or David Letterman.

People can point out so many flaws with that miniseries just like they can with the movie Black Hawk Down. Oh, but it's based off true events so it all MUST be true! I can't believe you're making that movie out to be your bible. :rolleyes:

- N

spidergoat, mediamatters.org ROTFLMAO, the mouth peace of the Democrats, and you accuse me of sucking up propaganda.

Neildo, you are correct about Hannity , Rush, Rusty, Larry, or Letterman, they are all entertainers and they will tell you so, now name for me any of the so called news people that don't put their opinion into their story's, There are none that report just the facts any more, they all put their spin on the story they report now days,

The Media Elite Revisited

In 1995, Stanley Rothman and Amy E. Black “partially replicated the earlier Rothman-Lichter” survey of the media elite described above. “The sample of journalists mirrors that from the earlier study, including reporters and editors at major national newspapers, news magazines and wire services,” the authors wrote in a Spring 2001 article for the journal Public Interest. When it came to voting habits and ideology, the authors found the media elite maintained their liberal bent, providing strong majority support for Democrats Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Bill Clinton in 1992.

KEY FINDINGS:

More than three out of four “elite journalists,” 76 percent, reported voting for Michael Dukakis in 1988, compared to just 46 percent of the voting public.
An even larger percentage of top journalists, 91 percent, cast ballots for Bill Clinton in 1992. That same year, only 43 percent of voters picked Clinton, who nevertheless won a three-way race.

Washington Bureau Chiefs and Correspondents

In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a report by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, “Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.” Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.



KEY FINDINGS:

89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.
Asked “How would you characterize your political orientation?” 61 percent said “liberal” or “liberal to moderate.” Only nine percent labeled themselves “conservative” or “moderate to conservative.”
Fifty-nine percent dismissed the Republican’s 1994 Contract with America “an election-year campaign ploy.” Just three percent considered it “a serious reform proposal.”


TV and Newspaper Journalists

In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide — 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didn’t vote or said they did not know for whom they voted.


KEY FINDINGS:

More than half of the journalists surveyed (52%) said they voted for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, while fewer than one-fifth (19%) said they voted for Republican George W. Bush. The public chose Bush, 51 to 48 percent.
When asked “generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?” more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).
While about half of the journalists said they were “moderate,” 28 percent said they thought of themselves as liberals, compared to just 10 percent who said they were conservative.
One out of eight journalists (13%) said they considered themselves “strongly liberal,” compared to just three percent who reported being “strongly conservative,” a four-to-one disparity.
When asked about the Bill of Rights, nearly all journalists deemed “essential” the right of a fair trial (97%), a free press (96%), freedom of religion (95%) and free speech (92%), and 80 percent called “essential” the judicially-derived “right to privacy.” But only 25 percent of the journalists termed the “right to own firearms” essential, while 42 percent called that right “important but not essential,” and 31 percent of journalists rejected the Second Amendment as “not important.”

So, attack the messenger. The fact is this show contradicted the 9/11 report, and the historical record. Clinton himself said clearly that things didn't happen that way. The show itself claimed only to be fiction, and that's what it was. I could go over every specific point, but I would only be repeating the work of others...

Has anyone actually read the letter? There's some interesting stuff in there:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility ....

.... Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree ....

.... Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace ....

.... Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged .... (Newsmax (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/7/202135.shtml?s=lh))

Which leads me to a certain vital point:


This letter the senators wrote threatened to pull ABC's license if they ran the show! Screw freedom of speech. Screw doing honor to those who died on Sept 11.

This is ... well, a matter of perspective at best. I found commentary by John Aravosis that answered the simplest question: What threat?

Aravosis writes:

This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble ....

.... The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before. (Americablog (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/senate-democratic-leadership-threatens.html))

Now, let's consider this: When the GOP was furious about a CBS miniseries on Ronald Reagan, "Gillespie said that if CBS denies the request, he will ask the network to run a note across the bottom of the screen every 10 minutes during the program's presentation informing viewers that the miniseries is not accurate" (CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/31/reagans/)). Part of the "trust" invoked in the Senators' letter involves the assertion that ABC and Disney intended to push this material onto schoolchildren as the historical truth. Should ABC have run a disclaimer similar to Gillespie's proposal about The Reagans? To call The Path to 9/11 "a work of fiction" would seriously damage any plans to market the show to schools as reflecting the historical record. Calling it a work of fiction, however, would reconcile the show to ABC's position as a trustee of the airwaves. I think conservatives with their dignity in a knot over this one are hopping on the paranoid bandwagon of the blogosphere: it's nice rhetoric, but doesn't reflect reality. To call an admittedly fictionalized work the historical truth, and with apparent intentions of promoting this fictionalized work as the historical record does not, in any way, reflect the best interests of the American people. Americans suffer such information overload that voters have a hard time keeping up with Voters' Guides, and Christians have a hard time keeping up with the Bible. The Path to 9/11 is whatever it is; I took the same path I recommend to those who complain about sex and violence on television: I watched something else. Probably Battlestar Galactica DVDs. I don't remember.

I suppose there is a legitimate question raised by the conservative panic, however: Is there a limit to free speech when granted a public trust?

If lying is such a minor violation of public trust, why did everyone rush to Clinton's impeachment? Then again, nobody seems to care about the secret prisons anymore. Come on, we knew Bush & Co. were lying, they finally admitted it, and is anyone getting tacked to the wall for it?

Of course not.

Would it have been so difficult for Disney to either make a real true story to the best of their ability, or simply call this one a work of fiction, and not bother with sinister plans to falsify history in the schools?

I suppose "Dems threaten ABC's license" makes a better headline than "Dems remind ABC of public trust duties".

What's really scandalous here is how fearful and panicked are the conservatives. "He'p us! He'p us! Someone's demanding integrity! O! Please, Lord, he'p us!"

Pathetic.
____________________

Notes:

"Senate Dems: Cancel ABC 9/11 Movie". Newsmax.com, September 7, 2006. See http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/7/202135.shtml?s=lh

Aravosis, John. "Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions". Americablog, September 7, 2006. See http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/senate-democratic-leadership-threatens.html

"RNC asks to review 'The Reagans'". CNN.com, October 31, 2003. See http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/31/reagans/

I suppose "Dems threaten ABC's license" makes a better headline than "Dems remind ABC of public trust duties".

When the Senate reminds you that your license to broadcast is freely granted as a public trust, it's like a mobster remarking on how certain businesses are prone to fire. Or a Nazi wondering about your larger than average nose. It's a veiled threat, nothing else. I would oppose such threats whether from the left or the right.

I loved Ronald Reagan. The greatest modern president, in my opinion. But I wouldn't and didn't support threatening TV stations over a bad movie about him. I just didn't watch it. The Senate democrats probably did more to promote this show than anything with their carrying on about it.

The FCC threatens censorship all the time, and huge disproportional fines which amount to a constant threat, especially if they air something the Bush adminstration doesn't like. If you think the FCC isn't politically motivated, just look at the example of Howard Stern. They left him alone when he supported Bush, but fined him heavily when he turned against them.

The Democrats don't control the senate, BTW, so this reminder cannot be interpreted as a threat of any kind.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW09-20-06.jpg

When the Senate reminds you that your license to broadcast is freely granted as a public trust, it's like a mobster remarking on how certain businesses are prone to fire. Or a Nazi wondering about your larger than average nose. It's a veiled threat, nothing else. I would oppose such threats whether from the left or the right.

So reminding someone of the basis upon which the complaint is allegedly justified is a threat? I would think such an allegation of justification would be a necessity. I mean, really, talk about a waste of office. But at the same time, if nobody said anything, then what would the result be? Another lie passed off to schoolchildren as real history? And for what reason? Money? Pride?

Of course, conservatives tend to see threats everywhere. Progress is a threat; integrity is a threat. I can see how conservatives might see a threat in all that. Especially when they're determined to do so, anyway.

So reminding someone of the basis upon which the complaint is allegedly justified is a threat? I would think such an allegation of justification would be a necessity. I mean, really, talk about a waste of office. But at the same time, if nobody said anything, then what would the result be? Another lie passed off to schoolchildren as real history? And for what reason? Money? Pride?

Of course, conservatives tend to see threats everywhere. Progress is a threat; integrity is a threat. I can see how conservatives might see a threat in all that. Especially when they're determined to do so, anyway.


Oh so I guess gun control wasnt enough, now they want thought control. I honestly don't think any legislation should be passed, it makes the Democrats look weak as usual. The problem with the Democratic party is they are always on the defensive, responding to stuff. The Democrats could just as easily endorse Alex Jones and let him put a show on one of the liberal channels like comedy central.

I don't see the big deal, yes you can say that the documentary was innacurate, but so are documentaries by Michael Moore. Seriously, Democrats should leave this stuff to Jon Stewert.

So reminding someone of the basis upon which the complaint is allegedly justified is a threat? I would think such an allegation of justification would be a necessity. I mean, really, talk about a waste of office. But at the same time, if nobody said anything, then what would the result be? Another lie passed off to schoolchildren as real history? And for what reason? Money? Pride?

Of course, conservatives tend to see threats everywhere. Progress is a threat; integrity is a threat. I can see how conservatives might see a threat in all that. Especially when they're determined to do so, anyway.

It's thought control. No one forces anyone to watch the ABC broadcast, they can broadcast is 24/7 from now until the election and it will have no influence on liberals or conservatives at this point. If you support the Iraq war and would like to stay the course, then vote Republican, if you want to cut and run and are against the war, support the Democrats. If you support civil liberties, don't vote at all.

If you support the Iraq war and would like to stay the course, then vote Republican, if you want to cut and run and are against the war, support the Democrats. If you support civil liberties, don't vote at all.
And if you haven't made up your mind yet, watch ABC. Then vote Republican.

It's thought control. No one forces anyone to watch the ABC broadcast, they can broadcast is 24/7 from now until the election and it will have no influence on liberals or conservatives at this point.

Thought control? So are you proposing that testing and scoring schoolchildren according to a "history" that contradicts the actual historical record isn't thought control? Have you stopped to think about the schoolchildren who would be forced to accept the Disney/ABC version of history in order to get good grades, go to college, and have a decent life, &c.? Thought control? Hey, if ABC wants to pay for the reserved airspace from which they benefit financially, I'm fully hip to the notion that they can broadcast whatever garbage they want. But, as they are awarded a free broadcast license for fulfilling a public trust (that is the arrangement by which they broadcast and make money), then yes, they owe a certain amount of integrity in their performance. Asking them to fulfill their role in the public trust is not thought control. It is simply asking them to be responsible.

Thought control? Oh, heavens, a public resource shouldn't be irresponsibly biased? Help us all!

Seriously, when Michael Moore has a free license to broadcast his movies 24/7 and put them in the classrooms as the official history curriculum, then you might have a point. Until then, pull your head out and take a deep breath; clean air might help you with the p-p-p-p-paranoia.