WALL STREET JOURNAL
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
THE WEEKLY STANDARD
DRUDGE REPORT
THE WASHINGTON POST
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
NEW YORK TIMES


*=recently updated





Matthew Hoy currently works as a metro page designer at the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The opinions presented here do not represent those of the Union-Tribune and are solely those of the author.

If you have any opinions or comments, please e-mail the author at: hoystory -at- cox dot net.

Dec. 7, 2001
Christian Coalition Challenged
Hoystory interviews al Qaeda
Fisking Fritz
Politicizing Prescription Drugs

RSS FEED
<< current


Amazon Honor System Click Here to PayLearn More









A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.

Saturday, June 12, 2004
Spawn of Saddam: Saddam's widowed daughters (widowed due to Saddam killing their husbands) are interviewed in an Arab women's weekly magazine.

Setting a new mark Guiness Book of World Records for "gall," the privileged daughters of a mass-murdering tyrant had this to say:


"I'm not afraid of death, but of scandal," she told the magazine. When asked to elaborate, she said, "To happen like what happened in Abu Ghraib prison."


A daughter of the butcher of hundreds of thousands is dismayed by a scandal which involved men wearing women's underwear on their heads and being forced to do naked "Twister."

Nuts.

For a kicker, they even include a photo of the happy family.

6:56 PM


Hoystory would like to congratulate...: Our favorite cousin named "Bonnie Stokes" on her graduation from the University of California San Diego with a bachelor's degree. Law school is up next for Ms. Stokes and I'm looking forward to having a lawyer in the family.
6:47 PM


WMDs anyone?: U.N. inspectors are reporting that Saddam Hussien smuggled out a lot of banned weapons in months before the liberation of Iraq.


The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.


Don't expect newspapers or TV news programs to make a big deal out of this -- because they already know that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Bush lies, not Saddam.

6:20 PM

Friday, June 11, 2004
Lt. Smash goes to the anti-war protest: Smash went undercover up at last weekend's commie A.N.S.W.E.R. protest up in Los Angeles. His report is amusing and scary.

Smash also spotted San Diego's own commie-redhead who threatened to fight a guy twice his size -- he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Fortunately for them, these wackos are ignored by the vast majority of the American people. If people started actually listening to what they're saying, they'd probably be in jail -- inciting violence is still against the law.

9:29 PM


Bush's eulogy: The transcript can be found here.


Ronald Reagan belongs to the ages now, but we preferred it when he belonged to us.


Well said.

11:52 AM


Heard in the Newsroom II: Once more, the Union-Tribune moderate-conservative editorially, but definitely liberal in the newsroom. Tonight, when Reagan's name came up one copy editor said: "Reagan disgusted me and he disgusted the American people."

The former I can't dispute, but the latter?

A Fox News Poll (scroll way down) shows that 65 percent of Americans say they supported Reagan's policies -- including 41 percent of Democrats -- while 19 percent were opposed.

Were the American people really "disgusted" by Reagan -- hardly.

Of course, the copy editor did have one positive thing to say about Reagan: "He was better than (George W.) Bush."

1:43 AM

Thursday, June 10, 2004
Not surprised: New York Times talentless hack columnist Paul Krugman continues his crusade minimize Reagan's legacy and trash his own economic credentials a column at a time. I'll let Don Luskin and others pick apart Krugman's economics, but one juxtaposition in Krugman's column demonstrated that Krugman is only interested in making partisan points.


The architect of America's great disinflation was Paul Volcker, the Fed chairman. In fact, Mr. Volcker began the process in 1979, when he adopted the tight monetary policy that caused that record unemployment rate. He was also mainly responsible for the recovery that followed: it was his decision to loosen up on the money supply in the summer of 1982 that set the stage for the rebound a few months later.

There was, in short, nothing magical about the Reagan economy. The United States did, eventually, experience an economic miracle — but not until Bill Clinton's second term. Only then did the economy achieve a combination of rapid growth, low unemployment and quiescent inflation that confounded the conventional economic wisdom.


See, Reagan's not responsible for the '80s economy (not that Krugman was pleased with the economy then anyway), the chairman of the federal reserve is responsible. Yet the economic miracle (and tech bubble?) is associated with Bill Clinton -- not Alan Greenspan.

Krugman's column has a plethora of other problems: a suggestion that tax hikes spur economic growth; that 7.5 percent unemployment is "very high" (Krugman's never given George W. Bush credit for the low unemployment rate -- relative to Reagan's); and that supply-siders promised a "sustained acceleration of economic growth" (forever? the economy would always grow faster and faster?).

Maybe it's a good thing that Krugman doesn't make corrections, he'd have a lot of work to do.

9:27 PM


Ray Charles, RIP: One of America's greatest musicians, Ray Charles, died today at 73. They played both his excellent version of "You Are My Sunshine," and, his rendition of (and perhaps the best version ever done of) "America the Beautiful," on the radio on my way into work today. The guy had talent by the truckloads.

He will be missed.

9:16 PM


Heard in the newsroom: Editorially, the San Diego Union-Tribune is moderate-to-right on the political spectrum. Those offices are on the fourth floor.

On the third floor is the newsroom. The newsroom is largely left-to-very-left.

So, I was only moderately surprised when I walked by and heard an editor opining on Ronald Reagan's legacy and state that the reporting ignored the "fact" that Reagan "wrecked the economy."

This editor is old enough to know better.

Some of the criticisms of Reagan's presidency are certainly valid. We shouldn't whitewash Iran-Contra. His reaction to the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon was (in hindsight) understandable but wrong in that it encouraged further acts of terrorism.

But he "wrecked the economy"? Not even Paul Krugman believes that. In fact, no credible argument can be made to support that statement (see Luskin).

That liberal media.

On a related note: I've heard and read that Reagan "allowed AIDS to spread," or some other nonsense formulation, back in the '80s because he didn't speak out about it.

I just have such a hard time seeing free-loving San Francisco homosexuals during the 1980s taking a 70+ year old Republican's advice when it comes to not sleeping around and using condoms. Can anyone really imagine the gay community saying to themselves: "Reagan's warning us, so we'll stop"? Whatever happened to the demand that Republicans stay out of peoples' bedrooms? Now Reagan is condemned because he wouldn't go into gays' bedrooms?

12:21 AM

Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Delusions of grandeur: No surprise here, but hate-filled, talentless, wacko Ted Rall thinks he's god.


Mr. Rall defended the "crispy brown" comment and said it was made "to get people to understand that the right is attempting to canonize this guy, and it is ridiculous. If there is a hell, this guy is in it."


Ted, don't be surprised when you get to hell that Reagan isn't there.

11:55 PM


Constitutional law: Well, it turns out that the L.A.County supervisors who have voted to acquiesce to the ACLU's demands to remove the tiny cross on the county seal aren't chicken -- they're uneducated.

Let us review:

The First Amendment to the Constitution:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Note two things: First, there is no reference to a "wall of separation"; second, having a tiny cross is hardly "an establishment of religion."

But three of the supervisors apparently got ripped off when it came to their education.


The reality is that I feel very strongly about the position I've taken," (Gloria) Molina said. "I feel strongly that if that is what takes me down, that is what will take me down," she said of her position as an elected official.

"If I have to lose my job as an elected official, and it's going to be over the First Amendment, so be it ..." (Zev) Yaroslavsky added. "The First Amendment is not a popularity contest."


This has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Nothing. This has to do with the ACLU's effort to wipe Christianity (not religion, only Christianity) from the public sphere.

These three supervisors will probably lose their jobs over this vote -- as they should. The left will consider them martyrs (ironic, huh?) but the truth is that they will have failed in their duty to represent their constituents.

There's no further word on whether or not the county has the right to change the seal, but the supervisors may have come to the realization that if they're gonna pull the cross, they're gonna have to pull the pagan goddess too.


County spokeswoman Judy Hammond said protesters complained that the ACLU did not question the picture of the pagan goddess Pomona in the center of the seal. Hammond said a graphic of a Native American may replace Pomona.


I just had another thought. Take another look at that seal.



The image in the lower right is that of a calf. A golden calf. I think that's gonna have to go too.

12:01 PM

Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Joe Biden is an idiot: No suprise, really, but in today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing he "questioned" Attorney General John Ashcroft.


Ashcroft: I condemn torture. I think it ... it ...

Biden: So it's not justified then?

Ashcroft: I don't think it's productive, let alone justified.

Biden: Well, I don't either. And, by the way, there's a reason ... I'll conclude by saying there's a reason why we sign these treaties. To protect my son in the military, that's why we have these treaties. So when Americans are captured they ... are ... not ... tortured. That's the reason. Case anybody forgets it. That's the reason.


And your precious treaties have protected how many Americans?

Did your treaty protect Sgt. Donald Walters?

Did it protect any American aviators shot down during Gulf War I, who received their "welcome to Baghdad" beatings?

Did it protect John McCain and thousands of other American POWs during Vietnam?

Did it protect Americans from the Japanese during the Bataan Death March in WWII?

Did it protect the Americans and British who escaped from German POW camps as recounted in the movie "The Great Escape"?

As I've written before, we don't sign these treaties with the realistic expectation that our troops will be treated in accordance with them -- because it's seldom happened before. We sign these treaties because they reflect American values and beliefs regarding the intrinsic value of human life.

We should be outraged when our enemies violate these treaties -- but we shouldn't be surprised.

1:18 PM


For the Anti-war/Anti-Bush types: The Econopundit has a couple of questions for you.
12:21 PM

Monday, June 07, 2004
Society for Professional Journalists Listserv: For about eight years I've had my name on the SPJ-L list. Back in the mid-90s the list served as a forum for advice on the craft of journalism, job opportunities and general advice.

Starting about the time of the 2000 presidential election, however, the listserv became little more than a collection of conspiracy theories, rants and anti-Bush/anti-GOP/anti-conservative diatribes.

I stayed subscribed to it for the waning number of journalism-related posts and because it provided occasional fodder for this blog.

I didn't always look at the e-mails -- I have them sorted to a separate folder -- so it wasn't until tonight that I noticed that the number of spj-l e-mails wasn't growing. The last message reads:


Dear SPJ-L subscribers:

First, thanks for all the contributions made throughout the many years SPJ-L has been available.

It is now the sentiment of the SPJ Board of directors that all lists bearing the name of SPJ be housed by SPJ and moderated. This is a time consuming endeavor.

So, until such a time as SPJ can reconstitute the list and ensure it is properly moderated, SPJ-L will be eliminated until a yet-to-be undetermined date.

Again, thanks for your contributions.

Best-

Mac McKerral
SPJ President


In other words: You wackos were going off the deep end and giving SPJ a bad name. You want to do this, then don't sully us.

Good for the SPJ -- and long overdue.

11:16 PM


Abu Ghraib obsession: The media has gotten a ton of criticism (much of it deserved) for injecting the prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison into everything from theater reviews to food columns.

The Union-Tribune's Gina Lubrano steps up and acknowledges that, at least in one case, the reference was inappropriate.


After seeing the story, White, who was awarded the Bronze Star, said he knows he made a mistake in elaborating after he told the reporter her questions were inappropriate.

He was especially troubled by two references. He cited a paragraph that said he urged Americans to support President Bush. The next sentence said he blamed the media "for uncertainty about Iraq policies and the outrage over prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad." His focus during the address was urging support of the commander in chief and for the troops, he said.

He also was troubled by a paragraph that said: "Unlike White, veterans interviewed said the Abu Ghraib abuse has tarnished the honorable image of the military and that the small number of people who committed the crimes should be punished."

The reporter used White's reluctance to discuss Abu Ghraib as a device to get into the opinions of other veterans. I think the way it was written was unfair to White. In fact, White said, he has an opinion about the prisoner abuse scandal but because he did not share it with the reporter, she had no way of knowing what he thought.

I understand why White was upset by the questions and the way his opinions were connected to Abu Ghraib. In the end, the story did him a disservice.


Now if only The New York Times would follow suit.

11:07 PM


Defending Kerry: John Kerry, the presumptive Democrat nominee for president, struck the right tone in his statement on Ronald Reagan's death.

Others, at Daily Kos, Democratic Underground and (predictably) Ted Rall have not been so...human.

I actually called up the Michael Medved show earlier today as Medved was asking for people to come up with similarities between Reagan and Kerry. I wasn't listening at what prompted the question, but I called up to defend Kerry -- a little.

I think Ronald Reagan and John Kerry both love America.

I don't think Kerry is right on the vast majority of the issues. I don't think a Kerry presidency would be a good thing for the country. I could go on about the things that I don't like about John Kerry...

But I do think that Kerry loves America.

Medved made it into a big joke. "Yes, Kerry loves French culture. He loves French food."

Yes. Amusing.

But I'm not going to contribute to the river of hatred that's running through American politics while we mourn the passing of Ronald Reagan.

There's plenty of time for that later.

10:53 PM


Harry Potter, Year 3: Just got back from watching the latest Harry Potter movie. Excellent special effects. It follows the plot of the book pretty closely. Acting is good. Well worth the money.

One slightly annoying thing.

Readers of the books would know, but is not explained in the movie is exactly who Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs are. It would help explain to moviegoers exactly why they're seeing a ghostly stag near the end. Just a minor quibble, and I'm sure it was likely cut at the end in order to get the movie's running time down to size. The movie clocks in at just over 2 hours -- not counting the five trailers and one lame Fanta commerical.

On the trailers: The "Thunderbirds" movie slated to come out this summer looks to be the corniest of the summer fare. Just watching the trailer made me cringe. It looks to be something like "Agent Cody Banks" (which is actually pretty cleverly done and somewhat fun) without the wit. The trailer is supposed to make you want to see the flick. The "Thunderbirds" trailer failed that goal miserably.

1:02 AM

Sunday, June 06, 2004
Well said by Steyn: Steyn has a short piece on Ronald Reagan, and this encounter sums up the 40th president aptly:


One man who understood was Yakob Ravin, a Ukrainian émigré who in the summer of 1997 happened to be strolling with his grandson in Armand Hammer Park near Reagan’s California home. They happened to see the former President, out taking a walk. Mr Ravin went over and asked if he could take a picture of the boy and the President. When they got back home to Ohio, it appeared in the local newspaper, The Toledo Blade.

Ronald Reagan was three years into the decade-long twilight of his illness, and unable to recognize most of his colleagues from the Washington days. But Mr Ravin wanted to express his appreciation. “Mr President,” he said, “thank you for everything you did for the Jewish people, for Soviet people, to destroy the Communist empire.”

And somewhere deep within there was a flicker of recognition. “Yes,” said the old man, “that is my job.”

Yes, that was his job.


And a job well done.

9:00 PM


Ronald Wilson Reagan: For those of you in San Diego, I encourage you to pick up a copy of today's Union-Tribune -- there's a special commemorative section on Reagan and a long retrospective.

Ronald Reagan was the first president that I was really conscious of; I was 8-years-old when he took office. A good friend of mine in Jr. High and High School was a huge Reagan fan. She plotted various ends for Nancy, so that she could marry him.

I remember John Hinckley's attempted assassination. I remember the bombing of Libya. I most remember Reagan, as he stood before the Brandenberg Gate, saying:


General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!


It's only in the subsequent years, as I've read, learned and studied American politics that I've truly come to appreciate what a great leader Reagan was.

Reagan was not afraid to call communism evil.

He supported freedom fighters in Latin America against communists.

He won the Cold War.

Reagan's landslide victory in 1984 is something that hasn't been duplicated and the way the Great Communicator was able to unify the American people hasn't been matched.

Reagan's optimism and his belief that America's best days were ahead of it, still reverberate in the hearts of many Americans.

Ronald Wilson Reagan will be missed. For the past decade he has suffered and his family have suffered as Alzheimer's disease ravaged a once sharp mind. Now that is returned to him as he meets his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

1:23 AM

Powered by Blogger Pro™