Jump to content

KirtFalcon

Members
  • Posts

    47,654
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    348

Everything posted by KirtFalcon

  1. Yes . . . That's what I call lead poisioning! :w00t:
  2. POWER LINE March 03, 2006 Lord help those who rely for their news on the mainstream media and their inferior imitators around the country. A mere two days after its outrageously misleading reporting on the warnings given to President Bush before Hurricane Katrina hit, the AP has issued this: Clarification: Katrina-Video story ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials. The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking. The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing. John's more or less authoritative deconstruction of the AP story (linked above) was posted here within hours of its distribution. Assuming its goal is accuracy rather than political effect: What an utterly pathetic performance by the AP, both in its original reporting and its Friday night clarification. And megadittoes for the media shills that parroted the AP's pathetic performance. We await the Democrats' correction of the related misrepresentation circulated yesterday. Or does the AP speak for the Democrats? JOHN adds: I think it's reasonable to assume that the AP's "clarification" is the result of our dissection of their incredibly lame story. I think this highlights, though, how hard it is for truth to catch up to error. Hundreds of newspapers printed the AP's misinformation, and it was the basis for television news on all of the broadcast networks. The correction (or "clarification") will never catch up to most of the tens of millions of people who heard the original story. The news business is all about impressions, and corrections, days after the fact, never take away the impression that the original story falsely created.
  3. http://www.boredatwork.net/funny-video/big-surprise
  4. You obviously have never heard of Juanita Broadrick? :whistle:
  5. Like the article says, the real split is distorted by the liberal mainstream media who would like us to believe it's close to 50/50. I agree with you about the lack of voter turnout , if everyone voted I believe the left would be in real trouble when it comes to winning elections. :whistle:
  6. Congressman says U.S. 'shouldn't be waving the white flag and retreating from the border' Posted: February 25, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is challenging a fellow Republican, Arizona Sen. John McCain, to debate the issue of immigration reform to help stop the rising tide of illegal entrants into the U.S. "In order to raise the level of discourse on this pressing issue, I invite you to host a joint national tour with me," Tancredo wrote McCain in a letter. "We could present our two views of immigration reform so the American people could compare our approaches side-by-side." McCain, considered a maverick Republican for opinions often differing from many GOP lawmakers, has just kicked off a national campaign promoting his new legislation co-authored with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. Their bi-partisan proposal would allow illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. legally as ''guest workers," having the opportunity to earn U.S. citizenship. McCain told reporters alternative plans to force out or deport the illicit immigrants aren't realistic. ''They have to pay a penalty for breaking the law," McCain said, ''but saying they have to go back to the country that they came from is something someone is going to have to explain to me how you do that, much less all the humanitarian aspects of it." Tancredo's letter to McCain takes a tough tone, stating: Make no mistake about it – your plan and my plan offer very different solutions to our party and our country. Your plan has its fans among big business. They want to continue reaping profits from cheap, low-skill labor while passing on social service costs of that labor to the taxpayer. They cloak their desire for open borders in their demand for "one more" amnesty, knowing full well that rewarding illegal behavior merely encourages more of the same. My plan – and the House bill that passed with the support of 36 Democrats – takes a different approach. Instead of waving the white flag and retreating from the border, I suggest that we make an honest attempt at securing our country and enforcing the law. That means that we prosecute businesses that hire illegal aliens, that means that we provide the Border Patrol with the manpower and technology to do its job, and that means that we make federal and local law enforcement cooperate on immigration matters. There was no immediate comment from McCain's office. While McCain kicked off his immigration campaign in Miami this week, Tancredo began his similar Secure America Now tour last month, holding events in Iowa, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona.
  7. The American Thinker February 24th, 2006 Much is made of the “partisan divide” that plagues our national life these days. The bitter presidential contests of 2000 and 2004, the vitriolic tone of public discourse about the Iraq War, Supreme Court nominees, and much else have led to alarmed commentary about an irreconcilably deadlocked America, a country split 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals. That a sharp divide exists is beyond question, and astute observers agree that the nature of the divide is primarily ideological, perhaps more so than ever before. Not so well explored are the reasons for the special virulence of the current climate, and the accuracy of the commonly given proportions of the populace on either side of the political chasm. Specifically, we need to assay the nature of the divide, ask why the divide is so pointedly ideological nowadays, and inquire whether the national split is truly 50/50. The Culture War raging among Americans has swamped and effectively subsumed the merely political elements of our national disagreements. Disagreements among the two American camps have become cultural and pointedly ideological precisely because the American Left has, by its conduct and its rhetoric, insisted upon it. American liberalism, which began to be infected by radical Leftism in the 1960s, has now been largely taken over by that thoroughly alien ideology. As a result Leftism itself is the issue. The battle to embed Leftist assumptions and values in our institutions, versus the resistance against its cultural depredations, has become the central struggle of our politics. Activists on both sides are mobilized in the epic struggle over who we are and what we are to become. The bitterness we’re experiencing these days is easy to explain. We disagree about much bigger things now than at any time since at least the Civil War. Here are some of the truly Big Things that today are in dispute: -the basis of national community and national loyalty; -the natural complementarity of the two human sexes; -the centrality of the traditional family unit to American civilization; -the dignity of every human life; -the reality of a flawed, never to be perfected human nature. American liberalism, having embraced post-modern Leftism, put these issues in dispute. It has changed fundamentally during the past four decades. None of these questions was seriously at issue on a large scale until the 1960s. In allying with the post-modern Left, American liberalism has broken the national compact. It has stepped outside the 230 year stream of American consensus. It rails shrilly against the American creed, civic and spiritual. It unreasoningly indicts the phenomenally successful American economic system. It heaps scorn upon idealistic American purposes in the world and, indeed, actually impedes as best it can every exercise of American self-defense. While American liberalism has morphed into post-modern Euro-leftism, the rest of America remains American, which is to say, thoroughly and congenitally anti-Left. The American mainstream upholds the American cultural tradition. The liberal-Left shills for multiculturalism. The American mainstream takes pride in America’s soaring historical achievements. The liberal-Left trashes that history and fabricates anti-historical propaganda. The American mainstream has always been and remains believingly and tolerantly Christian. The liberal-Left is aggressively agnostic and demands the de-Christianization of every American reference point, all in the guise of a false tolerance. The American mainstream is self-sacrificing and optimistic. The liberal-Left is almost comically narcissistic and devoured by bleak pessimism. The American mainstream wants to preserve and protect America and take her triumphantly into the future. The liberal-Left wants to overthrow the historical and actually existing America and replace her with the sort of Euro-Lefty utopia presently self-destructing before our very eyes in Old Europe. In fact, the ideology of the Left is so completely alien to the American essence that I personally doubt it could possibly command the allegiance of 50 percent of Americans. I believe that when it comes to the all important questions that now divide us, we are closer to a 60/40 nation, at worst, in favor of the conservative American mainstream. The Right/Left split on some important matters is actually even more unfavorable for the Left than that. The reason such proportions have not been reflected in recent electoral results is that the Right has not been led boldly and uncompromisingly, by word and deed, on the fundamental cultural questions. Instead, the Bush Administration has tacked hard away from the battlefields of the Culture Wars. I imagine this aversion to cultural combat is because it thinks such a course is necessary to maintain the social peace against even higher volume assaults from the Left. The Administration is absolutely right about the predilection of the Left for institutional and cultural destruction. The Left is indeed the destroyer of the social peace in this country. It the school yard bully of our youth, shoving and punching to get other kids’ lunch money. The Administration is wrong, however, to think that a conclusive fight with the Left over first principles can be indefinitely avoided. The battle must be waged. Success in the War on (radical Islamic) Terror depends on it. The long term health of the American economy requires it. Restoration of the judiciary to its proper role demands it. Most of all, the ability and the great privilege of Americans to pass on to posterity the common culture, storied history and undying hope of their glorious country is at stake. Richard Berry
  8. "Ace" seems a little light in the loafers to me . . . if you get my drift! :w00t: I guarantee if the males were rated on their vocals alone without anyone seeing their looks, he would be in the bottom half of the male group. I agree, he appeals to the women and girlies and will go far. :rocker:
  9. If Condi Rice would run . . . she would trounce Shrillary! :w00t:
  10. No you didn't, Um, miss anything, Um Um . . . Um . . . Spunky? :w00t::rofl::w00t:
  11. Well hello there Spunky, er Middle! Got a new profile these days? :whistle::w00t::whistle:
  12. The only person outside the Bush administration that thinks this is a good idea is . . . you guessed it . . . . Jimmy "Peanut Brain" Carter! :rofl: I am totally against this and am not afraid to break ranks with President Bush on this one! Like Colmes said, this is a national security issue and conservatrives, unlike you liberals, are able to think on our own without marching lock-step on every issue. Try thinking on your own once in a while there Deuce . . . it's actually not that hard! :w00t:
  13. Wouldn't it be great if the Dimocrats and Republicans came together and killed this deal. We could then get some U.S. company to run these important ports . . . like maybe Halliburton? :w00t::smileybanger::whome::rofl::notworthy::thumbsup:
  14. Iwould like to see Reagan on Mt. Rushmore! :thumbsup:
  15. The American Thinker February 20th, 2006 Today is “President’s Day.” A holiday originally intended to honor George Washington (and in some states Abraham Lincoln), President’s Day has degenerated into just another day off for government employees and an excuse for large retailers to hold sales. More destructive to our national consciousness, it has become a day that purports to “celebrate” all presidents equally, the dismal failures along with the towering giants. Perhaps this is why hardly any celebration occurs at all. This is a shame, because the truly great men who have led this nation throughout our history deserve the American people’s most heartfelt thanks for a job well done. There have been several presidents who have earned the appellation “great” for the leadership and vision they demonstrated during their service in the White House, including Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and George W. Bush (still a work in progress). Today, however, we must honor three presidents above all others: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan. Each of these men led the United States through a period of deep national crisis, and each time the nation emerged stronger, freer, and more committed to its founding ideals. George Washington (1789-1797) George Washington not only is America’s greatest president, he is the single most important person in American history, and one of the most important persons who ever lived. (See this.) Washington was the central figure in both the American Revolution and the Constitutional Convention (without Washington’s support, the Convention never would have succeeded), but today we honor President Washington for his brilliant and indispensable leadership during the crucial early years of the American Republic. Washington understood that, as the nation’s first president (the only president to be elected by the unanimous vote of the Electoral College), he had been entrusted to set the course for the future growth and success of the infant nation. During his eight years in office, Washington deftly steered clear of the many dangers then threatening the country. Washington reduced the danger of sectionalism by making several goodwill tours throughout the country and appointing to his cabinet leading politicians from both North and South and both Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions. He secured the nation’s borders, as well as access to the Spanish-controlled port at New Orleans (vital to westward expansion), with necessary, albeit unpopular, treaties with England and Spain. And he prudently avoided being drawn into the great power struggle between England and France, a policy that was unpopular among both pro-British and pro-French crowds in America, but essential to allowing the United States time to recover from the Revolutionary War and gather her strength for the great nation-building tasks ahead. Equally important, Washington asserted the constitutional authority of the new federal government to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare.” Without a strong central government – the very impetus behind the Constitutional Convention – no American nation would have been possible. One of the most significant, but frequently overlooked, events during Washington’s presidency was the so-called Whiskey Rebellion of 1794.Essentially, the Whiskey Rebellion was an uprising by settlers in western Pennsylvania who opposed a liquor tax passed by Congress. To quell the rebellion, Washington, acting pursuant to federal law, called up a militia force of 13,000 men, whom he personally led into the troubled area. The rebellion was suppressed with nary a shot. Instead of being punitive or vindictive – which would have embittered the settlers, and other Americans, towards the new central government – Washington offered amnesty to rebels who dispersed peaceably and pardoned rebel leaders who were convicted of treason. Washington’s handling of the Whiskey Rebellion is a case study in the exercise of firm yet magnanimous authority by a leader who was prepared to risk his own reputation in the service of the greater good. Last but not least, Washington deserves enormous credit for ensuring the success of democracy in America, by rejecting calls to make him king and refusing to serve more than two terms as president. How many persons, then or now, would voluntarily relinquish power in this manner? I dare say very few. These were the acts of a profoundly noble and patriotic man, whose love of country and belief in the principles of the American Revolution were the driving forces in his life. Washington may not have been a thinker on par with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, but his character, judgment, and patriotism were unparalleled. After his death in 1799, Washington was famously eulogized by Congress: “First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen.” Indeed. Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) The next president we honor today is Abraham Lincoln, for his steadfast leadership during the nation’s darkest crisis, the Civil War. While many admire President Lincoln for his glorious prose and Hamlet-like sensitivity, it was Lincoln’s single-minded dedication to preserving the Union that underlies his greatness. Adamantly opposed to secession, Lincoln warned the South in his First Inaugural Address: “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. . . . You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect, and defend it.” Shortly thereafter, Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter. In the four years that followed, despite military setbacks, a devastating body count, and fierce political opposition, Lincoln remained true to his oath, and saved the nation. Contrary to his popular image, there was nothing Hamlet-like about Lincoln’s approach to the Civil War. He understood that, first and foremost, the Confederacy had to be defeated militarily, no matter the cost. And the cost was enormous, including more than 600,000 dead (North and South). Lesser men than Lincoln were prepared to quit the fight long before Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox in April 1865. Such a course would have doomed the United States (and the Confederacy) to a future of weakness and mediocrity. Thankfully, Lincoln was prepared to do whatever was required – raising one of the largest armies the world had ever seen, engaging in the bloodiest battles in American history, expanding the powers of the presidency – to ensure the success of the Union. Significantly, even in the midst of a terrible civil war, Lincoln did not suspend the electoral process, and in 1864 he stood for re-election against a popular anti-war candidate from the Democratic Party, whom Lincoln soundly defeated. Lincoln was more than just an iron-willed commander-in-chief, however. He was a brilliant political thinker (for example, his First Inaugural Address is a tour de force of constitutional theory), who recognized that the Civil War fundamentally was about the future of freedom and democracy in America.This was not just an issue of slavery, although Lincoln realized early on that the abolition of slavery had to be one of the North’s chief war aims, for which he deserves enormous credit. Rather, as Lincoln expressed in the Gettysburg Address, it was about the success of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Lincoln rightly predicted that were the Confederacy to succeed in dividing the country, the great republic bequeathed to Americans by the Founding Fathers – which Lincoln aptly called “the last, best hope on earth” (see this) – would be destroyed. Lincoln was determined that would not happen. It cost him his life. But it earned for him the eternal gratitude of all Americans. Ronald Reagan (1981-1988) Washington and Lincoln stand above all other presidents in American history. In our lifetimes, however, one man has embodied the same qualities of love of country and commitment to freedom that made Washington and Lincoln great; his name, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan came into office at one of the lowest points in American history. The 1970s had been a miserable decade. Domestically, the 1970s witnessed low economic growth coupled with rising unemployment and inflation (“stagflation”); exploding rates of illegitimacy, crime, and drug abuse; and a near total failure of leadership from the White House. Overseas, the forces of communism and Islamic extremism were spreading seemingly unchecked, punctuated by the fall of Saigon in 1975, the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that same year. The decade reached its nadir with the Iranian Hostage Crisis (November 1979 to January 1981), one of the most demoralizing episodes in American history. This all changed on January 20, 1981, when Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the nation’s 40th president. That day, in his eloquent and inspiring Inaugural Address, Reagan articulated the themes that would guide his presidency for the next eight years: expanding individual liberty and opportunity, reducing the role of the federal government, unleashing the entrepreneurial energy and genius of ordinary Americans, and rebuilding the military. Above all else, Reagan restored a spirit of confidence and optimism to the White House, and to the American people. Under Reagan’s leadership, the nation embarked on the longest period of economic expansion in its history. Real economic growth went from an anemic 1.6% to a robust 3.5% per year. The “misery index” (unemployment + inflation) declined from 20.8% during the last year of Carter’s presidency to 9.6% during the last year of Reagan’s presidency. Tax rates were slashed, while government revenues soared in a “supply side” boom. And contrary to critics who claim that Reagan’s policies unfairly benefited the rich, the portion of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers rose from 18% in 1981 to 28% in 1988. (See this.) At the same time that Reagan’s fiscal policies were reinvigorating the American economy, his build up of American military power – and his plain talk about the evils of communism – were reinvigorating the “containment” policy of Truman and Kennedy. Reagan referred to his foreign policy in characteristically homespun terms as “peace through strength.” It worked. Reagan stopped the spread of communism in Latin America. He struck back against Middle Eastern terrorists. He created an unmatched military that would later win the First Gulf War in spectacular fashion. Most importantly, Reagan exerted enormous and unrelenting pressure on the Soviet Union – through military, political, economic, and technological means – to abandon its commitment to worldwide revolution, agree to steep cuts in nuclear weapons, and liberalize its society. The result was one of the most profound achievements in human history: the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. (See this.) The American people were drawn to Reagan’s message of freedom and hope. In the 1980 election versus the hapless Jimmy Carter, Reagan received 489 electoral votes to Carter’s 49, and won the popular vote 51% to 41%. Reagan was resoundingly re-elected in 1984 over Walter Mondale (Carter’s vice-president), with 525 electoral votes to Mondale’s 13, and 59% of the popular vote to Mondale’s 41%. By comparison, this was a larger margin of victory than FDR achieved in 1932, 1940, or 1944. (See this.) Reagan has remained extremely popular with the American people, and his death in June 2004 resulted in an outpouring of love and grief across the nation. At his funeral, Reagan’s friend and ally Margaret Thatcher recounted Reagan’s enormous legacy: “He sought to mend America’s wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism.” These were great and difficult tasks, and Reagan achieved them all. On this President’s Day 2006, let us remember, and take inspiration from, our three greatest presidents: Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan. All hail the chief! Steven M. Warshawsky
  16. The American Thinker February 20th, 2006 For more than a week now, the press has been beating up on Vice President D ick Cheney for his handling – or, rather, for his mis-handling – of how the accidental shooting of his friend while on a hunting trip in Texas was disclosed. The theme that runs through all this criticism is that the Vice President made a terrible mistake in not arranging for news of the shooting to be disclosed immediately, rather than waiting 14 hours to put out the word. But what if D ick Cheney hadn’t stiffed the press? Let’s conduct what scientists call a “thought experiment.” Let’s press the rewind button and go back to the very moment of the accidental shooting…. Cheney spots a quail, pulls the trigger—and to his horror Harry Whittington falls to the ground. Without a moment’s hesitation the Vice President reaches into his pocket, pulls out his cell phone, and calls NBC News White House Correspondent David Gregory. Gregory? This is Cheney. I’m hunting in Texas and I’ve just accidentally shot my friend. When? Thirty seconds ago, maybe forty. Took a while to find your number. Is he dead or alive? Don’t know. But I thought I better call you to get the word out fast. While this conversation is taking place, another conversation is taking place on television: Welcome to Hardball, I’m Chris Matthews. According to a new MSNBC poll, the Bush Administration is now the most hated and distrusted Administration in our country’s history. The question is, why. My guests today have two very different perspectives on all this. Nancy Pelosi is the House Democratic leader, and Katrina Vanden Heuvel is the highly-respected editor of the non-partisan magazine, The Nation. It’s a pleasure to have you ladies on the show today. I must say, both of you are not only brainy, but gorgeous – I mean, really hot. I wonder why it is that Democrats aren’t afraid of smart, good-looking women. I was just talking with my kid brother in Philadelphia – did I mention he’s just been nominated for Lieutenant Governor – and he was saying…..Wait a minute. We’ve got breaking news from David Gregory. David, you’re on the air. Chris, the Vice President has just shot his friend in Texas. Right now, that’s all we know, but – My god, David, you really are a great reporter. What a scoop. You’re amazing. What you’re saying is that Cheney’s first thought was the public-relations, that all he really cares about is getting out first with the news so that he can control the spin. That’s right, Chris. As you know, that’s the one thing this White House really does well. Frankly, I was astonished by my conversation with the Vice President. I got the impression he cared more about getting out the word than about his friend’s life. Well, remember David, Cheney used to run Halliburton and in the corporate world life is cheap. I just can’t get over the way this Bush Administration gave all those fat contracts in Iraq to their friends in the business community. Congresswoman Pelosi, what’s your take on this? By the way, it really is an honor to have you on the show. You’re great, the way you cut through all the spin and – Thank you, Chris. It seems to me that – No, really, it’s people like you that make politics a respected profession. We’re just about out of time and – —there’s a lot to this story we just don’t know. Right now we only have the Vice President’s word that the shooting just happened and – I want to bring Katrina into this. Katrina – by the way, that leather jacket is just stunning – what’s your take on this? We’re just about out of time and – This is just so typical of this gun-loving Bush crowd. They have no regard whatsoever for human life. Why would anyone be surprised that Cheney shot someone? We’re killing people in Iraq every day, and this Administration has tried to jail photographers who’ve tried to take pictures of dead – Katrina, you’re great. Just fantastic. That’s it for today’s edition of Hardball. I’m Chris Matthews, and we’ll be back tomorrow with more about this new scandal involving the Bush Administration’s latest maneuver to manipulate public opinion about the war. Now, let’s fast-forward to the 5PM editors’ meeting at The New York Times, where key decisions are made about the next day’s edition…. On second thought, let’s not. You get the point: The mainstream press hates the Bush Administration generally, and the Vice President in particular. Its only objective is to discredit the Bush Administration, and by doing so to increase the chances of a Democratic victory in the upcoming 2006 elections and, of course, in the 2008 Presidential election. So rather than cover the news, they manufacture one “scandal” after another. Simply put, the mainstream press was looking for an excuse to stick it to D ick Cheney, and they found one. The only thing we can be sure of is that it won’t be long before another senior member of the Bush Administration becomes the victim of a manufactured “scandal” – and then another, and another….. Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. His DVD on The Siege of Western Civilization has become an international best-seller. In his own one and only appearance on Hardball, Herb was not described by Chris Matthews as either brainy or gorgeous. Herb would have settled – happily—for one of the two. Herbert E. Meyer
  17. I read an account from investigators that said someone actually "planted" his car keys on him after his body was removed from where it was originally found! They said the keys were definately not there when they first checked his body at the so called "suicide location". :w00t:
  18. I'm afraid it will take another 9/11 type terrorist attack on America before the liberals get on board with President Bush and help support the fight against terrorism. It's sad they are playing politics instead of putting our safety and security first! :whistle:
  19. The American Thinker July 19th, 2005 It’s safe to assume that the number one question asked at cocktail parties and on golf courses this weekend was who do you think “outed” CIA agent Valerie Plame. Likely, the answer depended on the recipient’s news source of choice. For example, some media outlets affirm that it was Karl Rove, President Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff. In their view, Rove should either be fired, or resign. Conversely, other news divisions maintain that Rove didn’t actually violate any national security statutes given that he was first told of Plame’s CIA involvement by a reporter, and that Plame hadn’t been working overseas recently enough as a covert agent for this “outing” to actually be considered a crime. So, who’s right? Which media outlet’s take should we believe? Maybe more important, why should we have to make that decision, and how can we possibly be qualified to do so? Isn’t that what the news industry is supposed to do for us – present unadulterated and unbiased facts so that we can understand what happens from one day to the next? Moreover, shouldn’t one be able to pick up a newspaper, or turn on a cable news channel, and become informed without the sinking feeling that you are possibly being lied to? After all, with this story currently being the focal point of contention, one side of our media is going to end up being wrong. Depending on which side it is, this could be significantly greater than 50% of America’s news agencies, which means that more than half of the reports on this subject could in fact be erroneous. How can that be? And, for those that are nodding your heads smugly at this suggestion because you feel that your side will therefore be vindicated with a huge win for your party, isn’t it just as likely that your view of what is the truth in this matter is just as errant as that of the the media outlets whose veracity you never question because they fortify your political ideology? Taking this further, there are currently over 600 television channels available via satellite. Let’s say you don’t want to hear the biased version of the news that is designed to make you feel good about your political dogma and the party you support. Instead, you actually want to hear the truth, and nothing but the truth. Shouldn’t there be one of these 600 stations dedicated to such a thing twenty-four hours a day? Or maybe just an hour a day? Or ten minutes? Or, is there simply no market for the truth? With the rise in popularity of nonfiction books in the past couple of decades, novels still way outperform this category on the New York Times Bestsellers list every week. Just ask J. K. Rowling. Does this suggest that news has become exclusively a sales and marketing item? Are newspaper editors and television news producers making storyline decisions solely on the basis of which version will better sell to their target market regardless of accuracy? After all, companies market products and services to us based upon a variety of demographics including age, gender, and income level. Why shouldn’t the media use the same approach to sell news reports based on political leanings if, in the end, it is all about ratings, market share, and advertising revenue? Assuming this is indeed the case, a news agency whose audience is largely liberal had better report that Rove is the guilty party in this scandal or risk losing some of its valued customers. Of course, the same goes for a conservative outlet being compelled to defend Rove’s actions like a momma-bear defends her cubs. But, doesn’t this suggest that we’re all a bit like Lenin’s “useful idiots”? For those missing the simile, Vladimir Lenin referred to Western journalists, politicians, writers, and supposed intellectuals who professed the virtues of communism as “useful idiots” in that they furthered his cause in democratic and capitalist countries even though they weren’t Party members. This term has recently been dusted off to depict exceedingly liberal media members, Hollywood-types, and socialist activists in our nation. In this modern conservative epithet, a “useful idiot” is any liberal who not only blindly accepts all the propaganda being spewed by Democratic politicians and their mainstream media minions, but also becomes a walking billboard for such biased and errant views. However, given the absence of consistently impartial and irrefutable facts in much of today’s news reports, isn’t our entire population currently being manipulated like useful idiots regardless of political leaning? Attribution Language: FOR DUMMIES® and related trade dress are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries. Noel Sheppard is an economist and writer residing in Northern California. He welcomes your feedback at [email protected]. Noel Sheppard
  20. The American Thinker February 15th, 2006 Americans increasingly lack patience and perspective. A pastor I know used to call this a “microwave mentality.” We think everything should be as easy as heating a burrito in a convenience store. Push a couple of buttons and two minutes later, lunch is ready. This form of luxury, as great as it is and as thankful as I am for it, spoils a free people and gets them accustomed to living in a life of comfort and expediency. So, if I can order a pizza and have a guy five miles away have it at my front door in thirty minutes, shouldn’t this “Iraq thing” be stable in the same amount of time? Our capitalist economy has enabled us to enjoy comforts beyond the wildest dreams of our founders. The media, Useful Idiots of terrorist groups everywhere, come into our living rooms and show smoke rising from bombed out cars, talk of more servicemen dying, and make a subtle effort to get you to believe that this war effort is either wrong, failing, or both. And of course, they don’t feel obligated to keep the story in perspective by reminding us of the improvements in the lives of ordinary Iraqis. Let’s put it in perspective for the Useful Idiots, then. The world is an evil, hostile place. Tyrants are ready to sacrifice millions of lives to get their way. They hate us for our freedom, our prosperity, and the example we offer to their own oppressed people. War is sometimes a regrettable necessity. Bumper stickers that proclaim “war is not the answer” are simply wrong. Unfortunately for the utopians, war is almost always the answer when you are dealing with evil tyrants who respect nothing but force and whose ambitions are boundless. Another idiotic bumper sticker says, “If you want peace, work for justice.” If you want justice, spread freedom. As long as the free world winks at tyranny, there will always be injustice. Since the end of the Ottoman Empire, when the British victors of the First World War carved out the nation of Iraq, the people of this ancient land have known nothing but coups, tyranny, revolution and fear. First the Useful Idiots predicted mass body bags for the liberation. That didn’t happen. Then they predicted low voter turnout in the January 2005 elections because of the fear of terrorist retaliation. That didn’t happen. Then they predicted low voter turnout for the election in fall of 2005. That didn’t happen. Then they predicted disaster for the December 2005 elections. The turnout was far better than most western nations. The record of the Useful Idiots isn’t very good with these predictions. For the first time since Saddam took power, the rape rooms and torture chambers are gone. The brutal secret police do not terrorize ordinary citizens. Media in Iraq are free to criticize the government, schools are open, hospitals are open, oil production is back up and running, and the Leftists in Iran, Syria and Egypt are taking notice. Why don’t you know about these things? Because the Useful Idiots are too busy making sure you know about the latest car bombing and the Marines that died in the ordeal. The biggest threat to our success is this bad reporting. Take note, America. The Useful Idiots have no interest in the American people getting the whole story, just the parts that are deemed relevant by them. If the Useful Idiots succeed in breaking the resolve of the American people and cause a premature pullout, and this war does turn into Vietnam redux, the blood of not only American Servicemen, but of hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent Iraqis deemed traitors and apostates by the thugs entering the power vacuum, will be all over the hands of the media and the antiwar Left. The most troubling aspect to me is how the American public – in fact, our culture as a whole in this day and age – view battlefield casualties. The United States of America – its citizenry, mind you, definitely not its warriors – cannot effectively fight another major war if the deaths of brave warriors are turned into an argument against pressing on to victory. Iraq has been a three year operation resulting in 2000 battlefield fatalities, liberating 26 million people from the clutches of a tyrant. If 2000 deaths can send the public into hysteria, how will we fare if we face a determined enemy willing to sacrifice on the scale we saw in World War II, when battlefield casualties ran into the millions? Our World War II generation was an example for those that followed. As thousands died on the battlefield, the American public kept everything in perspective. I really doubt this generation’s ability to do that, based on the reaction to the reporting of the Useful Idiots over the last three years. And based on our microwave mentality. If I am right – that based on the hysteria over the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom, maybe Osama is right, that we don’t have the stomach for the fight – God Help Us. Jeff Hale
  21. The American Thinker February 17th, 2006 Some observers have compared the White House’s handling of Di ck Cheney’s accident to Vince Foster’s suspicious death in the summer of 1993. This comparison has been drawn mostly on the basis of delays in disclosure in both cases. We know now the Clinton White House actively withheld information on this regrettable incident from the press, starting with the initial delay while they apparently worked on a major cover up. Numerous problems with the investigation ensued and serious misconduct was later exposed. White House Chief Counsel Bernard Nussbaum was eventually rebuked for mishandling this matter. To test this comparison I researched reporting done on the Foster death by the Washington Post. I sampled stories from the date of the first report July 21, to August 8, 1993. This sampling method loosely approximates the current five day chronology of the Cheney story. My research reveals a collection of stories written with a very perceptible bias. Ruth Marcus broke the story from the original White House press release. The next day, July 22, 1993, Lloyd Grove wrote the lamentation “Striking at the Heart of the White House” Grove introduced the piece with what can only be called appropriate sentiments such as: “The atmosphere at the White House was one of great sadness, disbelief, anger and tragedy the morning after Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster Jr, one of the Clinton’s closest friends…” This is wholly unremarkable viewed through the prism of 1993. Looked at through the lens of the Cheney story it exemplifies Post’s abandonment of basic fairness and compassion. Ruth Marcus followed the same day with a fawning eulogy headlined” “One of the Golden Boys… Clinton’s Rock of Gibraltar.” Again Marcus wrote a perfectly sensible story reflecting the natural human emotions arising from a tragedy like this: “White House colleagues were unanimous in their view that Foster was the last person they would have expected to commit suicide” Ann Devroy than adds the uncritical and sympathetic piece “Clintons Mystified…” There’s nothing inherently wrong with this reporting and that’s the point. When reporting on their Democratic Party brothers in arms they are respectful and professional. Now this Cheney incident comes along and they threw out any modicum of respect and restraint. Case in point, we have a national political reporter clownishly donning an orange hunting vest and sock cap on a cable news show, yucking it up with the ring master over the Vice President’s regrettable misfortune. The above stories about the Foster death, in contrast, marked the beginning of a string of uncritical reporting for the ensuing several weeks. David Von Drehle followed with more reporting on Foster’s death with Saturday and Sunday puff pieces like “friends left behind”, “Vince Foster faithful adviser”, “Arkansan’s reflect on the tremendous toll of life in the seat of power.” Von Drehle attended the funeral and filed a perfectly serviceable story. He captured what no doubt was a day full of sorrow and remembrance. Naturally, he couldn’t resist repeating the well-worn “boy from Hope” nonsense. Consummate Washington insider Meg Greenfield weighed in with her own lamentation simply titled: “A death in Washington” This report consisted of nostalgic impressions and quotes from her encounters with politicians and journalist at an exclusive dinner party. It all feels too cozy for comfort. Readers are cast on the outside, looking in on the rarefied world of Washington. Fully seven days passed before there was a story on the nuts and bolts of the investigation. Michael Isikoff uncritically reported the crack homicide detectives from the Park Police were leading. One day later Isikoff joined Devroy in revealing selected details apparently disclosed as part of the investigation. Two weeks after Foster’s death Walter Pincus churned out a story that sticks right to the “company line” with: “Vincent Foster: Out of his Element.” Finally, on August 8, the estimable late Mary McGrory penned a note perfect apologist’s essay snappily titled “The fog after Foster.” The early reporting record of the Foster death shows very little skepticism, lots of sympathy and a pronounced inclination to accept whatever whoppers the White House laid out for the press corps. Contrast this with coverage on the Cheney matter: question everything, believe nothing, always infer the most nefarious and evil explanations. Conjecture and speculation are the rule of the day. All this being done with the irrefutable knowledge that no one got killed, and no one doubts it is anything other than a regrettable garden-variety accident. The February 13 story by Nedra Pickler “Cheney cited for Breaking Hunting Law” typifies the tone and substance of the coverage printed by thePost. It was a $7.00 fine for not having the stamp endorsement on his valid hunting license. This violation is one step removed below a jaywalking citation. February 15, the Post picked up an AP byline from Erin McClam “Vice Presidents Share Curious Lineage.” This fairly interesting story provides historical context – which is fine. The subtext is somewhat more sinister. Peppered with quotes like the one from John Nance Garner, FDR’s two term veep who once characterized the VP’s job as “not worth a bucket of warm spit” its easy to see where this is headed. Let’s cut the Post a little slack now. I must thank Howie Kurtz, the Post’s usually even handed media critic for his unwitting assistance in proving my point. Save and except for the inapt comparison to the WMD story, the piece Kurtz wrote headlined “Gunning for Cheney” lays out clear and convincing evidence in excruciating detail of the withering attacks being leveled at Cheney by the media. As to be expected, Kurtz refrains from ascribing any motives for this conduct. I must say his zeal for objectivity takes a lot of zip out his arguments. Perhaps they can hire Meg Greenfield back for a cameo appearance. They can send her to some dinner party this weekend. Undoubtedly, the party will be teeming with journalists with nothing but sweet things to say about Dick Cheney. Eventually the questions about Foster’s death were too numerous to ignore. The seemingly interminable investigations into Foster’s death never concluded anything. Thirteen years later, lingering doubts and nagging questions remain. This is in no small part a result of the press abdicating their responsibility. Unbelievably, more than a decade after Foster’s death Charles Lane wrote: “Court Bars Release Of Foster Photos; Family’s Right To Privacy Prevails (2004)” Strangely, the incurious Washington Post never lifted a finger to advocate for the public’s right to know in this case. Lane in fact disparages the overly insistent “right wingers” that peskily persisted in pursuit of the truth. The Post shows an unhealthy contempt for the truth especially if it is at odds with establishment orthodoxy-that is the Democrat Establishment. While the Cheney story has not run its course, in all probability this will turn out to be much ado about nothing adding yet another chapter to the Post’s journalistic legacy-such as it is. The comparison with the handling of Foster’s death shows in stark relief what is meant by “media bias.” Christopher J. Alleva
  22. The liberal media didn't hound Kennedy either like they are doing with Cheney! :whistle:
  23. If you saw the Cheney interview with Britt Hume yesterday, you will see they handled it in a very thoughtful way. Just because they didn't call the snot-nosed crybabies in the White House press corps immediately they all got their panties in a wad. Cheney said he would handle it the same way again! :w00t: Good for him!!!:w00t::mf_tongue::w00t:
×
×
  • Create New...