Hi Tweets,

Martin Muller writes:

(snip WSJ quote)

>Ye gads, I can just hear the questions at the next programs: "do eagles eat
>small children? Well, I read in the Wall Street Journal that this is a
>concern... " I sincerely hope that Don Baccus is right when he says most
>people don't believe that kind of cr... It's just unfortunate it appeared in
>print in a major newspaper.

Can you spell 'Pravda', kiddies? I *knew* you could! The old Soviet editors
look down from socialist heaven and smile broadly at the snide manipulation
of truth by the Wall Street Journal. The Americans have learned from us
well, they'd be thinking.

>I could rant and rave on about individual parts of the article, but I won't
>bore you with that. For me it was the first time my words were taken out of
>context and that I was quoted in an article so diametrically opposite to
>what I had been led to believe it would be about. Freedom of the
>press...101.
>
>I'll spare you the trouble, Don; "Welcome to the real world Martin."

Editorially, the WSJ is to the corporate business community the intellectual
equivalent of a pornographic magazine: it deals in fantasy and panders to
the terrified. The main difference between the two, though, is that a porn
mag wears its cynicism nakedly, offering no pretension about what it is
actually to be used for, whereas the WSJ conceals its crueller cynicism,
presenting itself instead as a credible source of news and wisdom.

Michael Price A brave world, Sir,
Vancouver BC Canada full of religion, knavery, and change;
mprice at mindlink.net we shall shortly see better days.
Aphra Behn (1640-1689)