A man's home is his castle................................................unless government covets the property.
Cities around the country are using the eminent domain (ED) provision of our law to take private property for questionable (in my view) public use. The latest example comes from Olympia, Washington. The city wants to force owners to sell their property so the city can create another public park. Public parks are great but should cities use ED and their coercive government powers against owners who do not want to sell?
So far the courts -all the way to SCOTUS - have ruled in favor of the governments. A recent ruling by the highest court in the land supported a Connecticut taking where a city condemned private property in order to take it so the city could in turn hand the property over to a private developer. It was not taken for a public highway, nor for a hospital, nor for a school, but so a developer who coveted the property could build a private commercial business. The city's rationale was that the new development would raise lots more tax revenue. Therefore, the public good was enhanced.
The Connecticut case led to a group filing ED papers in New Hampshire against Justice Souter's home. Souter wrote the SCOTUS opinion that agreed with the taking. It seems fair to me that if one person's property is subjected to ED, then why not subject Justice Souter's property to the same standard. After all, justice is for ALL of us, right?
A man's home is his castle...................................is meaningless these days!
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Mainstream Media - Part Three
The declining standards of the mainstream media were significant in the loss of consumers and the loss of prestige by large liberal news organizations. Readership fell at most large city newspapers. The viewing audiences at the three major television network news shows shrunk. More and more news consumers were finding and preferring alternative news sources. Journalists were ranked in some polls below used car salesmen for credibility and honesty.
In comparison FOXNEWS, a young cable news network, saw tremendous growth in viewers while CNN and MSNBC lost viewers or saw much slower growth. Internet news sites grow at a rapid pace as does the Blogoshere, world-wide-web sites where anyone could start a Blog to offer opinion, commentary, news analysis, and review and critique news presented by other sources. Bloggers were instrumental in debunking the CBS News story about President Bush’s Texas ANG service. Within hours after the story ran bloggers had determined the documents used in the story were forged because the type and font used in the documents were not available when the documents were allegedly created in the 1970s.
One obvious problem with modern liberal journalism was the need by liberal journalists to interject themselves into the story. No longer were journalists content to report the news, but now insisted on making themselves part of the story for personal or political reasons to massage their egos, to push a political agenda, or to become a celebrity or pundit.
Anyone who wanted could track the state of modern journalism at several internet sites. The
Media Research Center has been tracking the liberal mainstream media for years at www.mediaresearchcenter.org. Other sites also provided case studies and analysis of the performance of the mainstream media.
Bernard Goldberg’s book, Bias, presented a compelling case for what many conservatives had said for years. Goldberg, a long time CBS News reporter, a liberal who said he had never voted for a Republican, had warned his peers about the unfair and biased journalism he saw first hand. Despite his concern expressed over the years to his peers, to news executives, to producers, and to others in the business, no one listened so he decided to write an editorial on the subject. It ran in the Wall Street Journal in 1996 and created a firestorm within the news business. Goldberg was vilified and considered a traitor for revealing the truth about the liberal mainstream media (CBS). The liberals in the media could investigate anyone in the nation, business leaders, politicians, schools, athletes and publish and broadcast whatever they wanted. Yet if anyone dared to question how THEY did their work, then, baby, it was war!
Goldberg’s book became a best seller and remained on that list for many weeks – proof of the power of his message about bias in the mainstream media. Conservatives were correct about the liberal media bias years before honest Bernard Goldberg told the truth. [1]
Frequently, the media engaged in media feeding frenzys. These occurred as journalists rushed to out-perform their competitors in covering news stories. There was a feeding frenzy in 2004 over President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service despite nothing new to report. The “story” had been covered when Bush ran for governor of Texas, when he ran for re-election as governor, and in 2000 when Bush ran for president. Despite the past coverage the liberal media tried to find a new angle to the old story not unlike an old dog digging up a favorite bone to chew. CBS News even went so far as to use faked and forged documents in an attempt to derail Bush’s re-election chances. Thanks to the new media, bloggers and talk radio, CBS failed in its blatant partisan effort to shape the election of 2004.
In February of 2006 the mainstream media performed another feeding frenzy for all to see. While hunting quail in south Texas Vice President Chaney accidentally shot one of his hunting companions. Fortunately, the wounds were not serious and the man was out of the hospital in a few days. A local media outlet in Corpus Cristi was notified the next day. The accident had occurred late in the day on a Saturday. The White House press corps (David Gregory of NBC, to be exact) went beserk at the next daily briefing; not that Cheney had shot a companion, but because the White House press corps had not been notified first. Members of the press corps railed and ranted at the briefing, yelling and making wild accusations against the White House. The frenzy continued for days with little or no coverage of important news. During this period the leader of Iran made wild and crazy charges against the United States, railed against Israel, and vowed to continue nuclear research despite a United Nations warning to stop.
Again, the liberal mainstream media performed badly in covering the Katrina hurricane story of August 2005. The media predicted thousands of deaths when the levees broke in New Orleans. The local and state officials in Louisiana failed their people. The city of New Orleans was not evacuated when warned. The mayor and the governor of the state (both Democrats) failed to follow their own emergency plans. When the levees breached thousands of people were stranded and had to be rescued- all because local and state officials failed in their duties. And the media blamed President Bush for all of it. Months later the media was still insisting it was all Bush’s fault despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It was a great disservice to the American people to distort news for cheap partisan gain. The media’s performance in the Katrina hurricane coverage would make a great case study in media bias, laziness, dishonesty, misinformation, and other tricks the media used to spin the story.
The mainstream media is too liberal, too biased, too lazy, too partisan, and too intolerant. It is devoid of diversity, devoted to protecting itself, too much “Inside the Beltway” with a clannish attitude about the rest of the country. It is as if the Red States do not exist and liberals who dominate the media know nothing about Red States and know few people from Red States. Most liberal journalists know very little about most of America. Anything not on the extreme West Coast or not in New York City, Washington, or Boston is considered foreign to the folks who make up the mainstream media. They are out of touch with working America, isolated and insulated in large cities on the east and west coast and only associate with like-minded liberals. Yet they pretend to represent working Americans.
[1] I suggest anyone interested in Goldberg’s experiences with the pervasive bias at CBS NEWS read this wook.
In comparison FOXNEWS, a young cable news network, saw tremendous growth in viewers while CNN and MSNBC lost viewers or saw much slower growth. Internet news sites grow at a rapid pace as does the Blogoshere, world-wide-web sites where anyone could start a Blog to offer opinion, commentary, news analysis, and review and critique news presented by other sources. Bloggers were instrumental in debunking the CBS News story about President Bush’s Texas ANG service. Within hours after the story ran bloggers had determined the documents used in the story were forged because the type and font used in the documents were not available when the documents were allegedly created in the 1970s.
One obvious problem with modern liberal journalism was the need by liberal journalists to interject themselves into the story. No longer were journalists content to report the news, but now insisted on making themselves part of the story for personal or political reasons to massage their egos, to push a political agenda, or to become a celebrity or pundit.
Anyone who wanted could track the state of modern journalism at several internet sites. The
Media Research Center has been tracking the liberal mainstream media for years at www.mediaresearchcenter.org. Other sites also provided case studies and analysis of the performance of the mainstream media.
Bernard Goldberg’s book, Bias, presented a compelling case for what many conservatives had said for years. Goldberg, a long time CBS News reporter, a liberal who said he had never voted for a Republican, had warned his peers about the unfair and biased journalism he saw first hand. Despite his concern expressed over the years to his peers, to news executives, to producers, and to others in the business, no one listened so he decided to write an editorial on the subject. It ran in the Wall Street Journal in 1996 and created a firestorm within the news business. Goldberg was vilified and considered a traitor for revealing the truth about the liberal mainstream media (CBS). The liberals in the media could investigate anyone in the nation, business leaders, politicians, schools, athletes and publish and broadcast whatever they wanted. Yet if anyone dared to question how THEY did their work, then, baby, it was war!
Goldberg’s book became a best seller and remained on that list for many weeks – proof of the power of his message about bias in the mainstream media. Conservatives were correct about the liberal media bias years before honest Bernard Goldberg told the truth. [1]
Frequently, the media engaged in media feeding frenzys. These occurred as journalists rushed to out-perform their competitors in covering news stories. There was a feeding frenzy in 2004 over President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service despite nothing new to report. The “story” had been covered when Bush ran for governor of Texas, when he ran for re-election as governor, and in 2000 when Bush ran for president. Despite the past coverage the liberal media tried to find a new angle to the old story not unlike an old dog digging up a favorite bone to chew. CBS News even went so far as to use faked and forged documents in an attempt to derail Bush’s re-election chances. Thanks to the new media, bloggers and talk radio, CBS failed in its blatant partisan effort to shape the election of 2004.
In February of 2006 the mainstream media performed another feeding frenzy for all to see. While hunting quail in south Texas Vice President Chaney accidentally shot one of his hunting companions. Fortunately, the wounds were not serious and the man was out of the hospital in a few days. A local media outlet in Corpus Cristi was notified the next day. The accident had occurred late in the day on a Saturday. The White House press corps (David Gregory of NBC, to be exact) went beserk at the next daily briefing; not that Cheney had shot a companion, but because the White House press corps had not been notified first. Members of the press corps railed and ranted at the briefing, yelling and making wild accusations against the White House. The frenzy continued for days with little or no coverage of important news. During this period the leader of Iran made wild and crazy charges against the United States, railed against Israel, and vowed to continue nuclear research despite a United Nations warning to stop.
Again, the liberal mainstream media performed badly in covering the Katrina hurricane story of August 2005. The media predicted thousands of deaths when the levees broke in New Orleans. The local and state officials in Louisiana failed their people. The city of New Orleans was not evacuated when warned. The mayor and the governor of the state (both Democrats) failed to follow their own emergency plans. When the levees breached thousands of people were stranded and had to be rescued- all because local and state officials failed in their duties. And the media blamed President Bush for all of it. Months later the media was still insisting it was all Bush’s fault despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It was a great disservice to the American people to distort news for cheap partisan gain. The media’s performance in the Katrina hurricane coverage would make a great case study in media bias, laziness, dishonesty, misinformation, and other tricks the media used to spin the story.
The mainstream media is too liberal, too biased, too lazy, too partisan, and too intolerant. It is devoid of diversity, devoted to protecting itself, too much “Inside the Beltway” with a clannish attitude about the rest of the country. It is as if the Red States do not exist and liberals who dominate the media know nothing about Red States and know few people from Red States. Most liberal journalists know very little about most of America. Anything not on the extreme West Coast or not in New York City, Washington, or Boston is considered foreign to the folks who make up the mainstream media. They are out of touch with working America, isolated and insulated in large cities on the east and west coast and only associate with like-minded liberals. Yet they pretend to represent working Americans.
[1] I suggest anyone interested in Goldberg’s experiences with the pervasive bias at CBS NEWS read this wook.
The Mainstream Media - Part Two
It was as if journalists were no longer happy to report the news. That was not good enough for the post-Vietnam War journalists. In the new world of celebrity journalism the elites who made up the media wanted to be the story or at least wanted to shape their stories with a political bias.
In January 2006 a lobbying scandal broke in Washington. Jack Abramoff, a powerful lobbyist and Washington insider pleaded guilty to violations of lobbying laws. The mainstream media presented the story as a “Republican” scandal despite facts that revealed both major political parties deeply involved. Abramoff and his clients, some of whom were Indian tribes seeking gaming advantages from Congress, donated money to members of Congress from both political parties. But the media reports rarely mentioned the contributions given to Democrats. The Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, was one Democrat implicated in the scandal. According to the Washington Times[1] Reid and his staff had numerous contacts with the Abramoff firm. One of Reid’s legislative aides resigned and joined the Abramoff lobbying business. There were Republicans involved and their names were splashed all over the news.
Other scandals involving Democrats rarely made the news. Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, was under federal investigation for corruption. One of Jefferson’s staffers pleaded guilty to corruption charges. But the mainstream media downplayed this scandal and refused to give it equal air time. Democrat John Conyers of Michigan was charged with using his staff for personal business including driving his kids to and from school, tutoring, and performing other personal services. Yet there were no splashy headlines or evening news stories about Conyers’s actions. Since the Abramoff scandal was considered big news, an objective news consumer would think a sitting US Congressman under investigation would also be newsworthy and would appear on the front pages of the Times and Post. In late 2006 Senator Harry Reid, the Senate’s Democrat Minority Leader, (and now the Majority Leader of the Senate) was in trouble for not reporting a one million dollar profit he made on a real estate sale in Nevada. Reid made his huge profit three years AFTER he sold the property. But this story was downplayed or ignored by the liberal media in comparison to the headline coverage given to the Republicans who made the news.
Did you sale a piece of property in the past three years? Perhaps you can convince the buyers to give you an additional, say, $500,000, as a token of friendship. Hmmmmmmm?
The suppression of positive news by the liberal media was apparent. The unwritten code was to downplay any news that reflected well upon Bush and to accent news that cast Bush in a negative light. Economic news was especially suppressed for political reasons. Bush’s economy in 2005 produced more than 2 million new jobs. Inflation was low, interest rates were at historic lows, unemployment rates were very low, home ownership was at historic highs and the stock market neared a historic high at 12,000. Yet the mainstream media boycotted this wonderful economic news. Under the previous administration such great news was splashed in bold headlines and presented as the lead stories in the evening news rooms with great praise given to the President Clinton for his skill in handling the economy. But that was during a Democrat administration. In February 2006 the Bush economy created 243,000 new jobs. The news, which would have been touted by the media for days during the Clinton era, got a passing mention – end of story.
Many Americans wondered about the mainstream media’s constant emphasis of negative news. There were countless stories about the homeless (all of which started on January 20, 2001 if one believed the liberal media). The Times[2] ran a story on the homeless just hours after Bush was sworn into office in 2001. It was as if the homeless had not existed during the eight years of Clinton and as soon as Bush took office, the homeless somehow multiplied overnight. Foreign news was doom and gloom. The liberation of 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan was rarely mentioned by the liberal media. Instead the news consisted of a body count and reports of how the wounded Americans now had to survive with disabilities whereas in previous wars they would have died on the battlefield. Battle field medicine was so good that it was saving thousands of lives, yet the media presented the story as one of survivors having to live the rest of their lives with handicaps.
Bush’s tax cuts which spurred super economic growth was presented as the cause of rising deficits. Most of the mainstream media had opposed the tax cuts from the start and had reported in dark terms the dire consequences of cutting taxes. Rarely did the media report the rising spending habits of Congress. But when the tax cuts worked to stimulate the economy and dramatically increased the revenues flowing into federal and state coffers, the media ignored or downplayed the positive news. Most journalists wrote that the American people should pay more in taxes.
[1] www.WashingtonTimes.com, Associated Press story published 10 February 2006.
[2] For more information on “reporting” by The New York Times, see www.mediaresearchcenter.org)
In January 2006 a lobbying scandal broke in Washington. Jack Abramoff, a powerful lobbyist and Washington insider pleaded guilty to violations of lobbying laws. The mainstream media presented the story as a “Republican” scandal despite facts that revealed both major political parties deeply involved. Abramoff and his clients, some of whom were Indian tribes seeking gaming advantages from Congress, donated money to members of Congress from both political parties. But the media reports rarely mentioned the contributions given to Democrats. The Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, was one Democrat implicated in the scandal. According to the Washington Times[1] Reid and his staff had numerous contacts with the Abramoff firm. One of Reid’s legislative aides resigned and joined the Abramoff lobbying business. There were Republicans involved and their names were splashed all over the news.
Other scandals involving Democrats rarely made the news. Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, was under federal investigation for corruption. One of Jefferson’s staffers pleaded guilty to corruption charges. But the mainstream media downplayed this scandal and refused to give it equal air time. Democrat John Conyers of Michigan was charged with using his staff for personal business including driving his kids to and from school, tutoring, and performing other personal services. Yet there were no splashy headlines or evening news stories about Conyers’s actions. Since the Abramoff scandal was considered big news, an objective news consumer would think a sitting US Congressman under investigation would also be newsworthy and would appear on the front pages of the Times and Post. In late 2006 Senator Harry Reid, the Senate’s Democrat Minority Leader, (and now the Majority Leader of the Senate) was in trouble for not reporting a one million dollar profit he made on a real estate sale in Nevada. Reid made his huge profit three years AFTER he sold the property. But this story was downplayed or ignored by the liberal media in comparison to the headline coverage given to the Republicans who made the news.
Did you sale a piece of property in the past three years? Perhaps you can convince the buyers to give you an additional, say, $500,000, as a token of friendship. Hmmmmmmm?
The suppression of positive news by the liberal media was apparent. The unwritten code was to downplay any news that reflected well upon Bush and to accent news that cast Bush in a negative light. Economic news was especially suppressed for political reasons. Bush’s economy in 2005 produced more than 2 million new jobs. Inflation was low, interest rates were at historic lows, unemployment rates were very low, home ownership was at historic highs and the stock market neared a historic high at 12,000. Yet the mainstream media boycotted this wonderful economic news. Under the previous administration such great news was splashed in bold headlines and presented as the lead stories in the evening news rooms with great praise given to the President Clinton for his skill in handling the economy. But that was during a Democrat administration. In February 2006 the Bush economy created 243,000 new jobs. The news, which would have been touted by the media for days during the Clinton era, got a passing mention – end of story.
Many Americans wondered about the mainstream media’s constant emphasis of negative news. There were countless stories about the homeless (all of which started on January 20, 2001 if one believed the liberal media). The Times[2] ran a story on the homeless just hours after Bush was sworn into office in 2001. It was as if the homeless had not existed during the eight years of Clinton and as soon as Bush took office, the homeless somehow multiplied overnight. Foreign news was doom and gloom. The liberation of 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan was rarely mentioned by the liberal media. Instead the news consisted of a body count and reports of how the wounded Americans now had to survive with disabilities whereas in previous wars they would have died on the battlefield. Battle field medicine was so good that it was saving thousands of lives, yet the media presented the story as one of survivors having to live the rest of their lives with handicaps.
Bush’s tax cuts which spurred super economic growth was presented as the cause of rising deficits. Most of the mainstream media had opposed the tax cuts from the start and had reported in dark terms the dire consequences of cutting taxes. Rarely did the media report the rising spending habits of Congress. But when the tax cuts worked to stimulate the economy and dramatically increased the revenues flowing into federal and state coffers, the media ignored or downplayed the positive news. Most journalists wrote that the American people should pay more in taxes.
[1] www.WashingtonTimes.com, Associated Press story published 10 February 2006.
[2] For more information on “reporting” by The New York Times, see www.mediaresearchcenter.org)
The Mainstream Media -Part One
Beginning with the Vietnam War the mainstream media in the United States began a new role in American life. No longer was the media content to impartially inform the American people about “the news” (the who, the what, the when, the why and the where” of events, especially political events). The elites who made up the mainstream media pretended to be neutral observers. They pretended to divorce their political views from their journalism. They acted out the role of observers even though their hearts were not in the roles. There were numerous causes for this new behavior. And there were implications and consequences far beyond the assumed objectives of journalism. Some Americans called the mainstream media the “Drive By” media for reasons clear to many Americans. Journalists loved to cover a story for a day, report, inaccurately far too often, leave incorrect impressions to say nothing of facts, and move on to the next headline gathering story with little or no regard for their public responsibility to inform the public.
The mainstream media is comprised of many parts in 2007. The establishment print media, "The New York Times", "The Washington Post", and other large city daily newspapers and the national "USA TODAY" make up one segment. Another part is the television broadcast networks; ABC, CBS, NBC, and The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) including National Public Radio (NPR) - both partially funded by federal taxes. A third segment is the weekly news magazines, "TIME", "US News and World Report", and "NEWSWEEK". Additionally, the wire services Associated Press, Reuters, and others served as another layer of elites in the field. A final segment consisted of cable television networks. The Cable News Network (CNN), MSNBC, a joint venture by NBC and Microsoft, FOXNEWS, and several other lesser known cable channels comprised this new segment of the media. Of these cable news networks only FOXNEWS was considered conservative and it was known to present both liberal and conservative views on political issues.
Many news consumers complained for years about the biased reporting of news by the elite media. As long as the establishment media controlled the news consumers had little choice in what they read or heard. With the coming of the Internet, talk radio, 24 hour cable news programming, bloggers, C-SPAN, and other news sources consumers had other options. Americans now have virtually instant access to numerous sources on a story. They waited no longer for the evening television news at 7:00 PM or for the morning paper to learn about events in the world. This was a huge change in the way news was presented and a rapid increase in the speed with which news spread around the globe.
The establishment media outlets began to lose readers and viewers at alarming rates (alarming to the Establishment) for various reasons. With more options available to news consumers and the widespread use of personal computers and the growth of Internet based news services, the news business underwent a transformation. The advance of technology and the growing distrust of the mainstream media by many Americans accounted for much of the change. Instead of providing news consumers with what they wanted, that is, accurate, unbiased, and relevant news, the liberal dominated media moved not toward the political center, but to the political left. This in turn exacerbated their predicament and drove away more consumers.
Liberal media scandals did little to assure news consumers. The New York Times, the self-proclaimed paper of record, was forced to fire one of its star journalists, Jason Blair, when it was discovered his stories were false, totally made up. The story forced some consumers to inquire about the accuracy and credibility of other Times stories. The Washington Post had a similar circumstance with journalist Janet Cooke who won celebrated journalism prizes. Only later did readers learn her stories were at best creative writing and journalism at its worst. NBC News, once a widely respected news source with reporters like Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, was caught faking a truck fuel tank explosion. NBC rigged a truck with explosives to show how the fuel tanks were unsafe. CBS News, the former home of Edward R. Morrow, had Dan Rather, CBS’s Evening News Anchor. Rather and his news crew faked a story on the Texas Air National Guard service of President Bush 43. Despite fatal flaws in the premise of their story CBS and Rather ran the story just before the 2004 national election using forged documents in a blatant attempt to damage the election chances of President Bush. And there were numerous other cases of modern liberal journalism (the Great Alar Apple Scare, the Audi 5000 Report, to name two) performing its job with an agenda to shape and control national politics (to say nothing of the Times’s Walter Duranty in the 1930s serving as a mouthpiece for Stalin).
End of Part One.
The mainstream media is comprised of many parts in 2007. The establishment print media, "The New York Times", "The Washington Post", and other large city daily newspapers and the national "USA TODAY" make up one segment. Another part is the television broadcast networks; ABC, CBS, NBC, and The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) including National Public Radio (NPR) - both partially funded by federal taxes. A third segment is the weekly news magazines, "TIME", "US News and World Report", and "NEWSWEEK". Additionally, the wire services Associated Press, Reuters, and others served as another layer of elites in the field. A final segment consisted of cable television networks. The Cable News Network (CNN), MSNBC, a joint venture by NBC and Microsoft, FOXNEWS, and several other lesser known cable channels comprised this new segment of the media. Of these cable news networks only FOXNEWS was considered conservative and it was known to present both liberal and conservative views on political issues.
Many news consumers complained for years about the biased reporting of news by the elite media. As long as the establishment media controlled the news consumers had little choice in what they read or heard. With the coming of the Internet, talk radio, 24 hour cable news programming, bloggers, C-SPAN, and other news sources consumers had other options. Americans now have virtually instant access to numerous sources on a story. They waited no longer for the evening television news at 7:00 PM or for the morning paper to learn about events in the world. This was a huge change in the way news was presented and a rapid increase in the speed with which news spread around the globe.
The establishment media outlets began to lose readers and viewers at alarming rates (alarming to the Establishment) for various reasons. With more options available to news consumers and the widespread use of personal computers and the growth of Internet based news services, the news business underwent a transformation. The advance of technology and the growing distrust of the mainstream media by many Americans accounted for much of the change. Instead of providing news consumers with what they wanted, that is, accurate, unbiased, and relevant news, the liberal dominated media moved not toward the political center, but to the political left. This in turn exacerbated their predicament and drove away more consumers.
Liberal media scandals did little to assure news consumers. The New York Times, the self-proclaimed paper of record, was forced to fire one of its star journalists, Jason Blair, when it was discovered his stories were false, totally made up. The story forced some consumers to inquire about the accuracy and credibility of other Times stories. The Washington Post had a similar circumstance with journalist Janet Cooke who won celebrated journalism prizes. Only later did readers learn her stories were at best creative writing and journalism at its worst. NBC News, once a widely respected news source with reporters like Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, was caught faking a truck fuel tank explosion. NBC rigged a truck with explosives to show how the fuel tanks were unsafe. CBS News, the former home of Edward R. Morrow, had Dan Rather, CBS’s Evening News Anchor. Rather and his news crew faked a story on the Texas Air National Guard service of President Bush 43. Despite fatal flaws in the premise of their story CBS and Rather ran the story just before the 2004 national election using forged documents in a blatant attempt to damage the election chances of President Bush. And there were numerous other cases of modern liberal journalism (the Great Alar Apple Scare, the Audi 5000 Report, to name two) performing its job with an agenda to shape and control national politics (to say nothing of the Times’s Walter Duranty in the 1930s serving as a mouthpiece for Stalin).
End of Part One.
Global Warming I
Is the theory of global warming about hot air? If we listen to Al Gore preach the new religion of the Left, then it is all about hot air. As I said before global warming is 5 percent science and 95 percent politics (the real hot air). The Left wants to shut off debate about the theory. We are told repeatedly that the debate is closed, the evidence is in, and that man is responsible for the slight rise (if it is happening at all) of temps around the world. Why do the Greens and their fellow travelers in the media fear a healthy debate about global warming? And why is a slight increase in surface temperatures a bad thing?
Recently, the IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change) released a political document on global warming. The report was developed by political appointees to an international body, a part of the United Nations. It blamed man for the slight increase in temps and called for international action to curb man's emissions of certain pollutants such as Co2 and methane. The scientific report will be released later this year and, this is crucial, will be "adjusted" to fit the political report just released by the IPCC. Does that smell like political correctness run amok? A scientific report will be massaged to fit a political agenda! Wow. And the people of the world are suppose to trust the UN?
If the earth is warming slightly, the causes may be numerous and natural. Solar activity can and does effect temps on earth. During the last 2000 years we have seen warm periods, followed by cold periods, one so cold it is called the Little Ice Age and lasted from 1350 -1850 AD. The year 1816 was called the year without a summer in the United States and it snowed on July 4th in New Hampshire. The Little Ice Age was preceded by a period called the Medieval Warm Period which ran from 800-1300 AD.
Another potential cause of warming (assuming it is happening) could be the nutation of the earth's axis as it spins like a top through space. A top does not spin in the same spot but moves in a wobbly motion. A slight variation in this spin could effect climate and weather.
Assume the earth is warming slightly. Why is that bad?
The warmer it is means generally the more plant life the earth can support. The more green the planet is, the more CO2 the plants can convert to oxygen. Warmer temps mean higher food production, healthier lives for humans and animals, and more beach time for vacations. All benefits, in my opinion.
Much more on this topic to come.
Recently, the IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change) released a political document on global warming. The report was developed by political appointees to an international body, a part of the United Nations. It blamed man for the slight increase in temps and called for international action to curb man's emissions of certain pollutants such as Co2 and methane. The scientific report will be released later this year and, this is crucial, will be "adjusted" to fit the political report just released by the IPCC. Does that smell like political correctness run amok? A scientific report will be massaged to fit a political agenda! Wow. And the people of the world are suppose to trust the UN?
If the earth is warming slightly, the causes may be numerous and natural. Solar activity can and does effect temps on earth. During the last 2000 years we have seen warm periods, followed by cold periods, one so cold it is called the Little Ice Age and lasted from 1350 -1850 AD. The year 1816 was called the year without a summer in the United States and it snowed on July 4th in New Hampshire. The Little Ice Age was preceded by a period called the Medieval Warm Period which ran from 800-1300 AD.
Another potential cause of warming (assuming it is happening) could be the nutation of the earth's axis as it spins like a top through space. A top does not spin in the same spot but moves in a wobbly motion. A slight variation in this spin could effect climate and weather.
Assume the earth is warming slightly. Why is that bad?
The warmer it is means generally the more plant life the earth can support. The more green the planet is, the more CO2 the plants can convert to oxygen. Warmer temps mean higher food production, healthier lives for humans and animals, and more beach time for vacations. All benefits, in my opinion.
Much more on this topic to come.
Political Season
Wow!
2008 came a year early. Who would have "thunk" it that the 2008 political season - a political dog and pony show- would start 2 years before the next president takes office?
Can we tolerate politicians and pundits for that length of time? Our news shows, our newspapers (if you still read them), our blogosphere will be vibrating with the promises of numerous politicians trying to convince us to vote for them.
Should the political season start this early?
Should the voters tune out the pols for at least another year before paying attention to them?
I prefer shorter political seasons. But there is no law, nor should there be, against anyone running for political office whenever he/she wants. However, that doesn't mean I like it.
On the positive side if several condidates are from the US Senate/US House and are Absent with Leave from their jobs, it is less likely that Congress will screw more things up.
2008 came a year early. Who would have "thunk" it that the 2008 political season - a political dog and pony show- would start 2 years before the next president takes office?
Can we tolerate politicians and pundits for that length of time? Our news shows, our newspapers (if you still read them), our blogosphere will be vibrating with the promises of numerous politicians trying to convince us to vote for them.
Should the political season start this early?
Should the voters tune out the pols for at least another year before paying attention to them?
I prefer shorter political seasons. But there is no law, nor should there be, against anyone running for political office whenever he/she wants. However, that doesn't mean I like it.
On the positive side if several condidates are from the US Senate/US House and are Absent with Leave from their jobs, it is less likely that Congress will screw more things up.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Show Trial of "Scooter" Libby
On July 23, 2004 you had 16 conversation with 12 different people.
I want you in a legal proceesing to tell us everything you said to those 12 people, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Can you do it?
Can you remember to whom you talked and what you said 3 years ago?
Probably not.
The jury is still out (as far as I know) in the trial of Libby, VP Cheney's former chief of staff. Libby is accused of a couple of things: not telling the FBI the truth about conversations he had with media types; and, some other charge I cannot remember at this time.
Libby claims he did not remember the events and what he said to certain journalists about the so-called Valerie Plame Affair. What baffles me is there was no crime committed in this sordid affair since Plame was not undercover, not a secret agent, but a simple desk jockey at the CIA. Besides, we know, and the Special Prosecutor (SP) knew in advance of bringing charges, that Richard Armitage at the State Dept was the person to "leak" Plame's name to the media first.
So why did the SP bring the charges against Libby.
Well, he spent a lot of money and needed at least one scalp to display on his legal belt. Besides, VP Cheney was the favorite whipping boy for every journalist and talking head in the Boston-New York-Washington corridor. The SP was urged and urged to get someone; someone close to Cheney, if not Cheney, and Bush (hopefully Rove) for this heinous crime.
Such is justice in Washington, DC.
I want you in a legal proceesing to tell us everything you said to those 12 people, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Can you do it?
Can you remember to whom you talked and what you said 3 years ago?
Probably not.
The jury is still out (as far as I know) in the trial of Libby, VP Cheney's former chief of staff. Libby is accused of a couple of things: not telling the FBI the truth about conversations he had with media types; and, some other charge I cannot remember at this time.
Libby claims he did not remember the events and what he said to certain journalists about the so-called Valerie Plame Affair. What baffles me is there was no crime committed in this sordid affair since Plame was not undercover, not a secret agent, but a simple desk jockey at the CIA. Besides, we know, and the Special Prosecutor (SP) knew in advance of bringing charges, that Richard Armitage at the State Dept was the person to "leak" Plame's name to the media first.
So why did the SP bring the charges against Libby.
Well, he spent a lot of money and needed at least one scalp to display on his legal belt. Besides, VP Cheney was the favorite whipping boy for every journalist and talking head in the Boston-New York-Washington corridor. The SP was urged and urged to get someone; someone close to Cheney, if not Cheney, and Bush (hopefully Rove) for this heinous crime.
Such is justice in Washington, DC.
Iraq
I view Iraq as the main battleground between the US and international terrorists. If we do what many liberals and Democrats want, that is, wave the white flag of surrender (following the French model of never fight when there is an expresso to sip) and leave Iraq prematurely, there will be grave consequences in the Middle East and elsewhere. The fight in Iraq has attracted terrorists from around the world. They come to Iraq to kill American soldiers. I much prefer having our highly trained military fight the terrorists in Iraq than have the terrorists plotting and planning new attacks on civilian target in the US.
The critics of the liberation of Iraq have no plan to offer us. How would they handle international terrorism and fill the vacuum left by the departure of the US military from Iraq. Do these critics think democracy impossible in Iraq? Or in any Arab/Moslem country? Do these critics think Saddam was a better option than a chance at freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people? Iraq may not make it to a Iraqi-styled democracy. Iraq may descend into civil war (not there yet, IMO), but they deserve a chance at democracy as do other suppressed people around the world. Democracy (not necessarily a copy of our systen) is the best option yet devised by man for governance if it includes individual rights, free speech, a free and honest press, economic freedom, the rule of law, and religious freedom.
There were numerous reasons Bush elected to go to war to depose Saddam. Even the Clinton admin wanted regime change, but lacked the resolve to accomplish it. Contrary to the simplistic and inaccurate reports of WMD being THE reason Bush decided to remove Saddam, several other reasons were important. Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions. Saddam violated the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire, which by itself alone justified military action. Saddam used WMD against Iraqis and against his neighbors. Saddam was funding homicide bombers against Israel. Saddam attempted to kill a former US president. Saddam had violated the No Fly Zones in Iraq. And there were more reasons.
Partisan politics is the root cause of much of the criticism of President Bush. If a Democrat president were in office and doing the same thing as Bush, then the same Bush hating critics would be 100 percent behind the Iraq policy. Simple as that.
If the nation had this crop of Democrats in WWII, then we would have lost that war. What would today's Democrats say about Operation Tiger in England before D-Day? This training exercise resulted in the deaths of 749 men. Today's Democrats would have called for the removal of the SecDod, the VP and several high ranking military officers. And what about the military debacles in North Africa, Italy, and the 000s killed on the FIRST day of D-Day. Did you know the Allies lost 12,000 on the first day. And there were 20,000 French civilians killed and injured on the first day! Imagine the screams and cries from today's war critics if they had been around in those days.
Senator Durbin (D, IL, second in charge in today's Senate) compared American soldiers to Nazis, to Stalin's killers, and to Pol Pot's deranged army. He gave a half hearted apology so it was easy to see that he really believed what he said. I now refer to him as Senator Dick, "The Turban" Durban.
The cut and run policy of the Democrats will lead to even more problems for us. Despite voting to autorize Bush to take whatever military action he saw fit, the Democrats now want to retract that vote - not sure that is possible - but they will try anything to subvert Bush. Terrorists around the world must marvel at the stupidity of American politicians.
More to come.
The critics of the liberation of Iraq have no plan to offer us. How would they handle international terrorism and fill the vacuum left by the departure of the US military from Iraq. Do these critics think democracy impossible in Iraq? Or in any Arab/Moslem country? Do these critics think Saddam was a better option than a chance at freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people? Iraq may not make it to a Iraqi-styled democracy. Iraq may descend into civil war (not there yet, IMO), but they deserve a chance at democracy as do other suppressed people around the world. Democracy (not necessarily a copy of our systen) is the best option yet devised by man for governance if it includes individual rights, free speech, a free and honest press, economic freedom, the rule of law, and religious freedom.
There were numerous reasons Bush elected to go to war to depose Saddam. Even the Clinton admin wanted regime change, but lacked the resolve to accomplish it. Contrary to the simplistic and inaccurate reports of WMD being THE reason Bush decided to remove Saddam, several other reasons were important. Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions. Saddam violated the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire, which by itself alone justified military action. Saddam used WMD against Iraqis and against his neighbors. Saddam was funding homicide bombers against Israel. Saddam attempted to kill a former US president. Saddam had violated the No Fly Zones in Iraq. And there were more reasons.
Partisan politics is the root cause of much of the criticism of President Bush. If a Democrat president were in office and doing the same thing as Bush, then the same Bush hating critics would be 100 percent behind the Iraq policy. Simple as that.
If the nation had this crop of Democrats in WWII, then we would have lost that war. What would today's Democrats say about Operation Tiger in England before D-Day? This training exercise resulted in the deaths of 749 men. Today's Democrats would have called for the removal of the SecDod, the VP and several high ranking military officers. And what about the military debacles in North Africa, Italy, and the 000s killed on the FIRST day of D-Day. Did you know the Allies lost 12,000 on the first day. And there were 20,000 French civilians killed and injured on the first day! Imagine the screams and cries from today's war critics if they had been around in those days.
Senator Durbin (D, IL, second in charge in today's Senate) compared American soldiers to Nazis, to Stalin's killers, and to Pol Pot's deranged army. He gave a half hearted apology so it was easy to see that he really believed what he said. I now refer to him as Senator Dick, "The Turban" Durban.
The cut and run policy of the Democrats will lead to even more problems for us. Despite voting to autorize Bush to take whatever military action he saw fit, the Democrats now want to retract that vote - not sure that is possible - but they will try anything to subvert Bush. Terrorists around the world must marvel at the stupidity of American politicians.
More to come.
Senator Lieberman
Will Senator Lieberman jump the Democrat ship?
The question of the month. Will Joe Lieberman pull a Jumping Jim Jeffords and switch (does he want to switch rather than fight with the Democrats) to the Republicans? Recall that Jeffords just after being re-elected jumped from the R column to the D column and threw the control of the US Senate to the likes of Tom Daschle. It is reported that Lieberman is so disgusted with his fellow Democrats on Iraq policy that he has left open the issue of changing parties. If Lieberman does a "Jeffords", then formal control of the US Senate would return to the R column.
As you know, I hope, the minority in the Senate can control most of the action especially when the margin is close as it is now. Mitch McConnell (R, KY) is minority leader and he may have more power than Nevada's undertaker, Harry Reid. (Old Harry reminds me so much of a small town undertaker with his phony smile and cold clammy hands.)
Personally, I hope Lieberman jumps if for no other reason than to see and hear the screams of indignation from the mainstream media.
The question of the month. Will Joe Lieberman pull a Jumping Jim Jeffords and switch (does he want to switch rather than fight with the Democrats) to the Republicans? Recall that Jeffords just after being re-elected jumped from the R column to the D column and threw the control of the US Senate to the likes of Tom Daschle. It is reported that Lieberman is so disgusted with his fellow Democrats on Iraq policy that he has left open the issue of changing parties. If Lieberman does a "Jeffords", then formal control of the US Senate would return to the R column.
As you know, I hope, the minority in the Senate can control most of the action especially when the margin is close as it is now. Mitch McConnell (R, KY) is minority leader and he may have more power than Nevada's undertaker, Harry Reid. (Old Harry reminds me so much of a small town undertaker with his phony smile and cold clammy hands.)
Personally, I hope Lieberman jumps if for no other reason than to see and hear the screams of indignation from the mainstream media.
Illegal Immigration
One of my problems with President Bush is his apparent inability to distinguish the difference between immigration and illegal immigration. What is it about "illegal" that Bush and many other Americans cannot understand? The mainstream media normally portrays those opposed to illegal immigration as opposed to all immigration when nothing is further from the truth. Most Americans favor immigration when it is controlled, regulated, desirable, and benefits the nation. After all, as we are told repeatedly, we all are immigrants.
I am not sure why our political leaders, not just Bush, but most Democrats who seem more interested in growing their dependent voter base than in controlling the borders, have this blind spot on illegal immigration. Did NAFTA (signed into law by Clinton) include a hidden provision that forced the US to accept illegals? Was there a secret deal between the US and Mexico? Or do American companies that hire illegals have enough influence in Washington to mute the protests of millions of Americans?
Twenty years ago the problem was solved by Congress and President Reagn when legislation was passed to "fix" the illegal immigration problem. At that time there were 2-3 million illegals in the country and some were given amesty. Don't the bureaucrats in Washington do a wonderful job of "fixing" our national problems? Today it is estimated that there are upwards of 12 million illegals in the country and Congress and Bush are again talking of "fixing" the problem.
Can I laugh before I cry?
What if the Congress were proactive and addressed the problem at the source: at the border. Does that make too much sense for it to resonate in Washington? Probably. With uncontrolled borders we have no idea who is entering the country. Or for what purpose. For all we know there are thousands and thousands of terrorists waiting their time in jihadist cells, waiting to act as a fifth column when the time comes.
If we need extra non-American workers in the country we should and must set up a program whereas folks from Mexico and Latin America can enter the country to work for a limited time. Perhaps the feds should farm this program out to private industry for the best results. After all, Blockbusters will track you down for late movies and Fed Ex can move millions of packages across country in a matter of hours and deliver them on time. There is no doubt in my mind that private enterprise can handle such a guest worker program more efficiently than the feds.
What do you think? Is illegal immigration a serious problem? What should we do about it? Should illegals be entitled to the same benefits as Americans: free medical care, social security benefits, food stamps, welfare benefits, bank accounts, credit cards, state driver licenses, etc, etc.
How did we get into this mess and what do we do about it?
I am not sure why our political leaders, not just Bush, but most Democrats who seem more interested in growing their dependent voter base than in controlling the borders, have this blind spot on illegal immigration. Did NAFTA (signed into law by Clinton) include a hidden provision that forced the US to accept illegals? Was there a secret deal between the US and Mexico? Or do American companies that hire illegals have enough influence in Washington to mute the protests of millions of Americans?
Twenty years ago the problem was solved by Congress and President Reagn when legislation was passed to "fix" the illegal immigration problem. At that time there were 2-3 million illegals in the country and some were given amesty. Don't the bureaucrats in Washington do a wonderful job of "fixing" our national problems? Today it is estimated that there are upwards of 12 million illegals in the country and Congress and Bush are again talking of "fixing" the problem.
Can I laugh before I cry?
What if the Congress were proactive and addressed the problem at the source: at the border. Does that make too much sense for it to resonate in Washington? Probably. With uncontrolled borders we have no idea who is entering the country. Or for what purpose. For all we know there are thousands and thousands of terrorists waiting their time in jihadist cells, waiting to act as a fifth column when the time comes.
If we need extra non-American workers in the country we should and must set up a program whereas folks from Mexico and Latin America can enter the country to work for a limited time. Perhaps the feds should farm this program out to private industry for the best results. After all, Blockbusters will track you down for late movies and Fed Ex can move millions of packages across country in a matter of hours and deliver them on time. There is no doubt in my mind that private enterprise can handle such a guest worker program more efficiently than the feds.
What do you think? Is illegal immigration a serious problem? What should we do about it? Should illegals be entitled to the same benefits as Americans: free medical care, social security benefits, food stamps, welfare benefits, bank accounts, credit cards, state driver licenses, etc, etc.
How did we get into this mess and what do we do about it?
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Food Fight
The recent flare up between the forces of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton foreshadow what lies ahead in the lead up to the general election. How will Obama react to the coming criticism and we all know it is coming not only from Clinton, but from other Democratic wannabes. Republicans can sit back, relax, and watch as the Democrats continue the food fight. As Mitt Romney said, it's "great."
Is Obama in the race for the Number two position? He is lean in experience. He is young. And his middle name is Hussein. Is America ready for a president whose middle name is Hussein? Or a vice president? Time will tell.
Most of the people in the race -on both sides- have little or no chance at the nominations. Biden, Dodd, Brownback, Richardson, etc., are in the race for attention and their 15 minutes of fame. Or perhaps they also wish for the number two spot on a ticket.
McCain is up to his old cranky self. Plus, it appears he has been sipping the global warming kool-aid. As I have been saying for years global warming is 5 percent science and 95 percent politics. The same old Chicken Littles who told us of the coming ice age a few years ago now swear to us that the earth is doomed unless we all move back into caves and stop raping Mother Earth. What a crock! More on this later.
Please comment and post so I can test this new Blog gadget thing.
One Man's Vigil
Is Obama in the race for the Number two position? He is lean in experience. He is young. And his middle name is Hussein. Is America ready for a president whose middle name is Hussein? Or a vice president? Time will tell.
Most of the people in the race -on both sides- have little or no chance at the nominations. Biden, Dodd, Brownback, Richardson, etc., are in the race for attention and their 15 minutes of fame. Or perhaps they also wish for the number two spot on a ticket.
McCain is up to his old cranky self. Plus, it appears he has been sipping the global warming kool-aid. As I have been saying for years global warming is 5 percent science and 95 percent politics. The same old Chicken Littles who told us of the coming ice age a few years ago now swear to us that the earth is doomed unless we all move back into caves and stop raping Mother Earth. What a crock! More on this later.
Please comment and post so I can test this new Blog gadget thing.
One Man's Vigil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
