...by this excellent column by John McCandlish Phillips, a former reporter for the New York Times http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/03/AR2005050301277.html in today's Washington Post. Entitled When Journalist Cry Jihad, it exposes these liberal Op-ed loonies for the hysterics that they are:
I have been looking at myself...in a ghastly arcade mirror lately -- courtesy of this newspaper and the New York Times. Readers have been assured, among other dreadful things, that we are living in "a theocracy" and that this theocratic federal state has reached the dire level of -- hold your breath -- a "jihad."
In more than 50 years of direct engagement in and observation of the major news media I have never encountered anything remotely like the fear and loathing lavished on us by opinion mongers in these world-class newspapers in the past 40 days
He very politely takes the vile Frank Rich to task:
Three days later Frank Rich...sweepingly informed us that, under the effects of "the God racket" as now pursued in Washington, "government, culture, science, medicine and the rule of law are all under threat from an emboldened religious minority out to remake America according to its dogma." He went on to tell Times readers that GOP zealots in Congress and the White House have edged our country over into "a full-scale jihad." If Rich were to have the misfortune to live for one week in a genuine jihad, and the unlikely fortune to survive it, he would temper his categorization of the perceived President Bush-driven jihad by a minimum of 77 percent. If any "emboldened minority" is aiming to "remake America according to its dogma," it seems to many evangelicals and Catholics that it is the vanguard wanting, say, the compact of marriage to be stretched in its historic definition to include men cohabiting with men and women with women.
Now he takes aim (again, too politely for me) at Paul Krugman:
In "What's Going On" [March 29], Krugman darkly implied that some committed religious believers in our nation bear a menacing resemblance to Islamic extremists, by which he did not mean a few crazed crackpots but a quite broad swath of red-staters. In "An Academic Question" [April 5], Krugman, conceding the wide majority of secular liberals over conservatives on the faculties of our major universities, had the supreme chutzpah to tell us why: The former, unfettered by presuppositions of faith, are free to commit genuine investigative work and to reach valid scholarly conclusions, while the latter are disabled in that critical respect by their unprovable prior assumptions. So they are disqualified as a class from the university enterprise by their unfortunate susceptibility to the God hypothesis.
Read the whole article, it is surprising to read such an effective trashing of the state of the op-ed pages on an op-ed page itself. He takes many others to task, including Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson (see here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/democratic-media-flaunts-their.html for my take on this article) Richard Cohen, and many more of their close-minded coherts. He usually tempers his critiques of content with nice word on the columnists themselves (although methinks I do smell some sarcasm there); the JerseyNut is not as forgiving...nevertheless, a first rate job by Mr. Phillips!
วันพฤหัสบดี, พฤษภาคม 05, 2548
วันพุธ, พฤษภาคม 04, 2548
PBS & Deception at the New York Times
A blathering, B.S. editorial in the New York Times regarding the PBS content issues that we have been follwing for the past few weeks http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/opinion/04wed2.html ;filled with many attempts to mislead the reader -
Satisfying more people with public television and radio is a worthy aim, but several recent surveys for public broadcasting have shown that most viewers and listeners admire what's on now. More than half of PBS's viewers say they find its news more "trustworthy" than the commercial stations'.
OF COURSE most viewers admire what's on now; the bulk of them agree with the leftist mindset of PBS. How about asking people whom do not watch PBS programming their reasoning? Isn't that a worthy aim?
Essentially, this editorial just rehashes all the unsubstantiated claims made by the liberals whom have controlled the ideology of PBS for the past few decades. See here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/05/ny-times-weighs-in-for-pbs.html for more of this nonsense, as the Times and the liberal media shill for their publicly funded, ideologically indentical counterparts.
Satisfying more people with public television and radio is a worthy aim, but several recent surveys for public broadcasting have shown that most viewers and listeners admire what's on now. More than half of PBS's viewers say they find its news more "trustworthy" than the commercial stations'.
OF COURSE most viewers admire what's on now; the bulk of them agree with the leftist mindset of PBS. How about asking people whom do not watch PBS programming their reasoning? Isn't that a worthy aim?
Essentially, this editorial just rehashes all the unsubstantiated claims made by the liberals whom have controlled the ideology of PBS for the past few decades. See here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/05/ny-times-weighs-in-for-pbs.html for more of this nonsense, as the Times and the liberal media shill for their publicly funded, ideologically indentical counterparts.
วันจันทร์, พฤษภาคม 02, 2548
NY Times weighs in for PBS
PBS' squawking is getting louder on the issue of "political bias" within their programming. We've discussed it here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/cpb-and-cbc-go-craaazy.html and here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/pbs-pulls-hair-gnashes-teeth.html ; now the New York Times is reporting that PBS is under right wing attack http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/arts/television/02public.html :
The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence
Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers."
What's wrong with an outside consultant? Would the Times prefer that Mr. Tomlinson conduct the audit by himself? Moyers is a hate-filled extremist who belongs on Air America, not PBS (See bottom for some links).
Mr. Tomlinson said that he was striving for balance and had no desire to impose a political point of view on programming...
"My goal here is to see programming that satisfies a broad constituency," he said, adding, "I'm not after removing shows or tampering internally with shows."
But he has repeatedly criticized public television programs as too liberal overall, and said in the interview, "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance."
Much like most of the newsrooms at broadcasters and newspapers across the country...no wonder staffers at PBS are in shock, for them "balance" means showing lesbian couples as well as male homosexual couples....
And here's something laughingly telling:
Christy Carpenter, a Democratic appointee to the board from 1998 to 2002, said partisanship was "essentially nonexistent" in her first years. But once Mr. Tomlinson, a former editor in chief of Reader's Digest, joined in September 2000 and President Bush's election changed the board's political composition, the tenor changed, she said.
Hmmm, now which political party ran the White House "in her first years"? Geez, why would anyone expect any complaint from the party in power when the government-financed broadcasting company is essentially spouting the party's hard liberal line in both social and international issues?
PBS board members need not worry much - guys like Tomlinson will have to push rightwards for years until PBS even comes close to reaching an approximate center....
REGARDING MOYERS: From TownHall http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20041229.shtml
and from Powerline http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/009475.php
- and these do not even represent the tip of the iceberg for this taxpayer-funded liberal bomb-thrower...
The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence
Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers."
What's wrong with an outside consultant? Would the Times prefer that Mr. Tomlinson conduct the audit by himself? Moyers is a hate-filled extremist who belongs on Air America, not PBS (See bottom for some links).
Mr. Tomlinson said that he was striving for balance and had no desire to impose a political point of view on programming...
"My goal here is to see programming that satisfies a broad constituency," he said, adding, "I'm not after removing shows or tampering internally with shows."
But he has repeatedly criticized public television programs as too liberal overall, and said in the interview, "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance."
Much like most of the newsrooms at broadcasters and newspapers across the country...no wonder staffers at PBS are in shock, for them "balance" means showing lesbian couples as well as male homosexual couples....
And here's something laughingly telling:
Christy Carpenter, a Democratic appointee to the board from 1998 to 2002, said partisanship was "essentially nonexistent" in her first years. But once Mr. Tomlinson, a former editor in chief of Reader's Digest, joined in September 2000 and President Bush's election changed the board's political composition, the tenor changed, she said.
Hmmm, now which political party ran the White House "in her first years"? Geez, why would anyone expect any complaint from the party in power when the government-financed broadcasting company is essentially spouting the party's hard liberal line in both social and international issues?
PBS board members need not worry much - guys like Tomlinson will have to push rightwards for years until PBS even comes close to reaching an approximate center....
REGARDING MOYERS: From TownHall http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20041229.shtml
and from Powerline http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/009475.php
- and these do not even represent the tip of the iceberg for this taxpayer-funded liberal bomb-thrower...
วันอาทิตย์, พฤษภาคม 01, 2548
Air America encourages assasination
The "Tokoyo Rose" of the War on Terror, Randi Rhodes, has finally crossed the line on her pukenacous Air America radio program: http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/23522.htm
ALL-liberal Air America and talker Randi Rhodes apologized yesterday for a "bad taste" comedy bit in which President Bush was shot.
The Secret Sevice said yesterday it was looking into the incident to see if it constituted a threat to the president.
Rhodes opened her Monday afternoon radio show with an announcer blasting the president for his Social Security plan:
"A spoiled child [Bush] is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he's gonna fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [sound of three shotgun blasts].
What follows is a typical liberal apology, with no acceptance of blame, of course:
"It was a bit. It was bad. I apologize a thousand times," Rhodes told listeners yesterday on WLIB (1190 AM), adding: "I'm not in charge of the bits."
Rhodes followed up the bit by laughing hysterically; so I'm guessing she wasn't sorry until she realized she and her team had committed a license-threating felony. I'm sure she'll be cleared, but it demonstrates-
-generally, the frustration of the American Left, so bereft of ideas it must advocate assasination as a way to gain power
-specifically, the moral depravity of Air America radio
As I have always maintained here, Americans are smarter than their media gives them credit for. In New York City, home of hateful liberalism, Air America's flagship outlet WLIB had a miserable Winter 2005 rating book. From The Radio Equalizer http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/04/how-much-more-time-do-they-need.html :
It's been a full year for Air America's flagship station, WLIB, in New York City. Month after month, it has gone nowhere in the ratings. This month is no exception...WLIB's tiny 1.2 audience share, for all listeners 12 and older, is the same as for Fall 2004. The audience is actually smaller now than when the station first flipped to the liberal talk format from Caribbean programming. And the station ranks a whopping 24th place overall...Don't believe any of the leftist spin, there's no way to dispute this factual information. If I seem irritated here, it's because the dishonesty from the Air America supporters has just become tiresome...
And in Liberal Headquarters #2, AKA the city of Los Angeles?
KTLK's general manager wrote to the LA Times, insisting more time was needed to see where his station was headed. But so far, still no growth for the station: it held a flat, miniscule 0.3 share of all listeners 12 and older in the Los Angeles market. Drop any lower than that and a station becomes too small to show up in the ratings at all. With no sign of growth, KTLK ranked, are you ready for this, 44th overall in Los Angeles.
The media will still be trying to spin this, because ,after all, they listen to it in their cars and newsrooms. But radio is a business, and soon this mistake of a network will go silent (at last); a "victim" of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum who recognize hate speech when they hear it.
Postscript: Other posts on Air America made on Right, Wing-Nut! can be found here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/treason-on-am-dial.html and also here
http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/03/air-america-fck-no.html
ALL-liberal Air America and talker Randi Rhodes apologized yesterday for a "bad taste" comedy bit in which President Bush was shot.
The Secret Sevice said yesterday it was looking into the incident to see if it constituted a threat to the president.
Rhodes opened her Monday afternoon radio show with an announcer blasting the president for his Social Security plan:
"A spoiled child [Bush] is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he's gonna fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [sound of three shotgun blasts].
What follows is a typical liberal apology, with no acceptance of blame, of course:
"It was a bit. It was bad. I apologize a thousand times," Rhodes told listeners yesterday on WLIB (1190 AM), adding: "I'm not in charge of the bits."
Rhodes followed up the bit by laughing hysterically; so I'm guessing she wasn't sorry until she realized she and her team had committed a license-threating felony. I'm sure she'll be cleared, but it demonstrates-
-generally, the frustration of the American Left, so bereft of ideas it must advocate assasination as a way to gain power
-specifically, the moral depravity of Air America radio
As I have always maintained here, Americans are smarter than their media gives them credit for. In New York City, home of hateful liberalism, Air America's flagship outlet WLIB had a miserable Winter 2005 rating book. From The Radio Equalizer http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/04/how-much-more-time-do-they-need.html :
It's been a full year for Air America's flagship station, WLIB, in New York City. Month after month, it has gone nowhere in the ratings. This month is no exception...WLIB's tiny 1.2 audience share, for all listeners 12 and older, is the same as for Fall 2004. The audience is actually smaller now than when the station first flipped to the liberal talk format from Caribbean programming. And the station ranks a whopping 24th place overall...Don't believe any of the leftist spin, there's no way to dispute this factual information. If I seem irritated here, it's because the dishonesty from the Air America supporters has just become tiresome...
And in Liberal Headquarters #2, AKA the city of Los Angeles?
KTLK's general manager wrote to the LA Times, insisting more time was needed to see where his station was headed. But so far, still no growth for the station: it held a flat, miniscule 0.3 share of all listeners 12 and older in the Los Angeles market. Drop any lower than that and a station becomes too small to show up in the ratings at all. With no sign of growth, KTLK ranked, are you ready for this, 44th overall in Los Angeles.
The media will still be trying to spin this, because ,after all, they listen to it in their cars and newsrooms. But radio is a business, and soon this mistake of a network will go silent (at last); a "victim" of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum who recognize hate speech when they hear it.
Postscript: Other posts on Air America made on Right, Wing-Nut! can be found here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/treason-on-am-dial.html and also here
http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/03/air-america-fck-no.html
วันเสาร์, เมษายน 30, 2548
France: A failed state?
At least that is what we are hearing from Aurelien Vernon, vice president of Liberté Chérie. Via E-nough!, a link to this WSJ article - http://www.e-nough.hmdnsgroup.com/archives/000965.html :
France seems to be slowly coming apart...more worrisome than the lackluster economy, structural rigidity and persistent social problems that Mr. Camdessus described is the absence of hope among the French people -- a complete lack of faith that the future might bring something better in what has become the last collectivist nation in the Western world.
Interesting - the more any state moves towards collectivism (for the" good of the people", of course), the more the people seem to lose hope...I always think of film footage out of communist states showing blank-faced, blandy dressed people, moving like those lost in a vaguely unpleasent dreamworld from which they cannot (or have lost the will to) escape.
...there is our chronic unemployment, which for the past 20 years has oscillated between 8.5% and 12%... People stay unemployed over 16 months on average in France, while in the U.S. it's less than five months.
Remember that, when Democrats start telling us how "poor" and "unproductive" our economy is...and what has the hero of the left, Chirac, done for France?
The infamous annual wealth tax, which reaches 1.8% of the value of one's property, wasn't changed, despite the continuing exodus of the very wealthy who are sick and tired of being subject to this confiscatory charge. The law limiting the work-week to 35 hours, a major drain on the economy, was hardly touched.
So...nothing? Well, not exactly...
As a result of his primitive anti-Americanism and his rejection of free-market initiatives, Mr. Chirac now finds himself isolated in Europe. In the EU, a majority of countries see themselves as part of a Western world that spans the Atlantic and embraces a liberal world view.
The French have allowed their government to evolve into a leftist, socialist nightmare. It's a free country, with free elections, so this must be the choice of the French people. It is amazing how long some will hold onto a theory long after it has been disproven in reality (also see: Democratic Party/Post 9-11 foreign policy).
I question the intelligence of the French people, if they have been so duped by house-organ media outlets into thinking they lead some type of a superoir lifestyle...were Americans so gullible, John Kerry would now be bowing and scraping to our new Muslim masters, with the signed Kyoto treay in hand, and with his lips on Koffi Annan's crooked ass.
France, lied to and misled by its so-called intellectual elites, is on the edge of becoming a failed state, slipping into both social http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/race-riots-rock-paris-france-to.html and economic misery.
Only somewhat sad, as apparently they have chosen this fate...
France seems to be slowly coming apart...more worrisome than the lackluster economy, structural rigidity and persistent social problems that Mr. Camdessus described is the absence of hope among the French people -- a complete lack of faith that the future might bring something better in what has become the last collectivist nation in the Western world.
Interesting - the more any state moves towards collectivism (for the" good of the people", of course), the more the people seem to lose hope...I always think of film footage out of communist states showing blank-faced, blandy dressed people, moving like those lost in a vaguely unpleasent dreamworld from which they cannot (or have lost the will to) escape.
...there is our chronic unemployment, which for the past 20 years has oscillated between 8.5% and 12%... People stay unemployed over 16 months on average in France, while in the U.S. it's less than five months.
Remember that, when Democrats start telling us how "poor" and "unproductive" our economy is...and what has the hero of the left, Chirac, done for France?
The infamous annual wealth tax, which reaches 1.8% of the value of one's property, wasn't changed, despite the continuing exodus of the very wealthy who are sick and tired of being subject to this confiscatory charge. The law limiting the work-week to 35 hours, a major drain on the economy, was hardly touched.
So...nothing? Well, not exactly...
As a result of his primitive anti-Americanism and his rejection of free-market initiatives, Mr. Chirac now finds himself isolated in Europe. In the EU, a majority of countries see themselves as part of a Western world that spans the Atlantic and embraces a liberal world view.
The French have allowed their government to evolve into a leftist, socialist nightmare. It's a free country, with free elections, so this must be the choice of the French people. It is amazing how long some will hold onto a theory long after it has been disproven in reality (also see: Democratic Party/Post 9-11 foreign policy).
I question the intelligence of the French people, if they have been so duped by house-organ media outlets into thinking they lead some type of a superoir lifestyle...were Americans so gullible, John Kerry would now be bowing and scraping to our new Muslim masters, with the signed Kyoto treay in hand, and with his lips on Koffi Annan's crooked ass.
France, lied to and misled by its so-called intellectual elites, is on the edge of becoming a failed state, slipping into both social http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/race-riots-rock-paris-france-to.html and economic misery.
Only somewhat sad, as apparently they have chosen this fate...
More bad news for the Democrats...
The Washington Times talks about why Bush beat Kerry by about 20% among married voters with children http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050427-083110-6340r.htm ...first, a good point about the immature liberal mindset:
Liberal students, egged on by aging counterculture professors, throw pies in the faces of Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol and David Horowitz to stop any talk of tolerance and academic freedom. Pies in the face suggest the throwers have nothing to say...
Now, what influences parents more, pies in the face or ideas?
A new study by the Progressive Policy Institute, the policy arm of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, describes a "parents gap." Many Democrats who might have voted for a Democrat didn't vote for Mr. Kerry because they liked what Mr. Bush was saying about the way the entertainment culture makes it difficult for parents "to protect their kids from morally corrosive images and messages." Many of these parents were liberal when they were younger, but have discovered "lifestage conservatism." They're impatient with Democrats who refuse to put away childish things. As parents they connect with the adult community, develop religious affiliations and are more likely to vote for candidates who show respect for right and wrong.
Maybe if they threw more pies...meanwhile, in a column in today's Slimes, Tom Tiernery again shows who's serious in the battlefield of ideas http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/opinion/30tierney.html :
Democrats have good reason to be aghast at President Bush's new proposal for Social Security. Someone has finally called their bluff.
They tried yesterday to portray him as just another cruel, rich Republican for suggesting any cuts in future benefits, but that's not what the prime-time audience saw on Thursday night. By proposing to shore up the system while protecting low-income workers, Mr. Bush raised a supremely awkward question for Democrats: which party really cares about the poor?
And the Democratic response?
...Democrats don't talk about much these days except the glories of the New Deal. They know that Social Security doesn't even have the money to sustain a program that leaves millions of elderly people in poverty. But it's their system, and they're sticking to it.
But I thought the Democrats were the self-proclaimed party of the intellectual elite? If pie-throwing and name-calling is the best our brainy "superiors" can come up with, it's no wonder America has turned to the Republican party. Dick Cheny and John Bolton might not be the warmest and fuzziest guys, but it sure beats getting my intellectual nourishment from a party fronted by Rosie O'Donnell, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter...
Liberal students, egged on by aging counterculture professors, throw pies in the faces of Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol and David Horowitz to stop any talk of tolerance and academic freedom. Pies in the face suggest the throwers have nothing to say...
Now, what influences parents more, pies in the face or ideas?
A new study by the Progressive Policy Institute, the policy arm of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, describes a "parents gap." Many Democrats who might have voted for a Democrat didn't vote for Mr. Kerry because they liked what Mr. Bush was saying about the way the entertainment culture makes it difficult for parents "to protect their kids from morally corrosive images and messages." Many of these parents were liberal when they were younger, but have discovered "lifestage conservatism." They're impatient with Democrats who refuse to put away childish things. As parents they connect with the adult community, develop religious affiliations and are more likely to vote for candidates who show respect for right and wrong.
Maybe if they threw more pies...meanwhile, in a column in today's Slimes, Tom Tiernery again shows who's serious in the battlefield of ideas http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/opinion/30tierney.html :
Democrats have good reason to be aghast at President Bush's new proposal for Social Security. Someone has finally called their bluff.
They tried yesterday to portray him as just another cruel, rich Republican for suggesting any cuts in future benefits, but that's not what the prime-time audience saw on Thursday night. By proposing to shore up the system while protecting low-income workers, Mr. Bush raised a supremely awkward question for Democrats: which party really cares about the poor?
And the Democratic response?
...Democrats don't talk about much these days except the glories of the New Deal. They know that Social Security doesn't even have the money to sustain a program that leaves millions of elderly people in poverty. But it's their system, and they're sticking to it.
But I thought the Democrats were the self-proclaimed party of the intellectual elite? If pie-throwing and name-calling is the best our brainy "superiors" can come up with, it's no wonder America has turned to the Republican party. Dick Cheny and John Bolton might not be the warmest and fuzziest guys, but it sure beats getting my intellectual nourishment from a party fronted by Rosie O'Donnell, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter...
Rosie O'Donnell loves Jane Fonda, Saddam...
This morning's New York Post http://www.nypost.com/gossip/43296.htm reports on where Holllywood loudmouth Rosie O'Donnell's sympathies lie:
"HANOI" Jane Fonda has at least one admirer of her Vietnam War-era antics. Rosie O'Donnell ranted to Fox News Channel's Geraldo Rivera in a taped interview that will air tonight: "All I know is that when I was a kid and the Vietnam War was on and Jane Fonda was the only person standing up and saying what every kid that was 9 years old like I was knew — war is wrong and we shouldn't go over and kill people . . . You know [President Bush] invaded a sovereign nation [Iraq] in defiance of the U.N. He is basically a war criminal! He should be tried in the Hague!
So the VietCong and Saddam are the good guys, and America is the bad guy...not a word about the hundreds of thousands of bodies being unearthed in mass graves in Iraq; it is George Bush that should be tried for war crimes...sounds like Rosie O is living on the message boards of the Democratic Underground ! Actually, all these Hollywood lefties seem to live on an entirely different planet than the rest of us (Planet Hollywood?)
Hey, Twinkieface, if war is wrong, why aren't you lecturing the Muslim fundamentalists who triggered this conflict? Oh, wait, she must be down with Maggie Gyllenhaal... it's all our fault... http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/maggie-gyllenhaal-secretarysluttraitor.html
Personally, I think this fat, treacherous, bigmouth dyke b*tch should be hung for treason. Someone should tell Rosie that giving aid and succor to the enemy is a war crime as well...see you in the gallows, tubby!
UPDATE 8PM : Today's WaPost http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901191.html
113 Kurds Are Found In Mass Grave - Hussein Victims Almost All Women, Children
...were it not for Rosie's war criminal, George Bush, how many more thousands of pits would have been built around Iraq, filled with the decompsong bodies of innocent woman and children...? Rosie? Maggie? Anyone?
"HANOI" Jane Fonda has at least one admirer of her Vietnam War-era antics. Rosie O'Donnell ranted to Fox News Channel's Geraldo Rivera in a taped interview that will air tonight: "All I know is that when I was a kid and the Vietnam War was on and Jane Fonda was the only person standing up and saying what every kid that was 9 years old like I was knew — war is wrong and we shouldn't go over and kill people . . . You know [President Bush] invaded a sovereign nation [Iraq] in defiance of the U.N. He is basically a war criminal! He should be tried in the Hague!
So the VietCong and Saddam are the good guys, and America is the bad guy...not a word about the hundreds of thousands of bodies being unearthed in mass graves in Iraq; it is George Bush that should be tried for war crimes...sounds like Rosie O is living on the message boards of the Democratic Underground ! Actually, all these Hollywood lefties seem to live on an entirely different planet than the rest of us (Planet Hollywood?)
Hey, Twinkieface, if war is wrong, why aren't you lecturing the Muslim fundamentalists who triggered this conflict? Oh, wait, she must be down with Maggie Gyllenhaal... it's all our fault... http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/maggie-gyllenhaal-secretarysluttraitor.html
Personally, I think this fat, treacherous, bigmouth dyke b*tch should be hung for treason. Someone should tell Rosie that giving aid and succor to the enemy is a war crime as well...see you in the gallows, tubby!
UPDATE 8PM : Today's WaPost http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901191.html
113 Kurds Are Found In Mass Grave - Hussein Victims Almost All Women, Children
...were it not for Rosie's war criminal, George Bush, how many more thousands of pits would have been built around Iraq, filled with the decompsong bodies of innocent woman and children...? Rosie? Maggie? Anyone?
วันศุกร์, เมษายน 29, 2548
Political Correctness, Hollywood Style
Daimian Penny links to James Lileks' article on the left-wing PC bile that spews forth at us from Hollywood's gaping maw. First, from Lileks: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0405/lileks042805.php3
The popular culture is finally beginning to deal with 9/11 in earnest, but it's doing so with the usual modern mix of internationalist pieties and timid, politically correct drivel...consider "The Interpreter." It's a big-budget suspense thriller, a movie that examines that august body of international concord, the United Nations, and how it deals with a terrorist threat. In real life, the answer would be "lunch."
Mr. Penny adds: http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/004244.html
The Hollywood set keeps warning that America has become a Christian theocracy, but movies and TV shows can slander and smear Christians unreservedly - and the producers pat themselves on the back for being so "brave" about it. But God forbid we make the 9/11 hijackers look "evil" or anything! Liberal sensitivity undoubtedly has a lot to do with it, but I think the real reason was explained by a British cartoonist asked why Ariel Sharon was more heavily criticized than Arafat: "Jews don't issue fatwas."
Penny's right on; chicken liberals create straw men such as, oh, Christians, to knock down, then cite themselves for their artistic bravery. Follow the "cartoonist" link on Damian's page; see the banal evil of some of Europe's ink-stanied wretches....
I'll close with Lileks, again, with his thoughts on those whom attempt to "humanize" terrorists:
If anyone dehumanized themselves, it was the hijackers. It takes a dead rotten heart to board a plane, see a little girl, and know you're going to kill her before the morning's out — if all goes well, that is.
The popular culture is finally beginning to deal with 9/11 in earnest, but it's doing so with the usual modern mix of internationalist pieties and timid, politically correct drivel...consider "The Interpreter." It's a big-budget suspense thriller, a movie that examines that august body of international concord, the United Nations, and how it deals with a terrorist threat. In real life, the answer would be "lunch."
Mr. Penny adds: http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/004244.html
The Hollywood set keeps warning that America has become a Christian theocracy, but movies and TV shows can slander and smear Christians unreservedly - and the producers pat themselves on the back for being so "brave" about it. But God forbid we make the 9/11 hijackers look "evil" or anything! Liberal sensitivity undoubtedly has a lot to do with it, but I think the real reason was explained by a British cartoonist asked why Ariel Sharon was more heavily criticized than Arafat: "Jews don't issue fatwas."
Penny's right on; chicken liberals create straw men such as, oh, Christians, to knock down, then cite themselves for their artistic bravery. Follow the "cartoonist" link on Damian's page; see the banal evil of some of Europe's ink-stanied wretches....
I'll close with Lileks, again, with his thoughts on those whom attempt to "humanize" terrorists:
If anyone dehumanized themselves, it was the hijackers. It takes a dead rotten heart to board a plane, see a little girl, and know you're going to kill her before the morning's out — if all goes well, that is.
วันพุธ, เมษายน 27, 2548
Abu Ghraib, again...
As the anniversary of the misdeeds at Abu Ghraib has passed, there are a few things interesting to note:
Chrenkoff points out http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/04/reason-why-democrats-lost-election.html that Ted Kennedy had no comment on the the second anniversary of the start of the liberation of Iraq (March 19th). Kennedy had no comment on April 9th, the second anniversary of the fall of Baghdad and Saddam's evil regime.
But boy oh boy, did he have a lot to say on April 26th http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/05/03/2005426703.html in a "STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON ANNIVERSARY OF ABU GHRAIB SCANDAL " which reads like a S&M fantasy:
The sad anniversary of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal is now upon us. It's an appropriate time to reflect on how well we've responded as a nation.
The images of cruelty, and perversion are still difficult to look at a year later. An Iraqi prisoner in a dark hood and cape, standing on a cardboard box with electrodes attached to his body. Naked men forced to simulate sex acts on each other. The corpse of a man who had been beaten to death, lying in ice, next to soldiers smiling and giving a "thumbs up" sign. A pool of blood from the wounds of a naked, defenseless prisoner attacked by a military dog.
These images are seared into our collective memory...
Kennedy is a sick man - how we've responded as a nation??? Sorry, Ted, those were not choirboys in that prison; they were insurgents, involved in the killing American soldiers - that's what seared into my memory, that and watching the Towers fall from my office on 9/11. That doesn't matter to Ted; he cannot bring himself to mention the dead American soldiers who are fighting for freedom in the Middle East; and according to LGF, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15630_Kennedy-_Torture_Torture_Torture&only=yes Teddy K. figures out a way to use the " T " word 38 times. Sorry, fat man, your liberal guilt is powerless against us! I cannot/will not shed crocodile tears for the incacerated terrorists; they weren't in Abu Ghraib (or Gitmo) for jaywalking...
Follow the links above; read 'em all...
And related, I loved this Reuters article
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20050427/ts_nm/rights_iraq_dc, quoting the unbaised Human Rights Watch claiming Abu Ghraib was only the "tip of the iceberg". Check it out:
The group said it was concerned the United States had not stopped the use of what it called illegal coercive interrogation.
Illegal? Since when did Human Rights Watch start writing laws? Did the Democrats somehow sneak back into power?
Update 1028PM: Oh, lookie here, PBS has joined the fun: PBS' 'Now' Visits Guantanamo Prison
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/04/27/entertainment/e140235D87.DTL .
"I remember the box, the pipes, even the two wires," Haj Ali says...
Another liberal S&M love story ? Yes, between a terrorist and PBS:
Then mayor of a Baghdad suburb and a member of the ruling Baath Party, he was snatched off the street in late 2003 and transported to the prison, despite denying involvement in the insurgency. During his almost three months at Abu Ghraib, Ali's family had no idea where he was.
OK, so according to PBS, if a Baathist Bagdad Mayor denies involvement in his own insurgency, we should TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD!
1- that's why PBS and its ilk don't run the country; 2- I hope he had a pleasent stay...
Chrenkoff points out http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/04/reason-why-democrats-lost-election.html that Ted Kennedy had no comment on the the second anniversary of the start of the liberation of Iraq (March 19th). Kennedy had no comment on April 9th, the second anniversary of the fall of Baghdad and Saddam's evil regime.
But boy oh boy, did he have a lot to say on April 26th http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/05/03/2005426703.html in a "STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON ANNIVERSARY OF ABU GHRAIB SCANDAL " which reads like a S&M fantasy:
The sad anniversary of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal is now upon us. It's an appropriate time to reflect on how well we've responded as a nation.
The images of cruelty, and perversion are still difficult to look at a year later. An Iraqi prisoner in a dark hood and cape, standing on a cardboard box with electrodes attached to his body. Naked men forced to simulate sex acts on each other. The corpse of a man who had been beaten to death, lying in ice, next to soldiers smiling and giving a "thumbs up" sign. A pool of blood from the wounds of a naked, defenseless prisoner attacked by a military dog.
These images are seared into our collective memory...
Kennedy is a sick man - how we've responded as a nation??? Sorry, Ted, those were not choirboys in that prison; they were insurgents, involved in the killing American soldiers - that's what seared into my memory, that and watching the Towers fall from my office on 9/11. That doesn't matter to Ted; he cannot bring himself to mention the dead American soldiers who are fighting for freedom in the Middle East; and according to LGF, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15630_Kennedy-_Torture_Torture_Torture&only=yes Teddy K. figures out a way to use the " T " word 38 times. Sorry, fat man, your liberal guilt is powerless against us! I cannot/will not shed crocodile tears for the incacerated terrorists; they weren't in Abu Ghraib (or Gitmo) for jaywalking...
Follow the links above; read 'em all...
And related, I loved this Reuters article
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20050427/ts_nm/rights_iraq_dc, quoting the unbaised Human Rights Watch claiming Abu Ghraib was only the "tip of the iceberg". Check it out:
The group said it was concerned the United States had not stopped the use of what it called illegal coercive interrogation.
Illegal? Since when did Human Rights Watch start writing laws? Did the Democrats somehow sneak back into power?
Update 1028PM: Oh, lookie here, PBS has joined the fun: PBS' 'Now' Visits Guantanamo Prison
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/04/27/entertainment/e140235D87.DTL .
"I remember the box, the pipes, even the two wires," Haj Ali says...
Another liberal S&M love story ? Yes, between a terrorist and PBS:
Then mayor of a Baghdad suburb and a member of the ruling Baath Party, he was snatched off the street in late 2003 and transported to the prison, despite denying involvement in the insurgency. During his almost three months at Abu Ghraib, Ali's family had no idea where he was.
OK, so according to PBS, if a Baathist Bagdad Mayor denies involvement in his own insurgency, we should TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD!
1- that's why PBS and its ilk don't run the country; 2- I hope he had a pleasent stay...
วันอังคาร, เมษายน 26, 2548
Bolton detractors revealed as nutjobs!
So the truth comes out...most of those whom accuse John Bolton of misbehavior, well, have issues of their own. First, Powerline http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010277.php uncovers the backround of one Frederick Vreeland, who sent an email to Senator Joe Biden, which contained the following:
Bolton "has all the qualities needed to harm the image and objectives in the U.N. and its affiliated international organizations. If it is now U.S. policy not to reform the U.N but to destroy it, Bolton is our man," Frederick Vreeland, a former U.S. ambassador to Morocco, said in an e-mail to the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Biden couldn't leak it to the AP fast enough. Powerline did some digging on Vreeland:
Vreeland appears to be a virtual caricature of a career CIA and State Department official. He is rich, socially connected--his mother was the fashion icon Diana Vreeland--and liberal. Vreeland's views on key foreign policy issues are typical of career State Department Democrats
In an article Frederick Vreeland wrote for the International Herald Tribune on the Morocco terrorist attacks of 2003, http://www.faithandvalues.com/tx/CGNS-7/2/, he balmes the usual suspects:
The irony is that these terrorist acts, like the similar ones a few days earlier in Saudi Arabia, are collateral damage from the U.S. strategy designed to rid the world of terrorism...Israel's lifestyle of constant terrorist threat is exactly what Americans want to avoid. And yet the United States is gradually following the path of successive Likud Party governments...
So it is not the fault of radical Islam; it is the Americans and the Jews that bring the terror upon themselves! Maggie Gyllenhaal is smiling right about now...
Next, LGF unveils the truth about Bolton accuser Melody Townsel, leader of Mothers Opposing Bush (MOB), who has a little confession of her own to make:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15623_Bolton_Accuser_Admits_Plagiarism_at_Daily_Kos&only=yes
I plagiarized some columns while working for my college newspaper, and I was removed from staff. Months later, while working for another college newspaper, I wrote a review for a local play that tracked closely in format to another writer’s review — and, although it was not plagiarized, it made my editors, who had become aware of my recent past, very uncomfortable, and we mutually agreed that I would no longer submit stories to them.
Whose fault is this, Melody?
Republicans have dredged up un unfortunate chapter of my life...
Much like you are trying to do to John Bolton? Wow, talk about Instant Karma...
Finally, USA Today screams U.N. Nominee Faces New Allegations of Verbal Abuse
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-24-bolton-allegations_x.htm. All it takes is one sentence to know we have some issues here:
On Friday, Lynne Finney, a former legal adviser to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Finney wrote that Bolton "screamed that I was fired" when she refused to lobby for a weakening of restrictions on the sale of infant formula in the developing world.
State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said "no one at USAID at the time has any recollection" of such an incident.
Where Barbara Boxer is involved, expect looney liberals start falling from the trees...James Taranto exposes Lynne Finney http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/ in his April 25th Best of the Web:
So, who is Lynne Finney? To judge from the writings on her own Web site, she's a poster child for liberalism at its most eccentric-
This is a time of rapid evolution and intense transformation for us all. New discoveries in quantum physics, psychology, and spirituality are revealing ways to create wonderful new realities. It's estimated that more than 14 million people have already become enlightened or Self-realized...Things are heating up. Like popcorn, we are all popping faster and are reaching enlightenment at a rapid rate.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOKAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY....wait, there's more-
It also turns out she has a history of "recovering memories" of "abuse":
She was born into the madhouse of Hollywood's fantasy factory. Her mother was an artist and her father an award-winning screenwriter and novelist. She and her parents were portrayed in magazines as "the perfect family," but behind this facade was a nightmare world of violence and sexual abuse that lasted from the time Lynne was born until she was eight years old. Lynne had four near-death experiences that profoundly impacted her life. . . .
During her recovery process, Lynne began to have spiritual experiences that opened her to new perceptions of reality. She studied the scriptures of many religions, explored the teachings of spiritual masters, and emerged from a world she perceived as hell into a world of miracles...
These are the people that Democrats such as Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer are rolling out as proof that John Bolton is "unqualified" to serve as UN Ambassador. What a travesty!
If this is the best the Dems (and their pals in the media) can do, then John Bolton should be confirmed as the new UN Ambassador immediately - let's call a special sesion!
UPDATE 7PM: The AP still reports all the above as breathtaking news, as well as throwing in some further unsubstantiated allegations...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=10&u=/ap/20050426/ap_on_re_us/un_ambassador_98
Doesn't anyone at these "news" outlets know how to Google, for Jeebus' sake??
Bolton "has all the qualities needed to harm the image and objectives in the U.N. and its affiliated international organizations. If it is now U.S. policy not to reform the U.N but to destroy it, Bolton is our man," Frederick Vreeland, a former U.S. ambassador to Morocco, said in an e-mail to the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Biden couldn't leak it to the AP fast enough. Powerline did some digging on Vreeland:
Vreeland appears to be a virtual caricature of a career CIA and State Department official. He is rich, socially connected--his mother was the fashion icon Diana Vreeland--and liberal. Vreeland's views on key foreign policy issues are typical of career State Department Democrats
In an article Frederick Vreeland wrote for the International Herald Tribune on the Morocco terrorist attacks of 2003, http://www.faithandvalues.com/tx/CGNS-7/2/, he balmes the usual suspects:
The irony is that these terrorist acts, like the similar ones a few days earlier in Saudi Arabia, are collateral damage from the U.S. strategy designed to rid the world of terrorism...Israel's lifestyle of constant terrorist threat is exactly what Americans want to avoid. And yet the United States is gradually following the path of successive Likud Party governments...
So it is not the fault of radical Islam; it is the Americans and the Jews that bring the terror upon themselves! Maggie Gyllenhaal is smiling right about now...
Next, LGF unveils the truth about Bolton accuser Melody Townsel, leader of Mothers Opposing Bush (MOB), who has a little confession of her own to make:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15623_Bolton_Accuser_Admits_Plagiarism_at_Daily_Kos&only=yes
I plagiarized some columns while working for my college newspaper, and I was removed from staff. Months later, while working for another college newspaper, I wrote a review for a local play that tracked closely in format to another writer’s review — and, although it was not plagiarized, it made my editors, who had become aware of my recent past, very uncomfortable, and we mutually agreed that I would no longer submit stories to them.
Whose fault is this, Melody?
Republicans have dredged up un unfortunate chapter of my life...
Much like you are trying to do to John Bolton? Wow, talk about Instant Karma...
Finally, USA Today screams U.N. Nominee Faces New Allegations of Verbal Abuse
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-24-bolton-allegations_x.htm. All it takes is one sentence to know we have some issues here:
On Friday, Lynne Finney, a former legal adviser to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Finney wrote that Bolton "screamed that I was fired" when she refused to lobby for a weakening of restrictions on the sale of infant formula in the developing world.
State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said "no one at USAID at the time has any recollection" of such an incident.
Where Barbara Boxer is involved, expect looney liberals start falling from the trees...James Taranto exposes Lynne Finney http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/ in his April 25th Best of the Web:
So, who is Lynne Finney? To judge from the writings on her own Web site, she's a poster child for liberalism at its most eccentric-
This is a time of rapid evolution and intense transformation for us all. New discoveries in quantum physics, psychology, and spirituality are revealing ways to create wonderful new realities. It's estimated that more than 14 million people have already become enlightened or Self-realized...Things are heating up. Like popcorn, we are all popping faster and are reaching enlightenment at a rapid rate.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOKAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY....wait, there's more-
It also turns out she has a history of "recovering memories" of "abuse":
She was born into the madhouse of Hollywood's fantasy factory. Her mother was an artist and her father an award-winning screenwriter and novelist. She and her parents were portrayed in magazines as "the perfect family," but behind this facade was a nightmare world of violence and sexual abuse that lasted from the time Lynne was born until she was eight years old. Lynne had four near-death experiences that profoundly impacted her life. . . .
During her recovery process, Lynne began to have spiritual experiences that opened her to new perceptions of reality. She studied the scriptures of many religions, explored the teachings of spiritual masters, and emerged from a world she perceived as hell into a world of miracles...
These are the people that Democrats such as Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer are rolling out as proof that John Bolton is "unqualified" to serve as UN Ambassador. What a travesty!
If this is the best the Dems (and their pals in the media) can do, then John Bolton should be confirmed as the new UN Ambassador immediately - let's call a special sesion!
UPDATE 7PM: The AP still reports all the above as breathtaking news, as well as throwing in some further unsubstantiated allegations...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=10&u=/ap/20050426/ap_on_re_us/un_ambassador_98
Doesn't anyone at these "news" outlets know how to Google, for Jeebus' sake??
วันจันทร์, เมษายน 25, 2548
BBC Hires Hecklers?
This is just unbelievable...thru USS NeverDock we learn that
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/04/britain-bbc-caught-hiring-hecklers.html :
The Conservatives have demanded a BBC apology over a programme which it says encouraged heckling at a meeting where Michael Howard was speaking.
The Sunday Telegraph says the Tories accused the BBC of "serious misconduct" after producers equipped hecklers with radio microphones.
If you remember that the Tories are "Conservatives", I guess it doesn't surprise you that the BBC would create the public opinion they are supposesd to reflect, as they grow more fearful of a Tory victory in the upcoming election.
But wait! The BBC has an excuse:
But the corporation said it was making a legitimate programme on the history and art of political heckling.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Gee, if I ever get caught shoplifting, can I tell the authorities I am engaging in "performance art", or maybe doing a sociological study? Hmmm....I seem to doubt that would fly. From the Telegraph:
Tory officials became suspicious at the meeting in Horwich, near Bolton, last Wednesday, when they saw BBC camera crew focusing on the hecklers rather than Mr Howard. They twice challenged the two men and a woman involved, and discovered they had been equipped with radio microphones.
Mr Black said that they described themselves as "shoppers". In fact, they were under direction from a BBC team...
Well, in all fairness, did they send any hecklers to a Labor Party meeting?
The Telegraph has established that none of Tony Blair's meetings was infiltrated or disrupted in similar fashion.
Well, I wonder why? Maybe because the BBC is in bed with Britian's (Liberal) Labor party, not unlike our MSM or PBS? Is Tony Blair's party is such danger that the house media needs to create an anti-Tory uprising?
This is an outrage; almost as bad as Dan Rather's forged memos...will the British rise up in revolt against their taxpayer-supported propoganda outfit?
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/04/britain-bbc-caught-hiring-hecklers.html :
The Conservatives have demanded a BBC apology over a programme which it says encouraged heckling at a meeting where Michael Howard was speaking.
The Sunday Telegraph says the Tories accused the BBC of "serious misconduct" after producers equipped hecklers with radio microphones.
If you remember that the Tories are "Conservatives", I guess it doesn't surprise you that the BBC would create the public opinion they are supposesd to reflect, as they grow more fearful of a Tory victory in the upcoming election.
But wait! The BBC has an excuse:
But the corporation said it was making a legitimate programme on the history and art of political heckling.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Gee, if I ever get caught shoplifting, can I tell the authorities I am engaging in "performance art", or maybe doing a sociological study? Hmmm....I seem to doubt that would fly. From the Telegraph:
Tory officials became suspicious at the meeting in Horwich, near Bolton, last Wednesday, when they saw BBC camera crew focusing on the hecklers rather than Mr Howard. They twice challenged the two men and a woman involved, and discovered they had been equipped with radio microphones.
Mr Black said that they described themselves as "shoppers". In fact, they were under direction from a BBC team...
Well, in all fairness, did they send any hecklers to a Labor Party meeting?
The Telegraph has established that none of Tony Blair's meetings was infiltrated or disrupted in similar fashion.
Well, I wonder why? Maybe because the BBC is in bed with Britian's (Liberal) Labor party, not unlike our MSM or PBS? Is Tony Blair's party is such danger that the house media needs to create an anti-Tory uprising?
This is an outrage; almost as bad as Dan Rather's forged memos...will the British rise up in revolt against their taxpayer-supported propoganda outfit?
วันอาทิตย์, เมษายน 24, 2548
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Secretary/Slut/Traitor
Who's to blame for the terrorist attacks on 9/11? Not radical Muslims, of course. Maggie Hollywood has the right answers for us, talking about her new movie :
...what's good about the movie is that it deals with 9/11 in such a subtle, open way that I think it allows it to be more complicated than just, 'Oh, look at these poor New Yorkers and how hard it was for them,'" Gyllenhaal told the NY1 cable channel.
"Because I think America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way .."
OK, Maggie, sorry that you were sick of seeing New Yorkers weeping at the loss of their loved ones...I mean, really, what does that have to do with you, after all? From your perch in Hollywood you are much better positioned to decide how to depict the grieving, and how to assign blame, right?
I will skip "The Great New Wonderful"; based on the fall of the World Trade Center, if this is the opinion that informs it; I will implore others to do the same.
Link at: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/302977p-259389c.html
Morality:
...what's good about the movie is that it deals with 9/11 in such a subtle, open way that I think it allows it to be more complicated than just, 'Oh, look at these poor New Yorkers and how hard it was for them,'" Gyllenhaal told the NY1 cable channel.
"Because I think America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way .."
OK, Maggie, sorry that you were sick of seeing New Yorkers weeping at the loss of their loved ones...I mean, really, what does that have to do with you, after all? From your perch in Hollywood you are much better positioned to decide how to depict the grieving, and how to assign blame, right?
I will skip "The Great New Wonderful"; based on the fall of the World Trade Center, if this is the opinion that informs it; I will implore others to do the same.
Link at: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/302977p-259389c.html
Morality:
Mainstream Media, RIP
George Will reads the eulogy for the mainstream media in his Sunday column
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10698-2005Apr22.html "Unread and Unsubscribing":
Consumers of news now understand that, as Eastland says, "news is a thing made, a product, and that media with certain beliefs and values once made the news and then presented it in authoritative terms, as though beyond criticism. Thus did Walter Cronkite famously end his newscasts, 'And that's the way it is.' That way, period."
Not anymore, folks; not anymore....
Will also points out that bloggers may have saved the world:
If that had been the broadcast marketplace in 2004, John Kerry would be president: The three networks reported the Swift boat veterans' attacks on Kerry only after coverage of the attacks by cable news and talk radio forced Kerry to respond. The networks were very interested in charges pertaining to a Vietnam-era story about George W. Bush's alleged dereliction of National Guard duties -- until bloggers, another manifestation of new, small and nimble media, shredded it
Think I'm kidding? Read this:
http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/john-kerry-certifiably-insane.html
Thanks, George!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10698-2005Apr22.html "Unread and Unsubscribing":
Consumers of news now understand that, as Eastland says, "news is a thing made, a product, and that media with certain beliefs and values once made the news and then presented it in authoritative terms, as though beyond criticism. Thus did Walter Cronkite famously end his newscasts, 'And that's the way it is.' That way, period."
Not anymore, folks; not anymore....
Will also points out that bloggers may have saved the world:
If that had been the broadcast marketplace in 2004, John Kerry would be president: The three networks reported the Swift boat veterans' attacks on Kerry only after coverage of the attacks by cable news and talk radio forced Kerry to respond. The networks were very interested in charges pertaining to a Vietnam-era story about George W. Bush's alleged dereliction of National Guard duties -- until bloggers, another manifestation of new, small and nimble media, shredded it
Think I'm kidding? Read this:
http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/john-kerry-certifiably-insane.html
Thanks, George!
Miss Marla Ruzicka - A Hero?
[NOTE: Orignially posted on April 17th; updated often since; scroll down for most recent {4-24}...]
A woman {Marla Ruzicka} who led an effort to help those ravaged by violence in Iraq, lobbying congressmen for millions of dollars in aid that she helped deliver to families, fell victim to the war herself when a car bomb killed her and two other people, officials said Sunday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7537845/
Her name turns up here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002024
"Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead," blares the lead headline of yesterday's New York Times...
Marla Ruzicka, a Global Exchange field worker in Afghanistan, said the most common factor behind the civilian deaths has been an American reliance on incomplete information to decide on targets.
So what is this Global Exchange, which Filkins describes only as "an American organization"? A look at its Web site makes clear it's a far-left outfit that opposed any military intervention in Afghanistan. Blogger Michael Moynihan has more details on Marla Ruzicka, who turns out to be a fervent admirer of Fidel Castro. There's also a "report" on the 2000 election dispute from the World Socialist Web Site, which quotes her as suggesting Republicans are terrorists..
Read the rest, she blasts Republicans "skinheads." the whole drab routine...this is old hat for her, though - an August WaPo puff pices is telling http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24737-2004Aug22.html :
Ruzicka, then 25, had already forged a reputation in leftist circles. She once had disrupted a speech on AIDS by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Another time, she was hauled off by police after she ripped off a sarong -- which inside had a protest statement -- during a speech by then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush.
The MSN link contains this piece of telling news:
When the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began in March 2003, Ruzicka was already in Baghdad with Code Pink, said Jodi Evans, co-founder of the women’s anti-war group.
Code Pink is here http://www.codepink4peace.org/ ; please to note last item on homepage raising money for the "refugees" of Falluja...didn't see anything about helping out injured American soldiers, though (just don't question their patriotism). Just so we know where her sympathies lay...
Three Points to Ponder:
1- Miss Ruzicka did not deserve to die; I'm sure she did help displaced Iraqi citizens; apparently she worked w/Senator Pat Leahy to get funding added to an appropration bill
2- even being essentially a terrorist sympathizer, in both Afganistan and Iraq, she was killed by them anyway. She was helping them, via some good works and lots of media sympathy. Guess a blonde-haired American infidel is always a target, even when they are on your side...
3- dollars to donuts says we'll have Rachel Corrie II on our hands momentarily...
UPDATE April 19th: This is one of two pieces in today's USA Today regarding Miss Ruzicka; here she talks a bit about her work http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-04-18-ruzicka-edit_x.htm :
The American public has a right to know how many Iraqis have lost their lives since the start of the war and as hostilities continue...
Recently, I obtained statistics on civilian casualties from a high-ranking U.S. military official. The numbers were for Baghdad only, for a short period, during a relatively quiet time. Other hot spots, such as the Ramadi and Mosul areas, could prove worse. The statistics showed that 29 civilians were killed by small-arms fire during firefights between U.S. troops and insurgents between Feb. 28 and April 5 — four times the number of Iraqi police killed in the same period. It is not clear whether the bullets that killed these civilians were fired by U.S. troops or insurgents.
One can debate in good faith what Miss Ruzicka's intentions were by trying to force the release of civilain combat deaths - inform the public, or inflame the public? Any number released by the American military would cause "international outrage"; be it 2,000 or 20,000. And as she herself admits, since many of the civilian deaths have been by insurgent forces (notoriously bad shots), it would be difficult to ascertain how many were actually caused by the coalition. In any case, any number released would most likely be considered 1- false, 2-an undercount.
The military should also want to release this information for the purposes of comparison with reports such as the Lancet study published late last year. It suggested that since the U.S.-led invasion there had been 100,000 deaths in Iraq.
Here is where Marla Ruzicka makes a good point; the Lancet study, which even the issuing group has admitted to being "an approximation at best", has been used as left-wing dogma, to the point where the 100,000 number is tossed about as fact on TV and radio all the time. But again - would any assertion made by the US government be believed?
She closes with:
A number is important not only to quantify the cost of war, but as a reminder of those whose dreams will never be realized in a free and democratic Iraq.
Yes, Marla, that is true. But I think of the unrealized dreams of my friends who perished when attacked on 9/11 by an enemy deliberately targeting civilians.
We regret civilian casualties, even if we don't always quantify them. Our enemies glorify in them, and relish the blood of innocents on their hands.
Big, big difference. Did Marla Ruzicka know it?
Marla's activities presented without context, as that might color the picture Bob Herbert is trying to paint here. This is the money quote, however:
Ms. Ruzicka, 28, was killed on Saturday in the chaos of Iraq. She and an Iraqi colleague, Faiz Ali Salim, were trapped in their car on the airport road in Baghdad when a suicide bomber attacked a convoy that was passing nearby. Ms. Ruzicka's vehicle was engulfed in flames. She and Mr. Salim burned to death.
The "chaos that engulfs" Iraq, Bob? Who uses suicide bombers, Bob? At least show some courage and denounce the terrorists (or insurgents, if you wish) that killed your hero. Or are you afraid to do that, because it would involve taking a stand against those who murdered Americans?
Marla Ruzicka deserves at least that much...
UPDATE April 24th: Alas, this is what I was expecting, in lieu of balanced discussion:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050424/ap_on_re_us/activist_killed_funeral
she had been traveling to and from the country since U.S.-led forces invaded, often going door-to-door to meet wounded Iraqis and gathering data for her surveys on those hurt and killed.
A woman {Marla Ruzicka} who led an effort to help those ravaged by violence in Iraq, lobbying congressmen for millions of dollars in aid that she helped deliver to families, fell victim to the war herself when a car bomb killed her and two other people, officials said Sunday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7537845/
Her name turns up here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002024
"Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead," blares the lead headline of yesterday's New York Times...
Marla Ruzicka, a Global Exchange field worker in Afghanistan, said the most common factor behind the civilian deaths has been an American reliance on incomplete information to decide on targets.
So what is this Global Exchange, which Filkins describes only as "an American organization"? A look at its Web site makes clear it's a far-left outfit that opposed any military intervention in Afghanistan. Blogger Michael Moynihan has more details on Marla Ruzicka, who turns out to be a fervent admirer of Fidel Castro. There's also a "report" on the 2000 election dispute from the World Socialist Web Site, which quotes her as suggesting Republicans are terrorists..
Read the rest, she blasts Republicans "skinheads." the whole drab routine...this is old hat for her, though - an August WaPo puff pices is telling http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24737-2004Aug22.html :
Ruzicka, then 25, had already forged a reputation in leftist circles. She once had disrupted a speech on AIDS by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Another time, she was hauled off by police after she ripped off a sarong -- which inside had a protest statement -- during a speech by then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush.
The MSN link contains this piece of telling news:
When the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began in March 2003, Ruzicka was already in Baghdad with Code Pink, said Jodi Evans, co-founder of the women’s anti-war group.
Code Pink is here http://www.codepink4peace.org/ ; please to note last item on homepage raising money for the "refugees" of Falluja...didn't see anything about helping out injured American soldiers, though (just don't question their patriotism). Just so we know where her sympathies lay...
Three Points to Ponder:
1- Miss Ruzicka did not deserve to die; I'm sure she did help displaced Iraqi citizens; apparently she worked w/Senator Pat Leahy to get funding added to an appropration bill
2- even being essentially a terrorist sympathizer, in both Afganistan and Iraq, she was killed by them anyway. She was helping them, via some good works and lots of media sympathy. Guess a blonde-haired American infidel is always a target, even when they are on your side...
3- dollars to donuts says we'll have Rachel Corrie II on our hands momentarily...
UPDATE April 19th: This is one of two pieces in today's USA Today regarding Miss Ruzicka; here she talks a bit about her work http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-04-18-ruzicka-edit_x.htm :
The American public has a right to know how many Iraqis have lost their lives since the start of the war and as hostilities continue...
Recently, I obtained statistics on civilian casualties from a high-ranking U.S. military official. The numbers were for Baghdad only, for a short period, during a relatively quiet time. Other hot spots, such as the Ramadi and Mosul areas, could prove worse. The statistics showed that 29 civilians were killed by small-arms fire during firefights between U.S. troops and insurgents between Feb. 28 and April 5 — four times the number of Iraqi police killed in the same period. It is not clear whether the bullets that killed these civilians were fired by U.S. troops or insurgents.
One can debate in good faith what Miss Ruzicka's intentions were by trying to force the release of civilain combat deaths - inform the public, or inflame the public? Any number released by the American military would cause "international outrage"; be it 2,000 or 20,000. And as she herself admits, since many of the civilian deaths have been by insurgent forces (notoriously bad shots), it would be difficult to ascertain how many were actually caused by the coalition. In any case, any number released would most likely be considered 1- false, 2-an undercount.
The military should also want to release this information for the purposes of comparison with reports such as the Lancet study published late last year. It suggested that since the U.S.-led invasion there had been 100,000 deaths in Iraq.
Here is where Marla Ruzicka makes a good point; the Lancet study, which even the issuing group has admitted to being "an approximation at best", has been used as left-wing dogma, to the point where the 100,000 number is tossed about as fact on TV and radio all the time. But again - would any assertion made by the US government be believed?
She closes with:
A number is important not only to quantify the cost of war, but as a reminder of those whose dreams will never be realized in a free and democratic Iraq.
Yes, Marla, that is true. But I think of the unrealized dreams of my friends who perished when attacked on 9/11 by an enemy deliberately targeting civilians.
We regret civilian casualties, even if we don't always quantify them. Our enemies glorify in them, and relish the blood of innocents on their hands.
Big, big difference. Did Marla Ruzicka know it?
UPDATE April 20th: Interesting thoughts here -http://www.rantingprofs.com/rantingprofs/2005/04/let_us_not_spea.html - "RantingProfs" - wondering why the media is failing to give what he (and I) believe is the whole story on Ruzica's works in the Middle East.
UPDATE April 21st: In an example of the selective information the media will disseminate, see this column lauding our angel http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/opinion/21herbert.html by Herbert in the NY Times.Marla's activities presented without context, as that might color the picture Bob Herbert is trying to paint here. This is the money quote, however:
Ms. Ruzicka, 28, was killed on Saturday in the chaos of Iraq. She and an Iraqi colleague, Faiz Ali Salim, were trapped in their car on the airport road in Baghdad when a suicide bomber attacked a convoy that was passing nearby. Ms. Ruzicka's vehicle was engulfed in flames. She and Mr. Salim burned to death.
The "chaos that engulfs" Iraq, Bob? Who uses suicide bombers, Bob? At least show some courage and denounce the terrorists (or insurgents, if you wish) that killed your hero. Or are you afraid to do that, because it would involve taking a stand against those who murdered Americans?
Marla Ruzicka deserves at least that much...
UPDATE April 24th: Alas, this is what I was expecting, in lieu of balanced discussion:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050424/ap_on_re_us/activist_killed_funeral
she had been traveling to and from the country since U.S.-led forces invaded, often going door-to-door to meet wounded Iraqis and gathering data for her surveys on those hurt and killed.
And what was she planning on doing with that data? Honest accounting, or propoganda? Actually, the above statement is contradicted later in the article here...
Ruzicka traveled to Iraq before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion
Yes, read the post from the beginning - she came in before the invasion with Code Pink; but no mention of them or their far-left agenda...(now, if they had a far-right agenda, itwould be the lead, if not the headline)
The upbeat homily drew laughter from the more than 600 mourners, which included actor Sean Penn, who said he counted Ruzicka among his heroes, and U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer
Two of Saddam's biggest supporters. Note how often Barbara Boxer's name shows up tied in with the radical left - again, imagine if these people were conservatives, do you think you'd hear a description like this -
...she was remembered as a force of nature, a cross between Mother Teresa and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, said Quill Lawrence, a radio reporter for the British Broadcasting Corp.
OK, THAT IS ENOUGH!! Mother Teresa???? Only in the BBC's eyes....
วันเสาร์, เมษายน 23, 2548
John Kerry: Certifiably Insane?
We discussed here (http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/air-america-to-crash-burn.html how John Kerry made a speech implying that Americans were undeserving of the First Amendment, because some people use their free speech to speak against liberal positions (PJ O’Rourke, witness to this event, called it an ideological position that is permanently unforgivable). Now we find out that he is attempting to limit the free speech of elected officials in his own party, as we learn here http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/45050.htm :
A fuming John Kerry had "daggers in his eyes" after a fellow Democrat promoted Hillary Rodham Clinton for president — suggesting the 2004 loser is green with envy at a potential rival.
The flap was touched off two weeks ago when Clinton spoke at a Minneapolis Democratic dinner and Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) told the cheering crowd that he was introducing "the next great president of the United States."
Two days later, Kerry came over to Dayton on the Senate floor "with daggers in his eyes" and said, 'What are you doing endorsing my 2008 presidential opponent?' . . . He was very serious," Dayton told the Minneapolis Star Tribune
I wrote about this Hillary Clinton- led liberal hatefest here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/hillary-clinton-and-vast-right-wing.html and here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/hillary-rages-media-mum.html . The question now is, has Kerry gone off the deep end completely?
Meanwhile, Kerry — and his outspoken wife Teresa Heinz Kerry — are increasingly claiming he was robbed last November and should have won.
This may sound good in the far-left echo chamber that the Kerrys (and their anti-Semitic son Chris) reside in, however…
-Claiming that Americans are incapable of free speech
-Menacing those whom dare to simply introduce your (perceived) rivals at dinners
-And darkly insinuating sinister forces cheated you out of your victory
…bears all the hallmarks of dementia, brought on here by an “inconceivable” election loss. Kerry, like all liberals, can never accept personal responsibility for anything; all defeats are based in racial, economic, or societal inequities, rather than personal misjudgement or false premises.
Kerry, like his liberal brethren, see the suppression of free expression, the threatening of rivals, and creation of imaginary bogeyman as justified if it helps advance their agenda.
This is madness.
Maybe he can share a padded cell with Al Gore.
A fuming John Kerry had "daggers in his eyes" after a fellow Democrat promoted Hillary Rodham Clinton for president — suggesting the 2004 loser is green with envy at a potential rival.
The flap was touched off two weeks ago when Clinton spoke at a Minneapolis Democratic dinner and Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) told the cheering crowd that he was introducing "the next great president of the United States."
Two days later, Kerry came over to Dayton on the Senate floor "with daggers in his eyes" and said, 'What are you doing endorsing my 2008 presidential opponent?' . . . He was very serious," Dayton told the Minneapolis Star Tribune
I wrote about this Hillary Clinton- led liberal hatefest here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/hillary-clinton-and-vast-right-wing.html and here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/hillary-rages-media-mum.html . The question now is, has Kerry gone off the deep end completely?
Meanwhile, Kerry — and his outspoken wife Teresa Heinz Kerry — are increasingly claiming he was robbed last November and should have won.
This may sound good in the far-left echo chamber that the Kerrys (and their anti-Semitic son Chris) reside in, however…
-Claiming that Americans are incapable of free speech
-Menacing those whom dare to simply introduce your (perceived) rivals at dinners
-And darkly insinuating sinister forces cheated you out of your victory
…bears all the hallmarks of dementia, brought on here by an “inconceivable” election loss. Kerry, like all liberals, can never accept personal responsibility for anything; all defeats are based in racial, economic, or societal inequities, rather than personal misjudgement or false premises.
Kerry, like his liberal brethren, see the suppression of free expression, the threatening of rivals, and creation of imaginary bogeyman as justified if it helps advance their agenda.
This is madness.
Maybe he can share a padded cell with Al Gore.
วันศุกร์, เมษายน 22, 2548
France holds down Taiwan while China rapes her...
During a state visit to China, French Premier Raffarin threw support behind a law allowing China to attack Taiwan and continued to push for a lift of the EU arms embargo.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1559253,00.html
Just to clarify:
At the outset of a three-day visit to China, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said he supported Beijing's "anti-secession" law on Taiwan, and vowed to keep pushing for an end to an EU arms embargo that could open the door for Paris to sell weapons to the Asian giant.
Clear now? China’s desire to invade and overthrow the peaceful, democratic government of Taiwan in order to seize their resources and enslave them under communism is fully supported by the French Government. Wait, they’re going to arm them first:
At the same time, he vowed that his government would continue to push for the lifting of what he called the "anachronistic" and "discriminatory" arms embargo against China.
New French to English dictionary definition, provided free of charge by the Jersey Nut:
Discriminatory = preventing a totalitarian nation from raping its peaceful neighbor
And why this sickening reversal of morality? What could be worth it?
China Eastern Airlines and Shenzhen Airlines signed a deal with the European consortium Airbus to buy a total of 10 A319/A320 planes. And China Southern completed an agreement on its purchase of five A380 super jumbos… The airplane deals penned Thursday are estimated to be worth some $500 million to $600 million, Airbus said...Some 20 other previously announced contracts were also finalized during the ceremony. Taken together, the value of the deals comes to around $3.2 billion
Money. That’s all that matters to the French government. Die quitly and pay us, we'll turn a blind eye...
Only the MainStream Media could call this rouge nation an “ally” of the United States.
And when the rotted corpse of France eventually collapses, you’ll find me laughing...
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1559253,00.html
Just to clarify:
At the outset of a three-day visit to China, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said he supported Beijing's "anti-secession" law on Taiwan, and vowed to keep pushing for an end to an EU arms embargo that could open the door for Paris to sell weapons to the Asian giant.
Clear now? China’s desire to invade and overthrow the peaceful, democratic government of Taiwan in order to seize their resources and enslave them under communism is fully supported by the French Government. Wait, they’re going to arm them first:
At the same time, he vowed that his government would continue to push for the lifting of what he called the "anachronistic" and "discriminatory" arms embargo against China.
New French to English dictionary definition, provided free of charge by the Jersey Nut:
Discriminatory = preventing a totalitarian nation from raping its peaceful neighbor
And why this sickening reversal of morality? What could be worth it?
China Eastern Airlines and Shenzhen Airlines signed a deal with the European consortium Airbus to buy a total of 10 A319/A320 planes. And China Southern completed an agreement on its purchase of five A380 super jumbos… The airplane deals penned Thursday are estimated to be worth some $500 million to $600 million, Airbus said...Some 20 other previously announced contracts were also finalized during the ceremony. Taken together, the value of the deals comes to around $3.2 billion
Money. That’s all that matters to the French government. Die quitly and pay us, we'll turn a blind eye...
Only the MainStream Media could call this rouge nation an “ally” of the United States.
And when the rotted corpse of France eventually collapses, you’ll find me laughing...
Injured Civilian Executed by "Insurgents"
With thanks to terrorist mouthpiece Al-Jazeera:
The scene moves to tall grass, where a man with thinning, gray hair and wearing a blue flight suit is lying on his back, the right side of his head bloody. The helicopter’s three-man crew was Bulgarian, and it appeared that the man shot in the video was one of the crew...The survivor then tries to walk, limping with his back to the insurgents, who say something to him that makes him turn around. He raises his hands to somebody off camera as if gesturing to them to stop what they are about to do.
“Carry out God’s verdict,” someone is heard saying, and the militants shoot the man at point-blank range, continuing even after he falls to the ground. One gunman shouts, “Allahu akbar!”
Shooting a wounded civilian from behind, then screaming "God is Great" {while likely doing their monkey dance}, while filming it for primetime airing on Al-Jazeera.
These people are animals.
link here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7600400/
The scene moves to tall grass, where a man with thinning, gray hair and wearing a blue flight suit is lying on his back, the right side of his head bloody. The helicopter’s three-man crew was Bulgarian, and it appeared that the man shot in the video was one of the crew...The survivor then tries to walk, limping with his back to the insurgents, who say something to him that makes him turn around. He raises his hands to somebody off camera as if gesturing to them to stop what they are about to do.
“Carry out God’s verdict,” someone is heard saying, and the militants shoot the man at point-blank range, continuing even after he falls to the ground. One gunman shouts, “Allahu akbar!”
Shooting a wounded civilian from behind, then screaming "God is Great" {while likely doing their monkey dance}, while filming it for primetime airing on Al-Jazeera.
These people are animals.
link here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7600400/
PBS pulls hair, gnashes teeth...
We wrote a post a while back http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/cpb-and-cbc-go-craaazy.html mocking The Corporation for Public Broadcasting for its concern that they may be infiltratrated by less-than-liberal ideas {Oh, the humanity!}. Not to fear, they have their pals in the media on the case http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8067-2005Apr21.html :
A senior FCC official, who would not speak for attribution because he must rule on issues affecting public broadcasting, went further, saying CPB "is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the truth, but to impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It's almost like a right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated."
And these are the people who run public broadcasting? Who see opposing viewpoints as a “right wing coup”? No bias here, right folks? Well, they prove it thusly:
A series of focus group sessions and two national surveys conducted by two polling firms -- the Tarrance Group and Lake Snell Perry & Associates -- found few perceptions of bias in PBS's or NPR's reporting in 2002 and 2003. For example, among people who identified themselves as "news and information consumers," 36 percent said PBS's coverage of the Bush administration in 2003 was "fair and balanced,"
36% probably mirrors pretty closely the number of the population that belongs to the “Bush=Hitler” faction of America. The article goes on to say that 46% offered “no opinion” on this question. In other words, couldn’t one say that 2/3rds of the people surveyed did not call PBS coverage “fair and balanced?” No bias in Washington Post reporting either, huh?
Tim Graham at The Corner also links to this story http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_04_17_corner-archive.asp#061308, with this comment:
…in the strange land of public broadcasting, every tilt to the right is seen as a gross violation of the First Amendment, which must have a clause I haven't seen that includes the precious right of conservatives to subsidize liberal viewpoints, which shall never be infringed.
Sorry folks of CPB and PBS, your liberal salad days may be drawing to a close…maybe Air America has some openings….
A senior FCC official, who would not speak for attribution because he must rule on issues affecting public broadcasting, went further, saying CPB "is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the truth, but to impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It's almost like a right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated."
And these are the people who run public broadcasting? Who see opposing viewpoints as a “right wing coup”? No bias here, right folks? Well, they prove it thusly:
A series of focus group sessions and two national surveys conducted by two polling firms -- the Tarrance Group and Lake Snell Perry & Associates -- found few perceptions of bias in PBS's or NPR's reporting in 2002 and 2003. For example, among people who identified themselves as "news and information consumers," 36 percent said PBS's coverage of the Bush administration in 2003 was "fair and balanced,"
36% probably mirrors pretty closely the number of the population that belongs to the “Bush=Hitler” faction of America. The article goes on to say that 46% offered “no opinion” on this question. In other words, couldn’t one say that 2/3rds of the people surveyed did not call PBS coverage “fair and balanced?” No bias in Washington Post reporting either, huh?
Tim Graham at The Corner also links to this story http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_04_17_corner-archive.asp#061308, with this comment:
…in the strange land of public broadcasting, every tilt to the right is seen as a gross violation of the First Amendment, which must have a clause I haven't seen that includes the precious right of conservatives to subsidize liberal viewpoints, which shall never be infringed.
Sorry folks of CPB and PBS, your liberal salad days may be drawing to a close…maybe Air America has some openings….
วันพฤหัสบดี, เมษายน 21, 2548
The (Character) Assassination of John Bolton
Well, the politics of personal destruction as once again reared its ugly head in Washington. Although Republicans have used this tactic (see the Clinton Impeachment, which almost cost them control of the House in the 1998 elections) before, it is the Democrats that have made it their #1 weapon in trying to derail nominees with opposing ideologies. The painting of Judge Bork as an extremist (as opposed to what I call a “strict constuctionalist”) was bad enough; their attempt to portray Clarence Thomas as a serial sexual offender almost split the country in two. No matter to the Democrats, they’ll turn citizens against one another if it can help their aims – sheesh, they were rooting for the death of American soldiers in Iraq in the hopes of defeating George W. Bush!
So here we go again. Unable to defeat Bolton on either professional competence or ideological grounds, the dirty Dems start chucking mud. With the help of Ohio Republican Senator George Voinovich (who did not bother to attend even one hearing), the Democrats have forced a delay in the vote of up to three weeks. On what grounds? The WSJ reports: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006586
My conscience got me," declared Ohio Republican George Voinovich on Tuesday, forcing a postponement in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote. And what so shocked his sensibilities? An accusation, from avowed liberal and anti-Bush partisan Melody Townsel, that Mr. Bolton had shouted at her and pounded on her door when they were both out of government in the 1990s.
Melody Townsel is the head of MOB – Mothers Against Bush. No reason to doubt her testimony, right? That’s enough to derail a Presidential appointee? This tall tale has already been thrown into dispute with affidavits from more reliable witnesses with differing accounts (see this Yahoo story http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050421/ap_on_go_co/un_ambassador_63 ; towards the bottom, of course). No, wait, the Democrats have found two others who will bear witness:
There is former State Department career official Carl Ford, who claims Mr. Bolton rudely disagreed with his policy positions.
My God!! Bolton had the nerve to disagree with a state department careerist! Who does he think he is? Finally:
They have been investigating a dispute Bolton had with a woman over her maternity leave when she worked for him at the Justice Department — in 1988.
The National Review, in an editorial, explains to us why the Democrats are digging so deep to find some inconsequential dirt: (via Pejmanesque http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/010090.html )
The attack on Bolton's temperament is an obvious misdirection anyway. Democrats simply object to his kind of multilateralism that aggressively pursues international support for the goals of President Bush's foreign policy rather than simply kowtowing to international institutions for its own sake. In other words, Bolton will "serve" the president rather than the U.N.
And that is the crux of the matter. The Democrats want an Ambassador that will make the foreign policy of the United States subservient to the whims of Crooked Kofi’s United Nations. And all it took was one Republican Senator, too lazy to even attend the hearings, to roll over, in fear of the editorial pages of the liberal media (the NY and LA Times are currently besides themselves with glee).
The derailing of this nomination via character assassination must be stopped. The stooping to slander when all else fails does not fall under the Senate’s right to “advise and consent”. For the good of the future of the Republic, the Democrats must fail here.
No matter what the NY Times says…
So here we go again. Unable to defeat Bolton on either professional competence or ideological grounds, the dirty Dems start chucking mud. With the help of Ohio Republican Senator George Voinovich (who did not bother to attend even one hearing), the Democrats have forced a delay in the vote of up to three weeks. On what grounds? The WSJ reports: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006586
My conscience got me," declared Ohio Republican George Voinovich on Tuesday, forcing a postponement in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote. And what so shocked his sensibilities? An accusation, from avowed liberal and anti-Bush partisan Melody Townsel, that Mr. Bolton had shouted at her and pounded on her door when they were both out of government in the 1990s.
Melody Townsel is the head of MOB – Mothers Against Bush. No reason to doubt her testimony, right? That’s enough to derail a Presidential appointee? This tall tale has already been thrown into dispute with affidavits from more reliable witnesses with differing accounts (see this Yahoo story http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050421/ap_on_go_co/un_ambassador_63 ; towards the bottom, of course). No, wait, the Democrats have found two others who will bear witness:
There is former State Department career official Carl Ford, who claims Mr. Bolton rudely disagreed with his policy positions.
My God!! Bolton had the nerve to disagree with a state department careerist! Who does he think he is? Finally:
They have been investigating a dispute Bolton had with a woman over her maternity leave when she worked for him at the Justice Department — in 1988.
The National Review, in an editorial, explains to us why the Democrats are digging so deep to find some inconsequential dirt: (via Pejmanesque http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/010090.html )
The attack on Bolton's temperament is an obvious misdirection anyway. Democrats simply object to his kind of multilateralism that aggressively pursues international support for the goals of President Bush's foreign policy rather than simply kowtowing to international institutions for its own sake. In other words, Bolton will "serve" the president rather than the U.N.
And that is the crux of the matter. The Democrats want an Ambassador that will make the foreign policy of the United States subservient to the whims of Crooked Kofi’s United Nations. And all it took was one Republican Senator, too lazy to even attend the hearings, to roll over, in fear of the editorial pages of the liberal media (the NY and LA Times are currently besides themselves with glee).
The derailing of this nomination via character assassination must be stopped. The stooping to slander when all else fails does not fall under the Senate’s right to “advise and consent”. For the good of the future of the Republic, the Democrats must fail here.
No matter what the NY Times says…
Feel the Burn, Krugman!
We’ve all done our share Paul Krugman bashing (my most recent here http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/03/paul-krugman-froths.html ); but well, this is just flippin’ brilliant
http://www.econopundit.com/archive/2005_04_01_econopundit_archive.html#111394432320893858
While Krugman’s twisted logic and willful blindness are great sport to tear apart with witty bon mots, it can become kinda like fishing in a stocked pond sometimes. The Econopundit brings it to a new level, complete with a multitude of charts and graphs, and absolutely annihilates the most recent economic prognostication from this alleged “Economics Professor”.
It’s cruel, but you know you must read it; not unlike rubbernecking on the Turnpike…
http://www.econopundit.com/archive/2005_04_01_econopundit_archive.html#111394432320893858
While Krugman’s twisted logic and willful blindness are great sport to tear apart with witty bon mots, it can become kinda like fishing in a stocked pond sometimes. The Econopundit brings it to a new level, complete with a multitude of charts and graphs, and absolutely annihilates the most recent economic prognostication from this alleged “Economics Professor”.
It’s cruel, but you know you must read it; not unlike rubbernecking on the Turnpike…
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)