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.
|
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Dirty work:John Gibson's "Big Story" on Fox News sent out reporter Heather Nauert (schwing!) to interview the wacko protestors.
Which brought to mind that old, bad pick-up line: "What's a girl like you doing in a place like this?"
Gibson be ashamed of himself for sending Nauert out among those beasts.
2:44 PM
(0) comments
Not just the NYT: It's not just the "national" media that has a problem with accuracy, fairness and simple honesty. The Sioux Falls Argus-Leader has too fallen victim to its own bias and arrogance.
1:40 PM
(0) comments
Public service: In an effort to reveal the reality that is the anti-American protests in New York City, The Weekly Standard is offering a look at the brisk business done by the city's finest.
2:59 AM
(0) comments
You gotta love this: This is old news, but I'm going to resurrect it because it follows a media storyline: Kerry is a flip-flopper.
John Kerry had just pumped up a huge crowd in downtown West Palm Beach, promising to make the state a battleground for his quest to oust President Bush, when a local television journalist posed the question that any candidate with Florida ambitions should expect:
What will you do about Cuba?
As the presumptive Democratic nominee, Kerry was ready with the bravado appropriate for a challenger who knows that every answer carries magnified importance in the state that put President Bush into office by just 537 votes.
''I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.
Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''
It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.
There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.
So, what is the Senator's staff to do when Kerry pulls a "voted for it before I voted against it" moment?
Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.
Thanks to John Kerry we know that no vote ever really matters. You can vote for it before you vote against it. You can vote against it before you vote for it.
As president, what happens if Kerry signs a bill before he vetoes it? What happens if he vetoes it before he signs it? These are puzzling questions that we may need the Supreme Court to eventually decide.
2:45 AM
(2) comments
Balance, kinda: Today's anti-527 editorial in The New York Times is interesting for its subtle nod toward the reality that there are some 527s who are supporting Sen. John Kerry.
Campaign finance reform has accomplished a good deal in forcing the parties to rely on relatively modest individual donations. But thanks to the F.E.C., the nation's Potemkin political watchdog, the big soft money donations have found another channel. They go to "527" advocacy groups, named for a section of the tax law under which they are supposedly beyond the F.E.C.'s reach. To really qualify under that law, groups would have to be totally independent from the political campaigns that are running George Bush and John Kerry for president. This abuse of common sense came to the public's attention graphically in the Swift boat attack ads against Senator Kerry's war record, run by a shadow group with clear ties to the Republican Party. [emphasis added]
While we should applaud the Times for acknowledging the possiblity of a Kerry campaign-527 connection. However, readers of the paper would be well-served if the Times would put its graphics artists to work and sketch out the connection for its readers.
The fact that the Times has stuck to the Democratic Party talking points on the shows that it has given up any pretension toward the journalistic goal of objectivity.
2:35 AM
(0) comments
Monday, August 30, 2004
GOP convention: I wish I could've been there tonight to see Rudy Giuliani's speech in person. It was a thing of beauty.
What most of the media will focus on is the attacks on John Kerry's flip-floppity nature ("John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combatting terrorism gives us no confidence he'll pursue such a determined course."). But what is perhaps the most informative part of Giuliani's speech won't be in the news -- because it's ancient history. History that too many of the American people have forgotten.
Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years.
And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.
The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.
Action like this became the rule, not the exception.
Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.
In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer.
They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.
Some of those terrorist were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals.
So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was "accommodation, appeasement and compromise."
And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.
Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.
How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?
Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing
Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.
John Kerry has promised to respond as president if America is attacked.
Unfortunately, that doesn't work anymore.
10:59 PM
(0) comments
The French make a "threat": Two French journalists have been kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq. The French had believed that their opposition to the war in Iraq would act to inoculate their citizens against Islamic terrorism. They were wrong.
Instead, the terrorists are demanding that France "reconsider" its law banning overtly religious symbols in schools -- specifically the muslim headscarve or hijab.
In a televised statement, Chirac demanded that the militants free the journalists, who have been missing for more than a week, and announced he had dispatched his foreign minister to the Middle East to seek their release.
Yeah, that's gonna do it.
The French still don't get it. In the war against Islamofascism, there can be no non-aligned nations. For the French to believe that they are somehow immune would be laughable if it weren't so tragic for the two journalists who will likely die for their nation's hubris.
The French can also thank their neighbors the Spanish and other countries like the Philippines who have demonstrated that some civilized nations can be intimidated by the brutal murder of a couple of its citizens.
10:37 PM
(0) comments
Who the media is rooting for: Patterico points to some analysis made by San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders -- one of the minority conservatives in the media -- on the voting tendencies of journalists.
KURTZ: I mention MoveOn, because there are a lot of liberal groups, as you know, Debra Saunders, these 527s -- have there been a double standard in the media in not trying to make Kerry denounce the liberal ads, while reporters ask the president every day, why won't you disassociate yourself from the swift boat ads?
SAUNDERS: I've never seen a voter say to John Kerry, but couldn't you just denounce the ad? Or they say that Bush is whatever. They don't ask him that question. But how many reporters would look at Bush and say, can't you just denounce this one ad? I think that we get used in this. And I think the other thing that I find so...
KURTZ: You're suggesting a double standard?
SAUNDERS: I am suggesting a double standard.
KURTZ: Why do you think that is?
SAUNDERS: I think that most journalists support John Kerry.
KURTZ: You really think that that's the reason?
SAUNDERS: Yes, I do. I work for "The San Francisco Chronicle."
I'll add my voice to that. I think most journalists support John Kerry and I work for the San Diego Union-Tribune. Yes, the U-T is editorially moderate-conservative, but the newsroom is much like any other: liberal.
Just two days ago I was handed a flyer for an anti-war rally Sunday in Balboa Park. I'd just worked six days in a row, so I wasn't going to go to the freak show -- after all, I've heard it all before -- but this was being passed out in the newsroom. I'm sure that this individual had no idea that he was handing the flyer to one of the few people in the newsroom who is politically conservative.
There is also an editor in the newsroom who confessed to me that she was working to register Democrats to vote because just voting against President Bush in this election is "not enough."
Is the media objective and unbiased? Hardly.
9:21 PM
(0) comments
John Kerry and the anti-war left: If you have never read John Kerry's testimony to the Senate foreign relations committee, then you should. If you've seen the most recent Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad, then you've heard some of what John Kerry had to say more than three decades ago about his larger "band of brothers."
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
...
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
John Kerry's decision to slander the men who served in Vietnam for his own political gain and what that says about his character is a legitimate subject of debate as America chooses who will be its next commander in chief.
My knowledge of the Vietnam era certainly doesn't match that of people who were in their teens and twenties as the war was being fought. The majority of my knowledge comes from history books and, to a lesser extent, movies.
I watched "We Were Soldiers" again yesterday, to get a sense of Vietnam. I've also read the book by Harold Moore and Joseph Galloway (the movie only covers one-half of the book, which includes several more days of the larger battle). Perhaps the most telling moment of the Mel Gibson movie was a simple shot near the end where one soldier pushes another soldier in a wheelchair, his head wrapped in bandages, down the concourse of an airport. A woman, with her children, grabs the youngest and pulls her away from the soldiers -- much as one would react to a drunken wino walking down a dark alley.
What does it say about an America that treats its men in uniform that way? What does it say about John Kerry that that is the America he helped to create?
Some commentators have talked about John Kerry's service in Vietnam and contrasted that with George W. Bush. In a time of war, John Kerry's service, they say, gives him a credibilty with the military that George W. Bush doesn't have.
Though Bush didn't serve in Vietnam, the commentators who espouse the aforementioned view have miscalculated. President Bush has the respect of the armed forces because he respects their service and he respects them.
Despite his four months in Vietnam, Kerry is really another Bill Clinton. Clinton dodged the draft, protested against the U.S. overseas and his disdain for the military was well known. Members of the military recounted being sneered at by young Democrat staffers in the Clinton White House.
What Kerry did to the Vietnam veterans, to the poison American public opinion against people in the military who have made sacrifices -- including giving up their own lives, was worse than anything Bill Clinton ever did.
That the media and the Democratic Party didn't see the impact that a John Kerry candidacy would have on middle America is more evidence of how out of touch with reality they both are.
Much was made of how, during the Democratic Convention, nary a mention was made of President Bush. But there was something else that wasn't mentioned either -- there was no praise for the men and women fighting terrorism overseas. No thanks to those who have given their lives to bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Democrats were thinking that they had nominated a war hero. They forgot that their war hero was, 30 years ago, one of those hate-America wackos who are marching in the streets of New York.
8:33 PM
(0) comments
Saturday, August 28, 2004
That liberal media: You know it's bad when they won't even try to fake it any more. National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru reports on an e-mail response from Reuters to a press release sent out by the National Right to Life committee.
What's your plan for parenting & educating all the unwanted children you people want to bring into the world? Who will pay for policing our streets & maintaining the prisons needed to contain them when you, their parents & the system fail them? Oh, sorry. All that money has been earmarked to pay off the Bush deficit. Give me a frigging break, will you?
I'd like to say that this viewpoint is the exception, but I can't.
2:24 AM
(0) comments
Friday, August 27, 2004
The arrogance of Howell Raines: The former editor of the New York Times has taken on the serious subject of President Bush's intelligence, or, from his analysis, the lack thereof.
Bush's former counselor Karen Hughes, in her awkwardly named book "Ten Minutes From Normal," assures us that what "Bush does best of all" is "ask questions that bore to the heart of the matter." She says that during the 2000 campaign she and a "brilliant" issues staff "never once succeeded" in anticipating all of Bush's penetrating questions. "He has a laser-like ability," Hughes writes, "to reduce an issue to its core."
In regard to Iraq and the war on terror, though, there's little evidence in the public record of such Bush interventions. We have been told instead that George Tenet, then director of central intelligence, successfully misled Bush by assuring him that the evidence on Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction was "a slam-dunk."
Bush is stupid because the then-director of the CIA, George Tenet, managed to deceive him. Let's ignore the fact that there has been no evidence that Tenet ever "misled" the president -- that implies Tenet knew there were no WMDs. Instead, let's suppose Raines is right and Bush is too stupid to see through someone with an undergraduate degree from Georgetown and Master's degree from Columbia.
What does that say about Raines himself when he got suckered by a kid who didn't even manage to graduate from Maryland? (No offense to any Maryland grads.)
You'd think Raines would be a little chastened after all he's gone through, but the arrogance of elitist liberals knows no bounds.
8:08 PM
(0) comments
Single-payer health insurance: It should come as no surprise that the man who just a couple of weeks ago took umbrage at being called a quasi-socialst comes out today for the government taking over the healthcare industry. Paul Krugman's column today endorses the nationalization of a huge chunk of the American economy.
Does this mean that the American way is wrong, and that we should switch to a Canadian-style single-payer system? Well, yes.
Yeah, when I'm told that I need to have an MRI, I want to wait a year because medicine is rationed.
I loved this line too, no illegal coordination between the Times columnist and the Kerry/Edwards '04 campaign.
A smart economist can come up with theoretical justifications for either argument. The evidence suggests, however, that the Kerry position is much closer to the truth.
Agree with Krugman or you're a liar. Wonderful!
But my favorite passage is this one from Herr Doktorprofessor -- how will Krugman avoid the huge elephant in the living room when it comes to the spiraling cost of healthcare?
The fact is that the mainly private U.S. health care system spends far more than the mainly public health care systems of other advanced countries, but gets worse results. In 2001, we spent $4,887 on health care per capita, compared with $2,792 in Canada and $2,561 in France. Yet the U.S. does worse than either country by any measure of health care success you care to name - life expectancy, infant mortality, whatever. (At its best, U.S. health care is the best in the world. But the ranks of Americans who can't afford the best, and may have no insurance at all, are large and growing.)
And the U.S. system does have very high overhead: private insurers and H.M.O.'s spend much more on administrative expenses, as opposed to actual medical treatment, than public agencies at home or abroad.
High overhead? What could be a big part of that "high overhead"? Could it be -- malpractice insurance costs? Of course countries with socialized medicine have "lower overhead" -- you can't sue the state-employed doctors for millions of dollars for causing cerebral palsy because they weren't quick enough to do a C-section.
Here's a quicker fix: Put caps on the amount of punitive damage awards.
But that's certainly not going to happen with John Edwards as the vice president or Democrats in control of Congress.
Something definitely needs to be done about spiraling health care costs -- but socialized medicine isn't the answer.
2:44 AM
(1) comments
Correction of the month: From today's New York Times:
[A] front-page article on Aug. 4 about evidence that Islamic groups are training fighters in Pakistan and sending them into Afghanistan misstated the nature of a 1998 American air strike on a militant training camp in Afghanistan. It was carried out with cruise missiles fired from ships in the Arabian Sea, not bombs dropped by American planes.
You'd think that well-informed copy editors at the Times would catch that error. After all, that was part of one of the most contentious periods of the Clinton administration with some Republicans claiming that the attack was to divert attention from the impeachment proceedings.
And then it took them nearly four weeks to correct it?
1:56 AM
(0) comments
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Your tax dollars at work: So, what is former Democrat Sen. Max Cleland's paying gig nowadays? He spent yesterday in a bit of political theater attempting to deliver a letter to President Bush at his Texas ranch. Cleland is one of Kerry's lead surrogates and spends much of his time criss-crossing the nation on Kerry's behalf.
So, one would guess Cleland's drawing a paycheck from the Kerry campaign.
Wrong. He's drawing a paycheck from you.
Cleland is currently serving as one of President Bush's appointees to the Export-Import Bank. A cushy political patronage job that pays $136,000 annually.
Wait until the New York Times gets ahold of this. It now appears that the entire Democratic Party is just a puppet of the Bush campaign.
*evil laugh*
2:58 AM
(0) comments
A public service: Inspired by the work of The New York Times graphics department, Hoystory.com has expanded on their work pointing out the incestuous relationships between the Bush campaign, GOP-leaning 527s, Sen. John Kerry and Democrat-leaning 527s. This graphic is 100 percent accurate and has checked for accuracy by the Times editorial page writers.
2:42 AM
(1) comments
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
JibJab parody gets legal OK: The Electronic Freedom Foundation reports that the JibJab parody of "This Land is Your Land" is legal because the copyright has expired. Ludlow Music disputes the claim but has settled the case -- agreeing that there will be no further lawyering.
2:49 PM
(1) comments
Visa revoked: An Islamic scholar who had been hired by Notre Dame to teach religion (yeah, I know it doesn't make much sense -- Catholic University and all) has had his visa revoked.
"Generally speaking, criteria for revocation include public safety risk, or national security threat," DHS spokesman Dean Boyd said.
However, what really caught my eye about this story was this line:
Another professor filled in for (Tariq) Ramadan on Tuesday on the first day of his scheduled class on Islamic ethics.
Islamic ethics? Is that where one identifies the proper prayer for use in cutting off the heads of infidels?
2:20 AM
(0) comments
Paul Krugman's vitriol: Don Luskin slams New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for his tireless work in making one of his own predictions come true. Krugman's Tuesday column was one big whine about this election being the nastiest on record. Left out is that Krugman has done his best over the past four years to drag political speech into the gutter.
Luskin cites instance after instance of Krugman's own intemperate punditry.
I'd like to remind you of one more. During the debate between Bill O'Reilly and Krugman on Tim Russert's CNBC show earlier this month, O'Reilly called Krugman a "quasi-socialist."
Krugman's response was to call O'Reilly a "quasi-murderer."
People, glass houses, stones -- look it up Krugman.
*Correction* Post originally used the wrong prefix (pseudo-) in the quotes.
1:01 AM
(1) comments
To Err is the New York Times: McQ over at QandO has tracked down a statement in last week's New York Times hit piece on the Swift Boat Veterans and discovered something worthy of a correction.
But in that article there was this paragraph:
A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."
Before that time, I had never heard it suggested that there was a report in which a claim of 1 VC being KIA and 5 being WIA. It wasn't until today, when Jon sent me a link, that I found the source of the NYT claims.
They're contained in The Coastal Division Eleven Command History "Chronology of Highlights". I'm not sure how I managed to miss it up to now, but I have.
Anyway to the point at hand which will demonstrate two things:
A) The NYT deliberately left out some of the report. B) The NYT writers who used the report had no idea about the meaning of what they were reading.
First the report (you'll find it on page 8 of the pdf):
March 13, 1969: PCF's 3, 51, 43, 93 and 94 with MSF RF/PF troops conducted SEA LORDS operations in Bay Hop river and Dong Cong canal. A mine detonated under PCF 3 and units were taken under small arms fire several times during the operation. Friendly casualties were 8 USN WIA and 1 MSF KIA. Units destroyed 30 sampans and 5 structures and captured 16 booby trap grenades. Later intelligence reports indicated 1 VC KIA and 5 VC WIA.
Once I read this, I understood why the NYT had screwed up this part of the story so badly.
Let me translate it for you. Those 5 boats hauled some Mike Strike Force (MSF) Regional Forces/Popular Forces (RF/PF) on a Sea Lords operation. The Ruff Puffs apparently assaulted a village, killed 1 VC and wounded 5 VC, but that final total wasn't clear at the time. During their assault they (and possibly the PCFs) were under enemy small arms fire (stands to reason, wouldn't you say and might also explain the 3 holes in Thurlow's boat). They, the Mike Force and PCFs, destroyed 30 sampans, 5 structures and captured 16 grenades while losing 1 MSF KIA (a booby trap). The Mike Strike Force stayed there at the village site (and thus became the source for the "later intelligence").
On the way back, sans the Ruff Puffs (who are still at the village), PCF 3 hit a mine.
END OF STORY.
There was no reported small arms fire around the mine. There was no reported VC KIA or WIA at that time. Those all took place in the previous Mike Force operation, not the mine detonation.
Which explains why the PCFs were able to spend 90 minutes on site, saving the 3 boat and its crew before towing it in and not suffering one single solitary casualty from small arms or any other type of fire.
This is an error worthy of a correction. But I won't be holding my breath.
12:51 AM
(0) comments
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Physician, heal thyself: The New York Times TV Watch column by Alessandra Stanley is unintentionally hilarious.
[T]here is the fog of war and then there is the fog of cable.
Over the last few weeks, 24-hour news networks have done little to find out what John Kerry did in Vietnam, but they have provided a different kind of public service: their examination of his war record in Vietnam illustrates once again just how perfunctory and confusing cable news coverage can be. Facts, half-truths and passionately tendentious opinions get tumbled together on screen like laundry in an industrial dryer - without the softeners of fact-checking or reflection.
Wow, what a perfect description of the Times own article of less than a week ago. Fact-checking? If cable even checked one fact, it was much more than the Times did.
*UPDATE* I couldn't get past the first paragraph, but the Captain did, and discovers an embarrassing error.
12:12 AM
(0) comments
|
|