Join Me At Blogworld Expo - An Interview with Rick Calvert

One of the truly nice guys in blogging is Rick Calvert. I first met Rick via an e-mail from him asking about advice for his blog The Real Ugly American. Now, I was pretty much a novice also so I don't know how much help I was, but Rick and I hit it off real well. When I was diagnosed with Lung Cancer, Rick was there in my corner, sending e-mails and checking on me from time to time, and for that I bless him. Recently, I asked Rick a few Questions about the up-coming Blog World Expo, which I intend to attend, (Las Vegas look out, here come GM) and at which, I hope to meet many of my friends the blog world over. (Note: Click on the BlogWorld Expo logo on the left and it will take you to their site.)

1. You started blogging with “The Real Ugly American” but recently, you are working quite hard to put on the BlogWorld Expo. Why a blog expo?

Well George as my Blogfather, you know you were one of the first “big” bloggers I ever contacted when I was a newbie. As The Real Ugly American started to grow I had all these questions. Again you know that because most of the time I would email you and about 10 other people asking you “how do I add this widget?” “how does site meter work?” “what is a trackback?” etc. Finally I had reached a point where I wanted to take my blog to the next level. I happen to have been producing major tradeshows for a living for the last ten years so naturally I thought “I should go to the blogging tradeshow”. That’s when I realized it didn’t exist and there were at least a million other people with the same questions I had.

2. There are trade shows all over the world, all the time. What makes Blogworld Expo different?

There isn’t another blogging tradeshow. At least not what I consider to be an industry wide tradeshow like the other events I have attended, exhibited at or produced. We want every blogger, vlogger, podcaster, internet radio and TV broadcaster in the world to think of BlogWorld as the place to go to find out what’s new in this industry, where to get the tips and education they need to create better content, increase their readership, and monetize their site.

3. You picked Las Vegas, Nevada for the venue. Why there?

Because Vegas is the number one tradeshow city in the world. It is the 2nd cheapest city in the country to fly in to, it has over 200,000 hotel rooms at every price range, more entertainment choices and restaurants than you could ever experience in a lifetime. People of course think of gambling when they think of Vegas but tradeshows actually bring in far more money to the city’s economy than gaming. They have three major convention centers at the LVCC, the Sands and Mandalay Bay each with over one million square feet of space. There are only a dozen cities in America with even one convention center that big. Not to mention Vegas has dozens of hotels with 100,000 square foot convention and conference centers.

4. The world of blogging has grown from a few thousand not so many years ago to several millions and more being added all the time. Why do you think this is so? And what impact do you think this will eventually have on the MSM?

Andrew Sullivan back in 2002 called blogging “a publishing revolution more profound than anything since the printing press” and he was right. When we announced the launch of the show back in November of 06 Technorati was tracking 57 million blogs, today there are well over 70 million. I tell all my blogger friends this revolution is just beginning. People like Sullivan may have been blogging in 2002, and guys like Dave Winer back in the 90s but most of the world had no idea this great content was out there. The MSM is just starting to get it now and the mainstream public is just starting to get it. This will be much much bigger than it is today and already every major newspaper, magazine, TV and Radio station is blogging. Not to mention vlogging and podcasting. We are in for a very fun and interesting ride.

Blogging empowers every day people to ask the questions MSM journalists never ask, to write opinions never expressed in MSM outlets and talk about topics that just don’t get MSM attention. It takes literally five minutes to start a blog and the moment you hit “Publish” more than a billion people can read it. That is a power that the common man has never had in all of human history.

5. You and I both were commenter’s at Marc Coopers blog and Marc is certainly one of the biggies. Will he be at Blogworld expo?

He is certainly invited and I hope he joins us. I love Marc’s blog.

6. Why should bloggers attend this show?

To learn how to make their blog better, to learn the tricks that the techy guys already know. How to use the latest widgets and plug ins, decide which publishing software is best for you, learn how to increase your readership, monetize your content if that’s your goal, influence more people if you want to advocate a political or social position, just meet your friends who you email every day and those guys like you that people look up to. We will have Rock star bloggers from just about every community. Political bloggers, business bloggers, Godbloggers, tech bloggers, mommy bloggers, milbloggers, pop culture bloggers, sports bloggers, diarists, every type of blogger you can imagine will be there. I just want to say I was there for the first one ever.

7. This is similar to question number one, but what gave you the idea to do this, and how long have you been working on it?

I wanted to go to this event. It didn’t exist and this is what I do for a living. I know I’m not the only person in the world who is geeked up about blogging. For all the reasons I mentioned above I want to go to BlogWorld and meet the people I admire and respect. It was last September that I first started thinking about it. I told a couple of my tradeshow friends including my partner Libby Durfee and as soon as they heard they idea they said “Lets launch that show today!”, then I set up a meeting with Hugh Hewitt who had linked to my blog several times and actually inspired me to start blogging. I know these guys at a really great PR company who had an associate who used to work for Hugh. She set up a lunch. He had no idea who I was. We sit down and he asks so what’s this all about?

I had to tell him to start that I was The Real Ugly American and I had called into his radio show several times an even interviewed him for my blog when he released his book “Painting the Map Red”. He was just a really nice guy and was familiar with my blog. Then I told him the idea and like everyone else he just looked kind of stunned for a moment and said “I’m in!” he was a huge help in the beginning introducing us to major bloggers and other potential exhibitors partners etc and still is a huge supporter of the show. Townhall has been a sponsor of the event since the very beginning.

8. Can you tell us about some of the exhibitors that will be there?

Sure. Yahoo, Feedburner, WordPress, Six Apart (Moveable Type, etc), Pajamas Media, Federated Media, b5 media, Truth Laid Bear, Shure, Sports Blogs Nation, Military.com Biola University, Blogger & Podcasters Magazine, Blog Talk Radio, Talk Shoe, Blurb, PRWeb, Blogsvertise, Newstex, PayPerPost, Campaigns & Elections Magazine, Fast Company Magazine and a lot more.

9. What about speakers and/or presentations?

Honestly it is going to be amazing. We will be announcing a big list of speakers soon but just a few names your readers will know, Hugh Hewitt, Dean Barnett, Mary Katherine Hamm, Lorie Byrd, Roger L. Simon, Glenn Reynolds, Jerome Armstrong, and I am really leaning on some other big progressive bloggers as well Glenn Greenwald, John Amato from Crooks and Liars, and one really big name I can’t mention until she is confirmed. There are at least a dozen more major political bloggers and that’s just the political guys. LaShawn Barber. We have huge tech and business bloggers like Om Malik, Dave Taylor, Charline Li, Maggie Fox, Andy Wibbels, the Chief Architect of HP.com, the Director of New Media communications from Kodak. The Milbloggers alone are worth the trip, Matt and Uncle Jimbo from Blackfive, Tim Boggs, Colonel Austin Bay, Michael Yon told me he would be happy to do a live feed from Iraq if we set it up. I am actually talking to Andi from Andi’s world who runs the milblog conference tomorrow to talk about other speakers. It is going to be an amazing mix of people. You can check out the sessions on our website at: Blog World Expo

10. Bloggers run the gamut from folks just writing about and for family members to hugely popular political blogs like Instapundit and Daily Cuss, I mean Kos to gadget blogs, blogs like BoingBoing and so very many others. Is Blogworld expo for everyone, or mainly the political bloggers?

Everyone. While political bloggers will have a big presence so will the mommy bloggers, milbloggers, godbloggers, sports, business and tech bloggers. We are intentionally a non partisan event and I sincerely hope on the political side that the guys on the left and right will be able to realize they are talking with real people over the net who if you leave politics out of it would probably really like each other. If we could impact the level of political discourse in the Blogosphere in some positive way that alone would make the event worthwhile to me.

So, I encourage everyone connected with blogging, or who wants to blog or who reads blogs to consider attending this Expo. Besides, you'll get to meet me and that is worth the trip alone.

Trash from Horton

Trashing the trashers who trash the trashers who trashed the trasher that trashed the military? Convoluted? Yes! Inaccurate? No! Let me explain.

In Harper's Magazine an article dated yesterday (August 24, 2007) and authored by Scott Horton (What is it with these fellows named Scott? Except Scott Johnson of Powerline of course!) appears that takes on the neo-con publications and news sources that have trashed The New Republic's reporting by one Scott Thomas (in real life, the husband of a TNR Staffer Scott Thomas Beauchamp). Thomas wrote an article of dubious (nay, not dubious, outright falsehood it seems) truth regarding the depredations by members of his unit in Iraq. I've reported on this in the past (here and here and my blogging partner Woody here, and others here and here and from fellow Munuvian Ace of Spades HQ here). Horton begins his trashing of the neo-cons thusly:

Over the last two weeks there was a flap over a piece published in The New Republic by an American soldier in Iraq named Scott Beauchamp. He described a number of gruesome scenes, some of which did not portray his fellow soldiers in the best of light. The piece drew ferocious blow-back from the Neocon war party, whose hallmark is complete control over the news on the ground and from the front ranks in Iraq. They viewed the report as a violation of their sacred monopoly and were determined to destroy Beauchamp and to lash out at The New Republic.

I have no idea whether Beauchamp’s story was accurate. But at this point I have seen enough of the Neocon corner’s war fables to immediately discount anything that emerges from it.

No idea "whether Beauchamp's story was accurate? Well wow and gee willikers Howdy, this here Horton fellow apparantly either can't read, or is so wrapped up in his own partisan shell that he can't make heads or tales of what is so patently ridiculous that even non veterans of Iraq had difficulty buying it. Not only that, but Messr. Beauchamp has "retracted" his story with the Army. It seems as though our essayest Horton (I wonder if he ever did hear the Who?) reads but understands only what he want's to.

I've bashed the Republicans and conservatives often enough so that I can honestly say that I think I can tell a scoundrel when I read one, but if seems if Mr. Horton lacks that particular ability. He relates a situation where he says that he is personally knowledgable about mis-reporting in the "neo-con Corner."

One example: back last spring, when I was living in Baghdad, on Haifa Street, I sat in the evening reading a report by one of the core Neocon pack. He was reporting from Baghdad, and recounted a day he had spent out on a patrol with U.S. troops on Haifa Street. He described a peaceful, pleasant, upscale community. Children were out playing on the street. Men and women were out going about their daily business. Well, in fact I had been forced to spend the day “in the submarine,” as they say, missing appointments I had in town. Why? This bucolic, marvelous Haifa Street that he described had erupted in gun battles the entire day. In the view of my security guards, with which I readily concurred, it was too unsafe. And yes, I could hear the gunfire and watch some of the exchanges from my position. No American patrol had passed by and there were certainly no children playing in the street. This was the point when I realized that many of these accounts were pure fabrications."

Horton obviously wants us to believe, though he doesn't say, that both his experience and the "neo-con" report occurred on the same day, on the same street during the same time frame. That may or may not have been the case for I've heard many stories about peaceful scenes that were later pictures of hell. Mr. Horton, does the difference between 8:00:00 AM and 8:46:41 AM on September 11, 2001 on a certain densly populated island in New York ring a bell? If he is accurate, and the two "images" are the same at the same time on the same day in the same place then certainly the author of the "bucolic" scene deserves condemnation of the worst kind. But, notice that Mr. Horton does not name the day of the so called fictious story or the author of the false scene. Why would that be Mr. Horton? If you know of it, and don't reveal it one has to wonder why. Maybe you just didn't think it important? This could be your chance at immortality Mr. Horton... go on, tell us who, when, and what exactly happened and I'll be one of the very first to condem the scoundrel.

But, I digress.

What’s interesting about this whole affair is not the Beauchamp story, but the response to it from William Kristol, the Weekly Standard, and their quite amazing ability to exercise total command and control over the public affairs operations at the Pentagon throughout the process.

Oh, yes, I've heard about all the amazing powers of William Kristol and his ability to mesmerize the PAO at the Pentagon. Not only that, but he is controling my typing even as I post this AND controling the minds of all those that read this post and (shudder) believe!

Horton then brings up Jonathan Chait as a witness for the prosecution:

The best volley in this exchange so far was fired yesterday by Jonathan Chait. He titles his piece “The Thuggery of William Kristol” [I won't link to Chait, if you really want to, go and Goggle it.] and he goes straight for the jugular:

Offering up [Kristol’s] interpretation of why TNR would publish such slanders, he concluded, in an editorial titled, “They Don’t Really Support the Troops”:

”Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support. They sense that history is progressing away from them–that these soldiers, fighting courageously in a just cause, could still win the war, that they are proud of their service, and that they will be future leaders of this country.”

In just two sentences, this passage provides a full summary of the decrepit intellectual state of neoconservatism. First, there is Kristol’s curious premise that tnr only published this essay because we have “turned against” the war. If Beauchamp’s writings were tnr’s attempt to discredit the war, why would his first contribution describe a pro-American Iraqi boy savagely mutilated by insurgents? For that matter, why would we work to undermine the war by publishing a first-person account on the magazine’s back page rather than taking the more straightforward step of, say, editorializing for withdrawal?"

Well, Mr. Chait, I can surmise that he discussed the boy being "savagely mutilated" to lend credence to his faux-reporting.

Horton ends his piece with this little bit of trash:

"...his comments left me thinking back to Bush’s awful Weimar speech from yesterday. Did Bill Kristol have a hand in that atrocity as well? In any event, that speech was clearly stained with Neocon DNA."

Ohhh Mr. Horton. You are sooooo clever aren't you?

There you have it folks, the brilliant left as exemplified by Messrs. Horton and Chait, are supporting the faux-reporting of Scott Thomas Beauchamp, admitted and proven liar. This then, ends my trashing of the trashers (Horton and Chait) who trash the trashers (Kristol) who trashed the trasher(Beauchamp) that trashed the military. Now does my opening sentence make more sense?

Technorati Tags & Filed under: Leftist Agenda, Bozo Alerts,Media, & War on Terror

Here Is "The Rule"

Rep. Bob Filner is facing an assault and battery charge after an incident at Dulles Airport where he allegedly pushed an United Airlines bag claim employee as first reported by ABC. So read numerous reports of a Congressman getting in trouble. Initially, one had to guess at the Congressman's party affiliation, because it wasn't identified. After the story broke and numerous blogs picked up on it (Hot Air, Glenn Reynolds, Ace of Spades, Wizbang and others) the D was added to the mix.

Now, a big deal was made that the Media don't typically report the party affiliation of a Democrat when said Democrat runs afoul of the law and that Republicans are always tagged with the (R) label.

So what's the big deal? We all know that the bias of the MSM wants you to think that the Republicans are really ReTHUGlicans and that Democrats are saints. So, for all you out there guessing, here's the rule:

If the party is reported, the perpetrator is REPUBLICAN. If there is NO party identification of a bad person, the perpetrator is AUTOMATICALLY A DEMOCRAT.

Got that? Simple when you think about it. The MSM is just not aware that we know what the rules are.

Hillary Rodham Clinton to Repeat History

No, not Hillary Rodham's Book "Living History," but John Kerry's history of concealment--also, known as "lying history," for which the Clinton's are so skilled. Surely, you remember that former Presidential candidate John Kerry (D-Mass) agreed to release all of his military medical records for public scrutiny but still has not done that. He just needs a little more time, but we gave up long ago on counting the days. Now, the next likely Democrat nominee for President, Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), has some records from her White House days that are locked away, and she might also need a little more time to open them. Of course, neither one has anything to hide. Why would you think that?

Clinton's first lady records locked up
Archivists say the former first lady's documents at her husband's
presidential library won't be released until after the '08 vote.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cites her experience as a compelling reason voters should make her president, but nearly 2 million pages of documents covering her White House years are locked up in a building here, obscuring a large swath of her record as first lady. ....

But, if Hillary Rodham Clinton has nothing to hide, she will open up those records--just like John Kerry did. Right? It's not like those files are lost like the Rose Law Firm records that were suddenly found, years after being subpoenaed, in, of all places, the White House. Remember that?

Elusive Papers of Law Firm Are Found at White House

After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's law firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980's.

...The release of the records is the latest of several instances in which the Clinton White House has declared a document search to be exhaustive, only to later stumble on important material. For example, White House officials initially said that Vincent W. Foster Jr., the deputy White House counsel, left no indication of why he committed suicide on July 20, 1993. But later, an aide found the remnants of a note describing Mr. Foster's disenchantment with Washington. ...

But, HRC will claim that it's not her fault, as seven years after leaving the White House is still not enough time to organize and destroy review critical files. Maybe if she is elected, she can appoint Sandy Berger to be in charge of the National Archives to expedite that.

Know what? Senator Rodham Clinton is going to be pressed for those files by her opponents, and the mass media will give her a pass on this. After all, electing a Democrat is more important than journalistic integrity. Who would have guessed?

So, we might have eight more years of Clintonese lying, back-room deals, pardons, and payoffs ; but, I bet that no one will accuse her of having an affair with a White House intern. No one needs a favor that badly.

Help NY Times Brainstorm for Terrorists

Yes, a blog author for The New York Times wants attention and asks readers to offer suggestions to the terrorists on how best to attack the United States. Americans have ingenuity and are practical, so the terrorists might appreciate a little American know-how.

If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?
By Steven D. Levitt

...Hearing about (the new TSA) rules got me thinking about what I would do to maximize terror if I were a terrorist with limited resources. ...I’m sure many readers have far better ideas. I would love to hear them. ...So by getting these ideas out in the open, it gives terror fighters a chance to consider and plan for these scenarios before they occur.

Yeah, right. The New York Times and college professors writing for them are so well known for wanting to fight terrorists. Do you recall the image from this post?

The author praised his father, Dr. Michael Levitt, in his article. His dad specializes in the study and treatment of flatulence. He couldn't have made a better producer of it than his own son.

Now, we could ask people to think how the terrorists should attack The New York Times, but it's unlikely that terrorists would hurt one of their biggest allies.

Lying Liberals at Work

When Scot Beauchamp Gets Out

"Pssst, sir, you really don't want to eat here. Let me tell you what goes on in this place...."

[from the back] "Scott, are you talking to the customers again? If you're talking to the customers again I'm going to kick your ass...."

via Are We Lumberjacks? Thanks for this funny post that G.M. will appreciate.

In continuing news on the subject from NewsBusters:

New Republic Refuses to Retract Thomas 'Reports'

Radical Islam Working with the Left

After the fall of the Soviet Union, leaders of American communist groups found a new base in environmentalism from which to attack capitalism. Well, now the "environmental cause" has found new supporters in militant Islam. Who knew that the two groups would have something in common?

A post by Jennifer Marohasy, brings the connection to our attention. Besides being a nice person and extremely qualified on enviromental issues, she has shown a special interest in the plight of Richard Ness, who was charged and jailed in the environmental/legal struggle associated with these radical groups, and he is still fighting on appeal after winning the initial trial.

Militant Islamic Group Joins Environmental Campaign

Abu Bakar Bashir, the well known spiritual leader of militant Islamic group, Jemaah Islamiya, has now joined forces with Indonesia's largest environmental organisation, WALHI, to protest against US-based mining corporation Newmont.

...It is perhaps not surprising that militant environmental and Islamic organisations are joining forces, they both believe that issues of poverty and corruption are a consequence of capitalism and the exploitation of people and natural resources by large multinational corporations....

Here is even more about the "environmental" group and backer of Democrats, Friends of the Earth, joining forces with the militant Islamic group, Jemaah Islamiya. The two are also fighting to disband the intelligence force that has been successful in arresting key people in the Bali bombing and with links to Al-Qaeda. This information is provided by the son of the accused man in this post: Strange Bedfellows

Even more shockingly (note sarcasm), the arrest and law suit against Richard Ness resulted because of an article by The New York Times, which boasted that they forced the government to take action against this man and the company. Now, they are being sued by him over their false and exaggerated story. Who would have guessed that the NY Times would publish something that is false?

Communists, enviromentalists, Islamic terrorists, The New York Times, and Democrats all in one happy cluster, working together to help each other's causes. We may be even leaving some others out. What does this tell you? Does it even surprise you?

More On Scott Thomas - The Intrepid GM Grabs His Magnifying Glass And His Calabash Pipe, Puts On His Deerstalker Cap and Solves The Case.

I've been following the Scott Thomas Beauchamp (or is that Beauchump?) story since the "story" broke in The New Republic. Via the incomparable and magnificent LARWYN, I've been able to keep up with all the key players enjoying the discomfiture of TNR as they backtrack, waffle and crawdad (if you don't know what crawdad means, you haven't been to the South very often have you?). One of the more serious investigators has been Ace, a fellow Munuvian and an all around great blogger. But I digress. Ace has been following the machinations of TNR closely as has Dan Riehl (Faux TNR masthead courtesy of Dan) and as I noted, both have been doing an absolutely outstanding job.

One of the posts I read (I'm too tired to track it down now after slogging through a days worth of progress notes, and billings) noted finding the blog of said Scott Thomas (Beauchamp) that he wrote while in the Army stationed in Germany. And one of Scotts posts had a photograph which I reproduce for you here:

along with the caption:

Train ride to Wurzberg: 11 Euro
Two Steins of Beer: 12 Euro
Having a girlfriend that embodies racial perfection: priceless

Now, I suspect that you, like me, have a whole bunch of blogs that we enjoy, even if we get to them only once in a while. Such are my friends at Misunderestimated Germans, and I recognized that photo. It is a photo of Claudia Heym who, along with Michael Meyn and Jürgen Krafzik write Misunderestimated Germans. At least, I was pretty sure it was so I wrote Michael with whom I've enjoyed exchanging comments and emails from time to time. Sure enough, it was indeed a photo of Claudia (and somewhere I heard taken around 2002) and, from their website here is their banner (reduced in size);

Let me repeat Scott Thomas' caption: "Train ride to Wurzberg: 11 Euro - Two Steins of Beer: 12 Euro - Having a girlfriend that embodies racial perfection: priceless" and you can tell that the implication is that Claudia is Scott Thomas' girlfriend. Nicht wahr? Ahhh, but I know that in 2002 Scott wasn't in Germany when that photo was taken, and that Claudia and Jürgen are very good friends and I suspect, though I cannot know as yet, that Jürgen would be very surprised to know that Scott's girlfriend is an embodiement of "racial perfection."

Not only is that a shameful and crass statement, especially given the country that is hosting Thomas, but he didnt' even know the young lady as far as I can tell. Perhaps Mr. Scott Thomas Beauchamp is not only a fabulist, but a cultural/ethnic bigot as well.

More and more, it's looking like Mr. Scott Thomas Beauchamp has done for The New Republic what typhoid did for Mary, or what Steven Glass did for...... get my drift?

UPDATE: Damn, this is fun. Or, as Sherlock Holmes has said:

when one has eliminated the impossible, whatever is left must be the truth, no matter how unlikely it may seem."

Dan Riehl has MORE on this story... yeppers, damn fun!

UPDATE 2: John Tabin at The American Spectator has more (including a link to this article. (H/T to Michael Meyn at Misunderestimated Germans)

An Open Letter To ABC

This blog has often made the accusation that the left is over-represented in the so called MSM (Main Stream Media). The detractors on the left say it isn't so, because (and talk about irrational reasoning) the MSM is owned by "corporations."

Well, of course, that explains it because everyone, just everyone knows that a corporation is just a money grubbing, right-wing, entity that is out to control the world. Ask any left winger, they'll tell you it is so.

However, when the charge comes from across the big pond between Europe and the US, so that even others can see the bias, the Lefts disclaimer is harder to swallow. Surfing the web this evening, I came across this open letter from David's Medienkritik-Online. Ray, the author of the letter and the co blogger of DMKO has it right.

To Whom It May Concern:

"With your recent report on Iraq in which you showed 6 soldiers burning to death in a Bradley vehicle. Once again you have proven that - as a part of the mainstream media - you are incapable of reporting anything but your own biased and defeatist version of the war - devoid of any context or anything beyond death, casualties and bombs."

"Attempting to glean the bigger picture from your coverage is absolutely impossible, as it so obviously reflects your own political, decidedly anti-war stance. Needless to say, you will drop coverage of the people of Iraq and their suffering like a hot potato as soon as American troops leave - as that is what you are so obviously out to achieve. It will be a replay of Vietnam and Cambodia - where millions died or fled after 1975 - but the media ignored the plight of those left behind after the political cause - American withdrawal - had been achieved."

"You owe it to the American people to ask what the consequences of withdrawal and defeat will be for Iraq and the wider region. Unfortunately, you seem so caught up in the daily drumbeat of death, bombs, casualties and little else, that you seem fundamentally unable to do so. Perhaps you ought to consider a report on the very real progress that is taking part in sectors of Iraq - which you seem so determined to ignore - as it doesn't seem to fit into the template you have created - one of defeat and humiliation for your own nation."

Sincerely,
Ray Drake

Read the rest, especially the comments.

John Edwards Replaces Ambien [Updated]

This morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards appeared in a town hall meeting on ABC's "Good Morning America." When the camera was on Edwards alone, one could see that a participant behind him was clearly asleep. The director switched to another camera. During that time, it appeared that the first camera was relocated for a "better" perspective. Guess what this perspective showed...another person sitting behind Edwards with her eyes closed, too! To cut that, the camera zoomed in for a close-up of only Edwards' head so that we couldn't see how many people he had nodding off. Maybe Edwards' government health care plan includes substituting his message for sleep drugs. Then, I felt as if he was starting to put...me...to...sleeeeeeeeepppp.....

[Update]

NewsBusters provided before and after pictures and a big question from the Edwards townhall meeting.

.
Now he's here...and now he's gone.

Man Snoozes During John Edwards's ABC Town Hall
...Then Vanishes

Did "Good Morning America" physically remove a man who appeared to be dozing off during Democratic Senator John Edwards's town hall meeting on Monday? Early in the 7am hour, the man...appeared to be sleeping, or at least dozing, while Edwards discussed his plan for Iraq.

Around 7:11, the individual, who was seated to the back and right of Edwards, mysteriously disappeared....

Maybe Criss Angel was there and made the man disappear. Yeah, that's it. ABC wouldn't pass up this story and remove the man unless...well, unless it was for a Democrat. You know it would be big news if this happened to a Republican.

Headlines That You Notice

When you see a headline like this, you just have to read the story.

Texas Inmate Executed; Doesn't Tell Joke

Was I right? Well, in his position, I don't think that I would be in a humorous mood myself--and, that's no joke, either.

Update: Another person had a different take on this story....Death row inmate who looked for jokes to tell at his execution dies without telling one, leaves everyone hanging

CNN = "Cannot Name Nations"

What is wrong with CNN's placement of Afghanistan?

Nothing more than what is wrong with CNN overall...it's too far left.

Via Bob Harris

The BBC Is Biased - Who Knew?

The British Broadcasting Corporation is biased according to the BBC. Wow, what a revelation that is. Many of us on the right have been saying that for as long as we have been blogging. Others have said that time, after time, after time to serious denials from the left.

Of course, the BBC is part of the much despised (and, much vaunted truth be told) MSM or the Main Stream Media. And that too has been labled biased by the right for a long time. The left on the other hand, makes a rather nonsensical counterclaim that the MSM couldn't possibly be biased because they are owned by corporations and everybody knows that corporations are right wing tools out to grab everything it can from the poor and the working class (uhhh, Roper, could you cut down on the hyperbole a little?...ed). The argument is of course, absurd on its face. Why absurd? Simple, corporations are interested only in the bottom line, as long as the media and its associated reading heads, journalists and pundits make a profit, they continue. If the profit falls, so too do the then stars. Look at what is happening in the L.A.Times for example. Look at the issue of Katie Couric at CBS.

But, I digress. The BBC has had its staff on a year long investigation and the report was released today as reported in the Telegraph (UK):

The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded.

The report claims that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased - and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.

[...]

But it says coverage of Live 8, the 2005 anti-poverty concerts organised by rock star campaigners Bob Geldof and Bono and writer Richard Curtis, failed to properly debate the issues raised.

Of course, the BBC being the BBC referred mostly to its Live 8 coverage, as far as "political reporting" goes, the BBC said:

After a year-long investigation the report, published today, maintains that the corporation’s coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial.

Does that surprise anyone with an iota of common sense?

One senior reporter accused the BBC of having an "Anti-American" stance. That shouldn't surprise anyone either. The fact of the matter, as the Beeb (the somewhat derisive but commonly used nickname of the BBC) also noted:

The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.

It reads: “There is a tendency to 'group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.”

A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives admitted they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended.

This one section, 3 paragraphs, 3 sentences, 70 words and three key ideas. The first idea is that there is a need to challenge their own belief systems; the second is the tendency to group think and the third is that they worry about offending Muslims, but not Christians or Jews. Lets take these one at a time.

Challenge their own belief systems: Difficult for anyone to do, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, Libertarian or independent, BBC or Fox News. Having said that, I would postulate that it is easier for a conservative than a liberal to challenge their belief systems than a liberal. Conservatives are said to be riged and hide-bound by liberals but I've found the opposite to be true. One need only look at the writings of folk on the Daily Kos or MMDD to observe that and a significant part of that is the contamination brought about by group think. I alluded to some of the group think problems among liberals in my post on Group Think - Democrats and Their Allies:

The purpose of this polemic then is to take a look at the symptoms of Group Think as applied to the current incarnation of the Democratic Party in light of their taking control of Congress this coming January. This is not, if I need to say it, solely the problem of the Democrats. Indeed, there is more than adequate information available to lay many of the same foibles on the Republicans who controled congress from 1994 to 2006 especially in the later years of that span of time. Indeed, group think on the part of the Republicans is in part, why they lost.

Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.

Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.

Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.

Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.

Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.

Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.

Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.

Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

I think suspect know that there are a large number of conservative Democrats, I've voted for some of them over the years. Yet, you do not hear them, see them ever speak up against the liberal leadership. It has often been said and amply demonstrated that in the Democratic party, you have to tilt liberal to get the presidential nomination or any Democratic ticket place, but you absolutely must tilt back to the center or even slightly right of center (Bill Clinton anyone?) to get elected. Of course, then, typically the tilt is back to the left. A cogent example of this is the rightward tilt (not to the conservative dark side so to speak) of the followers of her Pelosiship but now that the election is over, back to the left.

If the Republicans are smart (a postulation that is coming into more and more doubt) they will learn from their own group think and become conservative Republicans again, not merely Democrat-lite.

The last item in the BBC report is most disconcerting. The admission that they fear offending Muslims but not Christains (or Jews). In a free society, I'm not sure where it says that people have a right to not be offended. Indeed, if this article offends someone, good! I'm delighted because in a truly rational mind, offense will cause someone to think through as to why they were offended and possibly change their viewpoint. The average islamist and even perhaps a majority of muslims seem incapable of doing this, either through "rioting" vis-a-vis the Muhammad cartoon fiasco in which pillage and murder happened, to keeping silent and not speaking out against those rioting. While many Muslims may indeed, nay, probably condemned the deed, they did not speak out publically possibly because of fear of their fellow Muslims or perhaps silent agreement with what was being done. Is that a fair statement? I don't know, I do know what was seen, and the silance from the Umma was deafining.

The Beeb has been ridiculed worldwide for its blatant prejudices, anti-American and anti-western rhetoric, not by everyone, but by a significant number of folk including quite a number of Brits, for example the Rottweiler Puppy Blog and the Melanie Phillips blog and last but not least the Biased BBC blog

So, if there is, little hope for the BBC, (they can call for change, but do you really believe that they will change?) what hope is there for our own MSM... None?

Today' Media Covering Yesterday's War

What if the Normandy invasion had occurred on June 6th, 2007? How would the modern media report it?

D-Day: Crisis On Omaha

And, the coordinated response and influence of the Left? "Bring the troops home! We can never defeat the Nazis! We should stay out of Europe, where we're not wanted. Hitler didn't attack us. Give peace a chance."

Or, something like that.

The source of the video is The Combat Report, which has more to say on this issue and publishes articles about Americans in combat, past and present.

All The News Spin That's Fit To Print

My friend Glen Blagg has hit a home run at "Sticks and Stones":

Our media is no longer a "News" media, it is a bad news media. So when I came upon the following headline at Baltimoresun.com, I was more than a little surprised.

U.S. Muslims well assimilated, content with life, poll finds

Wow. That is good news. No, that is great news.

Or so I thought. I read further...

Go, now, read the whole thing.

Outrage!

There is no such thing as a "liberal media;" so say the leftist pundits. After all, the media is owned by corporations which are by definition "conservative" and thus they wouldn't jeopardize their income by being liberal. And if you believe that twaddle, I've got a quit-claim deed to the Brooklyn Bridge I'd be happy to sell to you for the paltry sum of only $99.99. Think of it, having your very own bridge.

But, I digress! The ABC blog "The Blotter" has a report by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito concerning the existence of a "Presidential Finding" that authorizes the CIA to begin a campaign of "covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government."

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.

So, since this is a "covert" action, lets spread it over the airwaves and the internet, I mean after all, it is the peoples right to know isn't it? Geeze guys, can you be more Anti-American than you already are?

This isn't a matter of beating another news organization to the punch, this is a matter of divulging to Iran, a country guilty of arming the so called insurgents in Iraq, helping them plant and manufacture bombs designed to kill civilians and US military alike. This is the country that committed an armed act of war against the US when it occupied our embassy in the waining days of the Carter administration. This is the country that any truly rational person recognizes as a very real threat to peace with their willy-nilly rush to manufacture nuclear bombs. And you bastards have the gall to "out" the plan?

Too often the left leaning media (and some of their allies in the Democrat party and in the CIA) have accused the right of questioning their patriotism. Well, they have proven themselves unpatriotic. And I would still be making this charge if it were a Democrat in the White House as well. Of course, if there were a Democrat in the White House, I doubt that the left leaning media would have stooped to this level of chicanery.

The media has let their aptly named Bush Derangement Syndrome overrule all common sense, and for what? To discredit a President? To warn Iran? To get a scoop? Bastards!

Another point of view from Jules Crittenden:

I’d be curious to know whether the people blabbing are disapproving or purposefully trying to send a message. Given that the message seems to be “We won’t attack,” I’m not sure how useful it is to put this out. That just tells the Iranians going into next week’s Iraq talks that they don’t need to worry about military consequences.

A tip O' The GM Derby to Larwyn

The Nation Turns It's Eyes

Guess which extremist magazine recently published the following conservative article.

Is Global Warming a Sin?
[from the May 14, 2007 issue]

In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.

The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution--and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed.

....Next: Who are the hoaxers, and what are they after?

Do you know where this was published? Go to the continuation link below to find out.

Continue reading "The Nation Turns It's Eyes"

Don't Report Positive News Under Any Circumstances

We at GM's Corner have intercepted a copy of an internal memo from the head of ABC News to a reporter in Baghdad for daring to report positive news.:

To: Terry McCarthy

From: David Westin, President of ABC News

Subject: Pink Slip

Dear Mr. McCarthy:

On Tuesday, April 3, 2007 you reported from Baghdad that the so-called surge is working and that in some neighborhoods things are getting better. The video showed people shopping, shops doing business, people eating ice cream, children in a playground and traffic flowing smoothly. True, you did show also on the video the results of a car bomb, but you have wildly exceeded your authority by showing positive news from that war-torn, full of sectarian violence, devastated by civil war city. This cannot be tolerated by a member of the media. We have standards of objective (our term) reporting to uphold. Any objective reporter in fact would be well advised to hew to the party line (but not the Democratic Party to be sure) and show how the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country have had such a bad effect. The world of course strongly supports our efforts, witness the condemnation from Europe. To cap it all off, you noted that it has only been seven weeks since the beginning of the surge and that only half of the troop enhancement has occurred. If this is allowed to stand Mr. McCarthy, people may get the idea that Chimpy McBush has done a good thing.

As you are well aware, we at ABC news are determined to show the war in Iraq in the least favorable light and blame everything on President Bush. Your video report has seriously damaged our "Main Stream Media Credentials" by showing anything that Chimpy McBush may have done in a positive light. Be advised sir, that you have been fired, and I will also be speaking with our resident talking head of an anchorman for daring to introduce you with a "smirky" positive note.

Sincerely
David Westin
President, ABC News

A tip O' The GM Derby to Glenn Reynolds

The NY Times Gets One Right

I know you, dear reader, won't believe that I said this, but (are you ready for this?), the NY Times reports on corruption not involving anyone in Washington D.C.

Democrats - Lying Pansies [Updated]

Democrats have no backbone--and lie. They are ruled by MoveOn but give phony reasons to do the bidding of the left-wing radical group.

Nevada Dems Nix Fox Debate

The Nevada State Democratic Party is pulling out of a controversial presidential debate scheduled for Aug. 14 in Reno and co-hosted by Fox News, according to a letter released late Friday from state party chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev).

...Collins and Reid wrote that comments on Thursday by FOX News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, when he jokingly compared Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, to Osama bin Laden, "went too far," and prompted Nevada Democrats to end the partnership.

...A statement released Friday night from Fox Vice President David Rhodes said: "News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe, out-of-state in interest groups, not the Nevada Democratic Party. In the past, MoveOn.org has said they 'own' the Democratic party. While most Democrats don't agree with that, it's clearly the case in Nevada."

Fox officials also argued that Ailes' remark about Obama, made at the Radio and TV News Directors Foundation Awards, was meant to poke fun at President Bush, not the Illinois senator.

Of course, the Democrats wouldn't say a word if the Republicans boycotted liberal media that said something bad about them--which is most of them most of the time. No, of course not.

[Updates] - More details below:

Continue reading "Democrats - Lying Pansies [Updated]"

Arkin, Mercenary's and the WaPo

One of the really fun things about being a blogger is the people you meet over the internet. It doesn't matter, well, perhapst to some it does, but it doesn't matter to me what political stripe they are because I just like people, even when I violently disagree with them. And I always learn something and I always think about what I've read.

Another really great thing is being able to join a number of chat groups and other forums where you get to meet many like minded people. Carolyn is one of those. I believe she lives in San Francisco, I know she is passionate about what she believes in, and I know that she totally disdains stuffed shirts and scoundrels. Especially those of the lefty persuasion. Especially those who are by their very nature idiots, malcontents and outright knaves. Such a person is William Arkin who recently published under the Washington Posts's dot com site a really nasty screed (unless of course you agree with Mr. Arkin in which case your intellectual ability may be in question). In effect saying that our troops in Iraq, and indeed perhaps in the military are "mercenary's." Now, I'd tell you what I think about Mr. Arkin, but this is a work friendly blog. So, I'll publish Carolyn's thoughts and let them speak for me as well. Please note, I'm not fond of cussing (though I've been known to turn the air blue on an occassion or two) but I'm going to let Carolyn's word choices stand as written (with only minor editing that is - after all, it IS my blog and I get to decide the level of cussing allowed .) So, without further ado here is Carolyn's take on the whole matter.

So here's WaPo's story about the firestorm over William Arkin's 'early warning' piece that called our soldiers a whole lotta s***, not least of which was 'mercenary'. WaPo's explanation doesn't begin with 'once upon a time' but it's still fantasy they expect us to believe.

First off, Arkin doesn't work for them. 'Cause, you see, even though he writes for WaPo, like everyone at WaPo - and he really hates the military, like everyone at WaPo - and he has his stuff checked by WaPo editors, like everyone at WaPo - that doesn't mean he works FOR WaPo!!!! Get it?

He's different. 'Cause, see, he's got these four tiny little things typed out after the Washington Post title - the 4 things are '.com'. So, like, he's not really working for Washington Post which is a newspaper you can hold in your hands to read the s*** it spits at our soldiers - and Arkin writes his stuff for the net which you can read on the screen to see the s*** it spits at our soldiers. Totally different, you can see that, right? (Can I sell you a bridge in Brooklyn?)

Oh, and by the way, he's like really really sorry you butt heads were dumb enough to take the word 'mercenary' literally. The word means someone who kills for money - and you were stupid enough to think it meant someone who kills for money. I mean, a (nameless) editor at WaPo didn't think it meant that -so what's your problem? Of course, the WaPo now insists the nameless editor's superior - executive editor Jim Brady - would have known what mercenary literally meant and edited it out. But he wasn't editing that day - he was just, you know, calling himself an editor but not really editing. He only started doing that once all hell broke loose over Arkin's hateful piece of s*** hitting the air waves and so many furious responders sending in 'comments' that the damned site crashed.

That must have been when Brady screamed tell everyone this a** doesn't work for us. And so, like, that's what Deborah Howell, the damage control lady, just tried to do. She says the WaPo and WaPo.com are, like, miles apart 'physically' and, like under 'different management'. And, of course, Arkin's got those 4 little things typed after WaPo, so, uhm, he's not one of us.

By the way, Howell still insists Arkin is really qualified. He speaks. Ahuh, that's what she said, right there, he speaks - at 'armed services' war colleges'.

Well, isn't that special? My sister's Peke speaks too - if you give him enough beer.

Folks, in my opinion, Arkin has just revealed the only thing the Washington Post is fit for -toilet paper cleaning up after its writers' s***.

And you can take that literally.

Carolyn

Filed under: Liberals & Liberalism, Stuffed Shirts and Scoundrels & Media

Sandy Berger Confused Trash Can for Archives File

In case you missed this on CNN (yeah, right), do you ever wonder exactly what it was that Sandy Burger stole from the National Archives involving his and the Clinton administration's failures or cover-ups in fighting terrorism. Do you remember when Berger said that taking the documents was an "honest mistake?" Let's see from a recent release.

Berger Hid Archive Documents

President Clinton's national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency's internal watchdog said Wednesday.

...Officials told The Associated Press at the time of the thefts that the documents were highly classified and included critical assessments about the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America's terror vulnerabilities at airports and seaports.

...Berger took a break to go outside without an escort while it was dark. He had taken four documents in his pockets. "He headed toward a construction area. ... Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone," the interview notes said. He then slid the documents under a construction trailer, according to the inspector general. Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office. ...The notes said that Berger had "destroyed, cut into small pieces, three of the four documents. These were put in the trash."

Honest mistake. And, O.J.'s killing his wife was an "honest mistake." Yet, the major media will give the Democrats another pass on this, which is why the Democrats are so brazen about their crimes. Berger should have been given serious prison time rather than a misdemeanor charge for lying during the 9-11 investigation and weakening our war on terror. He was supposedly our National Security Advisor under Clinton. What would have been done to a Republican in a similar case?

And, I supppose that Clinton and the Democrats will go on accusing President Bush entirely for 9-11, now that they have destroyed and sanitized the complete record on themselves. What information are we missing? We'll never know.

Headlines That Struck Me Today

Schumer: Reaganism Is Dead
Not to me, but only to people like Schumer and other Democrats.... It seems as if the Democrats stay in denial about what most Americans want. Keep it up in 2008.

Judge Orders Bush Administration to Resume Paying for Katrina Housing
If this judge was around for the San Francisco earthquake, those families would still be living in government housing. Is there no end to this?

OUT OF CONTROL: DEVITO IN 'VIEW' BUSH BASH...
I liked him better on "Taxi".

San Diego to ban Wal-Mart Supercenters
Just driving jobs elsewhere and making their citizens pay more for goods, all for political correctness and union pressures....

Gaia scientist Lovelock predicts planetary wipeout (Global Warming)
He's one of Al Gore's "consensus scientists." We're as doomed as doomed can be, I must say.

"We are not all doomed. ..."(But) a hot earth couldn't support much over 500 million."

Judge: Make Bills Recognizable to Blind
I recommend "talking dollar bills."

Supreme Court clashes over climate change
You know that the suit must be good when you see who filed it.

Massachusetts brought the suit, backed by California, New York and several other states, to try to force the EPA to regulate exhaust emissions from new cars.

Rapper Snoop Dogg Arrested, Again
Ohhhh. And, he was such a role model....

But, the very saddest comes last....
The Wiggles' Lead Singer May Quit

Let's hope for better news tomorrow.

A Little Time Waster - but fun

An amusing little exercise in Microsoft Paint. Not sure how it was done, but admire the heck out of the skill it took to do it.

Gotta Love Political Labels of the MSM

This link goes to a picture of the new Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate. The first thing of note is that Sen. John Kerry is shown in the background looking left out. I would ask him, "Why the long face?," but his face is always long. However, what struck me more about the picture is that the short description of it includes this (with emphasis added):

Former U.S. Presidential candidate John Kerry (background L) watches on as incoming U.S. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (C)(D-NV) walks alongside his party colleagues on Capitol Hill November 14, 2006. Reid, a moderate Nevada Democrat, was elected by colleagues on Tuesday as U.S. Senate majority leader....

A moderate?

I also saw Sen. Reid referred to as a "moderate-to-conservative Democrat,"when he was described addressing a Kos convention and said this to them:

"It was you who were quick to stand against the Swift Boat attacks on Senator John Kerry," he said to an enthusiastic response. "It was you who defended Valerie Plame, an American spy, and Ambassador Joe Wilson against Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. And it was you who led Democrats to victory against the privatization of Social Security."

Then, I read things such as this:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid won raucous applause from a weekend gathering here of liberal bloggers for shutting down the Senate over intelligence failures in Iraq, blocking President Bush's judicial nominees and thwarting Republican efforts to reform Social Security.

Consider a statement from this article (worth a read on a broader subject.)

The highest-ranking Democrat in America, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as "racist."

You may remember that he called President Bush a liar, too.

Finally, here are some liberal ratings on Sen. Reid:

2005 Senator Reid supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 90 percent in 2005.
2005 Senator Reid supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

It sure is confusing when someone with a 100 rating with the ADA is labeled as a moderate. Maybe I need to get out more, or journalists need to visit some red states--or, start being honest with the public. But, why break with tradition...a trait of a conservative?

MSM Hit Piece, This Time By Vanity Fair! [Updated]

The so called Main Stream Media (MSM) is reliably leftish. Those that claim that the MSM is controlled by corporations, and corporations are only about bottom line and therefor are conservative therefor the MSM cannot be primarily liberal are asking you to swallow a lie. A BIG FAT LIE! The truth of the matter is that corporations do indeed care about the bottom line, they have to answer to their stockholders. Having said that, I'll also state that if the bottom line increases by having liberal pundits aboard, fine! If one compares the editorial slant and reporting of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times against that of say The New York Post or The Washington Times and still says there is no liberal slant, then they are not as honest as they would have you beliefe.

Such is the case of that famous conservative Liberal Dead Tree Publication called Vanity Fair (online copy of article here).

As I understand the situation, Vanity Fair interviewed a number of neo-cons and conservatives for a piece meant to reflect on their thoughts about the war, the administration etc. to be published AFTER the election. True to their liberal ideology, they placed the issue on the stands before the election. One of the interviewee's Michael Rubin just published a piece in National Review, available here, which lambasts Vanity Fair.

Too many people in Washington treat foreign policy as a game. Many Washington-types who speak about Iraq care not about the US servicemen or about the Iraqis, but rather focus on US electoral politics. I am a Republican, but whether the Republicans or Democrats are in power, Washington’s word must mean something. Leadership is about responsibility, not just politics. We cannot go around the world betraying our allies—in this case Iraqis who believed in us or allied with us—just because of short-term political expediency. This is not just about Iraq: If we abandon Iraq, we will not only prove correct all of Usama Bin Laden’s rhetoric about the US being a paper tiger, but we will also demonstrate—as James Baker and George H.W. Bush did in 1991—that listening to the White House and alliance with the United States is a fool’s decision. We can expect no allies anywhere, be they in Asia, Africa, or Latin America, if we continue to sacrifice principles to short-term realist calculations. It’s not enough to have an attention span of two years, when the rest of the world thinks in decades if not centuries.

And therein lies the problem. The left is decidely of the cut and run philosophy, the MSM strongly supports the left at this stage of the game and the end result may well be a pull out in Iraq and Afghanistan, jubilation of Al Qaeda and it's sycophants and renewed danger world wide as these folk perceive the US in particular and the West in general as "paper tigers."

Do we need a new focus in Iraq? Perhaps! Do we need to change the battle plans? Perhaps! Do we need to cut and run as the Democrats and their minions would want us to do? Hell no, because dear readers, if we do, the price will be paid in a currency no thoughtful civilized individual would care to pay.

UPDATE: Captain Ed has a scathing note to add and Michael Rubin has a bit more noting that the online Vanity Fair has taken quotes out of context. Commenter reg however doesn't see anything wrong with Democratic leaning chicanery. According to his lights, chicanery is only wrong if Republicans do it. Sad, really sad!!!!

Filed Under: Media

CNN on No. Korean Nuke - Still "Clinton News Network"

I woke up very early Monday morning and saw breaking news on CNN that North Korea had conducted a test of a nuclear bomb (for which the success is currently under review by the officials in the booth.) Of course, the repercussions are huge, which will develop over the next few weeks. What I want to focus on is the manner in which CNN covered this news. Simply put, according to CNN, President Bush and Vice President Cheney were overwhelming to blame for the test--not China, not Russia, not the U.N., and certainly not even Kim Jong Il.

While the finger pointing at Republicans by CNN was not surprising, what was surprising is how over the top they went and how much time they spent both to attack the current administration and to make special efforts to praise former President Clinton's handling of the nuclear issue with North Korea. President Bush was the story--not the atomic test. It was as if the commentators were either using or making Democratic talking points. It's almost as if they knew that this was a campagin period.

Now, however, let's set the record straight on North Korea's nuclear capability with this article from Y2K.

U.S. Aid Helps N. Korea Build Nukes, Congress Told
By Lawrence Morahan, CNS Staff Writer, April 17, 2000

North Korea's nuclear production capacity will increase from a dozen nuclear bombs a year to 65 a year by 2010, thanks in large part to American taxpayer money, two renowned U.S. nuclear scientists told congressional leaders last week.

North Korea observers have long suspected the communist dictatorship is using Western humanitarian aid to starving North Koreans to feed Kim Jong Il's million-man army.

But an aid policy initiated by the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s to finance two light water nuclear reactors in North Korea puts the isolated communist country on the fast track in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, William R. Graham and Victor Gilinsky told members of the House Policy Committee.

North Korea's missile proliferation has accelerated dramatically since the Clinton-Gore administration began giving aid to the regime in 1994.

You might ask why I was even watching CNN. Well, it was the only network giving this issue continuous coverage at the time, for all too obvious of reasons. Later in the day, I sent a comment to CNN explaining that their extreme left-wing editorializing, suitable for Ted Turner but not me, finally drove me to switch over to FOX News. To CNN and the left, the defense of Bill Clinton and the attacks against President Bush are well worth all the lost viewers.

You may read the rest of the article by clicking on "Continue reading...," and from this article you may possibly determine if any other administration might, just might, have some culpability for North Korea's roguish nuclear activity. I think it has already been established that CNN is not going to present this information to its remaining viewers.

Continue reading "CNN on No. Korean Nuke - Still "Clinton News Network""

Political Quiz [Updated & Updated & Upd....]

Today's pop quiz on world politics has one question. Good luck!

Question:
Who recently labeled President Bush as a devil, imperialist, fascist, assassin, stupid, criminal, killer, madman, and genocidal murderer?

Possible Answers:
A. Hugo Chavez
B. Sen. Harry Reid
C. Al Franken
D. The New York Times
E. All of them
F. Answer is A, but the rest didn't disagree.

Voters should be concerned when you cannot distinguish the crazed rants of a South American communist dictator from the impressions given by a major U.S. political party and its mouthpieces.

[Update]

Rep. Charlie Rangel, a Harlem Democrat who has called President Bush just about every name in the book including "our Bull Conner," just concluded a press conference on the Chavez anti-Bush speech in which Rep. Rangel said, "You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, but do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State."

Well, when I heard him, I admit that I was surprised. Maybe he hates the competition on attacking President Bush. But, Rep. Rangel did let some people of the world know that we may have squabbles among ourselves, just like a family, but that doesn't mean that we want outsiders to come here and attack our family members. That's how it should be. Let's see how many other Democrats and members of the media follow suit.

[More]

Leading Bush critic at home calls Chavez a "thug"

One of President George W. Bush's fiercest political opponents at home took his side on Thursday, calling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a "thug" for his remark that Bush is like the devil. "Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday. "Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."

If this keeps up and if Michael Moore comes out to defend President Bush, then I'll know that I've entered "The Twilight Zone" or "Bizarro World."

UPDATE AGAIN (But this time from GM) Well, that didn't take long, for ole Tom Harkin (DIM-0-crat, Iowa) to up the ante:

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a democrat, today defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's United Nations speech in which Chavez called President George Bush the devil. Harkin said the comments were "incendiary", then went on to say, "Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies." Harkin continued what has been frequent criticism of the president's foreign policy."

What an ass this man really is. What happened to politics stops at the waters edge?

[More Chavez Insults]

Oh, no! How bad can it get? Further talking about President Bush, Hugo Chavez said, "He walks like John Wayne." And, what's wrong with John Wayne? Chavez is producing more gas than Citgo.

Well, here you can see the kind of person that Hugo Chavez does like....

I'll take John Wayne any day, thank you.

The Path To 9-11: The Left Is A Comedy For Our Times

The subject of 9-11 is frought with pathos. It is both a sad remembrance and an act of war. But, on the 5th anniversary of this tragic day, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) has decided to show a production of a "Docu-Drama" called "The Path To 9-11". Now, in and of itself, that is nothing remarkable, the history of the socalled "docu-drama" is long and comical for its historical inaccuracies and/or outright fiction, witness the productions of "Death Of A President" in England for example (which many have defended on the grounds of "free speech").

Yet, let a shibboleth of the left be challenged (Clinton was a terrific - though perhaps oversexed president) and watch the fur fly. The reaction of much of the left is almost comical, nay, it is entirely comical and I'll take a few snippits from here and there to prove my point.

First up my friend Marc Cooper (a self identified "progressive") posts "The ABC's of Panderning" in which he states:

L.A. Times media columnist Tim Rutten perfectly nails the shameless shlockmeisters at ABC who think it's just spiffy to capitalize on the pain of the 5th anniversary 9/11 to broadcast one more manufactured piece of dreck -- a two part "docudrama" on the Twin Tower attacks powered by blatant right-wing spin.

Now, Marc is a friend of mine, and my 'blogfather' if you will and I highly respect him and his blog (though that does not apply to some of his more vociferous commenters). But gee could the rhetoric be more appalling, could the prose be a little more turgid? Understand please, as a progressive, Marc is no friend of the Bushes or the Republicans, but having said that, he is no friend of the Democrats either.

More amusing (if that is indeed the word) are some of the comments from that blog entry. This one for example:

NeoDude Says:
September 9th, 2006 at 9:14 am

When has Right-Wing Nationalists (SALUTE!!!), in any Western tradition, not exploit a national tragedy?

Oh gosh, "Right-Wing nationalists." Codewords for fascists perhaps? Oh, the humanity!

How about this one (if you are a fan of conspiracy theories you will LOVE this one):

r. l. c. Says:
September 9th, 2006 at 10:14 am

It really is obvious what happened here. These projects don’t get made overnight and when ABC Entertainment (NOT the news division) OK’ed this Bush was riding high - just been reelected and had increased majorities in both houses of Congress. And what were the pundits saying? Why the GOP wiould be ruling the roost for a long time to come and the Dems were in “Disarray� (a town near Vegas, I believe). So why not get in bed with right wing crazies? They would be in position to help the Mouse with issues like Intellectual Property and Media Ownership. Its not personal, just business.

(Hell Robert Iger was a Clinton Contributor, as were a lote of ABC/Disney Execs)

Sure the Dems would complain but what could they do? Well its now two months from an election that will probably produce a tsunami for them and the miniseries don’t look so hot now does it? That is what happens when you listen to experts!

Can you say "off base?"

But Marc's commenters are rational compared to others (although that is obviously not saying much). For example, Ann Althouse has a terrific post on some of these left-wing rantings here and she has a link pointing to something called "AMERICAblog" with some suggestions to sue, boycott etc Disney, ABC and Apple because of the so called docu-drama. A sample:

Certainly we're going to be live-blogging the show, Sunday and Monday. I'd appreciate those of you in Australia and New Zealand, if the show does air there shortly, please give us feedback as to what they cut and what's still in the show? It will give us a window as to what defamatory material Disney/ABC insisted on keeping in the show, which will help the lawsuits and our organizing.

Secondly, when the show airs in the US, if Disney/ABC still run it, I want to be sure a number of us are live-blogging it to list the defamation and the errors. If Disney/ABC insist on making a cartoon out one of the blackest days in America history, then we will hold them responsible."

Aren't these the same guys who "demand" freedom of speech on campuses and other venues? Does that apply only to speech from their side? Funny, I thought that speech was free for ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. I guess not. But I digress, as funny as the posting is, some of the comments (over 380 of them) are even funnier (or would stranger be a better word choice?) For example, this little bon mot:

I think iTunes is a really good place to hit Steve Jobs and Apple. It is direct and to the point, and it is not platform-based.

It is OUTRAGEOUS that they are offering this as a free download.

They would notice immediately if there was a slack-off in sales.

I have already written to Steve Jobs and the iTunes crew about this.
samia | 09.09.06 - 6:38 pm |

Wow, but this is mild compared to:

It appears that the governments use of the MSM for propaganda distribution is becoming extremely transparent. If we, as Americans, cannot stop this from happening, or becoming any worse, then we have lost the control of our public servents, and more drastic actions must be taken. Boycotts/leaflets/emails/videos/ demonstations etc.
Joe Danger | Homepage | 09.09.06 - 6:43 pm |"

Joe Danger, what a nom-de-pixel that is. Ok lets see, the government controls the MSM enough to make it a propaganda arm of the Bushies. So, how did the NYTimes sneak by with those "expose's" of our efforts to listen in to Al Qaeda or monitor financial transactions? Hmmmmm?

OK, how about this one:

As well as an organized and long-term boycott of Disney and ABC, we should use this opportunity to call for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
nervesofsteel | 09.09.06 - 6:50 pm |"

OK, now that really is scary. The fairness doctrine was less about fairness than it was a way to silence the broadcasters (radio and TV) from airing any "political" speech because the so called doctrine would allow opposing views time on air. General Managers would have a scheduling nightmare and we'd loose talk radio and have to go back to elevator music. No thanks! One more reason not to elect Democrats or liberal Republicans. Oh, and by the way, the above commenter's nom-de-pixel is "nervesofsteel" More like "nerves-of-tinfoil." What a frightened little bunny!

The latest (well, maybe not the absolute latest) lefty "talking point" (I'm being generous here you understand) is that this is NOT the same as Michael Moore's fatuous "Farenheit 9/11" which everyone now says was a "polemic." A polemic?

WordNet
po·lem·ic (p-lmk): adj : of or involving dispute or controversy [syn: polemical] n 1: a writer who argues in opposition to others (especially in theology) [syn: polemicist, polemist] 2: a controversy (especially over a belief or dogma)

Really, seems to me that at the time many on the left didn't see any controversy at all, it was truth and a terrific slam on the Bush Administration (note: Marc Cooper, always his own man, saw it different and the vast majority of his commenters agreed - at the time, not now; now it's just a polemic).

Again, I digress, the whole point of this little exercise is to point out the utter insanity of the left in regards to this docudrama. Reminds me of the "revised" words of the Bard: "The left doth protest too much, methinks."

Cross posted at The Real Ugly American

Update, I've only scratched the surface of the left's response to "The Pathway to 9-11" but James Joyner at Outside The Beltway has looked at how "The Left Remembers 9-11." It's an excellent read and I'm in awe of his article.

Liberals: Crow and Frogs Legs for Plame Banquet

Regarding claims and investigations about Valerie Plame and "Smokn' Joe" Wilson (and, I'm not saying what he smokes), imagine, for a moment, that a Republican had made charges against the Democrats similar to those that Joe Wilson and the Democrats made against the Republicans. Well, we would expect that the major media would have buried the story in that case. So, I'm not surprised that major media is burying the revelation that, as many knew, Joe Wilson, himself, was the one most responsible for exposing his wife's role with the CIA--and, oh yes, lying about his Iraq report.

Liberals Imagined Sign of Guilt at White House

But, somewhere away from the front page, the Washington Post comes forward to set things straight.

We're reluctant to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband....

I bet. Just like all the liberal Democrats are reluctant to return to the subject now that they've been proved wrong. But, major media didn't thinik that too much attention was devoted to claims with no proof before.

Then, the Washington Post does offer this accurate summary after, naturally, suggesting that high level Republicans must still be guilty in some fashion even absent a conviction. Note that the summary rightly goes beyond the initial charge of who identified Ms. Plame and addresses the fact that Joe Wilson also lied about his report on Iraq shopping for uranium, for which Christopher Hitchens received flak (to put it mildly) with his evidence, as did I whenever I referenced Hitchens' columns.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy.

Exactly. However, the paper doens't address who is supposed to reimburse taxpayers for the needless costs of the grand juries and the special prosecutor's investigations against our highest government officials. Would that be Joe Wilson or the Democratic Party--both who profited from the lies? Shouldn't the losers pay?

Then, the Washington Post offers this polite way to end the discussion on Joe Wilson:

It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Unfortunate, indeed.

And, just who might have been among those who were telling everyone to take this seriously during the Presidential election? Could it beeeeeee Satan?! No, but that's close. It might be the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, CBS, etc.--not to mention the Democrats, Moveon.org, and every left-wing blog. How "unfortunate" that they got this wrong. Perhaps, they will do a better job of helping to restore the good reputations of those damaged. Don't hold your breath.

May I suggest a better a more appropriate way to end this matter. If you're one of those liberal Democrats who made outrageous statements against Republicans on this matter, follow these instructions.
(1) Print out this post.
(2) Write the word "crow" boldly across it.
(3) Eat it.

I like my way better.

Oh, and if we really want justice on this matter, let's allow Joe Wilson to have his wish:

Wilson wants leak culprit 'frog-marched'

Whoever released the name, Wilson said, "potentially engaged in outing a national security asset. "If that was determined to have been a crime, I would love to see them frog-marched out of the White House," he said.

Joe Wilson, can you say "ribbet?" Those frog legs could be your own.

Does the Left Dream of a Bush Assassination?

In a movie that is likely the dream of those on the Left and possibly the seed for a copycat crime, the BBC is running a show on the assassination of President Bush.

Channel 4 to air Bush assassination drama
By Adam Pasick, Reuters, Aug 31, 2006

LONDON (Reuters) - Channel 4 is courting controversy with what it calls a "shockingly real" drama about the fictional assassination of President George W. Bush.

"Death of a President," shot in the form of a documentary examining the assassination, will use a blend of archival footage and computer-generated special effects to portray Bush in October 2007 arriving in Chicago during an anti-war rally.

...."I'm sure there will be people upset by it," (More4 boss Peter Dale) said. "I hope people will see the intention as a good one."

And, exactly what is the good intention here? By whose standards? Should I read between the lines and into the hearts and minds of the left to know the truth? Perhaps, deep in some of their evil thoughts and writings, character assassination simply is not enough.

It goes further than that. This docudrama will also premier (to rave reviews?) at the Toronto Film Festival--not known to be widely attended by conservatives.

Have people from the Left expressed such views before? Well, here's this from the ChronWatch, which documented a statement in The Guardian before being removed.

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you? (emphasis added)

The Guardian claimed that the statement was intended as a joke. Aren't many a truth said in jest?

Let's consider other "jokes" of the left and our enemies (the same?).

A Tunisian astrologer (Hassan al-Sharibi's)...says President Bush will be killed by an assassin's bullet in 2005. ...However, the paper tempered its report by saying critics label Sharibi "a quack with flair who relies on logic and wishful thinking. (emphasis added)

Or, this....

Air America talk show hostess Randi Rhodes apparently crossed the line into the "put a gun to President Bush's head" camp...with a bad radio skit....

Bad taste, questionable intent, and dangerous possibilities--but, "it was just a joke." In fact, when I read that someone from the Left is against the assassination of President Bush, they often admit that it's because that they don't want VP Cheney to become President instead. That is their moral dilemma.

It seems that there are a lot of discussions and jokes along this line with the Left--but, I'm not laughing and neither should they. And, if they do dream about it, let's hope that no one acts out their dreams and hope that no one gets any bad ideas from them.

.

Film story found at Drudge Report

Media Distortion - It Gets Worse and Worse

Reporting distortions by the media is like keeping up with Bill Clinton's women. The media has so many transgressions that it becomes tedious keeping up with them, and the large numbers might have the effect of numbing people to this problem. Nevertheless and without great fanfare, here's the latest, courtesy of the Left's Least Loved, Michelle Malkin:

It's not just Reuters

The NYTimes issues a correction to its pieta online photo caption: "...The man pictured, who had been seen in previous images appearing to assist with the rescue effort, was injured during that rescue effort, not during the initial attack, and was not killed."

Just a slight difference. To continue, here's more....

"Fauxtography" alert: NYTimes and USNews;
plus Time and Reuters' Issam Kobeisi

Take a close look at the cover of US News magazine. The image and the story context imply that (an armed Lebanese man) is at the scene of an Israeli airstrike or explosion caused by IDF artillery. The same guy appears in a photo taken by none other than ex-Reuters camera man Adnan Hajj. He's pointing a gun at the site of the explosion. Only guess what? The site is...as Allah points out, a garbage dump.

Well, it stinks.

This is too much, so I simply refer you on. Malkin's site has other examples, but you may want to check a particular reference from her, Free Republic's "Fauxtography" list, which keeps up with the on-going story of reporting fraud to customers by the major media. If you're going to read all of them, get comfortable first. This could take some time.

Where's Ralph Nader and Michael Moore when you want someone to blow the whistle on corporate wrong-doings?

Caught Again...and Again: Media Fakes Another Picture

Yet, one more faked photo from Lebanon courtesy of Reuters....
found here and here at "The Jawa Report."

This one involves the alteration of a picture of an Israeli F-16 dropping a defensive flare to decoy surface to air missiles; but, the picture was altered by adding multiple copies of that flare for dramatic effect, and then the picture's caption said that these were actually missiles being fired from the jet against a city in southern Lebanon.

This fake reporting makes things worse. It inflames passions and wrongly increases public opinion and world pressure against the United States and Great Britain to modify and moderate mideast policies to suit the phony reports rather than the real situation. The press, in effect, rallies the public for its agenda rather than that of our nations--and, they're not the same.

This irresponsibility of major media should be a concern of the left rather than whether or not it gives fodder to conservatives. From Dan Rather's MemoGate to now, it has gotten to the point where I have to check the bloggers who catch the lies before I can believe the articles from the major media.

The world needs honesty in reporting, and we're not getting it.

Found at Woody's Blog (No, not mine. His.),
referencing The Jawa Report

Caught Again! Media PhotoShops War in Lebanon

The left has enjoyed days of rejecting and attacking conservative bloggers who claimed that photographs and film clips from Lebanon were phony. GM Roper's (the GENIUS behind this blog) blog-father Marc Cooper stepped in with: The five days of shameless, nauseating speculation by the right side of the 'sphere that the massacre in Qana was somehow staged now comes to a crashing halt. Cooper's minions joined him and attacked G.M. Roper, too.

Well, now it's time to look at the shameless manipulation of the truth by the media and how it "now comes to a crashing halt"...and, as caught by bloggers in the U.S. at that! How embarrassing!

Reuters admits altering Beirut photo

Reuters withdraws photograph of Beirut after Air Force attack after US blogs, photographers point out 'blatant evidence of manipulation.'

Earlier, Charles Johnson, of the Little Green Footballs blog, which has exposed a previous attempt at fraud by a major American news corporation, wrote: "This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone� tool to add more smoke to the image."

The Sports Shooter web forum, used by professional photographers, also examined the photo, with many users concluding that the image has been doctored.

Adnan Hajj, the photographer who sent the altered image, was also the Reuters photographer behind many of the images from Qana – which have also been the subject of suspicions for being staged. (Emphasis mine)

Oops. That last sentence must hurt the self-righteous left which attacked the right for pointing out inconsistencies. Our leftist buddy, Randy Paul, titled lgf as the Little Green Fascists on Marc Cooper's post. Well, it looks like the "fascists" got it right on this one. Here's more if you enjoy this: PJM's ReuterGate!

Oh, don't think that hatred and disdain of conservatives that you observe is isolated.

Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat

The message, sent from a Reuters internet account, read: "I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut." It was sent to Charles Johnson, owner of the Little Green Footballs (LGF) weblog, a popular site which often backs Israel and highlights jihadist terrorist activities.

But, the left wants to attack bloggers who catch their lies. They want to concentrate on a drunk Mel Gibson, an actor, instead of a journalist who manipulates the news for a major outlet. Does anyone wonder why I distrust the major media and why it has become less and less relevant as a source of information?

I'm beginning to believe that Reuters represents many of the individual and collective views and expressions on the left. Those on the left hate light being shined into their dark corners of deceipt. Otherwise, where is the outrage?

Media's "Reliable" Source in Lebanon

Did you know that Hizbollah had a media relations department? It stands to reason that this is real, as shared by LGF. This must be the source of the national media's slant on the conflict in Lebanon and where the MSM picked up on the phrase "Israel's Disproportionate Response." Why didn't they give proper credit, though?

Nice logo on the card. Give Mr. Afif a call and ask him if he's talked with anyone from the NY Times in the last hour.

The Press Does Its Job

Yeah, right. This press did its job on this--if its job is slanting. An article reporting President Bush's veto of certain stem cell funding does not seem to report the veto exactly like the White House described it.

President George W. Bush will cast the first veto of his presidency on Wednesday to stop legislation championed by top scientists and desired by most Americans to expand embryonic stem cell research, the White House said.

"the White House said"...?! White House said??!! Do you think the above wording was in the press release?

Yeah, the press did its job...slant and distort news from the White House. (I'm sure that leftists reading the quote couldn't find anything wrong with it.) If that journalist keeps it up, he'll earn a high paying job with the New York Times or CBS. Surely, no bias was intended--no more than my sarcasm is.

"A Convenient Untruth" About "An Inconvenient Truth"

When I read the Associated Press article titled "Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy," I went to see the substance of that claim and realized that it was more leftist fluff than fact. Well, someone else has done a little more research and spilled the inconvenient beans on the crusade with "AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE", which adds additional information, like: "The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President." Maybe he got free popcorn along with some grants, too.

I've noticed how in every interview that I've seen of Al Gore lately that, when questioned about scientists who have doubts about human induced global warming, Al Gore quickly shuts the questioner down with the same phrase, "The debate is over." That's it. Period. It reminds me of a congregational saying: "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not aware of anyone who died and made Al Gore God. So, excuse me if I still express doubts on his claims and respect debate on the issue.

Fire Breathing Preacher Adds Hot Air to Global Warming

Just the other day, I was reading "Discover" magazine (which I'm not renewing) and came across an article by one of Al Gore's disciples, who had this praise of Al Gore in a feature titled "FILM: Idlers on climate change, watch out! Al Gore is on the warpath." (bottom of page.) In that article, the writer said this (emphasis mine), "While much of this movie may be old hat to savvy Discover readers, it is most definitely worth watching by skeptics...."

Okay, if I accept Al Gore and global warming hysteria without further debate, then I'm savvy; but, if I'm a skeptic then I'm not savvy. Maybe the truth is that a "savvy person" keeps an open mind, listens to all points of view, and comes to logical, rather than emotional and false, conclusions.

Count me as a savvy skeptic.

CBS: Rather Not Here

I'm not gloating. Are you? We have more class than that, don't we? Well, we should.

Final Day at CBS

Here's the story of Dan Rather's final farewell with CBS:

Dan Rather Signs Off
Veteran Newsman Exits CBS After 44 Years With Tiffany Network
New York, June 20, 2006

Like Nixon was to Dan Rather, Dan Rather is to us. We won't have him to kick around anymore. We'll miss his legacy, his Ratherisms, and his "fake but accurate" memos. But, CBS will give us a new line of liberals to take up his cause and provide us with new material.

So, as a last sign off to Dan Rather: Courage...and, don't forget that frequency.

CBS: Rather Not Here

I'm not gloating. Are you? We have more class than that, don't we? Well, we should.

Final Day at CBS

Here's the story of Dan Rather's final farewell with CBS:

Dan Rather Signs Off
Veteran Newsman Exits CBS After 44 Years With Tiffany Network
New York, June 20, 2006

Like Nixon was to Dan Rather, Dan Rather is to us. We won't have him to kick around anymore. We'll miss his legacy, his Ratherisms, and his "fake but accurate" memos. But, CBS will give us a new line of liberals to take up his cause and provide us with new material.

So, as a last sign off to Dan Rather: Courage...and, don't forget that frequency.

The Democrat's Same Ole, Same Ole.

From Nancy Pelosi (Moonbat, California) who is really, when you come right down to it expected to be elected Minority Leader when the next congress meets, is issuing large pieces of "Pie In The Sky (TM)" as is the wont of the Democratic Party. From the Washington Times:

Congressional Democrats announced "a new direction for America" yesterday, outlining a litany of promises to raise the minimum wage and lower gas prices, college tuition and the cost of health care.

"Democrats are united in presenting a new direction for America, one that will make our nation as strong as the American people," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said.

The new Democratic agenda does not contain suggestions, however, for fighting the war against terrorism or dealing with illegal aliens, two issues that are of top concern to many Americans. Instead, it focuses entirely on domestic and economic issues.

If Democrats take control of the House in November, Mrs. Pelosi promised they will on the first day of Congress "give America a raise by increasing the minimum wage."

Oh yeah, nothing has changed, "Vote For Democrats and get the same ole crap you have gotten for decades." Yeah, like I'm convinced!

A tip 'O The GM Derby to Dr. Sanity

Continue reading "The Democrat's Same Ole, Same Ole."

What's Wrong With the Headline?

Check the complete headline from an editorial in today's LA Times, which discusses the fraudulent uses of FEMA debit cards for Katrina victims. See anything in the headline that might bother normal people?

A hurricane of fraud?
FEMA did mismanage Katrina relief, but it's wrong to blame victims for spending irresponsibly.

If you cannot spot anything strange, here's another hint, which is the last sentence in the editorial: But obsessing about the spending habits of refugees comes perilously close to blaming the victim.

I guess we owe apologies to the people who misused these emergency funds for titillating videos, expensive champagne, lavish vacations, and diamonds. We certainly don't want to blame these "victims." It's our fault for not stopping them. Yeah, that's it. If I get caught for speeding I'll tell the judge that it wasn't my fault because no one stopped me in time. Think it will work?!

It must be nice to be a liberal and always trying to blame someone else for your misdeeds and problems that you bring on yourself.

Via NewsBusters

Fire Them All

Here's what happened:

Washington Post (AP) – About 70 reporters, editors, photographers and newsroom administrators have taken early retirement offers from The Washington Post Co. amid declining circulation at its flagship newspaper. About 100 employees outside the newsroom, such as those in The Washington Post's pressrooms or on the advertising staff, also took the offer, The Post announced in Thursday's editions.

That's 170 jobs. Oh, if you want to know how truthful the paper has been and how they earlier manipulated perceptions, here's what the Washington Post's Executive Editor announced as recently as March: "The Washington Post is planning to cut about 80 jobs, or about 9 percent of its newsroom, over the next year.... Leonard Downie Jr., the Post's executive editor, said in an interview that the goal of the latest cuts was to operate more efficiently." That's a difference of 90 jobs--only a 113% error. Now, compare his stated reason of efficiency to the more current reasons that they claim:

Circulation at The Washington Post and most daily newspapers has decreased in recent years as readers turn to television and the Internet for news.

We didn't turn to alternative types of media...we turned to media that offered us better reporting less tainted by liberal bias. I don't care if the media is television, print, or intenet. I'll take whichever one is best and honest in its reporting--and, the Washington Post couldn't shake its liberal tag enough to be trusted. If alternate media is preferred, then why is liberal Air America dying on the vine? It's the content, not the format.

In other good, related news from the same article:

The New York Times Co. is cutting 700 company-wide jobs. Tribune Co., which publishes 11 newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, said last week that it would use layoffs to cut costs. Last year, Tribune newspapers eliminated 185 positions through buyouts and layoffs.

Of course, liberal media continues to deny that people change because of content in favor of believing that they change soley because of convenience and cost. Before, liberals controlled the news. Now, they have to compete (a terrible word to them) and react like businessmen (another terrible term to them.) But, as long as they deny the real reasons and don't learn, they will have to continue cutting staff and losing business. In any event, they act like Ken Lay when it comes to their stock values.

Hey, don't the papers owe people a living? Shouldn't they keep their staffs and hire a bunch of illegal immigrants on top of that? No? I guess they think that only other businesses have moral obligations to labor.

You'll hear cries of distress from liberals over this sad news. I say that it's good. Maybe it will send a message to the mainstream media to clean up its act and make the changes that they really need rather than the ones that they believe and announce.

Something for Everyone - Left and Right

Recent reports about our military have both good news and upsetting news for people from both sides of the political spectrum.

First, something to disturb the left and to please the right:

Americans Enlist in Record Numbers from Strategy Page

May 16, 2006: In the last seven months, the U.S. Army has met or exceeded all of its recruiting goals. In that time, over 160,000 people have enlisted, or re-enlisted. The total strength of the active duty and reserve forces are 1.2 million men and women, all of them volunteers. ...the biggest asset in the recruiting effort has been the world-of-mouth from the troops themselves. They believe in what they are doing, and accomplishing.

I guess that the left's violent protests, running military recruiters off of campuses, and fighting military access to mailing lists of high schoolers have not been totally successful. If we could just re-direct the left's rage and fight against our real enemies, we could win the War on Terror in half the time.

Now, something to upset the right and to encourage the left to say "see, see!":

Murtha: Marines may have killed Haditha civilians in cold blood from Army Times

May 17, 2006: Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood� after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19.

...A March 27 Time magazine report published claims by an Iraqi civil rights group that the Marines barged into houses near the bomb strike, throwing grenades and shooting civilians as they cowered in fear. The report prompted calls for a Pentagon probe. “It’s much worse than was reported in Time magazine,� Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill.

...Like the Haditha incident, the Fallujah shooting sparked outcries from human-rights groups regarding actions by U.S. forces against Iraqis.

Do you believe that? We're always the bad guys to the left--and they eat it up. Oh--no mention by various "human rights groups" about kidnappings, murders, and suicide bombers on the other side.

Well, we try to be fair and occasionally give both sides of issues. No matter where you fall, this news will likely create a reaction. What's yours?

Renaissance Man

If you are lucky in life you will have many, many friends. Some are close, some are stodgy, tried and true. Some are weird, some are WYSIWYG. And sometimes, if you are very lucky and very good at picking such a friend when they do come by, you will find one who is all of the above.

Such a friend of mine is a fellow by the name of, well, I'll call him Tom short for Thomas which is good because that happens to be his real name. I first met Tom in May of 2001 when I began some consulting work for an adolescent substance abuse treatment center. Tom was the director of operations. We soon became more than just nodding acquaintances, but not quite friends. Over the years however, a true friendship developed between me the wiser and younger and him the slightly older (he'll never see 59 years old again). Tom is a world class practical joker, but never the mean sort. Once, he took my picture and unbeknownst to me treated it with his many digital skills on Photoshop and making my head a perfect Chia Head. The kids in the facility noted that it really wasn't like me because I had this "great big bald spot" on the back of my head. One adolescent looked at the photo, then at me, then back at the photo and thought I could cover up the bald spot if I used Miracle Gro. Nice kid. Tom got a laugh out of that, and still does as a matter of fact.

In the very early part of our relationship, there was a fire alarm set off by one of the tar pots used in re-roofing the building. The fire department came out with the captain in one of the largest fire trucks I have ever seen in my life. I walked up to him to explain that it had been a false alarm but before I could even introduce myself he asked (in a rather ticked off voice) "Who's in charge here?"

Since I was only a consultant I pointed to the Director of Operations and said he is. Again in a stern and ticked off voice the Fire Captain asked "What's your name?" Tom, with out batting an eye or any sign of being dishonest said "George M. Roper" Thanks Tom!

Tom is also one of those guys that likes to do nice things for his friends when he is not pulling jokes. When I was diagnosed with cancer, Tom was there with encouragement, prayers and friendship. He visited me in the hospital every day that I was there and those visits were deeply appreciated. Tom commiserated with me when my hair started falling out because of the chemo-therapy and talked about having to cover my head when outside so the glare wouldn't blind pilots flying nearby. But he also took a photo and treated it with kindness, respect and true friendship. He put it up on the web and if you want to see what I really look like, click here. I told Tom that every time I watched it, I got a little weepy eyed. Initially he said only "Yeah!"

But telling stories of Tom's practical jokes and digital skills is not the purpose of this post, telling you about this great guy is.

Tom had a rough childhood, mother died of cancer when he was very young, dad was kind of cruel and abusive. Tom ran away from home at about 15 or so and lived in a car for a couple of years. Encouraged to join the Army by a judge who didn't think Tom was a bad boy (note: The judge didn't ask ME!!!) he enlisted and served with distinction.

Over the years, Tom has worked in a number of industries, most notably the exciting field of Art. Now, I'm not a serious connoisseur of art, but "I know what I like." I have a "chopped" Dali print, a number of signed and numbered prints of Itzchak Tarkay. But I digress, Tom has forgotten more about art than I will ever know. And so, he has opened his own online shop to sell quality art prints and posters. Works by Da Vinci, Picasso, Dali and Van Gogh. Works by Ansel Adams, Frieda Kahlo and Diego Rivera not to mention Andy Warhol and Monet. Great pieces at great prices. So, I've added a link to the jpeg at the upper left and if you click on it, it will take you to his site. I've also added a blogad in the side bar on the right. Browse around and see if you don't see something you like.

Full Disclosure: I don't get a nickel from Tom if you buy something, but I think that if you do, I will be very appreciative.

So, in part, this is to get even with you Tom, but in a big part it is also to tell you what a great friend you are.

Tom, I have to see you 5 days a week, but that is ok, I can take some anti-nausea medicine when I get home! ;-)

UPDATE: Tom, who in my world is King Digital is also an Ambassador for Coffee Cup software. He gave me a mini-cd with all kinds of cool programs a lot are free and the rest are available at substantial discounts. If you would like a copy of this CD, send an email with your name and address to this link, you won't regret it.

Mr. Stick Figure

Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online's The Corner thinks Wuzzadem has way too much time on his hands. I think he used the time very productively.

What do you think?

CHENEYS TAX REFUND OF $1.9MILLION...

OMG... That's more than I make in a Decade.... (two decades?) Sounds outregeous doesn't it. But Michael Turner at Curouser and Curiouser does a great breakdown of the story and thumps the MSSM (Main Stream Shifty Media) right on the noggin.

Oh my goodness. They actually paid their taxes, donated nearly $7 million to charity, overpaid their withholding and estimated taxes, and applied for a refund. Just like you or I would. I think I like the Cheneys' giving spirit. And I despise the media's shallow attempts to cast aspersions on a husband and wife who donate 3/4 of their income to charity."

Good job Michael!

Gulag Nation - Black Spring

Foul deeds will rise, though all the earth o'erwhelm it, to men's eyes.
.......................................................Shakespere
Marc Cooper rightly takes the left to task for the lack of blogging about the 3rd anniversary of the arrest and subsequent trial/imprisonment of 75 persons in Cuba. Arrested as anti-revolutionaries for handing out library books. Library books for Pete's Sake!

More impotantly, this issue has also escaped much of the MSM and the right blogs as well. Everybody is pointing to the 3rd anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. But anti-war demonstrations have turned out to be more anti-American and/or Anti-Brittish/Australian demonstrations or just plain ole I hate Bushychimpmchitler. But this post is not about Iraq, it is about our friend Fidel in Cuba.

The Crime:

Between March 18-20, 2003, authorities rounded up about 100 dissidents and independent journalists.

Of those, 75 were quickly tried and sentenced to between six and 28 years in prison, including Cuba's best-known female dissident, economist Martha Beatriz Roque. Of those, 15 were gradually freed between April 2004 and December 2005.

Black spring is reported in a few blogs, newspapers, but not much else. And this is a shame, because it highlights the utter hypocracy of both the Castro regime in it's cry against the United States, and our supposed stand for human rigthts.

What do I mean by this? Simple. If we are to be the "City Shining On The Hill" then we also must condem the totalitarian forces that beset the peoples of the world. I'm probably going to be declared a heretic by my fellow conservatives, but I think that the way to bring Castro and his band of thugs down is to increase contact and trade with Cuba. Russia wasn't changed by the ability of the Communist government to control it's people, Russia was changed by the inability to keep up with the freedoms of the west. Likewise, the Cuban people if given free access to freedom as proposed by free trade, access to real information as opposed to contrived and controlled information of the Cuban government will opt for more freedom not less. In this, our refusal to deal with the people of Cuba has been a total failure. Cuba needs access to the benefits of a free society, and that and that alone will change the Cuban government.

Others reporting on the third anniversary of the Castro crackdown include: Wall Street Cafe, Uncommon Sense, Blog for Cuba, Marathon Pundit, Cuba Net and Babalu Blog.

All The News Print To Fit

In the news today, we find some unremitting good news. Well, that really isn't news is it?

The employment rate is 95.1%. About 29,564 domestic flights took off and landed without incident. Four million Iraqi children got safely to school. Meanwhile, their parents shopped, drove to work or otherwise went about their daily routines, mostly � overwhelmingly � without getting assassinated."

News? Actually the opposite of what you get in the "news." Read the rest from Steve Salerno. It'll open your eyes.

H/T Austin Bay

"This Makes It Real"

ABC's Bob Woodruff was wounded in Iraq covering the Iraqi forces. He and his cameraman suffered serious but not fatal wounds and are being treated in Germany.

That is the story so far, but the blow-dried talking heads want to make this into a cause célèbre. On ABC's "Good Morning America," Diane Sawyer, Elizabeth Vargas and ABC News President David Westin talked about Woodruff's injuries:

SAWYER: "To that point, being in the Iraqi vehicle was part of the story. The story right now is the Iraqi troops traveling with the American troops."

VARGAS: Are they prepared enough to take over the security of Iraq so that American forces can come home? That is the big single issue in Iraq right now, and I covered the story when I was there, Bob was out covering the story. You can't assess their readiness unless you're traveling with them and observing them do their job.

WESTIN: My initial reaction is we've all talked about this as a very real possibility, but this makes it real. I mean, we've talked about it, we knew someone was going to get hurt. We discussed what can we do to try to minimize that risk, how cautious can we be. But now it's really one of us, and two of us, actually. What choice do we have? As long as the United States is over there, and our men and women are over there and they're in harm's way, this is a story we have to...[emphasis added]

Excuse me? The wounding of an American newsman makes it real? So much for the two thousand plus American troops who have given their lives, so much for the thousands of Iraqi's murdered by Al Qaeda and their fellow travelors. That wasn't "REAL." But this is!

Idiots!

"This Makes It Real"

ABC's Bob Woodruff was wounded in Iraq covering the Iraqi forces. He and his cameraman suffered serious but not fatal wounds and are being treated in Germany.

That is the story so far, but the blow-dried talking heads want to make this into a cause célèbre. On ABC's "Good Morning America," Diane Sawyer, Elizabeth Vargas and ABC News President David Westin talked about Woodruff's injuries:

SAWYER: "To that point, being in the Iraqi vehicle was part of the story. The story right now is the Iraqi troops traveling with the American troops."

VARGAS: Are they prepared enough to take over the security of Iraq so that American forces can come home? That is the big single issue in Iraq right now, and I covered the story when I was there, Bob was out covering the story. You can't assess their readiness unless you're traveling with them and observing them do their job.

WESTIN: My initial reaction is we've all talked about this as a very real possibility, but this makes it real. I mean, we've talked about it, we knew someone was going to get hurt. We discussed what can we do to try to minimize that risk, how cautious can we be. But now it's really one of us, and two of us, actually. What choice do we have? As long as the United States is over there, and our men and women are over there and they're in harm's way, this is a story we have to...[emphasis added]

Excuse me? The wounding of an American newsman makes it real? So much for the two thousand plus American troops who have given their lives, so much for the thousands of Iraqi's murdered by Al Qaeda and their fellow travelors. That wasn't "REAL." But this is!

Idiots!

The Press - Hoist On Its Own Petard

Scooter Libby is planning to subopena a number of journalists in his defense trial. This poses a series of tough decisions for the press for a number of reasons. Timothy Phelps has a lengthy (but worth the time) article in the Columbia Journalism Review regarding the background of the Plame case, including his own actions and the actions of others.

Of course, as a member of the press, Phelps is not happy about the possibility of two things. One, that Libby may call journalists for testamony, and two, that the press doesn't seem to have the "protections" under the first amendment that it did in the past. Phelps does acknowledge that there are indeed limits on the ability of journalists to protect sources, but decries the lessening of that.

It should be noted that much of the current brouhaha is of the making of the journalism profession. They were less concerned about the "leak" than about (in general) being able to hammer the Bush Administration for wrongs (real or perceived). In fact, two journalists, David Corn (The Nation) and Paul Krugman (The New York Times) raised a big stink about the illegality of "outing" Plame.

Even Phelps says she was in a role "undercover." However, nothing could be further from the truth. Undercover typically means assignment in the field, pretending you are something you are not in order to gather information necessary for our national security. Plame worked in a "secret" department of the Directorate of Operations, but was not "under cover" as she drove to work daily, was doublessly photographed many, many times by our adversaries (who ever they may have been) and even people in her neighborhood knew where she worked. Too, her "cover" had been blown years before and that is why she was pulled from the field.

The press demanded an investigation until finaly, someone in the CIA asked for an investigation. Usually, these requests don't go very far as Phelps acknowledges. This time, however, with the reporters and Democrats up in arms, Gutless Ashcroft recused himself and recused his deputy from looking into the matter and appointed a Special Prosecuter to look into the "outing" of Valarie Plame.

As we know, that investigation went nowhere, despite calls for Karl Rove to be frogmarched out of the White House. Libby in what must have been a non-compos-mentos moment lied about who he talked to or when or under what circumstances and as a result he is up on perjury charges. If found guilty, I hope they throw the book at him. What could he have been thinking?

But, I digress. The issue is that the press, so rabid in their attempts to nail the Bush Administration (and denying that is ludicrous on it's face) is now going to have to testify in the Libby trial. Too damn bad. The old saw that you need to be careful what you ask for, because you may not like what you get couldn't be more apt.

Libby's right to a fair trial trumps, it seems to me, any 1st amendment protection the predatory press has. Phelps may have said it best:

The prosecutor seems to have had the last word about the First Amendment, at least for now. “Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality � no one in America is,� he told Thomas F. Hogan, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Hogan agreed. Of course, we never did have the right to offer complete confidentiality in every circumstance. But as a result of this case and others in the pipeline, the question now is, Can we honestly promise our sources anything?"

A tip of the GM Chapeaux to James Taranto

Press: Clinton Exposed...regarding Iraq, that is.

It's just too bad that we had to invade Iraq under a Republican president. Otherwise, the Commander in Chief would enjoy the support of the predominant media. But, would Clinton have gone into Iraq under similar circumstances as President Bush? Well, here's what some "main stream media" journalists had to say about that in this article and as reported below.

Appearing on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert this week, two broadcast veterans, Tom Brokaw of NBC and Ted Koppel, agreed that the press shouldn't be faulted too harshly for not questioning more deeply the claims of WMD in Iraq -- and declared that Bill Clinton would have gone into Iraq just like George Bush if he was still president after 9/11.

RUSSERT: And (Ted Kennedy and Sen. Byrd) were not questioning whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

BROKAW: No. No. No.

RUSSERT: That seemed to be a uniformly held belief.

BROKAW: Right. Yeah.

KOPPEL: Nor did the Clinton administration beforehand.

BROKAW: No.

KOPPEL: I mean, the only difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration was 9/11.

BROKAW: Right.

KOPPEL: If 9/11 had happened on Bill Clinton's watch, he would have gone into Iraq.

BROKAW: Yeah. Yeah.

I'm sure that there is some explaining or clarification due on this before these two "fine" reporters are ostracized by their fellow journalists. Of course, you would never know that Clinton would have gone into Iraq by the way he speaks now. It sure must be nice to sit on the sidelines making judgements on Iraq and appearing so wise after the fact.

The NYTimes - Not Respectable Anymore

My friend Seth, over at Hard Astarboard is angry at the New York Times, as all thinking individuals are and he links his story to the always interesting Michele Malkin. But, Seth says it better than ever I could:

No, New York Times, We're Not Done With You Yet...
...and we won't be until everybody in America knows what a lying, treasonous, shameless, bogus, idiotarian, leftist propaganda generating, thoroughly liberal-biased source of disinformation you have become, abusing the reputation you earned back in the days when you were a respectable newspaper.

Columnist and blogger extraordinaire Michelle Malkin puts in her two cents, as succinct and on-point as always.

Anyone who thinks the times isn't a biased lefty rag is obviously not a thinking person!

Kids Say the Darndest Things

CNN had a segment regarding gun accidents during hunting. They profiled hunting tragedies of children and were leading the viewers to see all guns and the gun industry as evil. The segment got to an interview with two young girls, ages 12 and 13, who hunted; and, CNN got a startling response that went counter to the image of two sweet girls only interested in boys and hanging out. Here's part of the transcript and imagine the two young girls' voices in this exchange.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Now, hunting, of course, has been a part of American culture from the start. And most hunters never get hurt, of course. But what you may know is that fewer children are taking it up. That has the hunting industry worried, and, in -- in fact, trying to recruit more kids to carry guns and join the hunt.

Here's Jonathan Freed.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JONATHAN FREED, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Before dawn on the plains of Montana, it's cold, and so is Danielle Faechner. She's a bit sleepy, too.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go right down the fence line. There's two deer standing down there.

FREED: But it doesn't matter, because Danielle is being driven by the excitement of a rite of passage. She recently turned 12 and can now hunt legally in the state, along with her father, Steve, and her 13-year-old sister, Serena.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: See the deer. You see the white spot?

FREED: They are stalking deer.

...UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you see it?

FREED: This time, it's big sister Serena who ends up making a kill...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You got him.

...FREED (on camera): There are a lot of people who, you know, their -- their biggest thing that they are waiting for is to get their driver's license. That's next, I'm guessing, for the two of you.

SERENA FAECHNER, 13-YEAR-OLD HUNTER: I want that, too, yes. It would be nice.

(LAUGHTER)

FREED: But if you had to choose between the two?

S. FAECHNER: I would choose hunting.

D. FAECHNER: You can't eat a car. You can eat a deer.

(LAUGHTER)

...FREED (voice-over): Jonathan Freed, CNN, Havre, Montana.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

I love it. Of course, CNN wants to present the image that teaching kids to hunt is bad, but it seems that these kids have more sense than the network. Tomorrow, they should have a segment on kids using guns to deter burglars.

Do Flame Wars Contribute To Global Warming, Are Paul and York Environmentally Sound? Tune In Beloved Readers

Flame War! Wikipedia defines flaming as: "The motive for flaming is often not dialectic, but rather social or psychological. Sometimes, flamers are attempting to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority.?" And so it is. On the other hand, we at GM's Corner are not about to let challenges go unanswered because to do so merely encourages the scoundrels (was that necessary?... ed... Probably not, but when I have an itch I scratch it... GM)

Yes, by all means let's talk about Mark A. York's qualifications. First, he is as narcissistic as John "Do you know who I am?" Kerry. Mark brags about "endangered fisheries." This of course he means to imply that he is fighting to save, as he once published in the "DailySundial" wild salmon. But fisheries is defined as:

The industry or occupation devoted to the catching, processing, or selling of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic animals.
A place where fish or other aquatic animals are caught.
A fishing business.
A hatchery for fish.
The legal right to fish in specified waters or areas.

Hah, this guy has a bachelors degree in journalism Not biology, if he has any biology at all, it is as a minor and that requirement is only 18 hours. Furthermore, according to his book, he was a GS-4 Technician.... The lowest of the low, the least qualified of the qualified, so low that a degreed person with NO experience was placed over him in his sojourn to the ANWR and that his work was seasonal. Oh, and his lifetime of environmental work... hmmm, according to his own words (he published this remember): he spent 17 years as a construction worker going from "the kid who always got beat up to the terminator." as he protected the others in his fisheries crew from having to deal with the "tough" oil field hands.

Oh, by the way, that's from his book "Against A Strong Current and you can find an excerpt here: Chapter 7. Interesting book by all accounts... NOT!

Actually, this book is sent to an electronic publisher, not accepted for mass publication by an “accepted publisher�, but printed on order by Xlibris Corp a vanity type press and he rails against Woody and me for unsourced material but where we weren’t being humorous, we sourced just fine. Oh, and by the way, Mark has a screed against the vanity press here: July, 07 which when you read it is hilarious; this guy has more bathos than the Marx Brothers. But I digress, here is a "review" of York's Against A Strong Current:

Refreshingly objective and candid nonfiction concerning an issue at the core of our very existence-the environment.

While others turn a blind eye or are swayed by the powers that be seeking to exploit the
planet, the author is a fearless champion for the planet as evidenced also by the conditions he braves on his quest. [emphasis added, but I couldn’t help myself my gawd, this guy is overweening]

At the core of our very existence. Lion's and Tigers and Bears Oh My!!

That review is a little over the top and I have absolutely no doubt that York himself wrote it using a fake ID for the purpose. However there are two other reviews which kind of put York in his place:

Sorry Mark, but this book needs some first aid. I decided to read it after reading the author's comments in a Rick Bass review. It reads like a stump-filled hillside, slipping, tripping, and falling all over the place. There is no sense that it was edited; there are misspellings, frags, story lines smashed to bits. Descriptions of the beautiful areas are adjective-free. There is also a lot of what I sense as " doesn't play well with others." I'll stop here.............

and

this book lacked any sort of editing on the author's part. seeing as the book was published with Print On Demand technology, he had no editor. It seems like he wrote this in a week -- maybe two -- tops, then just handed it in. Couldn't believe the horrible editing.

Editing makes a book hard to read, skimming over all those errors. Sigh.

Hey, i tried to read it. But... it was just so bland and awful - and that's editing aside.

Atta boy York, slammed twice for your hubris. However, our intrepid enviro-warrior doesn't quit, I'll give him that. Take a look at the sites he has been banned at beginning with mine (yet, he continues to come around). Also here (Roger Simon) and here (Done Deal) here (Press Think - 2 times no less). He claimed to be a "pen pal of sorts" with Bill Clinton He was kicked out of Yahoo Groups. Lastly, and then I'll quit because I really hate having a battle of wits with York when it is so obvious that he is half armed; York was banned from my blog for the use of foul language. He claims he didn't use anything stronger than "ass" and, unfortunately I deleted all the really vile language and York knows it. Unfortnately for York, the net is full of his postings and he typically and usually gets frustrated (low frustration tolerance is a hallmark of lefty trolls) and posts something like this [WARNING - strong language follows]

How pathetic do you have to to (sic) fixate on one website to get control for your sick ideas you ignorant shithead. I’ll tell you what Timo if I could get a hold [of] your sick neck it would be broken. Now that’s a promise you fvcking (sic) ad hom (sic) machine. Is it true because the credential-less tim-troll says it? LOL! What a dickhead. You scared little twit.

with all those misspellings this guy purports to have a degree in journalism? "Ass" indeed! "... doesn't play well with others." I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Which brings us to Randy Paul’s entry in the flame wars. Paul advertises his blog as “A Proud Member Of The Reality Based Community.� Oh my! He congratulates York here:

I thought that I would comment on this bizarre post attempting - with the aid of a right-wing think tank no less - (talk about aiming low and still missing your target) to refute claims that global warming is real, but someone beat me to it and did it well.

Paul goes on to say “here’s a little something about their source� and references a coal baron (one would assume) by the name of S. Fred Singer. Only one problem Paul, I didn’t reference Singer in a realistic post or any other post that I could find so I have no idea where you came up with it. And your reference of York’s post was in reference to my post. Paul, you really need to get a real life. Further, if you were really going to debunk the articles I posted on, then by all means do so, but be sure to cite your sources, not your fevered imagination.

OK, let’s go on to Paul’s qualifications in this little bit of byte-drama. Paul has a … are you ready… degree in F….I….L….M! There you have it boys and girls. A degree in film and a good deal of knowledge about south and central America. That’s it. OK, not quite it. In his next sentence he “proves� that Woody is all wet regarding the cost of removing CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels with that paragon of scientific journals (you know, the one that York always champions) THE … again… ready… here it comes…. a NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL…. Well, I’m sure castigated. Gawrsh as Goofy would say!

Well, the editorial does in fact say that removing CO2 would only be “$1.00 per ton� Only one problem, and that is the number of tons produced worldwide in a ten year period from 1994 through 2003 (and we are using those figures because that is what we will have to pay over the next 10 years if we start on Jan. 1, 2006… let’s see… it’s about 465,528.69 MILLION METRIC TONNES at one dollar per ton (and remember, a metric tonne weighs 2, 200 pounds whereas a ton weighs only 2000 pounds, so a metric ton is about 10% larger. Having said that, and even converting metric tones to standard tons we are talking about $512,081,559,000.00 we are talking about 512 billion dollars; you don't think you will feel that in your pocketbook?. Oh, and Paul, York, that figure is from YOUR guys… the ones that you say BELIEVE in GW.

Paul’s parting comment is “If you can't get the truth behind them they just make things up.� Paul, I propose that reducing the cost to only one ton and hiding the total number of tons is making things up.

But you see, radical out in left field lefties like Paul and Mark are all about that; scare, fear mongering and popular pablum; about purporting theory as fact (actually, to the amusement of all and sundry, that fellow York actually said "A theory in science is indeed fact." I'm surprised he graduated with that kind of thinking... all of my professors would have flunked me if I held that view. Then again, I went to a real university. and have more than 60 graduate hours with a 3.75 GPA, I'm a member of a national honor society as well. York on the other hand, maintained that grades of well, mediocre at best ) and their proposed solutions are the only hope of mankind. Well, remember global winter, the next ice age, how silicone implants caused all kinds of medical problems, how electric transmission lines caused cancer and other dire threats from magnetic currents (which is all the rage now, wearing magnets that is), how cell phones would give you brain tumors in a relatively short time… all debunked, but all part of the fear mongering and the cost of finding out that it was fear mongering was staggering. Dow Corning went bankrupt and spent over 3 billion dollars for the privilege, we spent well over 25 billion on powerline research, money that could have helped an awful lot of kids who were hungry, or a lot of treatment for aids victims in Africa or even on honest climate research. Reality based community indeed.

Update: Some of my readers have gone to leave comments at York's site. He banned them! Bwahahahaha!!! Oh Mark, you are such a dweeb!

Dr. Sanity - A Post Worth Reading

I have a friend. She has been my friend for almost a full year now and she is a blogger like myself. Her name is Pat Santy and she writes the blog Dr. Sanity. Dr. Pat is a practicing psychiatrist and is, like me, conservative. She authors a weekly post called the Carnival of the Insanities and has featured a post or two of mine over the last year.

But that is not the reason for this post. The reason for this post is that she won the Watcher's Council weekly "post of the week" with this post: "The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Left" and what a post it is. If my readers don't immediately click on the link and read it, then they aren't as smart as I think they are.

Dr. Sanity (her nom de plume or nom de pixel as it may be) also nominated this post of mine for the non-council post of the week but I didn't win. Who won was Stephen Green's Brilliant essay "The Arm of Decision", and folks, I gotta tell ya, I would have voted for the VodkaPundit myself on this weeks essays and if you don't go read that one, again you are not as smart as I think you are.

So, my deepest thanks to Dr. Sanity for the nomination, but more importantly my deepest congratulations too both authors for absolutely brilliant posts.

Need MORE Proof?

I have complained long and hard about the lies of the MSM and the totally dishonest twisting of facts (when they don't just leave facts out) and making up stories out of whole cloth. I've provided examples of the chicanery of the MSM, especially the NYTimes, LA Times and Washington Post. Now, there is a really great story on how the NYTimes just can't help themselves when it comes to "the lie."
The Mudville Gazette

IPSO-FACTO, New Cartoon Blog

Cruisin just yesterday, I came across Ipso Facto, a Cartoon Blog by Mike Wallster. Mike used to dream of becoming a cartoonist, but for some reason gave it up some 20 or so years ago. Recently, he decided to start a cartoon blog and I'm glad he did. He's been picked up by LGF and by Michele Malkin, good starts in any book. Welcome to the Blogosphere Mike!

I hope everyone will bookmark Ipso Facto... I have and plan to check it out daily with my two other "cartoon" blogs, Day by Day and Cox and Forkum.

Racism - Plain and Simple

Blogs come in all shapes, sizes, colors. All philosophies are represented, and in some blogs, no philosophy is postulated being blogs about food, cars, cats, dogs, birds, planets, UFO's etc., etc.

GM's Corner is, if you haven't guessed already, primarily a political blog, one with a decided conservative point of view. I do fairly well in terms of hits/visits, comments. Much better than some blogs, not nearly as successful (or as prolific) as other blogs. I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and so does my blogging partner Woody!

My beloved uncle disagrees with me about lot's of things, my beloved aunt agrees with me. My daughter mostly agrees with me. Most of my readers agree with me, some don't, and I cherish most of their views, contrarian or not, anyway.

However, I think that everyone will agree that the photo below this paragraph is totally and unequivically racist and shameful and obnoxious and tacky and unbelievable in that someone would actually put it up on the internet. The photograph is a doctored photo of Michael Steele, Lt. Governor of Maryland who recently announced his candidacy for the United States Senate as a Republican. The author of this "photo" calls himself a progressive and say's he "fights back" (presumably against conservatives). Well, this ain't fighting, this is racism plain and simple in the worst traditions of the old south, of the Klan and of a day gone, but not forgotten and for damn sure not mourned.

Here is the photo---you be the judge.

The Evil Condi Controversy: A RA^THER GATE TYPE EXPOSE'

Michele Malkin, God Bless Her Soul, noticed a photograph (on the left here) of Condoleezza Rice that was published in USA today. The photo really looks evil with those eyes glaring out from under that classic forehead. Malkin, always alert, thought there was something fishy and went in search of perhaps a different photo and came up with this one:

And I'd say that this is a big difference (and no, I'm not referring to the size of the photo.)



As she blogged about the obvious "editing" of the photograph, the blogosphere picked up on the story and lo and behold USA withdrew the "doctored" photo and said:

Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards."

Brightness huh? Sharpness huh? Well, being the type of fellow I am, and enjoying working with Photoshop Elements 2.0 as I do (and I'm testing 4.0 for the fun of it who knows, I may even buy it) I decided to see if my meager skills with photoshop could "sharpen and brighten" Ms. Rice and get the same evil-eyed effect. Here is the second photo "brightened" with a technique called fillflash, what USA said they did.

It does have them 'ole evil eyes don't it... NOT!!!! This photo was retouched using fill flash of about +10 on the scale of the fillflash technique. Much better than the original above, but still no evil eyes. So, now we have to try and "sharpen" the same photo with fillflash to produce them 'ole evil eyes.

Well, with the edges sharpened and a little fill flash, she looks a mite angrier, but she for sure doesn't look like the photo at the top.

This is my last submission, it looks MUCH more like the initial photo. It was done by changing the pixels in the photos at the eyes. I'm not really good at the skill needed for half tones, but given time, I'm pretty sure I could have almost exactly reproduced the very top photo, or one damn near like it.

I have no expectations that this will prove a "smoking gun" like they did with the non-memos of Ra^therGate but I think it does prove that the MSM is full of crap and they think they can get away with all kinds of things (and, before blogs, they could to be honest.) But, not this time folks, not this time.

Tip of the GM Chapeaux to Sissy Willis

UPDATE: Discussed this photo with a friend this morning (10/27/05) and he commented, "Hey George, and you are an amateur at photoshop." Yeah, I am, and if I could do this, a pro ought to be able to do much better. But the USAToday pro got caught because of us pajama-clad amateurs.

And They Say The MSM Isn't Biased

Kinda speaks for it'self doesn't it?

With a tip of the GM Chapeaux to No Pasaran

Media "Scrapes Bottom" - A Flood of Bias, Not Water

I would say that the media has sunk to a new low, but it's hard to sink when the reporter sits in a canoe in only inches of water--trying to hype a "deep" flood, caused by Bush and global warming no doubt. However, the illusion was spoiled by two people walking into her story.

The Today Show Stages Flood Report in New Jersey

On the Today show this morning, Katie Couric was promoting a segment that would talk about the apparent staged inteview with soldiers in Iraq. A few moments later the show went to correspondent Michelle Kosinski, reporting on location about the floods in New Jersey. Kosinski was canoeing in what looked to be in deep water. However as the segment begin two men walked in front of her in what looked to be a few inches of water.

Federal agencies obviously failed to come to her rescue, and it's only a matter of time before the left claims that it's because President Bush wants reporters to die. Be sure to go to the link in the title above the picture and watch their video of the reporter moving the canoe by pushing her paddle into the ground. It's great!

Are you surprised that the network was going to slam a "staged event" by the military, even though it got caught in its own staging? Maybe they will end up in deep water, after all. Isn't the hypocrisy of the media wonderful?

The Hack That Was Krugman

Noting that Paul Krugman did NOT win a Nobel Prize in Economics, and that his antithesis Thomas C. Schelling did, Donald Luskin tells about it and pointedly points out:

KRUGMAN IGNOBEL ONCE AGAIN Once again Paul Krugman has failed to win the Nobel Prize in economics. This year's winners are Robert J. Aumann and Thomas C. Schelling, "for having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis." Why them, and not Krugman? One clue is Aumann's academic affiliation. He is with the Center for Rationality at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Krugman isn't at the center of anything. And he has nothing to do with rationality."

And, to Think that This Man Was Almost President

- Text of Al Gore Speech at Media Conference in NY, Oct 06, 2005

Excerpted with Emphasis Added:

I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions.

How many of you, I wonder, have heard a friend or a family member in the last few years remark that it's almost as if America has entered "an alternate universe"?

(Ramblings at this point, primarily attacking television to set up his pitch for the Al Gore network.)

And here is my point: it is the destruction of that marketplace of ideas that accounts for the "strangeness" that now continually haunts our efforts to reason together about the choices we must make as a nation.

...in 1987, ...Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves.

As recently stated by Dan Rather - who was, of course, forced out of his anchor job after angering the White House - television news has been "dumbed down and tarted up."

...it is television delivered over cable and satellite that will continue for the remainder of this decade and probably the next to be the dominant medium of communication in America's democracy. And so long as that is the case, I truly believe that America's democracy is at grave risk.

You got that? Makes you want to go, "hmmmmmmmmmmmmm." You should have heard the audio of this. Weird. This man is from another planet and makes me feel as if I'm in an "alternate universe."

500 JOBS???? GONE???? What about caring about the little guy????

The Headline reads "NY Times Cutting 500 Jobs, 4 Percent Of Work Force." Of course, my partner in blog-crime Woody thinks the NYTimes is doing this just to hurt Bush's "jobs numbers." Woody, NOTHING the NY Times does would surprise me. Absolutely NOTHING (except maybe to report the news without a left leaning bias). Click on the link to read the whole story.

NY Times Cutting 500 Jobs, 4 Percent Of Work Force

I don't suppose we would be lucky enough to have Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert included in that count would we?

CNN Coaches Reporters and Guests to "Get Angry" with Bush

The Drudge Report blew the whistle on CNN, which is manipulating reactions of its reporters and guests. CNN has been coaching guests and commentators to "get angry" over the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Why would they do that, and is it proper for a news network to fabricate angry reactions to a disaster? Isn't this making up a story--or, could we say that "the reactions, while fake, are accurate" similar to "the documents while fake, are accurate."

Before I knew the reasons, I wondered why CNN's Anderson Cooper was going way over the top with his outrage and rants. Cooper's reporting became so bad and obnoxious that I started switching channels whenever he was put on the air. Of course, all of this is clearer now--and, I consider manipulation of the news by the media as unacceptable from professional and ethical standpoints.

The Washington Times reported this as follows, which provides more explanation and motives:

Twisting the news Los Angeles Times pundit Michael Kinsley, who used to work for CNN, says the network is coaching guests to 'get angry' when they go on the air to discuss Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Kinsley said...'A Los Angeles Times colleague of mine, appearing on CNN last week to talk about Katrina, was told by a producer to "get angry."' CNN's political stance was more or less confirmed by a New York Times article yesterday that suggested CNN host Anderson Cooper was heroic for scolding a Democratic senator who failed to condemn the Bush administration.

(Footnote Update: Subsequent to his statement above, Michael Kinsley has been forced out at the Los Angeles Times.)

Others that have explored this CNN strategy, from both sides, include Trey Jackson and Power Line on the right and Slate, Crooks and Liars, and Reality Based Nation on the left. You can scan them to see which sources best identify with your values.

So, what will CNN say or do about this? Likely, nothing. But, that didn't stop me from expressing my displeasure about its breach of trust and unethical conduct, and I let them know. Unlike CNN, I'm not suggesting that you "get angry," but if you feel upset or disappointed by this news source that you thought that you could trust, then you can let them know by going to the CNN site for comments and feedback. It might make you feel better to express your views to them and it might, just might, influence how they report in the future.

CNN should know that instructions to reporters to act angry might have the effect of making viewers angry.

Oldest Woman Dies - Can Press Bash U.S. in Report?

In June, we covered the 115th birthday of the world's oldest woman, noting that the occasion was punctuated with a snide remark from a Reuters reporter that ..."Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee.", (as if that had anything to do with the story.) Well, today we have some bad news and some good news, but let's help the press report it in a positive tone.

The bad news is that this lady passed away early this morning in her sleep. The director of her retirement home said, "She was very clear mentally right up to the end, but the physical ailments were increasing." May she rest in peace. Now, the good news is that she passed away on the very date in 1645 that "American Indians and the Dutch made a peace treaty at New Amsterdam. New Amsterdam later became known as New York."

So, if the press marked her birth by noting a bad time in Indian relations, it can now mark her passing with good news in Indian relations, in that she passed away on the same date that the Indians and Dutch settlers negotiated peace in their time and for future colonists. It just seems fitting.

Sports Pages - Give me the Scores and Skip the PC

Sports pages are supposed to give you scores and standings, describe the highlights of the last game, and give you some insight into the one coming up. A special story about a hometown player or occasional controversy is good, too. What's not good is taking up perfectly good space and leaving out good information to cater to the PC crowd and people with little interest in athletics. So, here's a message to America's newspaper editors: "Leave the sports pages alone!"

Today, the Project for Excellence in Journalism issued a study on America's sports pages and found the following:

The sports sections of America’s newspapers are a passive and reactive space, one dominated by game previews and recaps with little room for enterprise reportage. ...this traditional formula still raises some journalistic issues, particularly about what is absent. The range of subject matter is narrow and the coverage of those subjects is similarly limited in voice, style and viewpoint.

Fine...that's what we want. Keep it that way and don't make it worse. Don't get me wrong. There is a place for issues such as women's sports, minority issues, Kobe Bryant, and Title IX--but, don't overdo it. It frustrates me when I'm looking for some ball scores that the paper left out because it wanted room for some social issue or a women's sport that three people won't read about. Oh, I like some women's sports. For instance, I like to watch her and her and to read this. I'm fair minded.

The study goes on to make some conclusions that I believe are false, but it's written by journalists and not sports fans, so that's expected. While the researchers cannot pinpoint reasons for the sports page formula, they hypothesize that readers just want it that way. Yep.

Fortunately, almost in resignation, the study concludes:

America’s sports pages are a lot like a comfortable bar or restaurant you go to before or after the game. You know what you are going to get and it’s not going to be spoiled by the latest fad, but you’re also not going to see a lot of change on the menu.

And, to that, I say "thank goodness and amen."

So, editors, quit conducting studies and listen to your customers. You can mess up the front page, editorial pages, and even the comics--but leave the sports pages to what sports fans want. Let the sports section be written by people who care about sports and know something about sports. Got it? If you can learn to stick to the facts and give your readers what they want in the sports section, then next try to do it with the rest of your paper.

Now, let's get ready for baseball's stretch and post season and the start of football season.

The Issue Is Freedom Of Speech

You can pick almost any quote from a far left individual who claims to be from the "Reality Based Community" which, as every thinking individual knows is a codeword for radical left, and you will find a fairyland, populated by Republican Trolls, Dragons, Castles, Evil Wizards named Karl etc.

An example:

1) It was criminal for Cindy Sheehan’s son to die for Israel rather than for the true interests of America.

From the beginning, this war was orchestrated from top to bottom by Jewish Neocons that saw the war as one for Israel’s strategic objectives. They ramped up the war through Jews such as Perle and Wolfowitz, the false intelligence through CIA analyst Stuart Cohen and by Israel’s Mossad, and had a compliant Jewish-dominated media to cheer on the war. The truth is the Iraq War has inflicted incredible damage on America and the American people. It is war against America rather than in defense of America.

2) It was criminal to send her son to die for a lie.

There were no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program, no uranium from Niger, no links with Al Qaeda, no imminent threat to the American people. Every reason the American people were given for going to war has turned out to be a lie.

3) It is criminal for her son to be forced to die for democracy in other countries.

If Americans were sent to die for democracy or justice in all the countries of the world we deem unjust or undemocratic, then we must be ready to send millions of our sons and daughters to war all over the globe.

4) The lie that her son died for the good of the Iraqi People is false on its face.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraq men women and children have been killed, injured, made homeless and suffered from this war. You don’t save people by destroying their homes and hospitals, and throwing their country in chaos.

5) The Iraq war and her son’s death did not defend American from hatred or terrorism.

In fact, the war is massively increasing hatred and terrorism. For every one terrorist killed in Iraq, we are creating thousands more who hate and want to hurt America and Americans. This is the surest way to lose the war on terror not win it.

6) Cindy Sheehan’s son died for no true interest for the American people.

It has secured us no new or cheaper oil, it has cost a national treasure of hundreds of billions of dollars, it has alienated friends and allies, it has hurt American business around the world, it has separated and caused hardship upon millions of American military and National Guard families. It has killed almost 2000 and maimed tens of thousands of loyal and brave Americans who do their duty in Iraq. Again, this is war against every true interest of the America. The only nation that benefits from it is Israel!

A confession, that is not from the "reality" based community; that is from David Duke. However, given the CONTENT of the speech, the meaning associated with those words, one could reasonably assume that those very words came from the radical left.

I can only assume that those supporting Cindy Sheehan on the left must be severely nauseated to think that a Klansman is hawking the same drivel that they are. Do you think that they will be willing to stand up to Duke and say, "We don't want you in our movement!" If so, I've not seen any evidence of it. Therefore, can we reasonably assume that the left is practicing "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. In addition, while there are no limits on speech, other than things such as not yelling fire in a theater, incitement to riot, etc., etc., we are free to say what we want, when we want, and how we want to say it. This includes calling the President a murderer, burning the Flag of The United States; all these forms are protected.

But that doesn't mean that there are no consequences for speech. I'm free to call you an idiot if you make speech sounds that I don't like. I am free to say "You sir, are deranged." when your speech seems way out in left field.

I have noticed that speech, like any freedom can be abused, even though it may not be illegal it can be disconcerting. I have a rule on my blog regarding the use of foul language. The rule is:

There will be no swearing, invective (look it up), or ad homonym attacks of a juvenile nature (see below for what I mean by "juvenile nature") in the comments here, either directed at me or at another commenter.

Yet, there have been a couple of interlopers that have tried to measure my patience and have found that I really meant what I say. Another rule for commenting on my blog is:

The First Amendment protects my right to speak on this site, not yours. The amendment prohibits government from infringing on my right of free expression. On this blog, your expression is a privilege. On your own blog, your expression is a right. Learn the distinction."

You see, there really are limits to the First Amendment. In general, I’m free to say what I like, you don’t have to agree with me, but you can’t restrict my freedom to say it. Cindy Sheehan has exercised that right to the utmost in the silliest, most juvenile, most pitiful way I can imagine. The media who have given her a stage has also contributed to that silliness. My heart goes out to any mom, dad, brother, sister who has lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan. It must be terrible. I remember the fear when my dad was fighting in Korea and in Vietnam. Thank God he wasn’t killed, though very many brave men and women were. When I was in the Army, I told my family to celebrate if I were killed in war, celebrate my life, not mourn my death. Like other things, I doubt if they would have listened to me, but I felt the need to say it none-the-less.

And that brings me back to Ms. Sheehan. I cannot and will not tell her how to grieve, but it seems to me that if this were really about her son, there would have been more of that, and less of the circus that we saw. Daniel Henninger writing in Friday’s Wall Street Journal says it pretty well:

Cindy Sheehan may grow into the most potent Media Mom yet. In this version of the parade, the Cindy balloon is doing battle with the President Bush balloon. One side wants to make the Cindy balloon bigger, while the other wants to blow a hole in it.

"Go, Cindy, go. You're the one. Stop this criminal and his insane war."

"Cindy, go away. You're a left-wing nut babbling, 'I want to put this war on trial.'"

The ethereal Cindy floats past every night on three channels. So much is happening all around her at Camp Cindy in the Crawford ditch. Two nights ago, hundreds of pro-Cindy "vigils" were held across the country, organized largely by MoveOn.org.

Probably Cindy is getting what she wants, but this Media-Mom event may be taking the country to a place it should want to avoid, whatever one's views on the war.

Losing a son in war and simultaneously losing perhaps half the nation's sympathy is quite an accomplishment, but that's the way it works now. Modern media has become an either/or, for-or-against world. They create Media Moms because Moms are sympathetic figures. But ultimately the audience in the new electronic Colosseum--a video-game experience for couch potatoes--turns thumbs up or down on most of these Moms. After a few weeks, people were either rooting for Terri Schiavo's desperate Mom or saying she should shut up and go away. How edifying.

Which brings us to the end. If you want your speech to be heard, to be acted on, to be listened to with thoughtfulness, then you need only do one thing; try to be reasonable, let go of the hate, let go of the antagonism. Of course, I doubt if the left will hear me, they seem too invested in what they are doing. And of course, some would say that many on the far right won’t heed this message. That’s OK, I have the right to say it, I have no right to make anyone listen.

Busting Liberal Media Bias - Launch of NewsBusters

Years ago, we had to wait for Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather to come on the air before we could get the latest liberal media bias--only they called it news. Most news was one-sided and journalists seemed to have a code of protecting their own, making it worse. In 1987, the Media Research Center (MRC) was launched "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media." They must be doing a good job because all the liberals that I know hate it. Now, the MRC has kicked it up a notch by introducing a new site, NewsBusters, which shines immediate light on media bias--meaning that you don't have to wait all day to discover the latest on how the press is misleading the public.

This week, the Media Research Center launched a new Web site, NewsBusters.org, a blog site designed to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism, and timely corrections to news media reporting. Joining the MRC in this project are Matt and Greg Sheffield, the brothers who ran the highly successful RatherBiased.com Web site that became a must-visit clearinghouse of information about the disgraced ex-CBS anchor’s skewed reporting.

With an army of bloggers � including both MRC’s team of news analysts and a wide array of independent contributors � there is already a wealth of material at NewsBusters.org, including careful transcripts of news broadcasts and provocative commentary.

This is an example from today. You have to read it to enjoy the bias and hypocrisy.
"Washington Post Pulls Support for Freedom Walk; Afraid of 'Bias'"

The site is new, but it shows a lot of promise and will be a good reference site whenever you feel the urge the trust the liberal media.

Reflections On A Theme: Cindy Sheehan's Protest

It is very hard to feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan since she has alligned herself with the radical left. I do feel for her but it is getting increasingly difficult. Recently, Sheehan has been quoted saying:

You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism."

Sheehan, not satisfied with her first meeting with President Bush is demanding a second meeting and she says defiantly:

My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."

She is also quoted as saying:

And now I'm going to use another 'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail."

No one can doubt the grief and dispair of any parent loosing a child, and too many parents over too many wars have shared that grief. Sometimes the war was strongly supported as in World War II, sometimes not as in the current conflict in Iraq. What the political differences are, however, are overshadowed by the grief shared by everyone who has lost a son, a husband, a father, a wife, daughter, mother.

Robert Jones, writing at Conservative Punk has written a piece called Mama's Boy and in it, regarding Ms. Sheehan he says:

The question here is: Why parade Cindy Sheehan and her pitiable pieta for all the world to gape, throw brickbats and dissect a war half a world away?

“Don’t bother to examine a folly,� exclaimed Ayn Rand's villain extraordinaire, Ellsworth Toohey, “ask only what it accomplishes.�

Is there anybody out there who honestly believes that Cindy Sheehan has offered one new word of evidence or argument to help buttress the left’s case against the war? I doubt that even among Mrs. Sheehan’s closest handlers there’s anyone who would think to use her shopworn clichés to close their case. I think it’s safe to say that she isn’t exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer."

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Well, what could be plainer. Sheehan is accusing Israel of being behind the terror, of it being a war for oil, of Bush "killing" her son. War for Oil? Gads, Sheehan, have you looked at the gas pumps recently?

Jones follows the above with:

Cindy Sheehan’s strident vigil is about her son the way World War I was about the assassination of an archduke in Sarajevo.

"What is going largely unsaid about the Sheehan media circus is the fact that the far-left has run out of arguments. At least when they repeated the “no WMD� mantra draped in multi-syllabic verbiage and run-on non-sequitur, their Big Lie attempts to sway public opinion took place under the cover of pseudo-intellectualism.

"They bankrolled a charlatan of a documentary film director to concoct a hit piece based on half-truths, innuendo and sleight-of-hand montage and those red state idiots still voted for Dubya!

"The left still find themselves at an impasse. When argumentation – and such shoddy and dishonest argumentation at that – fails, it’s time to turn on the tears and pull out the Kleenex."

Jones ends with:

I don’t need to repeat to you the left’s oft-asserted plea to “just bring home the troops.� Such notions of victory and honor aren’t to be found in their loser lexicon – “Just Bring Them Home!�

"Whom do they intend to sway the American public to bring home? Dedicated men and women who bravely face peril daily, but nonetheless put their lives on the line to build a democracy for a nation of souls who’ve never known freedom?

"Based on the 24/7 quagmire coverage, I doubt it.

"No, they intend to bring home Mrs. Sheehan’s boy, little Casey, the young kid who got suckered in to fighting W’s immoral war.

"And all those other mothers’ boys.

"Men are sentient beings with free will and agency. But, by infantilizing the American soldier, Marine, sailor and airman, the media have deftly turned the Commander in Chief into a child-murderer.

"And, the people who buy this line – what are we to think of them? Are we to leave the fate of our fighting men and women in the hands of grown-ups, such as the adults who run the Department of Defense?

"Or, are we to leave them at the mercy of the self-satisfied media elites, who condescend to and patronize our service members? And who insult our heroes, by painting them as naïve children who only know how to take orders.

"Has it not ever occurred to these Philistines that if we bring our troops home in the shameful ignominy of defeatism that we make our nation and our allies more vulnerable to attack? Must we send division after division overseas only to bring them back based upon the ephemeral inanity of poll numbers? And then, send them back to clean up the mess they should've in the first place?

"Those were rhetorical questions, of course: Most of the left know the consequences of their agenda. Truth be told, they don't give a rat's ass about our soldiers. The only use they have for our troops is to use them as a cat's paw to try to sabotage President Bush.

"Let us not insult and defame the memory of Specialist Casey Sheehan. He very well may have entered the U.S. Army as a boy. But, that troop who answered the call to protect his fellow soldiers in harm’s way – he was a man.

"It’s time for Cindy Sheehan to cut the apron strings."

Robert Jones has written a powerful indictment of the media, the left, and the naysayers. I hope he wins lot's of awards for this, he deserves it.

But I'm still stuck with the WHO, the WHY and the WHAT is the matter with these people? The who is fairly easy, we have seen multiple reports of the instigation by Markos M of The Daily Kos, by George Lakoff scripting a new "Framing" of the debate. In this, Jones is absolutely correct, having lost the war of words and honest disagreement (see my article on Acquired/Induced Bush Derangement Syndrome here), they are re-framing the argument as "W killing the children." Added to the WHO we find our old groody friend Michael Moore. Pardon My English says it pretty well:

So I went to MichaelMoore.com and found that the majority of the home page was dedicated to Cindy Sheehan so I figure there must be a hell of a connection.

"When I say "dedicated to Cindy Sheehan" I mean just that. There is not a mention of her brave son Casey anywhere on the page. There isn't a mention of ANY of the brave soldiers who have fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan except for the liberal boast that one died used as anti-war propaganda. This whole protest and the shameless media engorgement with it has nothing at all to do with our brave soldiers and their sacrifice. It's all about Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore and the media and Moore's exploitation of Sheehan and her cause for their own selfish political interests: Get us out of the war at all costs and if possible, get George W. Bush run out of Washington on a rail."

The WHY is a little more complicated, because this involves motives and peoples motives are always a little hard to discern because we cannot see their thinking, we can only see their actions. In fact, we can never tell what another person is thinking, we can only observe what they do. In this case, the WHY is predicated on the media circus that media whores such as Moore, Kos, Lakoff and others in the prostitution of Cindy Sheehan to meet their own political ends. Media Whore is pretty strong, but I think it is pretty accurate. Of course it is a strictly negative connotation and so I apologize to those who earn honest livings on their backs for comparing these media whores to them.

Jones again has it pegged correctly with his bringing up the circus that this has become, not out of respect for Casey Sheehan, but for gain on the back of a mother's grief.

Lastly, we come to the What Is The Matter With These People? That one is relatively easy too. These people are deranged, specifically, they are afflicted with Charles Krauthammer's Bush Derangement Syndrome and as such, they treat others (Bush in particular, conservatives, republicans and red-staters in general) in ways that they would never contenance treating their own family, unless of course the said family member was a conservative, republican or a dreaded red-stater. Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is far more insidious than was Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and that was bad enough.

Perhaps, these folk and I'm referring specifically to the media whores supporting and encouraging a grieving mother in her delusional thinking (yes, delusional, more about that in another post) truly believe that they are on a mission from God. But most of them don't really buy into all that religious stuff. Perhaps they believe that after so many years of inept conservatism and them being the "powers that be" that now that the conservatives are the "powers that be" they must plot and scheme to take back the reigns of power. It doesn't occur to them (the left) that America kicked them out for a reason. No, not only doesn't it occur to them, it wouldn't occur to them.

Too many of the left are so filled with a narcissistic belief that they are the only ones that can "rule" that they have lost all ability to reason. I remember when Clinton was President, some of the foul language used by those on the right. But, as bad as that was, it doesn't come near to the strength of the foulness seen today. And, please note, I'm not talking about all of the left, and I'm not talking about those that see themselves as being slightly liberal. I'm referring only to those who's hatred of Bush cause them to be irrational, intemperate and behave in ways they would surely paddle their own kids butts if they behaved in a similar fashion.

Update, via Dawn Patroll and Mrs. Greyhawk in The Mudville Gazette a report in Newsweek:

It does not appear that the White House or the military makes any effort to screen out dissenters or embittered families, though some families decline the invitation to meet with Bush. Most families encourage the president to stay the course in Iraq. "To oppose something my husband lost his life for would be a betrayal," says Inge Colton, whose husband, Shane, died in April 2004 when his Apache helicopter was shot down over Baghdad.

I predict that attempts to prove Bush an inhuman monster vis-a-vis Cindy Sheehan will backfire on the MSM and the radical left.

Update: Welcome Instapundit and Mudville Gazette readers, feel free to leave a comment, agree, disagree or just a plain 'ole comment. Be respectful of others though.

Update: Chrenkoff has responses of other families that have lost a loved one in Iraq. A must read

NY Times Seeks Dirt on Judge Roberts' Adoptions - For the Children?

The "New York Times", so desperate to derail the confirmation of a (gasp) conservative Supreme Court appointee, has now lowered itself to investigating the adoption of the two children by John Roberts and his wife. Surely, there is something sinister or illegal in these actions of Roberts and maybe it indicates that he opposes abortion because he adopts unwanted children. It could be!

This recent flash from the Drudge Report provides more information:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX

NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN

**Exclusive**

The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a plot in the NEW YORK TIMES' newsroom to look into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.

The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.

Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.

Both children were adopted from Latin America.

A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoptions are part of the paper's 'standard background check.'

Roberts’ young son Jack delighted millions of Americans during his father’s Supreme Court nomination announcement ceremony when he wouldn’t stop dancing while the President and his father spoke to a national television audience.

Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Josie’s and Jack’s mother had them wear at the announcement ceremony.

One top Washington official with knowledge of the NEW YORK TIMES’ plans declared: 'Trying to pry into the lives of the Roberts’ family like this is despicable. Children’s lives should be off limits. The TIMES is putting politics over fundamental decency.'

One top Republican official when told of the situation was incredulous. 'This can’t possibly be true?'

Developing...

Of course, liberals claim there is no media bias, but I suspect, with good reason, that the "NY Times" would come out with headlines condemning any conservative group doing the exact same thing to a liberal judicial appointee--which is hypothetical because conservatives have more class than that. But, since the "NY Times" views conservatives as evil, maybe they are looking into the adoptions by Roberts for the "cause of causes for Democrats"--it's for the children. Excuse me for being skeptical.

New Feature

On the side bar to the left, if you scroll down a bit you will find a section with this title "Major Media Links." In there, you will find links to American, British and Continental newspapers/magazines of all sorts; Conservative, Liberal, Centrist, I even linked Pravda from Russia.

Knowledge is power, if you want knowledge, see what others say!

It also gives me source material to poke fun at the left and at Europe. Heh!

If you have a suggestion for an added paper, please let me know and I'll consider adding it. Send it to me via my e-mail link on the upper part of the sidebar.

Cheers and happy reading, but always come back here!

Richard Cohen Looks At Iraq, Sees Vietnam - Sigh!

I watched Edward R. Murrow as a kid, I liked Edward R. Murrow, I wanted to be Edward R. Murrow (when I didn't want to be a truck driver) and you, Richard Cohen, are no Edward R. Murrow.

In today's WaPo editorial section Cohen makes the argument that he has long fought against the Iraq = Vietnam Quagmire meme but now, that he has listened to President Bush, he is a believer that it is indeed another Vietnam.

Well, let us look at the record that you have left behind and then at your current arguments Mr. Cohen. From your current column:

About two years ago I sat down with a colleague and explained why Iraq was not going to be Vietnam. Iraq lacked a long-standing nationalist movement and a single charismatic leader like Ho Chi Minh. The insurgents did not have a sanctuary like North Vietnam, which supplied manpower, materiel and leadership, and the rebel cause in Iraq -- just what is it, exactly? -- was not worth dying for. On Tuesday President Bush proved me wrong. Iraq is beginning to look like Vietnam.

Ok, there is still no long standing nationalist movement, there is still not a single charismatic leader. The terrorists do have sanctuary in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran however. And what did you say about the "rebel cause" not being worth dying for? You mean Mr. Cohen, that islamofascists have not been committing suicide bombings until recently and this helped convince you that Iraq = Vietnam? Really, you don't mean that do you... 'cause I thought those murdering bastards have been collecting their 72 virgins, peanuts, whatever, for a long-assed time.

In '03 you did indeed argue:

...the differences may be more important. Among them is the nature of the insurgency. The Vietnamese independence movement was both long-standing and widespread. (Ho Chi Minh lobbied for independence from France at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.) That cannot be said about whoever is behind the Iraq terrorism attacks -- bitter-end Baathists or Islamic zealots taking a short cut to heaven. Neither embodies Iraqi national aspirations.

You also noted:

That some people think we are is evident from a quick scan of the Nexis database. It shows more than 800 links in the past week alone where the words "Iraq" and "Vietnam" appeared together. Some of them are surely my own since in certain limited respects, I, too, have made the comparison.

What, you were comparing them in '03... Why Mr. Cohen! And, you ended that column with:

As Sept. 11 proved, the world is a lot more dangerous now than it was in the Vietnam era. The danger is not just "over there" but right here as well. So it was all the more stunning that the Bush administration went to war with a cockamamie plan for what was to follow, a muddle of wishful thinking that history will judge criminally stupid.

Finally, where Iraq is really different from Vietnam: There can be no premature, chaotic and shameful withdrawal. In the end, Vietnam didn't matter. Iraq does.

Well, Mr. Cohen, that was then, and since then you have upped the Iraq = Vietnam Quagmire too frequently for you today to say that you haven't supported that notion until you heard the President's speech. In fact, not too long ago, you wrote:

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" a young John Kerry asked back in 1971 about the war in Vietnam. Now it is all these years later and a different war is starting to look more and more like the one Kerry came to question.

In the beginning, Mr. Cohen was what was called a "War Liberal," in other words, a liberal who still supported the idea of taking out Saddam and the Taliban. Indeed Cohen made some fairly decent arguments in favor of the war, even if he didn't like Bush, Republicans, or Rumsfeld, let alone Cheney or Halliburton. Yet, here he is today singing the Vietnam song and I have to wonder why?

Well, here's my theory, and mind you, its only a theory, but there seems to be some rational reason for it. You see, it's all the fault of the Beaver. And Father, who knows best, and Pa Cartwight, and Donna Reed, and Matt Dillion and Pallidin, and Karl Maulden in the Streets of San Francisco and all those other TV shows in the 50's and 60's that stated the problem, worked on the problem and solved the problem in 1 hour or less. So many of those who grew up in that time frame now expect decades long problems such as the war on terror to be solved in a similar expiditious manner. So too does Mr. Cohen who after resisting lo these many months, now see that he was wrong as wrong could be and Iraq really is like Vietnam, that we really are in a quagmire that its all the Bushies fault.

Mr. Cohen, go back to school, you need more education on the history of war, on the concept of strategy, on history for that matter. This isn't like Vietnam, for the same reasons that you stated in '03. This is a global war, like WWII but unlike WWII it is not against a state, it is against an ideology that wants to do nothing but destroy anyone and anything that does not accept their fundamentalist crap. This may, in fact, be another 100 years war and you and your like thinking buddies better get used to that fact, or you better purchase your prayer rugs now.

Woman Turns 115: Honored by Journalist Bashing U.S.

You've seen reports where a journalist makes some off-handed, totally unrelated remark on an issue just for the chance to jab a finger in the eye of a conservative or the U.S. Well, this one that I found via LGF is just great! Bias? What bias? Not us!

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch woman who swears by a daily helping of herring for a healthy life celebrated her 115th birthday on Wednesday as the oldest living person on record. Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee.

Give me a break. Oh, that reminds me of a story about a lottery winner with the numbers 1619, which happened to be the year that the Dutch brought the first African slaves to British North America....

John Kerry's Grades: Recount Demanded / Where was Bush?

Remember during the presidential campaign that the press and liberals portrayed Bush as stupid and Kerry as cerebral (and, still do)? Now, they have something to back up their claims--or, do they?

John Kerry had refused to release his college transcripts and military files. Now, because of pressures, Kerry released part of his military files, and (oops) that part contained his college grades!

So, how did he do? Let's see.

Freshman Year:
Geology................61
History I..............63
History II.............68
Political Science...69
French.................77

Wouldn't you know it? Kerry's best efforts were in French. Now, if he had gotten three F's instead of only four low D's, Kerry could have obtained an early release from his college duty. Learning his lesson is college, Kerry didn't make a similar mistake in Viet Nam--as, he was able to get out early there.

To his credit, Kerry buckled down and raised his average up to 76 by the time he graduated. What did Bush get under the same grading system? Why a 77--which beats Kerry! I understand that Kerry is launching a bid, assisted by Al Gore, to demand a re-count. Every term paper counts, and what about that drawing he did for extra credit?

From an article (link at bottom), here are recollections of a professor who taught both of them (underlines mine):

Gaddis Smith, a retired Yale history professor who taught both Kerry and Bush, said in a telephone interview that he vividly remembers Kerry as a student during the 1964-1965 school year, when Kerry would have been a junior. However, Smith said he doesn't have a specific memory about Bush.

Do you know what this means?! It means that Bush was getting credit for college courses when one of his professors doesn't remember him being there! This is clear, although unverifiable evidence, that Bush was not where he claimed to be and received credit for something he did not do! Where's Dan Rather when you need him?

Well, if the only thing that you got out of this entry is that Bush did something bad and that Kerry is good, then please call the Democratic Party. They have a spin job for you. But, if you want more of the story, here it is:

Yale grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student

An Ethical Philosophy Test

This gentleman is John Stewart Mill. Mill epitomized the theories of both his father and of Jeremy Bentham. Mill believed in basing knowledge upon human experience and emphasizing human reason. In political economy, Mill advocated those policies that he believed most consistent with individual liberty, and he emphasized that liberty could be threatened as much by social as by political tyranny. My quote permanently ensconsed in my sidebar is from Mill:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."

Posted by GM Roper at 07:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Nothing to Add

View This Image

View This One Too

Did Howard Kurtz Pass Math 101?

Jon Henke at the QandO blog has a terrific article on Kurtz' number of Iraqi voters. Hard to argue with Henke. I hope Kurtz doesn't try, but I suspect he might

(tip of the chapeau to instapundit)

Hero!

sent from the internet by Charles Straw. It has passed through many hands since sent by Straw. The photo was accompanied by the following:

Marine 1st Sergeant Brad Kasal (in the middle). I work with his older brother in Iraq (a former 82nd Airborne paratrooper who is a hero in his own right). This photo is from the most recent major offensive in Fallujah. Sgt. Kasal sacrificed his own safety to save a room full of fellow Marines. He ended up taking several AK rounds in the leg. Most of his lower leg was blown away but you can't tell it from this pic. He t! ook rounds in the back which his armor saved him from. He took one round through his butt which passed through both cheeks leaving 4 holes in him. And he also took the brunt of a grenade blast. He jumped on top of a younger Marine to cover him from the fire. He killed the terrorist who did most of the damage to him and his men, and despite a massive loss of blood he never stopped fighting. Notice that he's still holding his pistol. He has been put in for the Medal of Honor for his actions on that day. He already has several Purple Hearts for previous battles throughout his career and he has turned some down so that he could stay with his unit. While in the hospital he has met President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and several other celebrities. He said that President Bush came in by himself and had a very long, sincere, and friendly visit with him.

Where do we get such exceptional people? I've never met you Sgt. Kasal, but I damn sure admire you.

New Feature: Blogs I've Recently Discovered

It occured to me this morning as I woke up at "O-Dark:Thirty" and signed on to the internet, that there are an awful lot of new blogs out there. Some well known already, some not so well known, but worthy of being well known IMHO. So, starting this week, I'll be posting a bit of information on a blog I've discovered in a special block in the column to your right. I hope this will accomplish a couple of things. One, is introduce new or newly discovered (though they may be up and running for a while but I didn't know about them) and two, if you keep coming here to see what's new, It'll increase my traffic also. (That's your real motive isn't it? - Ed.) No, it's not, well, maybe a little.

At any rate, our first and so far ONLY entry is a terrific blog by (Drum Roll if you Please Maestro.....) VietPundit.

I first saw this young fellow's nom de blog in a comment in Marc Coopers blog (one of the four or five GREAT blogs IMHO). Then I got an e-mailed comment from this blog (after I shamefacedly let everyone know about my new blog URL in Marc's blog (hmmm, do you owe him advertising revenue - Ed. - - No, but when he next comes to South Texas where I live, I'll buy him a libation). But, I digress. VietPundit sent me a comment on this blog and invited me to take a look at his new blog and I did. Wow, worth a look everyone. VietPundit is to the right of center politically and has a terrific "intro" to his (and that is a generic his - don't go PC on me you lefty readers of this blog) life and reasons for being here in this country. It is obviously heartfelt and well worth a read , so, go there - NOW, but be sure and come back.

Cooper Doing What He Does Best

Marc Cooper, Progressive, Pundit on all things Leftish and all around nice-guy, blogger and good friend has done it again. Writing in the LA Times, in an "experimental" column called "OUTSIDE THE TENT" Cooper (use the link starting this paragraph for a link to the article, the LATimes is already charging for it's "archive") notes the title of his column "The Times' 'Blazing Straddle'" and takes on journalism that is overly balanced.

That's not to impugn what has been reported to date [Cooper is referring to the Times coverage of the Iraqi elections -ed]. But that reporting, like nearly all reporting in The Times, has been run through the usual sort of editorial food processor that guarantees the prevailing standard of "fair, balanced, objective stories." You know the routine: he said/she said; yes/but; the so-called blazing straddle of "objectivity."

And of course my friend is correct, and also (as usual) somewhat wrong. I see no problem when a reporter writes "the kind of stuff written by hard bitten reporters with the press cards stuck in the hatbands, chasing down leads they've stumbled across rather than interpretations of the daily press briefings" as one of Marc's commenters wrote. Were that all reporters, went after stories and hunted them down. All too often however, they also slant their reportage with a political bias. This is especially true if the issue at hand is political or sensational and this is not a rant against the "Leftist MSM" but is a condemnation of the right doing the same thing as well.

What we really need, are reporters who go after a story, do the deep background, follow it up and report it accurately. Then, in separate article, or by another reporter, see if you can't find evidence to the contrary.

That would make for some good reading methinks and no one ought to be able to complain about bias.