Where Okrent should go to see what liberal is
7/27/2004 2:52:46 PM

From CHRIS SIMMONS: So the paper that gave us the journalistic equivalent of a "slam dunk" on the weapons of mass destruction is liberal, I read. Interesting. If Daniel Okrent thinks the New York Times is liberal, he should check out alternet.org from time to time. The Times might be liberal in the classic definition -- tolerant and broad-minded -- but it certainly isn't left-wing, which is what I suppose Okrent meant. It's as much a part of the American establishment as General Motors, the Supreme Court or Disney. I read the Times and Washington Post to get a clear, balanced picture on issues. If I want less cautious reporting, I go to sites such as alternet -- and take their stories with a much bigger grain of salt than I do articles in the New York Times. (I'm speaking strictly of news stories, of course, not lifestyle or opinion pieces.)

On gay marriage, Okrent indirectly suggests that NYT reporters began their assignments with a biased point of view -- that they wanted to portray same-sex marriage in a positive light and interviewed people who would support their theme. I doubt that. Most reporters, I think, go where the story leads. If the article on the children of gay parents had found that many were scarred by the experience, I'm sure that would have been the tone of the story. Fifty years ago, I suppose, Okrent would have wanted the Times to search out stories on how the intermingling of races would adversely affect small-town life in the rural South. Now, that would be biased reporting.

A cynic would suggest that bloggers, overwhelmed by convention attention, will be suckers to public relations pros resulting in a hopeless parroting of the party line in ways traditional media folks wouldn't do.

A post mortem on the bloggers will determine if they end up providing a public service or if they became a gullible conduit for propaganda.

From what I've seen so far on the Technorati convention blog watch, I'm not impressed.

Many of these posts are vapid observations combined with simple Kerry boosterism or knee-jerk Limbaugh-Republicanist complaints.

Some are simply an undecipherable mess. Hopefully a few professionals will come in and publish some thoughtful pieces before the exercise is over, but this looks laughable thus far.

What they [bloggers] do best is comb the Internet for overlooked information and obscure reports.

Then again, the pros may not fare much better if we look at the professionally written Hardblogger web pages run off the MSNBC site. See it here. This is a self-congratulatory blog that is best compared to People Magazine for content.

The Agony of the Feet

The next day, the pantomime Gongsters are gone from Copley Square. In their place are shoes--thousands and thousands of shoes. Multitudes of boots are arranged carefully on the lawn, with a sign explaining, "These 907 pairs of boots represent the U.S. soldiers killed in the Iraq war." Then there's a sloppy pile of shoes with another sign: "These 1,000 pairs of shoes represent a small fraction of the estimated 16,000 Iraqis killed in the war."

There are no million shoes for Saddam Hussein's Iraqi, Iranian and Kuwaiti victims; only his American victims seem to matter, and only those Iraqis killed in connection with a U.S. military intervention. Come to think of it, there also are no 3,000 pairs of shoes for those who died at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon--even though the group sponsoring this display styles itself Sept. 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.

We approach a middle-aged man of ample girth, who seems to be in charge. "How many shoes do you have for Saddam Hussein's victims?" we ask.

He stands silent, facing us. He seems to be staring us down, but we have no way of knowing for sure, as he's wearing sunglasses, even though the day is overcast. Finally, after perhaps 15 seconds, he breaks the silence:

"Shame on you," he says.

He explains that his group has simply chosen--arbitrarily, if we understand him correctly--to highlight the U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed in the liberation. He offers an analogy: "There are books that are written about one thing, there are books that are written about other things."

We persist: Saddam's victims don't count unless they're American?

"Somebody else is dealing with that."

We point to the shoes representing the fallen soldiers: "Yeah, these guys are dealing with that."

Whereupon he says: "It saddens me deeply to see the anger in your face." And we suppose he has a point. We are ticked off at just that moment. There's something especially despicable about those who exploit the memories of American soldiers to further the false claim that they died for an unjust cause.

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.

With John Kerry as President, global climate change and other threats to the health of our planet will begin to be reversed.

In the depths of the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt inspired the nation when he said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Today, we say: The only thing we have to fear if four more years of George Bush.

My name is Jimmy Carter, and I'm not running for president.

But here's what I will be doing: everything I can to put John Kerry in the White House with John Edwards right there beside him.

Twenty-eight years ago I was running for president, and I said then, "I want a government as good and as honest and as decent and as competent and as compassionate as are the American people."

I say this again tonight, and that is exactly what we will have next January with John Kerry as president of the United States.

As many of you know, my first chosen career was in the United States Navy, where I served as a submarine officer. At that time, my shipmates and I were ready for combat and prepared to give our lives to defend our nation and its principles.

At the same time, we always prayed that our readiness would preserve the peace. I served under two presidents, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, men who represented different political parties. Both of whom had faced their active military responsibilities with honor.

They knew the horrors of war, and later, as commanders-in-chief, they exercised restraint and judgment and had a clear sense of mission. We had confidence that our leaders, military and civilian, would not put our soldiers and sailors in harm's way by initiating "wars of choice" unless America's vital interests were endangered.

We also were sure that these presidents would not mislead us when it came to issues involving our nation's security.

Today, our Democratic party is led by another former naval officer -- one who volunteered for military service. He showed up when assigned to duty, and he served with honor and distinction.

He also knows the horrors of war and the responsibilities of leadership, and I am confident that next January he will restore the judgment and maturity to our government that is sorely lacking today. I am proud to call Lieutenant John Kerry my shipmate, and I am ready to follow him to victory in November.

As you know, our country faces many challenges at home involving energy, taxation, the environment, education, and health. To meet these challenges, we need new leaders in Washington whose policies are shaped by working American families instead of the super-rich and their armies of lobbyists. But the biggest reason to make John Kerry president is even more important. It is to safeguard the security of our nation.

Today, our dominant international challenge is to restore the greatness of America -- based on telling the truth, a commitment to peace, and respect for civil liberties at home and basic human rights around the world. Truth is the foundation of our global leadership, but our credibility has been shattered and we are left increasingly isolated and vulnerable in a hostile world. Without truth -- without trust -- America cannot flourish. Trust is at the very heart of our democracy, the sacred covenant between the president and the people.

When that trust is violated, the bonds that hold our republic together begin to weaken. After 9/11, America stood proud, wounded but determined and united. A cowardly attack on innocent civilians brought us an unprecedented level of cooperation and understanding around the world. But in just 34 months, we have watched with deep concern as all this goodwill has been squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations. Unilateral acts and demands have isolated the United States from the very nations we need to join us in combating terrorism.

Let us not forget that the Soviets lost the Cold War because the American people combined the exercise of power with adherence to basic principles, based on sustained bipartisan support. We understood the positive link between the defense of our own freedom and the promotion of human rights. Recent policies have cost our nation its reputation as the world's most admired champion of freedom and justice. What a difference these few months of extremism have made!

The United States has alienated its allies, dismayed its friends, and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy of "preemptive" war. With our allies disunited, the world resenting us, and the Middle East ablaze, we need John Kerry to restore life to the global war against terrorism.

In the meantime, the Middle East peace process has come to a screeching halt for the first time since Israel became a nation.

All former presidents, Democratic and Republican, have attempted to secure a comprehensive peace for Israel with hope and justice for the Palestinians. The achievements of Camp David a quarter century ago and the more recent progress made by President Bill Clinton are now in peril.

Instead, violence has gripped the Holy Land, with the region increasingly swept by anti-American passions. Elsewhere, North Korea's nuclear menace -- a threat far more real and immediate than any posed by Saddam Hussein -- has been allowed to advance unheeded, with potentially ominous consequences for peace and stability in Northeast Asia. These are some of the prices of our government's radical departure from the basic American principles and values espoused by John Kerry!

In repudiating extremism we need to recommit ourselves to a few common- sense principles that should transcend partisan differences. First, we cannot enhance our own security if we place in jeopardy what is most precious to us, namely, the centrality of human rights in our daily lives and in global affairs. Second, we cannot maintain our historic self-confidence as a people if we generate public panic. Third, we cannot do our duty as citizens and patriots if we pursue an agenda that polarizes and divides our country. Next, we cannot be true to ourselves if we mistreat others. And finally, in the world at large we cannot lead if our leaders mislead.

You can't be a war president one day and claim to be a peace president the next, depending on the latest political polls. When our national security requires military action, John Kerry has already proven in Vietnam that he will not hesitate to act. And as a proven defender of our national security, John Kerry will strengthen the global alliance against terrorism while avoiding unnecessary wars.

Ultimately, the issue is whether America will provide global leadership that springs from the unity and integrity of the American people or whether extremist doctrines and the manipulation of truth will define America's role in the world.

At stake is nothing less than our nation's soul. In a few months, I will, God willing, enter my 81st year of my life, and in many ways the last few months have been some of the most disturbing of all. But I am not discouraged. I do not despair for our country. I believe tonight, as I always have, that the essential decency, compassion and common sense of the American people will prevail.

And so I say to you and to others around the world, whether they wish us well or ill: do not underestimate us Americans. We lack neither strength nor wisdom. There is a road that leads to a bright and hopeful future. What America needs is leadership. Our job, my fellow Americans, is to ensure that the leaders of this great country will be John Kerry and John Edwards.

Thank you and God bless America!

Everyone seems to make fun of President Bush and his use of the English language. However, if the truth be known, he is NOT the only one who says things that make little to no sense at times - check for yourself......

"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country." - John F. Kerry

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." - John F. Kerry

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future." - John F. Kerry

"The future will be better tomorrow." - John F. Kerry

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." - John F. Kerry

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe." - John F. Kerry

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls." - John F. Kerry

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur." - John F. Kerry

"For NASA, space is still a high priority." - John F. Kerry

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children." - John F. Kerry

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." - John F. Kerry

"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system." - John F. Kerry

Rutgers University political scientist Gerald Pomper tallies the number of times top politicos are mentioned in the Democratic Party platform: Al Gore, 0; Bill Clinton, 3; John Kerry, 39; George Bush, 56. "Despite all this positive stuff" about the Democratic ticket, Mr. Pomper concludes, "this election is about George Bush."

A roadside banner on the mythical L'Alpe d'Huez featured a map of France in U.S. stars and stripes with the words: "American owned and operated since 1999."

Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

[O]F course it is.

The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left - and there are plenty - generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.

John Kerry narrowly trails President Bush in the battle for the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House, as he makes his case at the Democratic National Convention this week to topple the Republican incumbent. Tall hurdles remain in his path, including Electoral College math that favors Bush.

With three months remaining in a volatile campaign, Kerry has 14 states and the District of Columbia in his column for 193 electoral votes. Bush has 25 states for 217 votes, according to an Associated Press analysis of state polls as well as interviews with strategists across the country.

When we look at what is happening in America today we must ask ourselves, where are the deeds? The Bible teaches us: “It is not enough, my brother, to say you have faith, when there are no deeds…Faith without deeds is dead.”