Traffic is still backed up on Civics 101. What was touted in the web’s early days as the “information highway” has become too cluttered with political billboards.
This is not a vast right-wing conspiracy. The blizzard of b.s. is from Barack Obama‘s embryonic regime.
It’s not really a shock. Liberals work just as hard — usually harder — at social-engineering projects, as part of their well-meaning if often misguided attempts to improve people’s lives.
There’s reason to assume that, in many respects, the new administration will be more open than the Bush-Cheney regime, which, after all, did hatch all sorts of secretive plots and strategies of lies and agitprop, particularly about the Iraq invasion.
But in one basic area, the road from D.C. to the rest of the country, there are so many Obama ads that you can’t see the countryside whizzing past, and the view was actually less cluttered by presidential propaganda during the Bush Daze.
I noted this last week, and I’ll keep harping on it until the new administration takes down some of its self-promoting signage about “transparent government” and actually delivers transparency.
OK, it’s still early days for the Obama regime. But when the Bush regime took over for the Clintonians, there were changes to the whitehouse.gov site, but its core job of providing basic information remained intact.
Yes, you had to cut through the propaganda, but the transcripts, official White House photos of various events, videos of speeches to even nut groups were all there. And, yes, George W. Bush‘s malaprops were rarely expunged.
Eight years ago, of course, there was no YouTube. Now, government operatives are really into trying to bend the technology and are much more sophisticated about trying to give you what they want you to think you need. That must be why the Obama White House is — so far — less forthcoming with info about the prez’s activities than the Bush White House was.
And it’s apparently why the new administration is getting all creepy-crawly friendly on us by titling Obama’s regular weekly speech “Your Weekly Address.”
No, pal, it’s yours. Do you have to put a marketing spin on everything?
The country gave it up for you, Obama. Now give it up to us.
Meanwhile, here’s some other clutter to click on…
NO PARTICULAR ORDER:
N.Y. Post: ‘”FARE SHARE” TAXIS: CITY EYES SPLIT RIDES’
Forbes: ‘The Incendiary IDF: The Israel Defense Forces use phosphorous shells — and forfeit credibility’ (Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watch)
Wall Street Journal: ‘Lending Drops at Big U.S. Banks’
N.Y. Daily News: ‘Teen sex rap for principal of Bensonhurst private school’
Wall Street Journal: ‘Obama Moves to Change Emissions Rules’
N.Y. Times: ‘From Here to Retirement’
N.Y. Daily News: ‘Cop shoots man with 17 bags of cocaine — but no gun’
N.Y. Times: ‘Counting the Walking Wounded’
N.Y. Daily News: ‘Radomski covers all ‘Bases’ in new book’
N.Y. Times: ‘From Hospital, Afghans Rebut U.S. Account’
N.Y. Daily News: ‘Brazilian amputee beauty queen dies’
N.Y. Times: ‘Melding Obama’s Web to a YouTube Presidency’
N.Y. Post: ‘REVOLTIN’ JOE’S WHINE TURNS BITTER’
Most recently she became a victim of so-called libel tourism. In Funding Evil, she wrote that a wealthy Saudi Arabian, Khalid bin Mahfouz, had financed terrorist activities. Under U.S. law her well-documented accusation doesn’t qualify as libel, so bin Mahfouz sued her in Great Britain.
The book had never been published in Britain or sold in book stores there, but a few copies had been obtained via online sellers. A British judge imposed a fine on Ehrenfeld and said her book should be destroyed.
Forbes: ‘This Bear Buys Stocks’
Tips from Divorce Saloon:
Most women’s husbands who are facing jail or already in jail, probably haven’t done anything quite as exciting as these two particular husbands. But the concerns are the same. What now? Where does she go from there?
Well, all I can say is that in New York, if your husband is going to be incarcerated for more than 3 consecutive years, you can get a divorce on that basis and he does not have to agree to the divorce.
They said they were acting in retaliation after they lost their trust funds to the accused swindler.
bloggingstocks.com: ‘Is Madoff a psychopath?’
Israel Opportunity Investor: ‘Whatever Happened to Madoff’s List of Assets?’