Thursday, August 25, 2005

What's a good liberal to do?


Lemme see if I can sort this out….

People who care about endangered sea turtles apparently think that without sexy babes, macho Mexican men won’t pay attention to attempts to stamp out illegal trafficking in their eggs.

But we can’t “stereotype” Mexican men as being “machismo”–addicted, one-track-mind individual, because that would be offensive.

But, how can it be offensive if Mexico is making “public policies the government is promoting in terms of gender issues." And I guess the problem is “real” or else why would the “government” be taking such steps and promoting such policies?

But another problem is that using sexy babes detracts from all the progress women have made getting “machismo”–addicted, one-track-mind individuals to stop thinking of them as sex objects. So they are not against saving turtle eggs, just against how the message is being communicated.

But, only machismo–addicted, one-track-mind individuals are driving the black market for these eggs, which they think will keep them or make them even more “machismo”–addicted, one-track-mind individuals. So, given that they pretty much ignore laws, jail time, fines, and social disdain for gobbling these eggs, unless they hear the message from objects that they desire, (i.e. the sexy babes), they’re pretty much gonna keep the demand up for them.

So, without sexy babes, sea turtles are gonna die.

Well at least they are fetuses so they won't feel any pain.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MEXICO_TURTLE_CONTROVERSY?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-08-23-15-51-09

What is a good Liberal to do?


Damn that George W. Bush’s evil and illegal war in Iraq! If that was over, everything would be fine in the world.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

"Hey, hey, hey, hey. How many people died today"

Ok, Newsweek. (and your parent, Wash. Post). We we subjected to those idiotic, childish "Hey, hey, what'ya say..." chants from the anti-war drones over the past year. Will the newsweekly become the new fodder for these whines?

Naw, probably not.

Will dirty, dingy, unbathed students and Hippie throwback wannabes hold up signs across the street from Newsweek's offices, or stage sit-ins in the corporate lobby.

Doubt it.

But if it was any other type of American company that put out such a defective product, you can be the worldwide commie, peacenik army would be out in force.

If Newsweek made widgets, or SUV tires, or chemicals, or bowls of chilli, it would be the target of some trial lawyer somewhere. And the lawsuits would follow. And the jury verdicts would be requested. And the Lawyers would take their 30% to 50%.

Wonder what the press would do if they had to live by the same standards that most businesses had to endure when it comes to "product liability."

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Teddy's Timing About as Bad as His Ramblings

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy took a certain amount of glee in "celebrating" an anniversary that most Americans would rather forget or at least move on from. (Wonder if the media will speculate on how he's trying to capitalize on this the way they slammed conservatives for trying to leverage the Terri Schiavo situation?)

STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON ANNIVERSARY OF ABU GHRAIB SCANDAL

http://www.drudgereport.com/matttd.htm

The senior senator from Massachusetts took the occasion of one of the more regrettable -- and embarrassing -- episodes in US military history to try to score some political points against his hated president. (You know, the one who naively named an education bill in honor of Mr. Kennedy in his first term).

In my opinion, either he's back on the bottle or he should consider hitting it again. Because if his writing is an example of a sober, lucid teatoller he should stick to the fundraising circuit.


Anyway, his timing couldn't come at a worse time to basically disprove the major blatherings of his missive today. Somewhere between his whining about how "nobody likes us anymore" and how hopeless and inadequate the Administration's policies have been in the Middle East, come these headlines:

Cleric convicted of promoting war against U.S.
D.C.-area
Muslim urged followers to help Taliban

Ali al-Timimi, 41, was convicted on all 10 counts of an indictment brought in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/26/cleric.trial/index.html


Sources: U.S. nearly catches al-Zarqawi
Vehicle chase nets bin Laden
lieutenant instead

The sourceWASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. troops nearly captured wanted terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi earlier this year in Iraq -- and instead netted a trusted lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, sources said Monday.

The sources said it's a significant find -- a clear indication that al-Zarqawi and bin Laden are in two-way communications and that bin Laden couriers are able to get into Iraq. Al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian-born terrorist whose group has claimed responsibility for numerous car bombings, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.zarqawi/index.html

Last Syrian troops leave Lebanon

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- The last Syrian soldiers have left Lebanon, surrendering to international and Lebanese popular demands and ending its 29-year military presence in its smaller neighbor.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/lebanon/index.html


Abbas Names Tough New Palestinian Security Chief

GAZA (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday named a tough new
commander for Palestinian internal security who helped lead a 1990s crackdown on
Islamic militants, officials said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20050426/wl_nm/mideast_palestinians_dc&sid=84439559

U.S. Likely to Clear GIs in Iraq Shooting

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=718&e=5&u=/ap/20050426/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_italy_iraq

Friday, April 22, 2005

Wash Post "outs" Bill Moyers as a liberal commentator? Who Knew?!

So, after all this time arguing that PBS wasn't "slanted" and certainly not "biased" toward the Liberal side of the fence, comes today's Washington Post (of all places):

"PBS Scrutiny Raises Political Antennas" (By Paul Farhi, WP Staff Writer Friday, April 22, 2005; Page C01)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8067-2005Apr21.html

Poor Bill Moyers (for years host of the right-down-the-middle news magazine, NOW) outed as a Lib right there on Page C-1. "Liberal commentator Bill Moyers is out on PBS stations."

It was in the Wash Post, so it MUST be true.

Then comes the sequence showing how -- can you believe it -- those pesky "conservative" influences seem to be takin' over the place. The Corp. for Public Broadcasting has now a "majority" of members on the 8-person board appointed by -- guess who: W, the latest two-term president who got to appoint members to the 6-year posts.

I guess it was OK that another two-term president was able to make his appointments unnoticed, but nobody in the media checked their party affiliation cards. Until now. (Why should they, they were Democrats and they're OK. They would never think to bring an "agenda" with them, would they?)

And do you know what those mean, rabid, power-gorged rascals did? Well hold onto your hats:
"In negotiations with PBS earlier this year, the corporation also
insisted, for the first time, on tying new funding to an agreement that would
commit the network to strict "objectivity and balance" in each of its programs
-- an idea that PBS's general counsel described in an internal memo as amounting
to "government encroachment on and supervision of program content, potentially
in violation of the First Amendment." "

And then there's this choice little passage:

Late last week, CPB's board declined to renew the contract of its chief
executive, Kathleen Cox, a veteran administrator at the agency. She was replaced
by Ken Ferree, a Republican who had been a top adviser to Michael Powell, the
former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Ferree appointment
followed the dismissals or departures in recent months of at least three other
senior CPB officials, all of whom had Democratic
(emphasis
added)
affiliations.

"We don't want to be alarmist, but I would be less than honest if I said
there wasn't concern here," said one senior executive at PBS, who insisted on
anonymity because CPB provides about 10 percent of its annual budget. "When you
put it all together, a pattern starts to emerge."
(italics
added)


Well. I suppose anything going against that tidy grain of Liberalism apparently in place over at CPB and PBS WOULD appear as a "pattern" developing.

And it begs the question: are these unnamed sources --and the reporter by extension -- assuming that the changes being introduced by a "conservative"/Republican administration would automatically be problematic, less-reputable, or otherwise "sinister" just because they are from such an administration?

And if such changes are to be open to such loaded assumptions, where was the Wash Post asking questions when previous administrations were making similar appointments?

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Holy Smokes!

Well, it didn't take long. This new pope has been christened a "homophobe" before he's even christened pope.

The over-the-top lefties are already screaming from the rafters before the (white) smoke has cleared.

Thought this article was interesting on the take of the AIDS and alternative lifestyle advocates.

"AIDS groups, gay activists dismayed over new pope"
--Yahoo! Health news/AFP/April 20, 2005


First, that Pope Benedict is a "homophobe" already, "more strict than Pope John Paul."


"The former positions taken by the Catholic Church had already prevented
the use of condoms and helped the spread of AIDS," said Franco Grillini, a gay
left-wing Italian lawmaker who is the honorary president of the gay rights group
Arcigay.





Note that phrase: The Church's positions "... helped the spread of AIDS ..." How does the Church's position (prohibiting condom use by the faithful) was actually HELPING the spread of this (mainly) sexually transmitted disease? If two people are married (which, in the eyes of the Church, are the only people supposed to be engaging in sex) and are not breaking other commandments (i.e. sixth commandment) and are being FAITHFUL to each other, the FAITHFUL are really not in a lot of danger. The odd (and dramatically ever-decreasing) infected blood transfusion or organ donation notwithstanding, irresponsible (prohibited) sex is the ONLY way to contract the disease.

The Church has been advocating abstinence and fidelity to the FAITHFUL for over 2,000 years (and Old Testament traditions well before that). What's so NEW about what this pope is advocating?

How can one help SPREAD a sexually transmitted disease if your position is NOT TO CONDONE the SEX and to active advocate the opposite?

The position is perfectly understandable -- IF -- one see the Church's perspective and steps away from the alternative (that everyone is doing it/going to do it anyway). Why must the onus for change be on the Church and NOT on the part of the un-churched (a.k.a. "Unfaithful"). Why is it so easy to advocate that the CHURCH must change, and not even consider changing the ways of permissive SOCIETY and mortal FASHION?

Continuing:

"This (new) pope has been violently homophobic," he (Grillini) told AFP by
telephone from Bologna following the election of the arch-conservative
German cardinal Joseph Ratzinger..."

Since when do we have only two options: Agree with me or be labeled "a -phobe" (that you fear me). What ever happened to Agree or Disagree, minus the "fear". Can't you have agreement without association or disagreement without animosity? Why should I accept only the "Agree" or "Fear" options? "Jews" and "Christians" don't always agree, but does each -- as a general rule -- "fear" the other?

This line made me laugh:

"He (Grillini) said the Church's opposition to condom use was practically
set in stone, ..."

Yeah, as a matter of fact, it IS set in stone. You wonder if they realize what they're saying.

Finally, there's this (below) which takes the cake because it comes from a "man of the cloth":

In South Africa, where some 25 million Africans are living with HIV and AIDS,
Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu expressed hope that "the whole question of
disease, HIV/AIDS particularly," would be addressed by the new pontiff, who
should also "look again at the prohibition that the Church has placed on
condoms."

If people didn't respect their faith, the instructions of their Church leaders and live by the teachings of the Church regarding extramarital sex (and by extension, drug use), what makes them so likely to suddenly and whole-heartedly embrace condom use so as not to spread infected?

After all, the best educated, most affluent, most savvy, and most health-accessable "at-risk" population in the world (Western homosexuals, IV drug users) haven't learned that lesson after 25 years.

It appears that few in the Human Race have learned all that much in the thousands of years we've been walking around here.

Monday, April 18, 2005

Thank you Mr. President (Clinton)

Ah, yes. The lasting legacy of this WJC. Following in the footsteps of FDR, JFK, Jimmie ("lust in my heart") in this rich tradition. Even these guys had time & guts to stand up to Nazis, The Commies, and well, I guess we'll stop there.

If we ever need to consider the significant impact of this 1990s-era president, you need look no farther than below.

Or to look at it another way, Bubba had the morals of a teenager.

Oral sex safe and not really sex, say U.S. teens
CHICAGO (Reuters) - One in five U.S. teenagers say they have engaged in oral
sex, an activity that some adolescents view as not sex at all and certainly less
risky than intercourse, according to a report.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050404/80/fflsd.html

Why can't America be more like Europe?

Ah, yes. Why doesn’t America be more like Europe?
Man, you know it’s bad when the BBC even reports this type of news.

(Sounds like they need a couple more weeks of mandatory, employer-funded vacation.) I guess they are starting to figure out that SOMEBODY has to PAY for all this stuff. And when people aren't working, they don't collect taxes. W/o taxes, you either borrow more against yourself (like we do in the good ol USA) or the BBC writes a story like these.


Germany's new 'great depression'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4456087.stm

"Record numbers of Germans are suffering from depression and other mental
illnesses, a new report says."




What!!!!!???? Cut HEALTHCARE? And PENSIONS!!!???
My, those evil Republicans are everywhere!!! How did W and Carl Rove get this passed?


Germany's jobless face tough choices
Analysis By Ben Richardson BBC News business reporter


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4228849.stm

“A key factor in this growing sense of unease has been attempts by Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder's government to reform Germany's inflexible labour market, and
cut state spending on healthcare and pensions.”

Monday, March 21, 2005

Commies: They haven't gone anywhere

FYI. From a friend visiting England over the weekend.

See, they Commies didn’t “go” anywhere.
After the Wall fell, most folks said “well, that’s that.”
Only problem was, the Commies didn’t quit; they just decided to hide in plain sight and “go legit” (sort of). In a classic Judo technique (use the opponent’s superior size/strength against him) they decided to use the West’s own openness/liberty against us.

They’re still out there, masquerading as “Green people” or “anti-war” advocates. This explains why you can get thousands (sometimes hundreds of) people out in a protest. That’s how many Commies are still out there in the “peace/anti-war” community, in the environmental movement, in Socialist-leaning governments, in “world bodies” like the UN, The World Court.

Now, if that’s what you want your other US national party to be associated with and caring about, then you’ve got other problems.....


Hi there,
You know, during my work, I do get a chance to get out every now
and then. During my current extended stay in London, I'd planned to get a chance
to visit a museum or two, watch the changing of the guard, etc. And I stumbled
onto a "party..." You'll know what I'm talking about if were paying attention to
the news this past Saturday and Sunday.
I hope this note finds you
well.
Sorry for the size of the files.
Cheers,
Ken

Friday, March 18, 2005

Top 10 observations on Rathergate

"This is not about me," Rather said before anchoring last night's newscast.
"I recognize that those who didn't want the information out and tried to
discredit the story are trying to make it about me, and I accept
that."
....
But he also delivered a message to "our journalistic
competitors," including The Washington Post and rival networks: "Instead
of asking President Bush and his staff questions about what is true and
not true about the
president's military service, they ask me questions:
'How do
you know this and
that about the documents?' "

—Quotes from
Howard Kurtz column,
Sept. 16, 2004

Ah, but it was always about you, Danno.

As I clean out my old, sent email files, I've culled some reflections on the "downfall" a week after Dan said goodbye.

  1. Didn't you just love how, even if the documents were forged, the accuser demanded the subject still be addressed? Those bogus documents provided the impetus for the whole story to begin with.
  2. If I were GWB – who HAD already addressed this subject at least one campaign before this past one – I wouldn’t respond either to a “When-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife” line of questioning.
  3. What was really scary was that few people seemed to equate this episode as they would any other "Big Business corruption" or "media empire that has too much power" (read: Murdoch) story. To ME this was Manchurian Candidate scary. Think about it: a single, national news organization (which really answers to no one directly in the citizenry) has the power and the audacity to run a story that is so badly flawed and one that could substantially affect the outcome of a US presidential election! That Dan/CBS had the FREEDOM to do so is an amazing "only in America" quality that we on one hand should marvel about, while at the same time chill to the bone how close it was to causing a "bloodless coup."
  4. And THEN to completely get off with basically a pass (from others in The Press, not to mention the Government, courts, ACLU, and the populace in general), with only "a thorough internal investigation." ?!?! As Bob Dole said, "Where's the outrage!?" over that? People on both sides of the aisle should think about that one.
  5. How could an alledged “respected” news operation run a story so one-sided that any J-School student knows better to research? How can an unbiased reporter NOT at least talk to the family of the man who allegedly wrote the documents? CBS didn't even give them the 'ol 5:01 p.m. phone call trick: "We're running this story tonight and wanted to give you a chance to respond." Even if they didn’t corroborate what you suspect, at least they would give you pause to “redouble” your efforts to make sure it’s right. Why not take the time to ensure it is right?
  6. But we forget, Dan had to rush this out because Kitty Kelly --remember her?-- was scheduled on NBC the next week. Maybe CBS should have waited until Hans Blix had more thoroughly searched for these weapons before attempting their own “shock and awe.”
  7. Looking back, this should be a textbook example why Campaign Finance Reform is a bad idea: it leaves the voting public at the mercy of a single media strata (“the News Media”) to say -- without real accountability -- substantially whatever it wants to. Worry about defamation? So what--the election wouldn't be postponed or cancelled until after the media and the aggrieved party would go to court. The damage would be done and a US Presidential Election you can't have a "do-over" because some news outlet "made mistakes in rush to get the story" or "to beat a deadline" or "scoop the competitor." Thank goodness for blogs!
  8. Campaign Finance Laws, as this issue could demonstrate, the danger in potentially restraining or outright preventing a candidate's options to defend him/herself without going through that same media. Who would THEN control the power over what the public heard or saw?
  9. What Dan missed at the time (or decided not to cover) and what I found truly ironic (actually laughable) was the hyprocacy. Of all political topics -- given recent presidential histories and the softball, sympathetic and "blind eye" he turned during the 1990s-- Dan rekindled old stories that didn't gain traction the first go-round. Seemingly without any attempt to be "balanced", Dan questioned the "honesty" and the "character" of W to be president but never even mentioned a NYTimes best selling book or the charges of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. How could the media critics, or CBS' investigation panel not bring that up?
  10. While simultaneously featuring pictures of dead Americans on his news cast as a tribute to their ultimate sacrifice (some even National Guard fatalities) Dan coasted aspersions upon National Guard service by saying "W" coasted through Vietnam by serving in this capacity. How does that NOT constitute a disservice to the Guard troops deployed today that Dan seemed to care so much about when they were dying in Iraq.

    Regardless of what Dan may have thought about Bush's time served, W certain has more legit standing in the role of Commander in Chief than, say, another recent president (who "loathed the military") and who "sent other people's children in harm's way." I guess Mogadishu didn't ring a bell. Somehow the president who did that was found worthy to serve in this capacity for 8 years and Dan didn't spend a fraction of the time pursing that Vietnam-era story. Talk about giving someone a pass....

OK. Would you believe vengeance for trying to kill his father?

News Item: Source: AP 3/18/05
Oil prices briefly hit a new high above
$57 a barrel
Thursday and analysts said the recent rally appears to have
steam left even
after OPEC's president said the group may authorize pumping
an extra half-million barrels a day. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050318/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices_71

======================================

Hmmmm. I guess the whole "mind-numbed robotic" recitation of the toe-tapping Lefty mantras like, “No War for Cheap Oil" and "No Blood for Oil" have to be scratched off the list.


http://www.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm

Friday, February 11, 2005

Thank you, President Carter

Gosh, thanks for all that swell help you provided to avoid such a situation, Mr. President.
Take a look at these nuggets and tell me who we really have to thank for today's wonderful news on N. Korea's nukes.

Here’s a good NewsMax piece that pretty much sums up the problem.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml


Check out this Fact Sheet from the Center for Defense Information. Pretty straightforward.
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm

On Oct. 16, 2002, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush
disclosed that North Korea had admitted to having a program to enrich uranium
for use in nuclear weapons. With its admission, North Korea, also known as the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK, abrogated the Agreed Framework
signed in 1994 with United States, under which the North Koreans agreed to
freeze their nuclear weapons program.

http://www.cartercenter.org/doc1444.htm

This op-ed originally appeared in the Sept. 2, 2003, edition of USA TODAY.

We face the strong possibility of another Korean war, with potentially
devastating consequences, so the endangered multilateral talks in Beijing are of
paramount importance. It is vital that some accommodation be reached between
Pyongyang and Washington.

Another good post from a recent college grad that fortunately didn't get brainwashed in college and came out with an accurate observation of a president in office before he was born.

Jimmy Carter: Unsuccessful President

http://www.politixgroup.com/comm112.htm

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Will Anti-War protesters think it's worth it now?

Wonder what people who protested the war against terror will say about this?

Brings up an interesting scenario: If these had been the causes for which we (the USA) thought were "fightin' words," would as many people have been in the streets urging us to go in & clean house? Especially what he says about "real freedom."

Warning: the terrorist spokesperson is NOT very tolerant or diverse in his beliefs.

Al-Qaeda number two hits out at US in new audiotape
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050210/1/3qhze.html
Source: Agence France-Presse




Talon-Gate examined

See today's C-4 Story in the Washington Post by Howard Kurtz on this debacle. Interesting reading with something for everyone. Since most of what will be reported/talked about will undoubtedly lean left, I pick out a few of the nuggets that break the other way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12640-2005Feb9.html

Note: I always enjoy reading Howard's column and seeing him on "Reliable Sources" and other shows. I think he plays it pretty much as even as can be expected.

First of all, this was a BAD idea. No question. Each party should realize that you live by the Web, you die by the Web.

The amazing thing is that people this high up in whatever position think this is something that they could get away with. Aren't they supposed to be the "best minds" out there? Geez. The process that approved this guy for credentials should be examined, especially given the pen name.

But then again, there are probably some reporters working in the press corps with "ethnic names" that have been shortened/American-ized for purposes of climbing up the media food chain, so who really knows. Like all those double given names, or first + middle names (i.e. Glenn Allen, David Scott or Sam Roberts--there's gotta be a few "Rabinowitz"-es or "Kazerinski-'s" or Berezansky's in that bunch. But, I digress....)

Still, bad idea and it deserved to be exposed. Too bad a guy's career and family get trashed, but that's hard ball politics.

Does that link it to some cabal involving the "compensated commentaries" by two "conservative" columnists? Apparently so, cause it got a letter generated to the White House by some Congresswoman. I guess that in the WH press corps, he stood out like a sore thumb. What does THAT say to you? Should be enough right there.

Next, what strikes me as very out of the ordinary is the use of "Liberal" and "Conservative" here. Looks like when referring to Web sources, these lables are OK to use in polite society. Don't mind this at all and it's something ALL media should adopt. Rather than marginalizing the Web sources, I actually think it liberates them.


Used to be (and for the most part, still is) that the label "conservative" gets applied, but never the counterweight "liberal" when modifying a person or policy or position. If you read a lot of Mainstream news, you might think there are only three positions:

  1. Extreme Right (sometimes called "Far" or simply "Extremist")
  2. Conservative, and
  3. The correct way (which is by some common sense the position taken by anyone with a Big "D" after their name.)
Think about it, have you ever heard something discussed in the media descibing something as "extreme Left" if is wasn't repeating what a Conservative or Republican said? Now think of how many times you seen/read/heard "conservative" tossed around.

And I'm not even saying that's "wrong"--somebody should have the courage of one's convictions. But it's fun to notice the differences in application. Anyway, ... back to the story!

We'll allow that -- for the sake of brevity -- Kurtz or his copy editors probably left a bit out of this article (like that reference to Guckert/Gannon's report on Kerry being "the first Gay president." I haven't read the post in question, but one can assume the CONTEXT of that characterization could have come in comparison between the infamous "first Black president" title applied to Bill Clinton and how Kerry was faring with L/G/B/T folks.) Let's grant him/them that OR you can track-back that article if you can find it since a lot of Guckert/Gannon's stuff has come down.

Here's another point that I think will get overlooked (and if a reporter out there really wants to be "unbiased" they should think about following up this angle):

Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor who writes on
InstaPundit.com, said the tactics used against Gannon "seem to me to be
despicable.

"If I were a member of the White House press corps, I'd be
really
worried," Reynolds said. "If working for a biased news organization
disqualifies you, a lot of people have a lot to be worried about. If
being
involved in a dubious business venture is disqualifying, I suspect a
lot of
people have a lot to be worried about. I guess I don't see what all
this has
to do with his job."
--Wash. Post, Howard Kurtz, Feb. 10,
'05



Reynolds is probably right, except where but the Web are people going to hear about the results of such an examination? What is even more intriguing is the prospect of one news organization investigating and reporting the backgrounds of ANOTHER news org and "outing" them for either being on the Left or the Right. There could be wars going on. My guess the first news org on the list will be Fox.

Regarding "outing" journalists' and their political leanings.... I've often thought that this should be standard practice. George Stephanopolous as an employee of ABC News and Bill Moyers formerly of PBS are two prime examples.

How these guys can be presented as "journalists" without being identified as former Democrat staffers is a crock! And I don't mean once in four years when reporting from a Convention or Presidential/Mid Term elections--I mean EVERY time they sign on. It should be, "Good evening, I'm Bill Moyers. A former speechwriter for Pres. Johnson...."

There are kids just coming into voting age who might not know their backgrounds, or those people with short memories, the uncaring/uninformed, and unfortunately, there are some among the elderly, who think that because they are on TV or in the newspaper, they are true "unbiased" journalists.

Now--I think "journalists" who get involved with organized politics at the volunteer or paid staff level have pretty much cast their die. Not that they can't do a good job reporting and that they are incapable of being truthful or honest, but they need to let people know from whence they came. Guess it's like being a recovering alcoholic--you never really "get clean" but stay clean one day at a time. I think they owe it to people who watch/read/listen to them and extend to them an aura of "journalistic credibility." Reporters/journalists of BOTH political stripes should have no problem with doing that.

Here's the next one:



Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), welcomed the news. In his question at the presidential news conference, Gannon had said that in an effort to disparage the U.S. economy "Harry Reid was talking about soup lines," which is not accurate and which Gannon later acknowledged was a characterization he picked up from Rush Limbaugh. "New media or old media, the fact is the question he asked was based on a lie, and that's unacceptable," Manley said. "Fundamentally, what he was reporting was not truthful."
--Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, Feb.
'05
Boy, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black. Do I even need to bring up Memo Gate again? Explain to me how this is any different, Mr. Manley.

Gannon, Mapes, both too close for comfort

Kinda makes you wish the Congresswoman (and anybody else) would take as much interest in the media connections between Mary Mapes and various elements of the Texas state Democratic aparatus. Doesn't it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34557-2001Apr3

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1218004/posts

http://ratherbiased.com/news/content/view/284/

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6039850/site/newsweek/

But because Talon News Service probably has more viewers/readers/listeners than CBS News does at this point, I can see her concern.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/09/white.house.reporter/index.html

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Where do crabby people come from?

Cookie klatch lands girls in court--Denver Post (Feb. 4, 2005)
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E53%7E2691638,00.html

When I first read this, I figured they scared some poor old widow or something.

Wonder if anyone told this lady that if a batch of late night cookies from two high school teeny-boppers are going to give her heartburn, wait till she sees what a burning dung pile of international BAD publicity is going to do.

She’ll have to move to get away from all the nasty mail she’s about to get. Especially when the girls get on Larry King or TODAY or Letterman. The upside for the girls is they're probably going to get their $900 back, twenty-fold.

I always wondered where crabby old people come from.
Now I know: crabby young people.

What’s wrong with people?!?