Some Thought On The Mainstream Media and Blogging

Please read this article from Tech Central Station by Frederick Turner. It talks about media bias and the decline of real journalism.

Since the "Kerry Christmas in Cambodia" and the attempts by the mainstream media to supress the story (we have the ludicrous situation of people writing letters to the editors of newspapers about stories that the newspapers haven't even printed on this topic--clearly, they are getting their information from the blogsphere, just as I am), I have been think a lot about why I started blogging. It definitely relates, as Turner suggests in his article, to my own disgust and increasing annoyance at the media, particularly since 9/11. I have no quibble with the way the actual events of 9/11 were handled by the media. Every newspaper and TV channel that I sought information from seemed to do a fine job. But it was after that historic event that the change in the media began. Like a toddler afraid to give up its favorite blankie, the media preferred to continue to suck its thumb and clench blankie tight, even though the time to grow up had arrived. The press seemed incapable of thinking "outside the box" of 20th century (predominantly socialist/communist/marxist) memes and transferred the same way of thinking to the latest threat to freedom and individuality--Islamofascism. This deviant theology was almost gleefully incorporated into the Leftist religion. Hence we have the repugnant reversal of all that liberalism used to stand for in what the Left and its mouthpieces choose to consciously (for the former) and unconsciously (for the latter) champion. Instead of supporting women's rights, they deftly ignore what the Taliban was doing and concentrate only on America's mistakes. Instead of championing the oppressed of Iraq and Sudan; they sidestep the atrocities committed by Saddam and Islamic thugs; and show that the "real" victims are the deposed dictator or the Sudanese government. Do they even clearly understand the depravities and despots they now portray so sympathetically? I doubt it. Like Bush Hatred, America Hatred covers up a psychological denial so intense and perverted that those who have it appear to be incapable of real self awareness. They are truly sheep, herded along by an ideology that sweeps freedom and decency out of its way as it destroys individuals and societies.

I choose to blog and to read others who blog. Compared to other ways to obtain information these days, it is a breath of fresh air (and sometimes hot air!) But it doesn't pretend to be neutral and objective while hiding its real agenda. Yes, I freely admit I am bias. I am not a neutral observer--but I do try to be objective and fair (at least most of the time). I am willing to admit to mistakes and errors of judgment. I feel passionately and strongly about Freedom, Individual Rights, Truth and Justice. I have certain feelings and I am aware that those feelings will color my choice of topics for my blog, as well as my choice of words about those topics. I believe I am honest and upfront about that, and I respect those who disagree with me and argue about the facts of what I present. I am not telling anyone what to think--I am telling them what I think. Something has changed at the New York Times, the LA Times; and other print medias. Something has changed at CNN and ABC, CBS and NBC. Somehow they have forgotten that there is a distinction between opinion and fact; between how they'd like things to be and how they really are; between emotion and reason. What I miss is a culture of journalism in the mainstream media that embraces these distinctions and understands which is which .

If Only In His Dreams

This was too funny to pass up AND it's to the tune of my favorite Christmas song! (via the terrific Instapundit)


Cartoon from the Charlotte Observer

Can't Buy Me Love...

Kerry is apparently stunned at his rather cool reception by the VFW Convention in Cincinatti yesterday:

"Sen. John Kerry is said by several advance staffers to have been visibly upset at the reception he received at the VFW convention on Wednesday in Cincinnati. "He was upset after the speech, visibly upset when he was out of public view," says a Kerry adviser, confirming the story.Kerry was greeted by polite applause in the large auditorium, with many VFW members sitting with their arms crossed and not applauding at all. A few VFW members stood in the rear of the room with their backs turned to the dais.

Kerry appeared thrown by the reception, giving a flat, sometimes-meandering speech that was intended to be a strong rebuttal of President Bush's announced troop pullback in Europe and Korea. Two things apparently changed Kerry's aggressive stance. First, before going onstage, Kerry was informed that NATO officials in Brussels had essentially backed the Bush proposal as being sound and in line with NATO's own troop deployment plans. Second, according to an advance staffer, the candidate had been told that he would be received at the very least warmly, based on feedback the campaign had received from VFW officials."He's not used to not getting a warm reception," says the advance staffer. "He can handle the Bush hooligans we get, but when he's told he'll be greeted well, he expects that to be the case."

Apparently Terry Kerry's money can't buy the candidate that kind of love." (Hat tip: Betsy's Page)

A reasonable person might wonder how Kerry could possibly think he could get away with saying the following at the convention:

"Like veterans of all wars past, today’s fighting men and women, deserve our prayers and support and then, when they come home, they deserve the respect and welcome of a grateful nation. After all, the first definition of patriotism is to keep faith with those who have worn the uniform of the United States of America." (Emphasis mine)

Is respect and welcome what returning Vietnam soldiers received from anti-war protester and senate testifier Kerry, when he accused his fellow soldiers of committing atrocities and murder in Vietnam? (see the 1971 Senate Testimony of John Kerry)

John Kerry chose his path a long time ago; and until he is willing to repudiate that past, no veteran has any reason to believe anything he says now. Of course, he won't repudiate his anti-war stance today, because he wants to be both the "anti-war" and "pro-war" candidate at the same time.

Money can't buy integrity or respect, either.

Testosterone Meltdown in the Democratic Party

Glenn Reynolds has a few observations about the recent testosterone meltdown in the Kerry Campaign.

"It's some kind of bizarre testosterone meltdown. I don't know what to make of it, but it makes me wonder. The louder people talk of their manhood, the more I question why they're trying so hard."

Glenn is correct. The more someone tries to prove they're a "real man" by telling everyone over and over again how manly and tough they are, the more evidence you have that they really doubt it themselves.

People who actually possess the elusive "right stuff" assume everyone around them is already aware that they possess it , and don't feel the need to keep reminding them.

A Miracle Of Modern Medicine

Madeline Mann plays the violin in this recent picture. Born at 27 weeks into her mother's pregnancy, she weighed just 9.9 ounces, less than any surviving baby in medical history. Next week, she enters high school as something even more extraordinary: an honors student who plays violin and likes to rollerblade. (AP Photo/Courtesy of New England Journal of Medicine




Below is a picture of Madeline at birth. Pretty remarkable, huh?

Fake War Hero Syndrome

It seems that there has been quite a bit of faking by quite a number of people over the years regarding Vietnam service. Anyone remember Joseph Ellis? He was Pulitzer Prize winning author of Founding Brothers and a renowned revolutionary war scholar on the faculty of Mt. Holyoke College when it was exposed that he had made up his Vietnam exploits (he was in fact teaching military history at West Point during Vietnam). Now, Instapundit has a roundup on the information on Senator Tom Harkin's lies about his service (you know, the Senator who just called Dick Cheney a "coward" ?). Seems Harkin never served in Vietnam at all, and was a pilot stationed in Japan during the war, and that he continuosly lied over and over again. Did I mention that Harkin is a Democrat? Did I mention that Harking supported Howard Dean? Did I mention that Howard Dean never served in Vietnam?

It turns out that there is an entire book that has looked at all the people who have faked, exaggerated, and/or creatively altered their Vietnam experiences. Many of them, like Ellis and Harkin are notable individuals. Ellis, besides losing his credibiity as an historian, was also suspended from his Mt. Holyoke academic position. In Harkin's case, when the truth eventually came out (and it seems he lied until the very end, changing his story until it was completely demolished by the facts), any chance he had of making a bid for the Presidency was completely eliminated.

Now we have these incredible allegations about John Kerry, and it seems that he, too, has exaggerated, faked, and outright lied about his 4-month tour of duty in Vietnam (go to Captain's Quarters; Power Line; and Roger Simon for frequent updates in this ongoing saga). The evidence is mounting that his frequent (over 50 times in public venues) reminisces of secret duty in Cambodia was a complete fabrication. It turns out that (in spite of what his website says) Mr. Kerry has NOT RELEASED ALL HIS RECORDS, which could make this whole mess go away if Mr. Kerry is speaking the truth. It turns out that there are now questions being raised about the validity of not only his Purple Hearts (were they self-inflicted in an attempt to get out of Vietnam as quickly as possible?) but also about some of the details of his Silver and Bronze Stars. Either Mr. Kerry is the most decorated Vietnam Vet in that 4-month interval he spent in Vietnam, or he is the most clever liar that served in that controversial war.

Even Democrats must concede that if these charges against Kerry are true in any way, shape or form, that their candidate is characterologically unfit for command. Which is what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been saying all along.

Photo Sensitive

A friend sent me the link to this site, where you can post "girlyman Kerry photos". Ahhhh... isn't that just mean? Well, yes--but you know Kerry is a very sensitive(but tough) guy....he should be able to handle it.

Kerry Has Labour Party Vote Clinched

Here is some real idiocy, British-style. It seems the Labour Party is "up in arms" because Tony Blair has invited Iraqi interim prime-minster Iyad Allawi to its convention to speak. Can you imagine? Mark Seddon, a member of Labour's ruling National Executive Commitee, said a number of anti-war members would leave the conference hall if Iyad Allawi is invited onto the platform:

"A lot of us said at our last meeting we wanted John Kerry to win the presidential election.
"We should be inviting the Democrats to our conference, not Allawi. There will be a walk-out if this goes ahead."

I have an even better idea for a speaker at the Labour Party National Convention! Why not see if they can invite Saddam Hussein? I hear he might be available.

Alone In The Universe - Apparently

Yesterday, I read the following stories:

Bush Support fading among Muslims (Beliefnet)

Bush Support fading among Jews (NJDC)

Bush Support fading among younger voters (Ann Arbor News - no link)

Older veterans not voting for Bush (CommonDreams.org)

Bush Losing Ground in Rural Areas (TalkLeft.com)

Bush Losing Ground with Hispanic Voters (The Deming Headlight)

Bush's Problems with Black Voters (CBS.com)

Single Women Voters May Turn the Tide Against Bush (ExpressIndia.com)

OMIGOD, OMIGOD! AM I THE ONLY PERSON IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WHO SUPPORTS BUSH???? (hyperventilating, rapid heart rate, sweaty palms)
Then I found this , and felt much better. I guess all the people in the articles above aren't married.

Being Reasonable About Stem Cell Research

Charles Krauthammer cuts through the lies and distortions perpetrated by the Kerry campaign about stem cell research in a Time Magazine essay.

"In his Aug. 7 radio address to the nation, John Kerry three times referred to "the ban" on stem-cell research instituted by President George W. Bush. What ban? Stem-cell research is legal in the U.S. and has been so since human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998. There are dozens of groups studying them, including major stem-cell centers recently launched at Stanford and Harvard.
Perhaps Democrats mean a ban on federal funding for stem-cell research. But, in fact, there is no such ban. Through the Clinton years there was a ban. Not a single penny of federal money was allowed for any embryo research. In his first year in office, however, President Bush reviewed the issue and permitted the first federal funding of stem-cell research ever.
Bush did more than just free up money. In August 2001 he addressed the issue in one of the most morally serious speeches ever delivered by a U.S. President. Political speeches are generally constructed — I know; I used to write them — so that facts are stacked from the very beginning to lead you inexorably to the foregone conclusion. In contrast, Bush's nationally televised address presented both sides of the question with such fairness and respect that three-quarters of the way through the speech you found yourself without any idea where the President would come out."

I have no ax to grind either for or against stem cell research. Its potential right now appears to be good, but there is still considerable debate. Wishing that it will be a cure for Alzheimer's Disease will not make it so. Whether the stem cell research lives up to the strong endorsement from John Kerry and the Democratic Party is yet to be determined. I hope it does. But distorting Bush's actions in this area are disingenuous and manipulative. It is not as if lives are being lost by Bush's policies. Quite the contrary. It was Bush, that initiated federal funding of this research, as Krauthammer points out. If the evidence begins to accumulate that stem cells can influence or even cure diseases, then the research will be unstoppable, federal funding or not.

Until then, it is very foolish to pretend that there are not ethical and moral issues connected to this type of research. People tend to feel deeply and strongly on both sides of this debate. I think it is interesting that John Kerry would prosecute a "sensitive" war on terror, but he seems incapable of being "sensitive" to the very real concerns many people in this country have about stem cell research. For now, President Bush has found a middle path to accommodate both sides of the debate. I think it is a reasonable compromise.

Proactive Sore Losers

Well, here's yet another attempt to pave the way and set up the discussion if their candidate doesn't win in November. I mentioned this technique here , but Paul Krugman takes it to new heights of innuendo and conspiracy:

"When I say that the result will be suspect, I don't mean that the election will, in fact, have been stolen. (We may never know.) I mean that there will be sufficient uncertainty about the honesty of the vote count that much of the world and many Americans will have serious doubts. How might the election result be suspect? Well, to take only one of several possibilities, suppose that Florida - where recent polls give John Kerry the lead - once again swings the election to George Bush. " (Emphasis mine)

Note the snide "we may never know". Just the teeniest of suggestion that the conspiracy is soooo-o secret and powerful that, of course, there would be no way to prove that what he is saying was true. Bummer. And how about "where recent polls give John Kerry the lead-
That is deception at its finest. Let's just use one poll, which is the one I tend to check every day, the Rasmussen Poll. Here's what they say about Florida today:

"The latest Rasmussen Reports Florida survey finds Senator John F. Kerry with 47% of the vote to President George W. Bush's 45%. A month ago, Kerry held a 48% to 43% advantage. Two months ago, the candidates were tied in Florida with both Bush and Kerry attracting 46% of the vote.
A month ago, we moved Florida to "Leans Kerry" category in our Electoral College projections. Then, a mid-month update provided to Premium Members showed the race tightening so we moved Florida back to "Toss-Up" status where it remains today.
In Florida, the polls began shifting back to the Toss-Up status shortly after Edwards was announced as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate. "

In other words, Florida is too close to call, and has gone back and forth between Kerry and Bush for months. But notice how clever Krugman has made the insinuation that if Bush should win in Florida, then his point that the election is suspect will have been proved.

No, Mr. Krugman it won't. There will always be conspiracy theorists like yourself who are not open to facts or reason. You are still mentally stuck back in the year 2000 when your precious candidate lost. And by the way, Bush still won in accepted study that has been done to recount the 2000 Florida vote (look here for a good summary). But people like you conveniently ingnored those results when they came out and held your resentment at losing close to your heart. You undoubtedly will do the same in 2004. You give the term "sore loser" an entirely new nuance--especially since you haven't even lost yet! What you are doing is being a proactive sore loser.

Your pathetic attempts to discount the 2004 election before it even occurs are just another example of left brain dysfunction and right brain hyperventilation. You are so afraid that Kerry will lose, you will do anything and say anything no matter how destructive it may be to your country. If you want to know which political party has a long and distinguished history of voter fraud, look to the Democrats. Here is a brief history that demonstrates my point. Don't get me wrong, there have been instances of Republican fraud, but they pale in comparison with the opportunism and deceit propagated by the other party throughout American history.

Suck it up, Krugman.

Nightmare Team

Did you watch the USA Men's Basketball team go down in flames the other day--to Puerto Rico? A 92-73 trouncing that they richly deserved. The "Dream Team" must have felt they were in the middle of a nightmare. As if anyone on the team really cared. Pezman Yousefzadeh of Pejmanesque sums it up and makes a recommendation:

"...I think that the college basketball players ought to be brought back. It is perfectly obvious that for the current Dream Team, representing the United States is, at best, a chore. For amateurs, it would be an honor.
Of course, it need not be the case that professionals would take no pride in representing the United States. Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan--among others--represented us splendidly. The difference however is that the aforementioned three giants of basketball were primarily winners, competitors and champions whose fame and fortunes were side effects of their prowess on the basketball court--a side effect that was secondary to the object of winning games, championships and Olympic Gold Medals. Whereas so many members of the current Dream Team could not care less about developing their basketball prowess, and simply view the opportunity to represent their country as another way to gain endorsements. Winning, for the current Dream Team, is a side effect that is secondary to fame and fortune."

Yeah. With fame and fortune you might be able to afford those expensive Nikes, but just wearing them don't make you good.

Whatever Turns You On

From Drudge Report we have a preview of more than you ever wanted to know about what turns John Kerry on in the opposite sex:

"Look for what gets your heart. Someone who excites you, turns you on. ... It's a woman who loves being a woman. Who wears her womanhood. Who knows how to flirt and have fun. Smart. Confident. ... And obviously sexy and saucy and challenging."

Gee! And I thought "someone who is rich" was high on his list! I guess I misjudged him.

Kerry's One Point Plan For America

Kerry's solution to every problem? It's simple--Get rid of Bush! From the Onion via Roger Simon. Here's a taste:

"In the speech, Kerry offered a solution for the nation's ailing education system.
"Schools do not have the resources they need to succeed," Kerry said. "One million students are dropping out of high school every year. John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to ensure that all Americans can make the most of their God-given talents: Get George Bush out of the White House."
Kerry also spoke on the subject of national security.
"This country has embraced a new and dangerously ineffective disregard for the world," Kerry said. "In order to win the global war against terror, we must promote democracy, freedom, and opportunity around the world. My national-defense policy will be guided by one imperative: Don't be George Bush. As will my plans to create a strong economy, protect civil rights, develop a better healthcare system, and improve homeland security."

The people at the Onion and at Scrappleface are brilliant and funny (and their sarcasm frequently hits the nail on the head). Check them out!

Blatant Media Bias In Ann Arbor--Why Am I So Shocked??

I am just furious. I can't believe what I'm seeing in today's Ann Arbor News. I don't know why I expect anything different from this blatant liberal piece of garbage. Let me give you the rundown:

Front Page:
Article about local "fallen soldier" funeral with large picture of mother weeping.
Article: "Protesters find FBI on their doorsteps" - a touching article on how the evil FBI is targeting groups in Ann Arbor planning protests in NYC at the Republican Convention.
Page 3 - entire page about about an Iraqi girl who was injured in US shelling who was flown to America for rehab. Pictures of her crying.
Page 4 - An article "Militants asked to leave shrine" BUT with a picture of a US soldier crying over his fallen comrades in Najaf.
And, an article on "Palestinian Prisoners refuse food as Protest"- describing how bad the conditions are in a Jerusalem prison. Oh, and they quote some Cabinet minister (unnamed) who comments that he wouldn't care if they starved to death.

Had enough? Well, we're not done yet:
Page 5- Article - "Young voters abandoning Bush's Ranks: Strong turnout by 18-29 year olds could give Kerry presidency"
Page 6 - The Opinion Page
Lead op-ed- "Bush's chances hing on economic progress-news about falling incomes won't help"
Editorial Cartoon: Bush sitting with a fake halo over his head with posters of "excuses" (ex. "9-11 is to Blame" and "Blame the U.N." and "Clinton's Fault") with bush saying "I stand for people taking responisbiity for their own actions."

And in the Entertainment Section:
"Arab world reacts strongly to Fahrenheit 9/11- moviegoers wish they had their own Michael Moore" (I wonder if we can give them ours?)
And another article on the same page: "No apology for use of headline in film" detailing how Mr. Moore is standing firm on his artistic rights to change a headline from an Illinois newspaper to suit his purposes in his film.
Oh, yes--an article on the "West Wing" and how it will be reflecting the current political situation in the coming weeks as President Bartlett "is coming to the end of his term".

I suppose I should be grateful that the "Local" section didn't have anything in particular today. Usually it is full of sweet pieces about how tough it is to live in this economy; and heroic protesters against the administration, etc. etc.etc. Nary a word about Kerry, I should mention. Or even about the unraveling of the Cambodia lies. So, the only interesting fact is that the paper (at least today) isn't "Pro" Kerry--its simply "Anti" Bush. It is an afternoon edition and you'd think there might be some mention of Bush's address to the VFW this morning, where he stated he will be withdrawing troops from Europe and Asia. Obviously, redeployment of our troops around the world is not important.

Any one of these article would have been appropriate. But the cumulative effect of an article or two on almost every page is clearly based on an editorial decision to slam Bush. It's hard to imagine that this paper could be any more biased than it currently is. But calling it a "News" paper is really giving it far more credit than it deserves. What a disgusting, blatant, propaganda-ridden rag. Absolutely outrageous.

Just Think...

Victor Davis Hanson makes the following statement on his website:

I think had Gore won, we would not have had the Patriot Act; Afghanistan would still be under the Taliban; Pakistan would be pro-terrorist; Saddam would be harboring terrorists; Libya would be on the WMD path; and Saudi Arabia would be still bribing and abetting al Qaeda—and the Europeans would be whining about the lack of American leadership and the necessity of America going it alone sometimes.

Personally, I also think that we would also have suffered another terrorist attack on our homeland, maybe even worse than the WTC and Pentagon attacks. Not a day goes by that I don't reverently give thanks that George Bush won the 2000 election. The alternative is still almost too horrible to contemplate.

John Kerry, Human Stem Cell

(click on picture to enlarge)

By John Deering, cartoonist

Where Have All The Weapons Gone?

Gone to Syria, Everyone.... (sung to "Where have all the flowers gone?")

Free Will and Michael Moore

Some days ago, I caught Michael Moore on Bill O'Reilly's show. In the at times uncivil discussion, Moore asked O'Reilly a question: "Would you be willing to sacrifice your son for Fallujah?" OReilly was taken aback, but answered, "No", then added he would be willing to sacrifice himself. That question would take any parent by surprise (who would want their beloved child to die under any circumstances??), and at the time I thought O'Reilly handled it well. Now, through Donald Sensing at One Hand Clapping, there is a link to someone who spent more time considering an answer than I did, and who has some thoughtful and important points to make. Moore's question is:

... a rhetorical device and not a substantial question at all. This is true in four aspects.
First, it has the high standard of "sacrifice." No normal parent is prepared to sacrifice his child for any reason or objective, including military objectives. The same could be said of any desirable objective. Would you, for example, sacrifice your child to expand health care to the uninsured? Or even ... to save the life of another of [your] children? It is hard to imagine any objective for which one would sacrifice one's child.
...Second, the question is addressed to the wrong person. All [members of the armed forces] are adult men and women in their own right. And it is they, not their parents, who choose to serve in the armed forces.
...Third, the objective of Fallujah's pacification is too narrowly stated. Would anyone [even] enlist for the specific purpose of keeping supply convoys moving into Baghdad? Or to open a road to a dusty town? Or to pacify a town or the occupants of a house? Or to be killed by friendly fire? Many young Americans have lost their lives in just such ways. But these are tasks incidental to the larger purpose of military service: protecting the interests of the United States.
...Finally, the question ignores the issue of consequences. We all know that the full consequences of our decisions are impossible to predict. So are the consequences of our indecisions. If there are risks and sacrifices entailed by action, there are also risks and sacrifices entailed by inaction.

Even more so now, I think O'Reilly's answer was brilliant. I would never presume to make that choice for my daughter when she becomes an adult. At some point in her life she will make the decision whether to serve her country and participate in the military or not. She talks now about going to the Naval Academy and becoming a Marine like her Grandfather was in WWII (when she's not talking about becoming a professional soccer player). Whatever she does; whatever she thinks; it will be her choice and her thoughts--not mine. Do you see the error in thinking implicit in Moore's question now? He does not believe that people have free will. If it were up to him, he wouldn't tell them to go sacrifice themselves in Iraq only because he doesn't believe in that particular cause. He would consider their deaths worthwhile only in a cause he believed in.

This is the way every statist thinks--that your life, or your child's is at his/her disposal for whatever cause he happens to believe in. In a free country, everyone's life is his/her own, and they make that choice for themselves. If you join the all-volunteer military, you better be aware of the risks and obligations of that choice (even the various Military Reserves) or you shouldn't choose it. A soldier recuperating at Walter Reed who happened to be included in Michael Moore's movie without Moore obtaining his consent said:

"I'm not a child. We sent ourselves over there" as volunteers for a cause, he said. "It was all our own doing. I don't appreciate him calling us children."

Neither do I.