Where's the outrage?

[maevele]

or at least acknowledgement of the really interesting stuff dubya passed this weekend?

Y'know, the thing where if you're actively working against the war, they can take all your money. And the other thing, where he seem to have declared he can not be held responsible for his actions by the legal system?

I could be reading these things entirely wrong, since I am not fluent in Political Legalese. I must be, because otherwise I would be hearing about this from mainstream TV news sources, right? Because this seems pretty big to me. Admittedly, I only had a chance to watch a small amount of TV news, mostly fox, but I expected to hear Something about it.

I must be misinterpreting it.

Comments

[lady-alyria.livejournal.com]

Probably not. They didn't make a big deal out of it when we lost our constitutional rights, and I thought that was a biggie. So hey, you just have to realize that the media decides what a nation is going to be outraged about by deciding what to tell us and how to tell us and most the media is run by a handful of people.

[lantry.livejournal.com]

You might also want to consider not turning to Fox news for anything that contains actual news. I have found the best source on US news is BBC world news on PBS at like 5PM or about.

[maevele.livejournal.com]

yeah, I mostly watch faux news for the outrage/entertainment value. But I figured they'd be talking about this just to defend it.

[lantry.livejournal.com]

That of course would imply they thought there was something to defend.

Also, the whole out of sight out of mind thing. Why bring it up if the other news agencies haven't yet. Fiscal Republicans get up and notice anytime someone says anything about taking money away from anyone for any reason. This is actually an issue that could get their own constituancy a little ootsy. As if any of the fiscal Republicans were supporting Bush anymore anyway. Them and the military are already shifting. But they do still at least watch Fox in general.