G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
For Chris Matthews, misogyny pays
By Eric Boehlert
Created Apr 17 2008 - 2:47pm
Tongues are still wagging over The New York Times Magazine's cringe-inducing
[1] cover story [2] about MSNBC talker Chris Matthews. The cringes came
courtesy of the name-dropping Matthews, whose raging insecurities danced
across nearly every page of the piece. As Digby noted [3] after reading the
opus, "He fulfills every single Village media cliche: obsessive social
climbing, deep personal insecurity, primitively sexist and racist and just
plain dumb."
Question: Is Chris Matthews [4] the Michael Scott [5] of political talk show
hosts? And if so, does that make MSNBC the Dunder Mifflin [6] of cable news?
Matthews has harvested a bumper crop of outrageous remarks during this
extended primary season. Specifically, fueled by his obsession with the
Clintons (he can't recall attending a single Beltway party where the couple
has not been discussed), Matthews has unleashed a flood of sexist
commentary.
On that front, of course, the Hardball host has not been alone. This
election season, we've seen a cavalcade of white, middle-age men express
their deep, personal contempt for the first serious female contender for the
White House. Contempt, of course, that has nothing to do with Sen. Hillary
Clinton's policies or her beliefs. Instead, it's been an oddly personal
disdain dressed up as political analysis.
The way Mike Barnicle on MSNBC said [7] Clinton "look[ed] like everyone's
first wife standing outside a probate court." The way Bill Kristol on Fox
News said [8] that among the only people supporting Hillary Clinton were
white women, and "[w]hite women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all
live with that." The way CNN's Jack Cafferty likened [9] Clinton to "a
scolding mother, talking down to a child." The way Fox News' Neil Cavuto
suggested [10] Clinton was "trying to run away from this tough, kind of
bitchy image." The way MSNBC's Tucker Carlson announced [11] that "when
[Clinton] comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." The way
Christopher Hitchens on CNBC
described [12] Clinton as being "sort of alternately soppy and bitchy.'"
That's all taken place in open view. And while a blog swarm [13] did engulf
Matthews in January, followed by a forced, pseudo-apology by the host -- and
his attacks did prompt some women activists to carry picket signs outside
the MSNBC studios -- the openly sexist comments have produced very few
condemnations from within the industry and even less soul-searching from the
(mostly male) press corps. In fact, in Matthews' case, the sexist outbursts
have helped propel his career. That's how he landed on the cover of the
Times magazine.
Why? Because misogyny pays.
Question: If Chris Matthews had been forced to apologize to Sen. Barack
Obama for divisive, personal comments the host had made about the candidate,
and if the comments had prompted civil rights groups to protest outside the
MSNBC studios, do you think Chris Matthews, three months after the fact,
would be photographed on the cover of The New York Times Magazine with an
uproarious grin [14] on his face?
For me, there were two key takeaways from the Times opus. The first was that
Clinton-bashing -- and specifically, misogynistic Hillary-bashing -- pays
off in the form of magazine cover stories. And second was that political
journalism is a farce.
It's a farce because Matthews has clearly been crowned the Hot Journalist of
this election cycle. He's already received loving, Page 1 treatment [15]
from the media-centric New York Observer, as well as a February "valentine
[16]" from The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz [17]. And now the
Times piece, which clocked in at 8,000 words, the type of space the
prestigious magazine usually sets aside to profile presidential candidates
and heads of state. Keep in mind that within the Beltway's ego-driven media
culture, with its all-publicity-is-good-publicity view of the world, there's
no question that kind of cover treatment by the Times is seen as a coveted
status symbol, no matter how many cringes the actual article may have
induced. The cover story conferred a very simple message: Chris Matthews has
been anointed a media star.
It's just so sad. Remember when campaign cycles generated Hot Journalists
who actually accomplished something? Who actually practiced the craft and
helped change journalism for the better by providing us with a deeper
understanding of unfolding campaigns, who painted vivid portraits of the
players involved? For instance, the way Richard Ben Cramer famously captured
[18] the 1988 race and how Sid Blumenthal and Joe Klein left their marks on
the 1992 contest?
Other than to insult Hillary Clinton, what, exactly, has Chris Matthews done
during 2008 to be crowned some sort of hot media property? It's a serious
question. What kind of journalism does Matthews practice? Because I don't
recognize it when I watch his program or see him on the nights the primary
returns come in.
What's so depressing for the journalism profession is that the Times profile
barely takes a moment to even ponder what contribution, if any, Matthews is
making to journalism. The article certainly doesn't suggest Matthews has a
unique talent. Yes, he's ubiquitous on television and appears to have no
filter between his brain and his mouth. He's also obnoxious and
self-centered, which the article makes perfectly clear. But those are
personality flaws, not journalism skills.
Nor is Matthews' misplaced self-importance, like when he compared his role
in this campaign to Eric Sevareid and Walter Cronkite covering the 1968
White House race, or when he likened himself to Howard Cosell chronicling
Muhammad Ali. (Elsewhere, Matthews compared himself to Richard Nixon and
NBC's Tim Russert to John F. Kennedy. Ugh, just stop it already.)
But where are the examples of Matthews' leading insights during this
campaign? The Times offers no examples, and I'm not sure anyone can find
any. And even more depressing, the Times doesn't seem to think it's
important or even relevant.
The uncomfortable truth is that the Times helped tap him the Hot Journalist,
but Matthews doesn't really display journalistic skills, let alone produce
journalistic achievements, that the
Times can point to. Why? Because, today, it's beside the point.
The sad fact is the article itself, inadvertently, acknowledges that there
really are no standards for campaign journalism anymore. Why else would the
article, in all seriousness, compare Hardball with Comedy Central's The
Daily Show and The Colbert Report? Those are comedy shows, professional
parodies. Hardball is supposed to be a premier political talk show. The
Times sees no difference between the two. Then again, perhaps news consumers
shouldn't either.
And, no, in case you're wondering, Matthews is not generating huge ratings
during the campaign, so that's not why he's been designated hot. Despite the
Times' claims about how the "thrilling 2008 presidential campaign has been a
boon" for MSNBC and "something of a heyday" for Matthews, Hardball's ratings
are rather middling this year compared with the mighty gains others have
posted during the historic White House campaign. CNN, for instance, has
ridden the Obama/Clinton wave into first place in prime time, beating Fox
News for the first time since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Also note that MSNBC recently canceled Tucker Carlson's show, which aired at
6 p.m. ET, right before Hardball, and replaced it with a weekday campaign
show hosted by NBC's David Gregory. Almost overnight, the Gregory show has
been able to secure an audience similar in size [19] to Hardball, which has
been on the air for more than a decade.
No wonder the NBC brass is considering cutting Matthews, and his $5 million
salary, loose.
So if Matthews doesn't display any actual journalism skills in terms of
unearthing scoops or edifying the race, and if his ratings are just so-so,
what explains Matthews' Hot Journalist status?
Answer: Misogyny.
Matthews is hot because he dumps all over Hillary Clinton, saying rude,
sexist, and demeaning things about her week after week, and the Beltway
media crowd thinks its edgy and insightful and loves to watch. (As the Times
noted, "Some of [Matthews'] most devoted followers are Washington media
figures.") Matthews, desperate for attention and approval, sees that media
elites love his sexist shtick so he lays it on thicker and thicker. Media
elites then turn around and anoint him the Hot Journalist.
For Matthews, his boorish behavior is simply an outgrowth of his profession
as a Clinton-hater. His television career was first built on obsessive
disdain for Bill Clinton during the impeachment years. That pattern of
contempt extended into Matthews' gruesome, dishonest attacks [20] on Al Gore
in 2000 (he would "lick the floor" to be president, Matthews used to joke
[21]), and has now continued with his 2008 coverage, which is laced with
sexist commentary.
But if he says wildly offensive and sexist things on the air, why isn't
Matthews shunned instead of toasted? Why would the so-called liberal New
York Times lavish so much attention on him?
Simple: The press plays dumb about the misogyny, and the Times magazine
article was a perfect example. (The political press hates the word misogyny
and considers the idea to be cuckoo. Click here [22] to watch Keith
Olbermann jump down Elton John's throat for even daring to utter the word in
the context of the Clinton campaign.)
Yes, the Times profile acknowledged the fact that critics, including Media
Matters for America, have accused Matthews of sexist behavior. But the Times
quickly cordoned off that discussion to mostly mean that Matthews leers at
women.
In a typical passage from the Times profile, Matthews tries to flirt with
actress and Obama supporter Kerry Washington, whom MSNBC head Phil Griffin
invites on Hardball at an event. "He wants you on because you're beautiful,"
Matthews said. "And because you're black." Matthews handed Washington a
business card and told her to call anytime "if you ever want to hang out
with Chris Matthews."
New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer blog, in an item praising Matthews,
picked up [23] on that passage and suggested:
Places like Media Matters will doubtless point out this interaction as
further evidence of Matthews's demeaning attitude toward women, but they'd
be missing the point. Matthews is a sexist in the same benign way your
grandfather is, but at least he tells the truth.
First off, "benign" sexism? That's an interesting notion. Is that sort of
like "benign" racism? (Just asking.) Secondly, New York Magazine completely
misses the point, because it adopts the same premise The New York Times
does: this idea that Matthews is sexist because he ogles women both on and
off the air.
Yes, that sort of behavior is problematic and inappropriate for the host of
a political news program. (Am I not stating the obvious here?) But what the
media conveniently ignore is the hateful, gender-based language Matthews
uses to describe prominent (Democratic) women. It's behavior commonly
referred to as misogyny.
In the Times article, Matthew claims he's completely innocent to the charge
of demeaning women on the air: ''I don't think there's any evidence of that
at all. I've gone back and looked. Give me the evidence. No one can give it
to me. I went through all my stuff. I can't find it."
Actually, the evidence that Matthews was looking for remains hidden in plain
sight. As Media Matters' Jamison Foser noted [24], examples of the host's
sexist and demeaning comments are plentiful. It's just that the Times
politely chose to ignore them. So readers still probably have no idea that
Matthews:
a.. featured a Photoshopped image of Clinton sporting "She Devil [25]"
horns while discussing Republican efforts to demonize her;
a.. repeatedly likened Clinton to "Nurse Ratched [26]," the scheming,
heartless character from the mental hospital drama One Flew Over The
Cuckoo's Nest;
a.. described her laugh as a "cackle [27]," suggested she was "anti-male
[28]," "witchy [29]," and was on a "short ... leash [30]";
a.. referred to Clinton as "Madame Defarge [31]" and described [32] male
politicians who endorsed Clinton as "castratos in the eunuch chorus";
a.. compared [33] Clinton to a "strip-teaser," wondered whether she was "a
convincing mom," referred [34] to Clinton's "cold eyes" and the "cold look"
she supposedly gives people;
a.. claimed [35] that "some men" say Clinton's voice sounds like
"fingernails on a blackboard."
But oops, those aren't funny or clever or "benign." Instead, they're
offensive to people who at least pretend to care how women are portrayed in
the press. So The New York Times plays dumb and pretend Matthews is just a
tad horny. That's the extent of his sexism; he's incorrigible [36]. And
c'mon, what's more adorable than watching powerful men in their 60s publicly
lust after women often half their age?
Please note this odd, yet crucial, point: Matthews' openly sexist streak
extends only to Democratic and liberal women, and that's another reason the
press plays dumb. Because media elites would never anoint Matthews the Hot
Journalist if he went on and on about how Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
was too ambitious, or how Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was "witchy,"
or how the voice of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) sounded like fingernails being
run across a chalkboard, or how Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) had "cold eyes."
That would be considered offensive and out of bounds. But to suggest
Clinton's a "witchy," "anti-male" Nurse Ratched? That's deemed by the
Beltway elites to be shrewd, astute, and fearless.
See, misogyny pays. And according to the Times, Matthews has three Mercedes
in his driveway to prove it.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Eric Boehlert
Created Apr 17 2008 - 2:47pm
Tongues are still wagging over The New York Times Magazine's cringe-inducing
[1] cover story [2] about MSNBC talker Chris Matthews. The cringes came
courtesy of the name-dropping Matthews, whose raging insecurities danced
across nearly every page of the piece. As Digby noted [3] after reading the
opus, "He fulfills every single Village media cliche: obsessive social
climbing, deep personal insecurity, primitively sexist and racist and just
plain dumb."
Question: Is Chris Matthews [4] the Michael Scott [5] of political talk show
hosts? And if so, does that make MSNBC the Dunder Mifflin [6] of cable news?
Matthews has harvested a bumper crop of outrageous remarks during this
extended primary season. Specifically, fueled by his obsession with the
Clintons (he can't recall attending a single Beltway party where the couple
has not been discussed), Matthews has unleashed a flood of sexist
commentary.
On that front, of course, the Hardball host has not been alone. This
election season, we've seen a cavalcade of white, middle-age men express
their deep, personal contempt for the first serious female contender for the
White House. Contempt, of course, that has nothing to do with Sen. Hillary
Clinton's policies or her beliefs. Instead, it's been an oddly personal
disdain dressed up as political analysis.
The way Mike Barnicle on MSNBC said [7] Clinton "look[ed] like everyone's
first wife standing outside a probate court." The way Bill Kristol on Fox
News said [8] that among the only people supporting Hillary Clinton were
white women, and "[w]hite women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all
live with that." The way CNN's Jack Cafferty likened [9] Clinton to "a
scolding mother, talking down to a child." The way Fox News' Neil Cavuto
suggested [10] Clinton was "trying to run away from this tough, kind of
bitchy image." The way MSNBC's Tucker Carlson announced [11] that "when
[Clinton] comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." The way
Christopher Hitchens on CNBC
described [12] Clinton as being "sort of alternately soppy and bitchy.'"
That's all taken place in open view. And while a blog swarm [13] did engulf
Matthews in January, followed by a forced, pseudo-apology by the host -- and
his attacks did prompt some women activists to carry picket signs outside
the MSNBC studios -- the openly sexist comments have produced very few
condemnations from within the industry and even less soul-searching from the
(mostly male) press corps. In fact, in Matthews' case, the sexist outbursts
have helped propel his career. That's how he landed on the cover of the
Times magazine.
Why? Because misogyny pays.
Question: If Chris Matthews had been forced to apologize to Sen. Barack
Obama for divisive, personal comments the host had made about the candidate,
and if the comments had prompted civil rights groups to protest outside the
MSNBC studios, do you think Chris Matthews, three months after the fact,
would be photographed on the cover of The New York Times Magazine with an
uproarious grin [14] on his face?
For me, there were two key takeaways from the Times opus. The first was that
Clinton-bashing -- and specifically, misogynistic Hillary-bashing -- pays
off in the form of magazine cover stories. And second was that political
journalism is a farce.
It's a farce because Matthews has clearly been crowned the Hot Journalist of
this election cycle. He's already received loving, Page 1 treatment [15]
from the media-centric New York Observer, as well as a February "valentine
[16]" from The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz [17]. And now the
Times piece, which clocked in at 8,000 words, the type of space the
prestigious magazine usually sets aside to profile presidential candidates
and heads of state. Keep in mind that within the Beltway's ego-driven media
culture, with its all-publicity-is-good-publicity view of the world, there's
no question that kind of cover treatment by the Times is seen as a coveted
status symbol, no matter how many cringes the actual article may have
induced. The cover story conferred a very simple message: Chris Matthews has
been anointed a media star.
It's just so sad. Remember when campaign cycles generated Hot Journalists
who actually accomplished something? Who actually practiced the craft and
helped change journalism for the better by providing us with a deeper
understanding of unfolding campaigns, who painted vivid portraits of the
players involved? For instance, the way Richard Ben Cramer famously captured
[18] the 1988 race and how Sid Blumenthal and Joe Klein left their marks on
the 1992 contest?
Other than to insult Hillary Clinton, what, exactly, has Chris Matthews done
during 2008 to be crowned some sort of hot media property? It's a serious
question. What kind of journalism does Matthews practice? Because I don't
recognize it when I watch his program or see him on the nights the primary
returns come in.
What's so depressing for the journalism profession is that the Times profile
barely takes a moment to even ponder what contribution, if any, Matthews is
making to journalism. The article certainly doesn't suggest Matthews has a
unique talent. Yes, he's ubiquitous on television and appears to have no
filter between his brain and his mouth. He's also obnoxious and
self-centered, which the article makes perfectly clear. But those are
personality flaws, not journalism skills.
Nor is Matthews' misplaced self-importance, like when he compared his role
in this campaign to Eric Sevareid and Walter Cronkite covering the 1968
White House race, or when he likened himself to Howard Cosell chronicling
Muhammad Ali. (Elsewhere, Matthews compared himself to Richard Nixon and
NBC's Tim Russert to John F. Kennedy. Ugh, just stop it already.)
But where are the examples of Matthews' leading insights during this
campaign? The Times offers no examples, and I'm not sure anyone can find
any. And even more depressing, the Times doesn't seem to think it's
important or even relevant.
The uncomfortable truth is that the Times helped tap him the Hot Journalist,
but Matthews doesn't really display journalistic skills, let alone produce
journalistic achievements, that the
Times can point to. Why? Because, today, it's beside the point.
The sad fact is the article itself, inadvertently, acknowledges that there
really are no standards for campaign journalism anymore. Why else would the
article, in all seriousness, compare Hardball with Comedy Central's The
Daily Show and The Colbert Report? Those are comedy shows, professional
parodies. Hardball is supposed to be a premier political talk show. The
Times sees no difference between the two. Then again, perhaps news consumers
shouldn't either.
And, no, in case you're wondering, Matthews is not generating huge ratings
during the campaign, so that's not why he's been designated hot. Despite the
Times' claims about how the "thrilling 2008 presidential campaign has been a
boon" for MSNBC and "something of a heyday" for Matthews, Hardball's ratings
are rather middling this year compared with the mighty gains others have
posted during the historic White House campaign. CNN, for instance, has
ridden the Obama/Clinton wave into first place in prime time, beating Fox
News for the first time since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Also note that MSNBC recently canceled Tucker Carlson's show, which aired at
6 p.m. ET, right before Hardball, and replaced it with a weekday campaign
show hosted by NBC's David Gregory. Almost overnight, the Gregory show has
been able to secure an audience similar in size [19] to Hardball, which has
been on the air for more than a decade.
No wonder the NBC brass is considering cutting Matthews, and his $5 million
salary, loose.
So if Matthews doesn't display any actual journalism skills in terms of
unearthing scoops or edifying the race, and if his ratings are just so-so,
what explains Matthews' Hot Journalist status?
Answer: Misogyny.
Matthews is hot because he dumps all over Hillary Clinton, saying rude,
sexist, and demeaning things about her week after week, and the Beltway
media crowd thinks its edgy and insightful and loves to watch. (As the Times
noted, "Some of [Matthews'] most devoted followers are Washington media
figures.") Matthews, desperate for attention and approval, sees that media
elites love his sexist shtick so he lays it on thicker and thicker. Media
elites then turn around and anoint him the Hot Journalist.
For Matthews, his boorish behavior is simply an outgrowth of his profession
as a Clinton-hater. His television career was first built on obsessive
disdain for Bill Clinton during the impeachment years. That pattern of
contempt extended into Matthews' gruesome, dishonest attacks [20] on Al Gore
in 2000 (he would "lick the floor" to be president, Matthews used to joke
[21]), and has now continued with his 2008 coverage, which is laced with
sexist commentary.
But if he says wildly offensive and sexist things on the air, why isn't
Matthews shunned instead of toasted? Why would the so-called liberal New
York Times lavish so much attention on him?
Simple: The press plays dumb about the misogyny, and the Times magazine
article was a perfect example. (The political press hates the word misogyny
and considers the idea to be cuckoo. Click here [22] to watch Keith
Olbermann jump down Elton John's throat for even daring to utter the word in
the context of the Clinton campaign.)
Yes, the Times profile acknowledged the fact that critics, including Media
Matters for America, have accused Matthews of sexist behavior. But the Times
quickly cordoned off that discussion to mostly mean that Matthews leers at
women.
In a typical passage from the Times profile, Matthews tries to flirt with
actress and Obama supporter Kerry Washington, whom MSNBC head Phil Griffin
invites on Hardball at an event. "He wants you on because you're beautiful,"
Matthews said. "And because you're black." Matthews handed Washington a
business card and told her to call anytime "if you ever want to hang out
with Chris Matthews."
New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer blog, in an item praising Matthews,
picked up [23] on that passage and suggested:
Places like Media Matters will doubtless point out this interaction as
further evidence of Matthews's demeaning attitude toward women, but they'd
be missing the point. Matthews is a sexist in the same benign way your
grandfather is, but at least he tells the truth.
First off, "benign" sexism? That's an interesting notion. Is that sort of
like "benign" racism? (Just asking.) Secondly, New York Magazine completely
misses the point, because it adopts the same premise The New York Times
does: this idea that Matthews is sexist because he ogles women both on and
off the air.
Yes, that sort of behavior is problematic and inappropriate for the host of
a political news program. (Am I not stating the obvious here?) But what the
media conveniently ignore is the hateful, gender-based language Matthews
uses to describe prominent (Democratic) women. It's behavior commonly
referred to as misogyny.
In the Times article, Matthew claims he's completely innocent to the charge
of demeaning women on the air: ''I don't think there's any evidence of that
at all. I've gone back and looked. Give me the evidence. No one can give it
to me. I went through all my stuff. I can't find it."
Actually, the evidence that Matthews was looking for remains hidden in plain
sight. As Media Matters' Jamison Foser noted [24], examples of the host's
sexist and demeaning comments are plentiful. It's just that the Times
politely chose to ignore them. So readers still probably have no idea that
Matthews:
a.. featured a Photoshopped image of Clinton sporting "She Devil [25]"
horns while discussing Republican efforts to demonize her;
a.. repeatedly likened Clinton to "Nurse Ratched [26]," the scheming,
heartless character from the mental hospital drama One Flew Over The
Cuckoo's Nest;
a.. described her laugh as a "cackle [27]," suggested she was "anti-male
[28]," "witchy [29]," and was on a "short ... leash [30]";
a.. referred to Clinton as "Madame Defarge [31]" and described [32] male
politicians who endorsed Clinton as "castratos in the eunuch chorus";
a.. compared [33] Clinton to a "strip-teaser," wondered whether she was "a
convincing mom," referred [34] to Clinton's "cold eyes" and the "cold look"
she supposedly gives people;
a.. claimed [35] that "some men" say Clinton's voice sounds like
"fingernails on a blackboard."
But oops, those aren't funny or clever or "benign." Instead, they're
offensive to people who at least pretend to care how women are portrayed in
the press. So The New York Times plays dumb and pretend Matthews is just a
tad horny. That's the extent of his sexism; he's incorrigible [36]. And
c'mon, what's more adorable than watching powerful men in their 60s publicly
lust after women often half their age?
Please note this odd, yet crucial, point: Matthews' openly sexist streak
extends only to Democratic and liberal women, and that's another reason the
press plays dumb. Because media elites would never anoint Matthews the Hot
Journalist if he went on and on about how Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
was too ambitious, or how Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was "witchy,"
or how the voice of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) sounded like fingernails being
run across a chalkboard, or how Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) had "cold eyes."
That would be considered offensive and out of bounds. But to suggest
Clinton's a "witchy," "anti-male" Nurse Ratched? That's deemed by the
Beltway elites to be shrewd, astute, and fearless.
See, misogyny pays. And according to the Times, Matthews has three Mercedes
in his driveway to prove it.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson