Greetings from the Left Coast! Back on October 3, we talked about the Phony Phony Soldier Controversy, and the unprecedented letter that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and 40 other Democrats sent to Mark Mays, the CEO of Clear Channel Communications. The letter asked Mays to publicly repudiate comments allegedly made by Rush Limbaugh (Clear Channel is the syndication partner for Limbaugh's show) and ask Limbaugh to apologize for them. The short story is that the comments had been taken out of context and distorted, as anyone with half a brain could tell.
So...a week or so ago, Mark Mays made the original of the letter available to Limbaugh, who posted it for auction on eBay, with the proceeds to go to the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, a charitable group that provides financial assistance to the children of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers. The auction closed yesterday - for $2,100,100! This amount broke - in fact, more than doubled - the record for an item sold through eBay Giving Works - previously, the most expensive item sold was a Harley-Davidson from Jay Leno that went for a little over $800,000 back in 2005.
Shortly before the auction closed, Harry Reid took the Senate floor to apologize to Mark Mays, Rush Limbaugh, and all of the American people for the egregious abuse of power this letter represented, and promised to resign his senate post and spend the rest of his life raising money for charitable organizations that benefit the families of our fallen soldiers.
Hahahahahahaha....hahahahahahaha....*gasp*...hooooooooo!*pant*...*pant*...heheheheeeee. Golly, sometimes I just crack myself up! Of course he didn't do any of those things! Are you kidding me?
Well, actually, he did go to the Senate floor, and he did talk about the auction, and said it was "very, very constructive." "What could be a more worthwhile cause?" he said. "Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature," said Senator Reid. (emphasis added) Well, that's got to be the understatement of the year! Yeah, I'm sure it never entered into your wildest dreams, Senator, that the letter could backfire on you to this extent. He went on to say, "I don't know what we could do more important than helping to ensure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education."
So, let me get this straight: I guess now we are supposed to thank Senator Reid, because if he hadn't written this letter smearing Rush Limbaugh, then it couldn't have been auctioned off for all this money that's going to a good cause. You do understand, don't you Senator, that the only reason this letter was worth anything is that it represents one of the most outrageous abuses of political power in recent memory? That's what gives it the kind of historical value that would make someone pay over $2 million for it. Apart from that, Senator, I'm not sure anyone would give a plugged nickel for one of your letters.
I remember a rather tacky old joke (politically incorrect by today's standards, I'm sure) about the Lone Ranger and Tonto. Seems that they found themselves one day surrounded by hostile Apaches with no obvious way of escape. The Lone Ranger turned to Tonto and said, "Well, Tonto, looks like we're really in trouble this time!" To which Tonto replied, "What you mean 'we,' white man?"
Rush Limbaugh, by the way, has pledged to personally match the $2,100,100 selling price, thus doubling the donation to the charity. He made this pledge when the letter first went up for auction, and called on Senator Reid and the other forty signatories to do the same. They've all been strangely silent on that issue. If they (or you) would like to donate, they (or you) can just go to http://www.mc-lef.org/Index.asp. The link is right there on Rush Limaugh's home page for their (and your) convenience. But until Senator Reid puts his money where his mouth is, pardon me for asking: "What you mean 'we,' Senator?"
Thanks for listening.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
BullSCHIP!
Greetings from the Left Coast! This is my second blog entry today, but, dang it, there's just so much going on that demands attention! This entry returns to the subject of why I just can't imagine myself voting for a Democrat.
Today, Congress failed to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill. The Democrats are, as you might expect, accusing Bush and the Republicans who stood with him of heartlessly denying health care to millions of poor children. Here's a representative sample:
From the L.A. Times: "President Bush's bullheaded insistence on sabotaging reauthorization of the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program, better known as SCHIP, will hurt the very people -- poor and middle-class Americans -- he claims he wants to protect." The Times goes on to refer to the Democrats' "relatively modest plans to increase funding..."
MSNBC ran the story on their Web site accompanied by a picture of Nancy Pelosi and a 2-year-old from Tampa, FL, who "was born with a serious heart condition and relies on...(SCHIP) for her health coverage." The implication is clear: those mean Republicans, led by the evil President Bush, want to deny poor Bethany access to health care for her heart condition.
Harry Reid has emphatically stated that he will not compromise with the administration on the issue. Pelosi promises she will keep working to find the votes needed to override the veto. Her words: "This isn't even an issue anymore...it's a value."
Singer/Songwriter Paul Simon called the decision "heartless." (Note to Paul: Love your music, but it doesn't automatically qualify you to set national fiscal policy. Go record another album, will you please?)
I'm sure you'll continue to hear plenty from radio, TV, and your local newspaper about what a terrible thing Bush and the Republicans did.
Here's the truth:
As the L.A. Times states, SCHIP stands for "State Children's Health Insurance Program." Under the program, the Federal Government gives money to the states (and let me again remind you that the only money they have to give away is ours - yours and mine) so the states can use it to provide health insurance coverage for children of families who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to pay for private health insurance.
In 2006, federal funding of the SCHIP program totaled roughly $5.5 Billion. President Bush did not oppose renewing SCHIP funding. In fact, he asked Congress to increase the funding by roughly $1 Billion per year. Did you get that? The President was willing to sign a bill that would have increased SCHIP funding by around 20%. But that wasn't good enough for Congress. Congress wanted to double the funding. (That's a "relatively modest" increase to the L.A. Times.)
As things stand today, families who earn up to roughly $41,000 per year, which is twice the federally-defined "poverty level," can qualify for SCHIP subsidized health insurance coverage. The Democrats' plan would have increased that ceiling to three times the poverty level. That's $61,950 per year for a family of four. New Jersey would have been allowed to cover families with incomes of up to $72,275 for a family of four. New York was seeking a waiver that would have allowed them to cover families with incomes up to $82,600 for a family of four. (Hmmm...isn't there a Senator from New York who is an avid proponent of federally funded universal health care? And isn't she running for President? Ya think she'll be spinning this as a campaign issue?)
Now, I don't know about your neighborhood, but most of the people I know don't consider families who make $61,950 per year to be particularly "needy." So I'm not sure why you and I should be expected to subsidize their health insurance premiums. In point of fact, the Congressional Budget Office itself estimated that, had the bill passed, roughly two million people would have dropped private health insurance to go on publicly-funded insurance.
Hey, I'd love to have someone else pay my health insurance premiums, too. I'm a partner in a rather small business, and it's danged expensive, given the number of employees we have, for the business to pay those premiums. But I don't think it's right to ask you to pay my health insurance premiums. If you don't agree with that, heck, just send your check directly to me and I'll make sure that 100% of it goes toward my health insurance coverage - there won't be anything wasted on adminstrative overhead! Any takers? No? Hmmmm.
Well, how about this: tomorrow evening, just canvass the neighbors on your block. Knock on their doors, and explain that in the spirit of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, you're asking all of them to chip in to pay your health insurance premiums for you. Let me know how that goes, will you?
So keep all this in mind as you hear the Democrats, and their willing accomplices in the media, beating the drums about how the President vetoed coverage for all these millions of poor children and what a terrible thing it was. The fact is that he wanted the coverage renewed. He even wanted the coverage increased by about 20% per year. He didn't agree that it should be doubled. And, as a matter of fact, neither do I.
Some time ago, Scott Adams made the very astute observation in his "Dilbert Blog" that people on both extremes of a given issue tend to frame their arguments by misrepresenting the other side's position, then attacking the misrepresentation. He's correct in that both the extreme left and the extreme right tend to do that. It seems to me, though, that it's standard operating procedure for the Democrat party...and the biggest problem is that when they do it, the story is picked up and amplified by the media and they harp on it, and harp on it, and harp on it, until it becomes the conventional wisdom.
I'll try to be nice here and just say that the Democrats' arguments strike me as, shall we say, disingenuous. That sounds better than me saying that they're a bunch of lying S.O.B.s. Either way, I'm not voting for them. Not now, not ever.
Thanks for listening.
Today, Congress failed to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill. The Democrats are, as you might expect, accusing Bush and the Republicans who stood with him of heartlessly denying health care to millions of poor children. Here's a representative sample:
From the L.A. Times: "President Bush's bullheaded insistence on sabotaging reauthorization of the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program, better known as SCHIP, will hurt the very people -- poor and middle-class Americans -- he claims he wants to protect." The Times goes on to refer to the Democrats' "relatively modest plans to increase funding..."
MSNBC ran the story on their Web site accompanied by a picture of Nancy Pelosi and a 2-year-old from Tampa, FL, who "was born with a serious heart condition and relies on...(SCHIP) for her health coverage." The implication is clear: those mean Republicans, led by the evil President Bush, want to deny poor Bethany access to health care for her heart condition.
Harry Reid has emphatically stated that he will not compromise with the administration on the issue. Pelosi promises she will keep working to find the votes needed to override the veto. Her words: "This isn't even an issue anymore...it's a value."
Singer/Songwriter Paul Simon called the decision "heartless." (Note to Paul: Love your music, but it doesn't automatically qualify you to set national fiscal policy. Go record another album, will you please?)
I'm sure you'll continue to hear plenty from radio, TV, and your local newspaper about what a terrible thing Bush and the Republicans did.
Here's the truth:
As the L.A. Times states, SCHIP stands for "State Children's Health Insurance Program." Under the program, the Federal Government gives money to the states (and let me again remind you that the only money they have to give away is ours - yours and mine) so the states can use it to provide health insurance coverage for children of families who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to pay for private health insurance.
In 2006, federal funding of the SCHIP program totaled roughly $5.5 Billion. President Bush did not oppose renewing SCHIP funding. In fact, he asked Congress to increase the funding by roughly $1 Billion per year. Did you get that? The President was willing to sign a bill that would have increased SCHIP funding by around 20%. But that wasn't good enough for Congress. Congress wanted to double the funding. (That's a "relatively modest" increase to the L.A. Times.)
As things stand today, families who earn up to roughly $41,000 per year, which is twice the federally-defined "poverty level," can qualify for SCHIP subsidized health insurance coverage. The Democrats' plan would have increased that ceiling to three times the poverty level. That's $61,950 per year for a family of four. New Jersey would have been allowed to cover families with incomes of up to $72,275 for a family of four. New York was seeking a waiver that would have allowed them to cover families with incomes up to $82,600 for a family of four. (Hmmm...isn't there a Senator from New York who is an avid proponent of federally funded universal health care? And isn't she running for President? Ya think she'll be spinning this as a campaign issue?)
Now, I don't know about your neighborhood, but most of the people I know don't consider families who make $61,950 per year to be particularly "needy." So I'm not sure why you and I should be expected to subsidize their health insurance premiums. In point of fact, the Congressional Budget Office itself estimated that, had the bill passed, roughly two million people would have dropped private health insurance to go on publicly-funded insurance.
Hey, I'd love to have someone else pay my health insurance premiums, too. I'm a partner in a rather small business, and it's danged expensive, given the number of employees we have, for the business to pay those premiums. But I don't think it's right to ask you to pay my health insurance premiums. If you don't agree with that, heck, just send your check directly to me and I'll make sure that 100% of it goes toward my health insurance coverage - there won't be anything wasted on adminstrative overhead! Any takers? No? Hmmmm.
Well, how about this: tomorrow evening, just canvass the neighbors on your block. Knock on their doors, and explain that in the spirit of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, you're asking all of them to chip in to pay your health insurance premiums for you. Let me know how that goes, will you?
So keep all this in mind as you hear the Democrats, and their willing accomplices in the media, beating the drums about how the President vetoed coverage for all these millions of poor children and what a terrible thing it was. The fact is that he wanted the coverage renewed. He even wanted the coverage increased by about 20% per year. He didn't agree that it should be doubled. And, as a matter of fact, neither do I.
Some time ago, Scott Adams made the very astute observation in his "Dilbert Blog" that people on both extremes of a given issue tend to frame their arguments by misrepresenting the other side's position, then attacking the misrepresentation. He's correct in that both the extreme left and the extreme right tend to do that. It seems to me, though, that it's standard operating procedure for the Democrat party...and the biggest problem is that when they do it, the story is picked up and amplified by the media and they harp on it, and harp on it, and harp on it, until it becomes the conventional wisdom.
I'll try to be nice here and just say that the Democrats' arguments strike me as, shall we say, disingenuous. That sounds better than me saying that they're a bunch of lying S.O.B.s. Either way, I'm not voting for them. Not now, not ever.
Thanks for listening.
ABC to the Terrorists: Come On Down!
Greetings from the Left Coast. As I was driving home this afternoon, through the first serious wind storm of the season, I heard something on the ABC radio newscast that caught my attention. They were reporting that the TSA agents at Los Angeles International Airport and Chicago O'Hare had missed up to 75% of the phony "bombs" during recent test runs by federal agents.
Am I the only one who thinks that it was pretty stupid to broadcast this story? I didn't need to know this, and neither did you. What we needed was for the government to quietly get to work on solving whatever the problem was. What we most emphatically didn't need was a major news network saying, in effect, "Yo, terrorist dudes, come on down! Now's your big chance - the odds are 3:1 in your favor at the moment!"
Yeah, yeah, freedom of the press, blah blah blah, public has the right to know, etc., etc. I'm sick of journalists hiding behind those cliches to justify their own irresponsible behavior. There are lots of things in life that I have the right to do, but I don't do them - just because I can doesn't mean I should. What a concept. But I suspect that they don't spend a lot of time talking about that in your modern school of journalism.
How about some common sense, folks? How about actually putting the welfare of your own country ahead of breaking a story? Oh, wait, I forgot - the TSA is part of the Executive Branch of government, and Bush is still the President, so any story that might reflect badly on the administration takes precedent over any other concerns. Besides, if ABC hadn't run the story, they'd just look bad because CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc., etc., would surely run it, and then ABC might look....like what, exactly? Like they were showing some leadership in responsible journalism? Like they were maybe rooting for their own country? Like they were actually concerned about the possible consequences of the stories they broadcast? Can't have that!
OK...deep breath...flame off...put down the soapbox and back away slowly...
Thanks for listening.
Am I the only one who thinks that it was pretty stupid to broadcast this story? I didn't need to know this, and neither did you. What we needed was for the government to quietly get to work on solving whatever the problem was. What we most emphatically didn't need was a major news network saying, in effect, "Yo, terrorist dudes, come on down! Now's your big chance - the odds are 3:1 in your favor at the moment!"
Yeah, yeah, freedom of the press, blah blah blah, public has the right to know, etc., etc. I'm sick of journalists hiding behind those cliches to justify their own irresponsible behavior. There are lots of things in life that I have the right to do, but I don't do them - just because I can doesn't mean I should. What a concept. But I suspect that they don't spend a lot of time talking about that in your modern school of journalism.
How about some common sense, folks? How about actually putting the welfare of your own country ahead of breaking a story? Oh, wait, I forgot - the TSA is part of the Executive Branch of government, and Bush is still the President, so any story that might reflect badly on the administration takes precedent over any other concerns. Besides, if ABC hadn't run the story, they'd just look bad because CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc., etc., would surely run it, and then ABC might look....like what, exactly? Like they were showing some leadership in responsible journalism? Like they were maybe rooting for their own country? Like they were actually concerned about the possible consequences of the stories they broadcast? Can't have that!
OK...deep breath...flame off...put down the soapbox and back away slowly...
Thanks for listening.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Blah Blah Blah Ginger Blah Blah Ginger Blah Blah Blah
Greetings from the Left Coast. One of my favorite Gary Larson The Far Side cartoons was the one that contrasted what you say with what your dog hears. What brought this to mind was the recent article that ran in just about every newspaper in the country about how retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, leveled a "sweeping indictment" of the situation in Iraq. From the New York Times to the Everett Herald, it was the same thing. HERE is a link to the New York Times version of the story.
Here's what didn't get reported. General Sanchez was addressing the annual conference of Military Reporters and Editors, and as part of his comments he delivered a scathing indictment of media bias in the coverage of the Iraq war. He said, in part,
Didn't read that in your local paper, did you? I encourage you to read more of what General Sanchez had to say. You can find it HERE.
"Blah blah blah Bush is bad blah blah blah blah Iraq is a disaster blah blah blah blah blah." It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.
Thanks for listening. I can only hope you actually heard everything.
Here's what didn't get reported. General Sanchez was addressing the annual conference of Military Reporters and Editors, and as part of his comments he delivered a scathing indictment of media bias in the coverage of the Iraq war. He said, in part,
"As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front-page stories you have written, and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed...For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the 'collateral damage' you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct...The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war...For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own pre-conceived notions, biases and agendas."
Didn't read that in your local paper, did you? I encourage you to read more of what General Sanchez had to say. You can find it HERE.
"Blah blah blah Bush is bad blah blah blah blah Iraq is a disaster blah blah blah blah blah." It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.
Thanks for listening. I can only hope you actually heard everything.
Friday, October 12, 2007
A REALLY Inconvenient Truth
Greetings from the Left Coast! There are days when it feels like I am trapped on the wrong side of the looking-glass, and today is one of those days. (Anyone who doesn't understand the reference I just made needs to spend some time reading Lewis Carroll.) The Nobel Prize committee in Oslo, Norway, today awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore. Oh, and also to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Peace Prize. Setting aside for a moment that there is still a fair amount of scientific controversy about climate change, regardless of what you may have heard elsewhere, how does this relate to peace?
I spent a fair amount of time on the official Nobel Prize Web site today trying to find some statement of what the guidelines for nomination might be. I was not successful. However, in reviewing the list of people and organizations who have won the Peace Prize over the years, nearly all of them had something to do with, well, peace. Or at least with humanitarian efforts that relieved human suffering, like Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, or the Red Cross. (The glaring exception being the award to Yasser Arafat in 1994, whose primary contribution to peace was killing innocent people.) Climate change? Peace Prize? I'm not getting the relationship.
Al won the prize, of course, largely because of his film An Inconvenient Truth. That film, if you recall, also won an Academy Award for Best Documentary. There were a few people who protested that the film shouldn't even have been considered in the Documentary category, because, according to the Academy's own rules, a documentary "may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction." (emphasis added) The protesters pointed out that several aspects of the film, including the scene of the poor drowning polar bears, failed this test. Of course, as most people expected, political correctness trumped factual accuracy, and Al got his Oscar.
Interestingly enough, the announcement of the Nobel award comes hard on the heels of an announcement that a British court has found that the film does indeed contain at least nine inaccuracies, is politically biased, and that teachers who want to show it to their students must warn them of the bias and inaccuracies first. James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environmental policy at The Heartland Institute, elaborated on the courts findings:
According to Taylor, the court also took into account Al Gore's statement in Grist Magazine that "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is."
If you want to get a more balanced view of the whole global warming industry - and make no mistake, it is an industry that's making a lot of money for a lot of people, including Al Gore - read this article by Sci Fi author Orson Scott Card, then do an Internet search on Stephen McIntyre. But in case you don't have time to do that, here's what we really know about global warming:
Thanks for listening - and stay warm out there!
I spent a fair amount of time on the official Nobel Prize Web site today trying to find some statement of what the guidelines for nomination might be. I was not successful. However, in reviewing the list of people and organizations who have won the Peace Prize over the years, nearly all of them had something to do with, well, peace. Or at least with humanitarian efforts that relieved human suffering, like Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, or the Red Cross. (The glaring exception being the award to Yasser Arafat in 1994, whose primary contribution to peace was killing innocent people.) Climate change? Peace Prize? I'm not getting the relationship.
Al won the prize, of course, largely because of his film An Inconvenient Truth. That film, if you recall, also won an Academy Award for Best Documentary. There were a few people who protested that the film shouldn't even have been considered in the Documentary category, because, according to the Academy's own rules, a documentary "may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction." (emphasis added) The protesters pointed out that several aspects of the film, including the scene of the poor drowning polar bears, failed this test. Of course, as most people expected, political correctness trumped factual accuracy, and Al got his Oscar.
Interestingly enough, the announcement of the Nobel award comes hard on the heels of an announcement that a British court has found that the film does indeed contain at least nine inaccuracies, is politically biased, and that teachers who want to show it to their students must warn them of the bias and inaccuracies first. James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environmental policy at The Heartland Institute, elaborated on the courts findings:
- The film claims global warming is responsible for the gradual retreat of the alpine glacier atop Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro. Scientists have conclusively demonstrated no such link exists.
- The film presents graphs indicating that fluctuating carbon dioxide levels have always preceded and caused global temperature fluctuations. In fact, temperature changes have always preceded carbon dioxide changes.
- The film suggests global warming caused Hurricane Katrina. Few hurricane experts believe this, and substantial scientific evidence indicates global warming is having no impact on hurricane frequency or intensity.
- The film asserts global warming is causing Central Africa's Lake Chad to dry up. In fact, land use practices are causing the drying up of Lake Chad, and Central Africa is in an unusual and prolonged wet period.
- The film asserts global warming is leading to polar bear deaths by drowning. Yet the only documented drowning deaths occurred due to a freak storm, and polar bear numbers are growing substantially.
- The film claims global warming threatens to halt the Gulf Stream and initiate a new ice age. The vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue have determined such a scenario is implausible.
- The film asserts global warming is causing the destruction of coral reefs through bleaching. Scientists have identified other causes for coral bleaching and have additionally noted bleaching is a natural process by which coral continually selects ideal symbiotic algae.
- The film asserts Greenland is in danger of rapid ice melt that will raise sea levels by 20 feet or more. The scientific consensus is that any foreseeable Greenland ice melt will be gradual and will take centuries to substantially raise sea levels.
- The film asserts the Antarctic ice shelf is melting. In fact, only a small portion of Antarctica is getting warmer and losing ice mass, while the vast majority of Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and is accumulating ice mass.
According to Taylor, the court also took into account Al Gore's statement in Grist Magazine that "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is."
Um...Al...an over-representation of factual presentations? Is that anything like the over-representation of facts that went, "I did not have sex with that woman?" Guess you were paying attention during those 8 years you worked for Bill.
So the real inconvenient truth here is that the Academy Award, and now the Nobel Peace Prize, has been awarded largely on the basis of inaccuracies and "over-representations." Olympic athletes who are caught cheating have to give back their medals - how about it, Al? Gonna give back the Oscar? No, I didn't think so.
Every American soldier who has been wounded or killed in Iraq or Afghanistan is more deserving of this prize than Al Gore. Every family member of every American soldier who has been wounded or killed in Iraq or Afghanistan is more deserving of this prize than Al Gore. I find it absolutely outrageous. And don't even get me started on awarding a Peace Prize to anything associated with the United Nations.
If you want to get a more balanced view of the whole global warming industry - and make no mistake, it is an industry that's making a lot of money for a lot of people, including Al Gore - read this article by Sci Fi author Orson Scott Card, then do an Internet search on Stephen McIntyre. But in case you don't have time to do that, here's what we really know about global warming:
- The earth's climate is constantly changing.
- We are currently in a warming period, and have been since the end of the last Ice Age.
- There have been times in recent history (meaning over the last couple thousand years) when the overall climate was warmer than it is today. A warm period during the heyday of the Vikings allowed them to establish farming communities in Greenland.
- There is NOT consensus in the scientific community over what impact mankind may have on climate change, nor over whether we are even capable of doing anything about it.
- It's likely that the solar cycle has more effect on the global climate than anything we do or don't do.
- One good volcanic eruption will cause more climate change than anything we've done in the last thousand years. (Just do an Internet search on "Mount Mazama" - which is now known as Crater Lake.)
- Pollution is bad, and we should try to do less of it.
Thanks for listening - and stay warm out there!
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Back to School Reading Recommendation
Greetings from the Left Coast! From time to time, we'll share with you some of the contents of our Left Coast Reading Room. Since school has started, we'll start things off on an educational theme.
Over the summer, I picked up Volume II of William Bennett's synopsis of American history: America the Last Best Hope. I read Volume I shortly after it was published in 2006, and snapped up Volume II as soon as I knew it was available. I cannot adequately express how strongly I recommend this work. If you have a child who is studing American history, please buy these books for your child. Even better, if you have children who have not been completely indoctrinated with the brand of history that's being taught in today's public school systems, buy these books for them! Read them yourself. They're even entertaining enough that you could read them out loud to your older elementary school age children.
This is the most refreshing and enjoyable historical work I have read in a very long time. While not glossing over the darker episodes in our nation's history, Bennett clearly believes that there is much about America that is worth remembering, and cherishing. Here is an excerpt from the introduction to Volume I:
Later in the introduction, Bennett quotes from Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address, delivered as he was leaving office:
Over the summer, I picked up Volume II of William Bennett's synopsis of American history: America the Last Best Hope. I read Volume I shortly after it was published in 2006, and snapped up Volume II as soon as I knew it was available. I cannot adequately express how strongly I recommend this work. If you have a child who is studing American history, please buy these books for your child. Even better, if you have children who have not been completely indoctrinated with the brand of history that's being taught in today's public school systems, buy these books for them! Read them yourself. They're even entertaining enough that you could read them out loud to your older elementary school age children.
This is the most refreshing and enjoyable historical work I have read in a very long time. While not glossing over the darker episodes in our nation's history, Bennett clearly believes that there is much about America that is worth remembering, and cherishing. Here is an excerpt from the introduction to Volume I:
"I wrote this book for many reasons. The first and most important is the need for hope. When President Lincoln wrote to Congress in December, 1862, shortly after he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, he wrote, 'We shall nobly save or meanly lose this last best hope of earth.' For nearly a century before that message - and easily for a century afterward - Americans would not have doubted that this country was indeed that last best hope...I believe America is still that hope, but I also believe that our conviction about American greatness and purpose is not as strong today. Newspaper columns and television reports are full of cynicism. Many express doubts about American motives on the world stage. Some Americans seem ready to believe the worst about our leaders and our country. Thinking and believing the worst certainly is not hopeful. It is my humble wish that those who read this book will find reason to reclaim some of the hope and conviction we have lost."
Later in the introduction, Bennett quotes from Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address, delivered as he was leaving office:
"There is a great tradition of warnings in Presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past 8 years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.
"An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over thirty-five or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.
"But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't institutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs [protection].
"So we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion, but what's important - why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those thirty seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the fortieth anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, 'We will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.' Well, let's help her keep her word.
"If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual."
I'm sorry to say it, but things haven't gotten much better in the almost 20 years since Reagan spoke those words. In fact, they've arguably gotten much worse. There is an erosion of the American spirit, and it is being driven by popular culture, by school systems whose curricula are driven by what's fashionable and politically correct, by news broadcasts anchored by individuals who worry out loud about whether it's inappropriate to wear a flag lapel pin and feel that their credibility would be compromised if they were perceived to actually be rooting for their own country. All things considered, in a way I'm glad that a true patriot like Ronald Reagan didn't live to see the likes of Fahrenheit 911.
William Bennett has done a marvelous job of telling us what's important in the sweep of American history, and managed to make it interesting and entertaining in the process. Please. Read these books.Monday, October 8, 2007
Short Attention Span Theater - Part III
Greetings from the Left Coast! As you know, Short Attention Span Theater focuses on those items that Democrats really hope the American People have forgotten about. We here at LeftCoastBlues feel it is our patriotic duty to remind you of them.
I heard an interesting item on the radio this morning. Apparently Sandy Berger is now an "informal, unpaid advisor" to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The campaign has stated that he "has no official role," but he has "valuable and welcome input that he is providing voluntarily." Reports are that the arrangement is similar to the one Berger had with John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign. You may not remember this, but Kerry severed ties with Berger when Berger was inconveniently caught stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives.
I don't want to take up a lot of room here describing the case. Internet search engines are wonderful things, and if you simply put in "Sandy Berger" + "National Archives" (I even did it for you) you'll find a wealth of information. Bottom line: In 2003, he stole highly secret documents from the National Archives - documents that were classified at what is known as "code word" level. That's one of the highest levels of secrecy we have. People who are authorized to remove those documents from the secure room in which they are kept have to do it in a locked case handcuffed to his or her wrist. (Yes, they actually do that - it's not just something you see in the movies.)
Berger not only took the documents, he admitted to destroying some of them. He also smuggled out his own handwritten notes that were supposed to have been examined and cleared before he could take them. Then he lied about the whole thing as long as he could. Finally, in 2005, he pleaded guilty to a single count of "unauthorized removal and retention of classifed material." He was fined $50,000 and sentenced to two years of probation and 100 hours of community service. Oh, and he lost his security clearance for three years. Yep, three years. As near as I can tell, that means that sometime in 2008, a man who stole highly classified documents from the National Archives will actually be eligible to get his security clearance back. What a great country, huh?
Now he's advising the Clinton campaign. Perhaps he's advising them on how double-standards work in Washington. I recall another legal case recently in which Scooter Libby was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for lying to investigators in the investigation over the alleged "outing" of Valerie Plame. The Democrats and the media spun that case for all they were worth to try to build the perception that Libby, working on behalf of people higher up in the Bush administration, had "outed" Plame in retaliation for her husband's criticism of pre-war intelligence. But the fact is that very early on in the investigation, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald learned that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was actually the first to leak Plame's name to the media - but Fitzgerald continued to pursue other people until he finally caught Libby in what is known in the legal biz as a "process crime." The court never determined - or even allowed any evidence - about whether Libby had actually violated the Intelligence Identites Protection Act, which prohibits revealing the identities of secret agents. Personally, I'm still scratching my head over (1) why Fitzgerald never brought any charges against Armitage, who actually committed the act that the whole investigation was supposed to be about, and (2) why Fitzgerald kept the investigation going when he already knew whodunit.
I think there is a lesson to be learned here, though (besides the obvious one, I mean): If you're ever questioned under oath about exactly when you said or did something, regardless of how confident you are in your memory, the correct answer is, "I don't recall, counselor." Thanks for listening.
I heard an interesting item on the radio this morning. Apparently Sandy Berger is now an "informal, unpaid advisor" to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The campaign has stated that he "has no official role," but he has "valuable and welcome input that he is providing voluntarily." Reports are that the arrangement is similar to the one Berger had with John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign. You may not remember this, but Kerry severed ties with Berger when Berger was inconveniently caught stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives.
I don't want to take up a lot of room here describing the case. Internet search engines are wonderful things, and if you simply put in "Sandy Berger" + "National Archives" (I even did it for you) you'll find a wealth of information. Bottom line: In 2003, he stole highly secret documents from the National Archives - documents that were classified at what is known as "code word" level. That's one of the highest levels of secrecy we have. People who are authorized to remove those documents from the secure room in which they are kept have to do it in a locked case handcuffed to his or her wrist. (Yes, they actually do that - it's not just something you see in the movies.)
Berger not only took the documents, he admitted to destroying some of them. He also smuggled out his own handwritten notes that were supposed to have been examined and cleared before he could take them. Then he lied about the whole thing as long as he could. Finally, in 2005, he pleaded guilty to a single count of "unauthorized removal and retention of classifed material." He was fined $50,000 and sentenced to two years of probation and 100 hours of community service. Oh, and he lost his security clearance for three years. Yep, three years. As near as I can tell, that means that sometime in 2008, a man who stole highly classified documents from the National Archives will actually be eligible to get his security clearance back. What a great country, huh?
Now he's advising the Clinton campaign. Perhaps he's advising them on how double-standards work in Washington. I recall another legal case recently in which Scooter Libby was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for lying to investigators in the investigation over the alleged "outing" of Valerie Plame. The Democrats and the media spun that case for all they were worth to try to build the perception that Libby, working on behalf of people higher up in the Bush administration, had "outed" Plame in retaliation for her husband's criticism of pre-war intelligence. But the fact is that very early on in the investigation, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald learned that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was actually the first to leak Plame's name to the media - but Fitzgerald continued to pursue other people until he finally caught Libby in what is known in the legal biz as a "process crime." The court never determined - or even allowed any evidence - about whether Libby had actually violated the Intelligence Identites Protection Act, which prohibits revealing the identities of secret agents. Personally, I'm still scratching my head over (1) why Fitzgerald never brought any charges against Armitage, who actually committed the act that the whole investigation was supposed to be about, and (2) why Fitzgerald kept the investigation going when he already knew whodunit.
Scooter Libby: 2 1/2 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for what could have simply been a bad memory about who said what to whom and when, when the prosecutor already knew that he wasn't guilty of the crime the investigation was allegedly about. Sandy Berger: two years probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $50,000 fine for stealing and destroying highly classified documents from the National Archives. Somehow that doesn't add up to me.
The documents in question, by the way, were the "after action" reports on the thwarting of the "millennium bombing" plot of 1999/2000 - reports which some have claimed are highly critical of the counterterrorism efforts of the administration that at the time was being run by the husband of the candidate Sandy Berger is now advising. Heck, maybe he does have some valuable and welcome input, along the lines of, "Here's how not to do it, Mrs. Clinton."
I think there is a lesson to be learned here, though (besides the obvious one, I mean): If you're ever questioned under oath about exactly when you said or did something, regardless of how confident you are in your memory, the correct answer is, "I don't recall, counselor." Thanks for listening.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Short Attention Span Theater - Part II
Greetings from the Left Coast! In Part I of Short Attention Span Theater, we talked about how some Democrats, particularly those running for President, were counting on us to forget the positions they had taken in the past and believe that what they're telling us now is what they've truly always believed. Well, today we're going to play a little game. I'm going to give you some quotations, and we'll see if you can guess who said what. After you've had a chance to read them, I'll give you the answers. Ready? Here we go:
Quote #1
“I was convinced that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons. There was some disparity in the information I had about how far along he was in that process. I didn’t rely on George Bush for that. And I personally think there’s some dishonesty in suggesting that members of the United States Senate relied on George Bush for that information, because I don’t think it’s true. It’s great politics. But it’s not the truth. I’ve just heard people say, I can’t even tell you who, I’ve just heard people say, ‘Well, you know, George Bush - misled us.’ You know, it’s just— I was there, it’s not what happened. I was on the Intelligence Committee, so I got direct information from the intelligence community. And then I had a series of meetings with former Clinton Administration people. And they were all saying the same thing. Everything I was hearing in the Intelligence Committee was the same thing I was hearing from these guys. And there was nary a dissenting voice."
Quote #2
"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Quote #3
"The lesson of the 20th century is, and we've learned through harsh experience, the only answer to aggression and outlaw behavior is firmness. He [Saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."
Quote #4
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Quote #5
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Quote #6
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Quote #7
"We know that he [Saddam Hussein] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Quote #8
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Quote #9
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Quote #10
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Quote #11
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Quote #12
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Quote #13
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.“
Quote #14
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Quote #15
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Quote #16
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Quote #17
"I think we have to acknowledge what's gone on in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion."
How many did you guess? Want a hint? Would you believe that every single quote was from a prominent Democrat? No, really. Here's the breakdown:
Quote #1 - Senator John Edwards in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker, January, 2007
Quote #2 - Madeleine Albright, then President Clinton's Secretary of State, in remarks at Ohio State University, February, 1998.
Quote #3 - Sandy Berger, then President Clinton's National Security Advisor, who appeared with Secretary Albright at Ohio State in 1998.
Quote #4 - Letter to President Clinton dated October 9, 1998, signed by (among others) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry.
Quote #5 - Representative Nancy Pelosi, December, 1998.
Quote #6 - Senator Carl Levin, September, 2002
Quotes #7 & 8 - Al Gore, September, 2002
Quote #9 - Senator Edward Kennedy, September, 2002
Quote #10 - Senator Robert Byrd, October, 2002
Quote #11 - Senator John Kerry, October, 2002
Quote #12 - Senator Jay Rockefeller, October, 2002 (at the time, he was Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee)
Quote #13 - Representative Henry Waxman, October, 2002
Quote #14 - Senator Hillary Clinton, October, 2002
Quote #15 - Senator Bob Graham, December, 2002
Quote #16 - Senator John Kerry, January, 2003
Quote #17 - Senator Harry Reid (yes, that Harry Reid), September, 2002
Yep, every single one of these quotes was uttered by a Democrat. Many are the same Democrats who, today, are saying that President Bush "misled" us into war. They were fooled. The intelligence was cooked. But remember the very first quote by John Edwards? These people were members of the Congress of the United States. They had access to whatever intelligence reports and personnel they needed to satisfy themselves on the issues. Claiming that they were somehow fooled just isn't credible. Particularly if you buy into their other contention that George W. Bush is an idiot. (If he was able to fool that many smart people, he certainly can't be an idiot! Or if he did, they certainly can't be very smart people!) And how are we to explain the fact that they were taking the same positions way back during the Clinton Presidency? Was the Clinton administration guilty of the same deceit?
Let's be intellectually honest for a change. The Democrats would love nothing more than to find some reason to impeach President Bush. If there was a shred of evidence that he had lied or twisted the intelligence, articles of impeachment would have been brought so fast it would have made John Kerry's change of heart (between January, 2003, and Presidential Campaign time) seem positively glacial. The bipartisan (that means there were Democrats on it, folks) Senate Intelligence Committee report of 2004 stated that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities." Not being satisfied with that report, another bipartisan commission was formed, the Robb-Silberman Commission. In its March, 2005, report, it found "no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs...Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."
So "Bush lied" is itself one of the biggest lies in circulation out there. Look up "lie" in the dictionary of your choice, and you'll find that it means deliberately saying something you know is not true. Everyone believed Iraq had WMDs. Our intelligence service believed it, and so did the British, the Russians, the Germans, and even the French. Heck, we found out after the fact that Hussein's own generals thought he had them!
The fact is, we don't know what happened to the WMDs. We know he had them. We know he used them, both during his war with Iran and against the Kurds in his own country. And we know that they weren't in Iraq when we got there - or, if they are, they're hidden really well. They could have been, as some believe, smuggled across the border into Syria - God knows Saddam had plenty of notice that we were coming before we got there. In case you missed it, there was an explosion in the Syrian city of Aleppo last July. Jane's Defense Weekly reported in its September 26th, 2007, issue that the explosion had been caused by a rocket fuel accident at a plant where scud missles were being fitted with chemical warheads. Now there's also evidence that Iran has been providing Syria with the raw materials necessary to manufacture mustard gas and Sarin (a nerve gas) - but the fact is we don't know for sure whether they're making it from material they got from Iran or from Saddam's old stockpiles. And the reason we don't know for sure what happened to the WMDs is that Saddam wouldn't tell us. If he had opened up and let the inspectors do their jobs instead of trying to block and harrass them at every turn, he would still be in power, happily feeding people feet first into wood chippers and letting his sons rape newlyweds and torture the national soccer team when they lost.
Ever since they lost the 2004 Presidential election, the Democrats have been trying to convince the American people that we were "misled" into war, and it was all the Republicans' fault. Bad, bad Republicans. They tricked the poor Democrats. Oh, if they could only take back their votes authorizing the war! (Well, OK, that last sentence is true.) But I think it's pretty clear who the liars are. And that's another reason why, as I said earlier, I cannot imagine myself ever again voting for a Democrat.
I do, however, commend John Edwards for finally coming clean on the subject - he seemed content to let the lies go by unchallenged when he was John Kerry's running mate, but "better late than never," as the old saying goes. The fact is, one person who has been consistently telling the truth all along is George W. Bush. He said exactly what he was going to do. He said exactly why he was going to do it. And he's done exactly what he said he would do. And he's continuing to do it in spite of what it has cost him politically. More on that later. Thanks for listening.
Quote #1
“I was convinced that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons. There was some disparity in the information I had about how far along he was in that process. I didn’t rely on George Bush for that. And I personally think there’s some dishonesty in suggesting that members of the United States Senate relied on George Bush for that information, because I don’t think it’s true. It’s great politics. But it’s not the truth. I’ve just heard people say, I can’t even tell you who, I’ve just heard people say, ‘Well, you know, George Bush - misled us.’ You know, it’s just— I was there, it’s not what happened. I was on the Intelligence Committee, so I got direct information from the intelligence community. And then I had a series of meetings with former Clinton Administration people. And they were all saying the same thing. Everything I was hearing in the Intelligence Committee was the same thing I was hearing from these guys. And there was nary a dissenting voice."
Quote #2
"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Quote #3
"The lesson of the 20th century is, and we've learned through harsh experience, the only answer to aggression and outlaw behavior is firmness. He [Saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."
Quote #4
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Quote #5
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Quote #6
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Quote #7
"We know that he [Saddam Hussein] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Quote #8
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Quote #9
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Quote #10
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Quote #11
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Quote #12
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Quote #13
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.“
Quote #14
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Quote #15
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Quote #16
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Quote #17
"I think we have to acknowledge what's gone on in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion."
How many did you guess? Want a hint? Would you believe that every single quote was from a prominent Democrat? No, really. Here's the breakdown:
Quote #1 - Senator John Edwards in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker, January, 2007
Quote #2 - Madeleine Albright, then President Clinton's Secretary of State, in remarks at Ohio State University, February, 1998.
Quote #3 - Sandy Berger, then President Clinton's National Security Advisor, who appeared with Secretary Albright at Ohio State in 1998.
Quote #4 - Letter to President Clinton dated October 9, 1998, signed by (among others) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry.
Quote #5 - Representative Nancy Pelosi, December, 1998.
Quote #6 - Senator Carl Levin, September, 2002
Quotes #7 & 8 - Al Gore, September, 2002
Quote #9 - Senator Edward Kennedy, September, 2002
Quote #10 - Senator Robert Byrd, October, 2002
Quote #11 - Senator John Kerry, October, 2002
Quote #12 - Senator Jay Rockefeller, October, 2002 (at the time, he was Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee)
Quote #13 - Representative Henry Waxman, October, 2002
Quote #14 - Senator Hillary Clinton, October, 2002
Quote #15 - Senator Bob Graham, December, 2002
Quote #16 - Senator John Kerry, January, 2003
Quote #17 - Senator Harry Reid (yes, that Harry Reid), September, 2002
Yep, every single one of these quotes was uttered by a Democrat. Many are the same Democrats who, today, are saying that President Bush "misled" us into war. They were fooled. The intelligence was cooked. But remember the very first quote by John Edwards? These people were members of the Congress of the United States. They had access to whatever intelligence reports and personnel they needed to satisfy themselves on the issues. Claiming that they were somehow fooled just isn't credible. Particularly if you buy into their other contention that George W. Bush is an idiot. (If he was able to fool that many smart people, he certainly can't be an idiot! Or if he did, they certainly can't be very smart people!) And how are we to explain the fact that they were taking the same positions way back during the Clinton Presidency? Was the Clinton administration guilty of the same deceit?
Let's be intellectually honest for a change. The Democrats would love nothing more than to find some reason to impeach President Bush. If there was a shred of evidence that he had lied or twisted the intelligence, articles of impeachment would have been brought so fast it would have made John Kerry's change of heart (between January, 2003, and Presidential Campaign time) seem positively glacial. The bipartisan (that means there were Democrats on it, folks) Senate Intelligence Committee report of 2004 stated that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities." Not being satisfied with that report, another bipartisan commission was formed, the Robb-Silberman Commission. In its March, 2005, report, it found "no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs...Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."
So "Bush lied" is itself one of the biggest lies in circulation out there. Look up "lie" in the dictionary of your choice, and you'll find that it means deliberately saying something you know is not true. Everyone believed Iraq had WMDs. Our intelligence service believed it, and so did the British, the Russians, the Germans, and even the French. Heck, we found out after the fact that Hussein's own generals thought he had them!
The fact is, we don't know what happened to the WMDs. We know he had them. We know he used them, both during his war with Iran and against the Kurds in his own country. And we know that they weren't in Iraq when we got there - or, if they are, they're hidden really well. They could have been, as some believe, smuggled across the border into Syria - God knows Saddam had plenty of notice that we were coming before we got there. In case you missed it, there was an explosion in the Syrian city of Aleppo last July. Jane's Defense Weekly reported in its September 26th, 2007, issue that the explosion had been caused by a rocket fuel accident at a plant where scud missles were being fitted with chemical warheads. Now there's also evidence that Iran has been providing Syria with the raw materials necessary to manufacture mustard gas and Sarin (a nerve gas) - but the fact is we don't know for sure whether they're making it from material they got from Iran or from Saddam's old stockpiles. And the reason we don't know for sure what happened to the WMDs is that Saddam wouldn't tell us. If he had opened up and let the inspectors do their jobs instead of trying to block and harrass them at every turn, he would still be in power, happily feeding people feet first into wood chippers and letting his sons rape newlyweds and torture the national soccer team when they lost.
Ever since they lost the 2004 Presidential election, the Democrats have been trying to convince the American people that we were "misled" into war, and it was all the Republicans' fault. Bad, bad Republicans. They tricked the poor Democrats. Oh, if they could only take back their votes authorizing the war! (Well, OK, that last sentence is true.) But I think it's pretty clear who the liars are. And that's another reason why, as I said earlier, I cannot imagine myself ever again voting for a Democrat.
I do, however, commend John Edwards for finally coming clean on the subject - he seemed content to let the lies go by unchallenged when he was John Kerry's running mate, but "better late than never," as the old saying goes. The fact is, one person who has been consistently telling the truth all along is George W. Bush. He said exactly what he was going to do. He said exactly why he was going to do it. And he's done exactly what he said he would do. And he's continuing to do it in spite of what it has cost him politically. More on that later. Thanks for listening.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The Phony Phony Soldier Controversy
Greetings from the Left Coast! I was going to go back and cite more examples of how the Democrats alienated me to the point where I can't imagine ever voting for them again. Turns out I don't have to go back very far - they reminded me again just this week.
In case you've been out of touch and haven't heard, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went to the floor of the U.S. Senate on Monday, October 1, to accuse Rush Limbaugh of attacking U.S. troops who oppose the war by referring to them as "phony soldiers." He called on the rest of the Senate to sign onto a letter he had drafted to Mark Mays, the CEO of Clear Channel, which handles the syndication of Limbaugh's show, asking Mays to publicly repudiate the comments and to ask Limbaugh to apologize for them. If you want to read Senator Reid's statement, you can find the full text of the statement, and the letter, here.
Ultimately 41 Senators (all Democrats, of course) signed the letter. Wait a minute - don't the Democrat's hold a majority in the Senate? Yep - but only 41 of them were willing to sign the letter. The rest of them tiptoed up to the cliff, peeked over the edge, and decided not to jump.
So - let's look at who the Senators were who were so diligently supporting the troops against the dastardly insinuations of Rush Limbaugh. The letter was originated by Harry "this war is lost" Reid, who, by the way, voted against the resolution to condemn MoveOn's "General Betray Us" ad. It was signed by Senator Chuck Schumer - who assured us that the violence in Anbar Province was decreasing in spite of our soldiers' presence, not because of it - and who also voted against the resolution to condemn the ad. Senator Hillary Clinton, who also voted against condemning the ad, signed the letter. Senator Ted Kennedy, who also voted against condemning the ad, signed the letter. Starting to see a pattern here? Senator John Kerry, who shot himself in the foot (figuratively, this time) during his Presidential campaign by quipping that young people needed to stay in school or they might wake up and find themselves in Iraq, signed the letter. If you want a full list of all 41 Senators who signed the letter, you can find it here. I'll let you do the rest of the research to see just how many of the 41 who thought the "phony soldiers" comment was simply beyond the pale didn't think that the Senate should condemn the "General Betray Us" ad.
Now, aside from the rather astounding spectacle of the Senate Majority Leader of the United States wasting the taxpayers' time and money denouncing a radio talk show host, the allegation is absurd on its face. Anyone who has actually listened to Rush Limbaugh knows that there is no public figure in the nation today, with the possible exception of President Bush himself, who has been more consistently supportive of our troops and their mission than Rush Limbaugh. It is clear from the transcript of the broadcast in question, and the context of the remarks, that Limbaugh was referring to soldiers (or alleged soldiers) who come forward with outrageous claims, are used by the anti-war movement to try to stir up more opposition to the war, but whose claims later turn out to be false.
The day before, Limbaugh had broadcast a segment on Jessie MacBeth, who did just that. (More on him in a minute.) ABC News had also just run a segment on "Operation Stolen Valor," a federal investigation of scam artists who posed as military heros to bilk the government of disability and medical benefits. (As I write this, the video of this segment is still available on the Web, here, under the headline, "Phony War Vets.") You can read the press release from the United States Attorney's Office of Western Washington, which talks about several specific cases from Operation Stolen Valor, which uncovered over $1.4 Million in fraudulent payments, right here. So there has been quite a buzz lately about phony soldiers, and unless Senator Reid has suddenly developed the amazing ability to read minds, it seems a bit far-fetched to take this phrase out of context and claim that Limbaugh was referring to genuine solders and veterans who happen to oppose the war. Almost as far-fetched as the concept of Harry Reid as a staunch defender of our troops.
Jessie MacBeth is a particularly vile example of a phony soldier. He popped up in Tacoma, WA, in early 2006, claiming to have been an Army Ranger who served in Iraq. Among other things, he claimed to have killed more than 200 people, many at close range, some as they prayed in a mosque. "They would actually feel the hot muzzle of my rifle on their forehead," he said in one video interview, "We would burn their bodies...hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." He claimed to have been awarded a Purple Heart, and to have been discharged because he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. If you want to know more about his claims of atrocities, just do an Internet search on his name.
This video, and his comments, were not just used in this country - they were broadcast across the Arab world, where they were no doubt used as a recruiting tool by Al Qaeda and other groups to inflame the passions of people who are trying to kill our genuine soldiers who, whether they agree with the President or not, are honorably attempting to carry out their mission. But none of it was true. MacBeth washed out after six weeks of basic training. He was never an Army Ranger. He was never in Iraq. He never killed anyone. He never witnessed the atrocities he claimed to have seen and helped to perpetrate. In June of this year he was convicted of filing a bogus claim for VA benefits that included a falsified military-discharge form. You can read the article in the Seattle Times here.
Once the lies were exposed, the anti-war crowd took down the videos and stopped distributing them. Funny, though, but I don't remember anyone apologizing for the episode. And, internationally, the damage was done. Somehow I doubt that Al Jazeera was interested in publishing a retraction.
There have been phony soldiers around for a long time. Heck, one of the guys who was arrested in Operation Stolen Valor was an 83-year-old who falsely claimed to have been shot down while a pilot in World War II. Korean War, Vietnam War, you name it, we've had scammers who made false claims of military service to defraud the government - and by "the government," by the way, I mean you and me. The government doesn't have any money of its own, all it has is ours. But here's what makes events like the Jessie MacBeth episode so insidious: The liberals in this country are so eager to get anything that they can use to discredit George Bush and his policies that when something comes along that fits their preconceived notions, they rush to embrace it without bothering to find out whether it's actually true. It confirms what they already believe, so it must be true. That's what cost Dan Rather his job at CBS News. And that's what made an anti-war poster boy out of phony soldier Jessie MacBeth.
By the way, Mark Mays wrote a very respectful letter back to Harry Reid. You might want to read it, too. You can find it here. He was a lot nicer than I would have been in his place. What I'd like to know from Senator Reid and the forty other Democrats who signed his letter is this: If you're going to waste our time and money publicly attacking someone for being disrespectful to our troops, why don't you direct your ire at someone who slandered every honorable man and woman serving in our military and whose lies were used to inflame our enemies and probably contributed directly to additional U.S. casualties? Someone like, oh, I don't know, Jessie MacBeth?
Thanks for listening.
P.S.: To our own Senator Patty Murray of Washington, who was one of the 41 signatories: you should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you've been out of touch and haven't heard, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went to the floor of the U.S. Senate on Monday, October 1, to accuse Rush Limbaugh of attacking U.S. troops who oppose the war by referring to them as "phony soldiers." He called on the rest of the Senate to sign onto a letter he had drafted to Mark Mays, the CEO of Clear Channel, which handles the syndication of Limbaugh's show, asking Mays to publicly repudiate the comments and to ask Limbaugh to apologize for them. If you want to read Senator Reid's statement, you can find the full text of the statement, and the letter, here.
Ultimately 41 Senators (all Democrats, of course) signed the letter. Wait a minute - don't the Democrat's hold a majority in the Senate? Yep - but only 41 of them were willing to sign the letter. The rest of them tiptoed up to the cliff, peeked over the edge, and decided not to jump.
So - let's look at who the Senators were who were so diligently supporting the troops against the dastardly insinuations of Rush Limbaugh. The letter was originated by Harry "this war is lost" Reid, who, by the way, voted against the resolution to condemn MoveOn's "General Betray Us" ad. It was signed by Senator Chuck Schumer - who assured us that the violence in Anbar Province was decreasing in spite of our soldiers' presence, not because of it - and who also voted against the resolution to condemn the ad. Senator Hillary Clinton, who also voted against condemning the ad, signed the letter. Senator Ted Kennedy, who also voted against condemning the ad, signed the letter. Starting to see a pattern here? Senator John Kerry, who shot himself in the foot (figuratively, this time) during his Presidential campaign by quipping that young people needed to stay in school or they might wake up and find themselves in Iraq, signed the letter. If you want a full list of all 41 Senators who signed the letter, you can find it here. I'll let you do the rest of the research to see just how many of the 41 who thought the "phony soldiers" comment was simply beyond the pale didn't think that the Senate should condemn the "General Betray Us" ad.
Now, aside from the rather astounding spectacle of the Senate Majority Leader of the United States wasting the taxpayers' time and money denouncing a radio talk show host, the allegation is absurd on its face. Anyone who has actually listened to Rush Limbaugh knows that there is no public figure in the nation today, with the possible exception of President Bush himself, who has been more consistently supportive of our troops and their mission than Rush Limbaugh. It is clear from the transcript of the broadcast in question, and the context of the remarks, that Limbaugh was referring to soldiers (or alleged soldiers) who come forward with outrageous claims, are used by the anti-war movement to try to stir up more opposition to the war, but whose claims later turn out to be false.
The day before, Limbaugh had broadcast a segment on Jessie MacBeth, who did just that. (More on him in a minute.) ABC News had also just run a segment on "Operation Stolen Valor," a federal investigation of scam artists who posed as military heros to bilk the government of disability and medical benefits. (As I write this, the video of this segment is still available on the Web, here, under the headline, "Phony War Vets.") You can read the press release from the United States Attorney's Office of Western Washington, which talks about several specific cases from Operation Stolen Valor, which uncovered over $1.4 Million in fraudulent payments, right here. So there has been quite a buzz lately about phony soldiers, and unless Senator Reid has suddenly developed the amazing ability to read minds, it seems a bit far-fetched to take this phrase out of context and claim that Limbaugh was referring to genuine solders and veterans who happen to oppose the war. Almost as far-fetched as the concept of Harry Reid as a staunch defender of our troops.
Jessie MacBeth is a particularly vile example of a phony soldier. He popped up in Tacoma, WA, in early 2006, claiming to have been an Army Ranger who served in Iraq. Among other things, he claimed to have killed more than 200 people, many at close range, some as they prayed in a mosque. "They would actually feel the hot muzzle of my rifle on their forehead," he said in one video interview, "We would burn their bodies...hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." He claimed to have been awarded a Purple Heart, and to have been discharged because he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. If you want to know more about his claims of atrocities, just do an Internet search on his name.
This video, and his comments, were not just used in this country - they were broadcast across the Arab world, where they were no doubt used as a recruiting tool by Al Qaeda and other groups to inflame the passions of people who are trying to kill our genuine soldiers who, whether they agree with the President or not, are honorably attempting to carry out their mission. But none of it was true. MacBeth washed out after six weeks of basic training. He was never an Army Ranger. He was never in Iraq. He never killed anyone. He never witnessed the atrocities he claimed to have seen and helped to perpetrate. In June of this year he was convicted of filing a bogus claim for VA benefits that included a falsified military-discharge form. You can read the article in the Seattle Times here.
Once the lies were exposed, the anti-war crowd took down the videos and stopped distributing them. Funny, though, but I don't remember anyone apologizing for the episode. And, internationally, the damage was done. Somehow I doubt that Al Jazeera was interested in publishing a retraction.
There have been phony soldiers around for a long time. Heck, one of the guys who was arrested in Operation Stolen Valor was an 83-year-old who falsely claimed to have been shot down while a pilot in World War II. Korean War, Vietnam War, you name it, we've had scammers who made false claims of military service to defraud the government - and by "the government," by the way, I mean you and me. The government doesn't have any money of its own, all it has is ours. But here's what makes events like the Jessie MacBeth episode so insidious: The liberals in this country are so eager to get anything that they can use to discredit George Bush and his policies that when something comes along that fits their preconceived notions, they rush to embrace it without bothering to find out whether it's actually true. It confirms what they already believe, so it must be true. That's what cost Dan Rather his job at CBS News. And that's what made an anti-war poster boy out of phony soldier Jessie MacBeth.
By the way, Mark Mays wrote a very respectful letter back to Harry Reid. You might want to read it, too. You can find it here. He was a lot nicer than I would have been in his place. What I'd like to know from Senator Reid and the forty other Democrats who signed his letter is this: If you're going to waste our time and money publicly attacking someone for being disrespectful to our troops, why don't you direct your ire at someone who slandered every honorable man and woman serving in our military and whose lies were used to inflame our enemies and probably contributed directly to additional U.S. casualties? Someone like, oh, I don't know, Jessie MacBeth?
Thanks for listening.
P.S.: To our own Senator Patty Murray of Washington, who was one of the 41 signatories: you should be ashamed of yourself.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
There's Good News - But You Gotta Look For It!
Greetings from the Left Coast! I saw an amazing article in the Everett Herald this morning. It was an Associated Press article headlined "Deaths in Iraq Plummet." The opening sentence said, and I quote, "The number of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed in the war fell in September to levels not seen in more than a year." It was, in fact, the lowest number, in both categories, since July, 2006. The number of Iraqi civilian, police, and military deaths was 50% lower than August.
Isn't that interesting? We have 30,000 more troops in the region, many of them deployed to what had been the hotbeds of insurgency, and the number of both American and Iraqi deaths is down! Now, on the face of things, one might think that maybe there is some correlation there. Fortunately, thanks to that brilliant military strategist Senator Chuck Schumer, we know that the violence has gone down "despite the surge, not because of the surge." (See earlier blog entry entitled "General Issues.") Boy, glad you told us that, Senator, or we might have actually thought that the troops were succeeding in their mission.
Now being the curious sort of person that I am, I decided to search some other local papers to see if they carried this news. I no longer subscribe to the Seattle Times - I got tired of its editorial bias. But I did search their Web site. I did find an article that apparently ran in yesterday's Times. The one-sentence first paragraph does say that the US military deaths were the lowest since July, 2006. The article then went on to describe various military actions that took place, then segued into a discussion of how Iraqi politians were criticizing the nonbinding U.S. Senate resolution that called for essentially partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions. The article spent eight paragraphs discussing that issue, and concluded with the observation that, "Nevertheless, ethnic and sectarian turmoil have snarled hopes of negotiating such measures..." One sentence on the drop in military deaths, eight paragraphs on an issue that was totally unrelated to the headline, no mention at all of the dramatic decrease in Iraqi deaths. Concluding paragraph obviously intended to convey the hopelessness of the situation. Hmmm....
How about the Seattle Post-Intelligencer? Boy, I really had to search for this one. I finally found it buried in an article that was headlined "Britain to pull 1,000 troops from Iraq." The article begins, and I quote, "Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced Tuesday that he was slashing the remaining British contingent in Iraq by nearly 20 percent." It goes on to discuss how U.S. military officials are "concerned that the reduced British presence in the south could open security gaps along key supply and transit routes to Kuwait." Way down in the article, second paragraph from the end, it says, "The U.S. military toll for September was at least 65, the lowest since July, 2006..." So, let me see, Britain is slashing their troop levels, the U.S. is concerned about it, the "beleaguered Iraqi leader" says they will be able to pick up the slack, but the head of the Basra security committee said that the departure of British forces from that city "had a negative effect on security," and, oh, by the way, U.S. military deaths were the lowest since July, 2006. Hmmm...
This, boys and girls, is called "spin," and it's one reason why the circulation numbers of lots and lots of newspapers continue to plummet. Don't ever let anyone tell you that a newspaper's editorial bias doesn't affect how they report the news. It does.
A Pew Research paper published back in 2004 stated that only 7% of journalists in national publications, and only 12% of journalists in local publications, described themselves as politically conservative. 34% of national journalists, and 23% of local journalists, described themselves as liberals. The rest believed they were moderate. By contrast, 33% of the general public described themselves as conservatives, and only 20% as liberals. So, in case it wasn't already obvious by the way the news gets reported, the survey confirms that conservative Americans are seriously underrepresented in the media - particularly at the national level - and liberal Americans are overrepresented. If we were talking about racial composition rather than political viewpoint, this would be decried as an unacceptable situation that must be remedied, probably through government-mandated quotas.
More than 75% of both national and local journalists believe it is a bad thing for a news organization to have a "decidedly ideological point of view" in their news coverage, yet more than 40% of both groups said that journalists too often did let their ideological views show in their reporting. And here's a really interesting statistic: When asked whether they could think of a news organization that was especially liberal or especially conservative, two-thirds of the conservative journalists answered yes to both questions. When liberal journalists were asked the same thing, almost 80% of them could think of one that was especially conservative (Fox News got the top honor there), but only 25% of them could think of one that was especially liberal. So three-quarters of the liberal journalists couldn't think of a single news organization that was especially liberal!
This would tend to support the position Bernard Goldberg articulated in his excellent (and highly recommended by yours truly) 2003 book Bias - the liberals in the media honestly believe that they represent mainstream America. When they claim that they're not biased, they're not, in their own minds, lying. They really believe it's true. They tend to move in the same small circle of friends and acquaintances who all believe the same way they do, and they reinforce one another's world view. They're convinced that they're mainstream, and truly don't understand why the rest of America doesn't agree.
All I can say is thank God they don't have the stranglehold on news reporting that they had a generation ago. Today, the truth is there to be found, if you're willing to look for it. Thanks for listening.
Isn't that interesting? We have 30,000 more troops in the region, many of them deployed to what had been the hotbeds of insurgency, and the number of both American and Iraqi deaths is down! Now, on the face of things, one might think that maybe there is some correlation there. Fortunately, thanks to that brilliant military strategist Senator Chuck Schumer, we know that the violence has gone down "despite the surge, not because of the surge." (See earlier blog entry entitled "General Issues.") Boy, glad you told us that, Senator, or we might have actually thought that the troops were succeeding in their mission.
Now being the curious sort of person that I am, I decided to search some other local papers to see if they carried this news. I no longer subscribe to the Seattle Times - I got tired of its editorial bias. But I did search their Web site. I did find an article that apparently ran in yesterday's Times. The one-sentence first paragraph does say that the US military deaths were the lowest since July, 2006. The article then went on to describe various military actions that took place, then segued into a discussion of how Iraqi politians were criticizing the nonbinding U.S. Senate resolution that called for essentially partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions. The article spent eight paragraphs discussing that issue, and concluded with the observation that, "Nevertheless, ethnic and sectarian turmoil have snarled hopes of negotiating such measures..." One sentence on the drop in military deaths, eight paragraphs on an issue that was totally unrelated to the headline, no mention at all of the dramatic decrease in Iraqi deaths. Concluding paragraph obviously intended to convey the hopelessness of the situation. Hmmm....
How about the Seattle Post-Intelligencer? Boy, I really had to search for this one. I finally found it buried in an article that was headlined "Britain to pull 1,000 troops from Iraq." The article begins, and I quote, "Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced Tuesday that he was slashing the remaining British contingent in Iraq by nearly 20 percent." It goes on to discuss how U.S. military officials are "concerned that the reduced British presence in the south could open security gaps along key supply and transit routes to Kuwait." Way down in the article, second paragraph from the end, it says, "The U.S. military toll for September was at least 65, the lowest since July, 2006..." So, let me see, Britain is slashing their troop levels, the U.S. is concerned about it, the "beleaguered Iraqi leader" says they will be able to pick up the slack, but the head of the Basra security committee said that the departure of British forces from that city "had a negative effect on security," and, oh, by the way, U.S. military deaths were the lowest since July, 2006. Hmmm...
This, boys and girls, is called "spin," and it's one reason why the circulation numbers of lots and lots of newspapers continue to plummet. Don't ever let anyone tell you that a newspaper's editorial bias doesn't affect how they report the news. It does.
A Pew Research paper published back in 2004 stated that only 7% of journalists in national publications, and only 12% of journalists in local publications, described themselves as politically conservative. 34% of national journalists, and 23% of local journalists, described themselves as liberals. The rest believed they were moderate. By contrast, 33% of the general public described themselves as conservatives, and only 20% as liberals. So, in case it wasn't already obvious by the way the news gets reported, the survey confirms that conservative Americans are seriously underrepresented in the media - particularly at the national level - and liberal Americans are overrepresented. If we were talking about racial composition rather than political viewpoint, this would be decried as an unacceptable situation that must be remedied, probably through government-mandated quotas.
More than 75% of both national and local journalists believe it is a bad thing for a news organization to have a "decidedly ideological point of view" in their news coverage, yet more than 40% of both groups said that journalists too often did let their ideological views show in their reporting. And here's a really interesting statistic: When asked whether they could think of a news organization that was especially liberal or especially conservative, two-thirds of the conservative journalists answered yes to both questions. When liberal journalists were asked the same thing, almost 80% of them could think of one that was especially conservative (Fox News got the top honor there), but only 25% of them could think of one that was especially liberal. So three-quarters of the liberal journalists couldn't think of a single news organization that was especially liberal!
This would tend to support the position Bernard Goldberg articulated in his excellent (and highly recommended by yours truly) 2003 book Bias - the liberals in the media honestly believe that they represent mainstream America. When they claim that they're not biased, they're not, in their own minds, lying. They really believe it's true. They tend to move in the same small circle of friends and acquaintances who all believe the same way they do, and they reinforce one another's world view. They're convinced that they're mainstream, and truly don't understand why the rest of America doesn't agree.
All I can say is thank God they don't have the stranglehold on news reporting that they had a generation ago. Today, the truth is there to be found, if you're willing to look for it. Thanks for listening.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
