This site has been maintained as an archive and not an active blog. That may changing soon, as I no longer think I am preaching to the choir. For all those who visited through the years, my thanks to you, and well wishes for your endeavors in your current and future projects.
May God richly bless you all.
JMT
To hear the media and any number of politicians and climatologists who have come on board with the concept, the world is facing a crisis because of the onset of global warming. Not so fast, say paleontologists, who are coming out to show otherwise.
Back in May I did a piece regarding the changing of weather and temperature patterns around the globe and the back and forth teeter-tottering that climatologists have been putting the world through since the 1970's, as well as other agenda driven science. Before that there was my article showing how 400 scientists around the world disagreed with the man-made global warming concept, and of course there is the report by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, entitled 35 Inconvenient Truths, The Errors in Al Gore's Movie.
Needless to say, I'm a huge skeptic of the whole man-made global warming hysteria, and there is a reason for it. Other than my required science courses for my education degree in college (I chose geology, and there's a reason for that), I have always had a fascination and more than a passing layman's interest in natural science, geology, paleontology, and archeology. According to my geology professor, when I was considering switching majors to geology (a move I still regret not making, actually), most of his converts into geology and paleontology come from the history disciplines. Needless to say, I've more than just the passing knowledge of how research is done than just to listen to the news or read an article in a newspaper or magazine. There are procedures that are followed, and there is data that is collected, correlated, researched, so on and so forth.
Any respectable scientist will tell you that there is nothing that is ever conclusively proven, there are only hypotheses that become accepted as fact due to sufficient evidence supporting them. Despite the hysteria created by Al Gore, Hollywood, and the main stream media, there is more sound and verifiable evidence to support that we are NOT facing a crisis because of man-made global warming, and that overall, the planet is actually going back into a cooling pattern, as discussed by Dennis T. Avery, co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, in an interview with Right Wing News.
Over the course of the interview, Avery answers questions and discusses the effects of solar radiation upon the Earth, how that geological records are obtained and studied, and what evidence is obtained from those records from the very planet itself, including taking samples from ice shelves. He also discusses in the interview how that, despite the claims of the alarmists, geological evidence shows that the current warming cycle that the planet is coming out of, which peaked somewhere in the 1940's, is much milder than other warming periods the Earth has gone through in the history of mankind, stating, "The...warming before our last ice age was much warmer than anything we've had since. We had a warming that peaked 9000 years ago, another warming that peaked 5000 years ago. Both were warmer than today. Probably the Roman warming and the medieval warming were both warmer than today -- and we've had 8 warmings of the earth since the last Ice Age."
It wasn't so long ago that people were all up in arms protesting the war in Iraq and the staggering loss of lives that our troops have suffered (significantly less than any prior engagement that has lasted half this long). Where is the news from Iraq now?
Don Henley had a song out several years back (yes, I know I'm dating myself by using this reference, but it's applicable) concerning the media and how they approach the news. Aptly enough, the name of the song was "Dirty Laundry." In the song there are several situations that are mentioned, such as a plane crash, an operation in which the camera crew wants to film the procedure and the question is asked, "Is the head dead yet?"
In no instance is this attitude of "if it bleeds, it leads" more evident than in the coverage of the war in Iraq. When there was a significant amount of gunfire and conflict, the main stream couldn't get enough of it, to the point of fabricating stories along the way about American troops shooting up places that they hadn't opened fire on (note if you will in clicking the link that the bullets the woman is holding have never been fired, they are still in their shell casing), or about 20 headless bodies being found in a mass grave.
I can't help but wonder if the movie 8 Heads in a Duffel Bag inspired that story.
So I'm guessing that building schools, hospitals, and an infrastructure, along with police operations to mop up the pockets of insurgents that are starting to dwindle, aren't newsworthy now?
I'm guessing it isn't bleeding enough.
Getting a story on the evening news isn’t easy for any correspondent. And for reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is especially hard, according to Lara Logan, the chief foreign correspondent for CBS News. So she has devised a solution when she is talking to the network.
“Generally what I say is, ‘I’m holding the armor-piercing R.P.G.,’ ” she said last week in an appearance on “The Daily Show,” referring to the initials for rocket-propelled grenade. “ ‘It’s aimed at the bureau chief, and if you don’t put my story on the air, I’m going to pull the trigger.’ ”
Ms. Logan let a sly just-kidding smile sneak through as she spoke, but her point was serious. Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever.
“If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,” Ms. Logan said.
It drives many of us into a state of brain damaged myopia as well
I wonder if a reporter causing a bureau chief to bleed would be bloody enough? It would create a moral dilemma for the dinosaur media, though.
"To bleed or not to bleed, that is the question."
It's a matter of money, and the dinosaur media isn't going to continue investing money in a region that doesn't have enough blood and guts coming out of it to fill the time slots for the evening news. Inside sources have indicated, on the condition of anonymity, that they are concerned that the "big three" would withdraw their organizations from Baghdad after the November elections.
It's at this point that one has to wonder why the November elections are the deciding point for the withdrawal of major media encampment in Iraq. Could this say something to a propaganda factor that the big three have been running against the current Presidential administration of George. W. Bush? It is HIS war, after all, if some pundits are to be believed. How much credibility is lost in close examination of the media and their coverage of Iraq when closely examining how much negative attention has been given to the war during the time period when our armed forces were in the process of bringing stability to the region, and the subsequent lack of information coming out of the area now that the situation is becoming more manageable. Does this show a concerted effort by the main stream media to try to discredit and bring down a sitting Republican President?
Or does there need to be more bleeding involved for them to continue that effort?
As to Lara Logan and others who have come forth, it will be interesting to see what turns their careers take in coming weeks and months.
For years the main stream media has pushed the notion of how the Palestinians have been treated harshly by Israel, often blaming Israel as the instigator in situations where the IDF has retaliated for actions against Israel. Now the situation has changed.
To say that there has been unrest in the Middle East for the past several decades would be as much of an understatement as to say that the Grand Canyon is a big ditch. We have discussed, in the past, such issues as the Balfour agreement, the wars between Israel and her neighbors, the very right of Israel to exist as a nation, and the plight of the "Palestinians." The main stream media has invested much time and energy driving the "blame Israel for all of it" bus that now, as thinks have taken a strong, radical, dramatic change in the Middle East, the detractors of Israel are remaining strangely silent, not reporting on the current situation faced by Palestinians.
Could it be that there is nothing that screams of media bias more than the silence of the media over the peril being faced by Palestinians as they find themselves in the middle of fighting between other Arabs?
Intense fighting broke out in Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp on 20 May between Fatah al-Islam, an Islamist armed group that had recently moved into the camp, and Lebanese armed forces. According to reports, 168 Lebanese soldiers, 42 civilians and 220 Fatah al-Islam members were killed before the army gained control of the camp on 2 September.
During the clashes, both sides put civilians at risk. Fatah al-Islam established armed positions in the camp and withdrew to them after attacking an army base. The army carried out heavy and possibly indiscriminate artillery shelling of the camp. The camp was largely destroyed. It appeared that after the army took control there was widespread looting, burning and vandalism of vacated homes and property. In December, the Prime Minister wrote to Amnesty International to say that the army was investigating the reports, noting that one finding was that the army had burned some homes to rid them of a poison spread by Fatah al-Islam.
Most of some 30,000 Palestinian refugees displaced from Nahr al-Bared relocated to Beddaawi refugee camp. They were allowed to return to Nahr al-Bared from October but the majority remained displaced at the end of the year. The camp remained off-limits to the media and local human rights organizations.
On May 10th, Johnny Simpson reported that al-Qaeda had declared war on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Fighting, which has been going on for over a year now, has spilled into Palestinian settlements, so far leaving several civilians injured or dead as a result of clashes between hostile factions. The civilian populace isnt safe when there is no fighting, however, as reports of abuse have become all to common place in Arab on Arab violence.
Scores of Palestinians were threatened, humiliated and abused by soldiers, often after being stopped at army checkpoints. Abuses included being stripped, being forced to lie on the road, and being beaten, kicked, hit with rifle butts, insulted and humiliated. In several cases individuals were reportedly whipped, given electric shocks and sexually abused.
Some 200 people were arrested and remained detained on account of their suspected involvement with Fatah al-Islam. Tens of these were reportedly charged with terrorism offences that can carry the death penalty. There were reports that some detainees were tortured or otherwise ill-treated.
So where are the news networks as these things are happening? The United Nations has done their usual with regards to incidents in the region where Israel is not involved for taking the blame: absolutely nothing (although they have passed a resolution for the investigation of the death of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others in 2005). Other than a few more local sources and outlets, there is very little being discussed about the Palestinian situation, now that it's not something involving Israel.
What does this say of the main stream media that they pick and choose which side to take in a situation, rather than objectively reporting the news? What does it say for us, as a society, that we allow ourselves to be so easily influenced as the many, by the few, rather than examining situations ourselves to come up with our own conclusions?
Opinion pieces, like those who write them, are just that. The opinions of those who write them. They, like all other forms of media, have their place and purpose, and as such, in setting forth to reach an audience, should do so responsibly. When reporting the news becomes so overwhelmingly influenced by opinion, however, there is no objectivity, there is no integrity of an unbiased reflection of events.
This is no new trend for the media. "Yellow Journalism" has it's roots in the late 1890's, during circulation battles between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal, both of whom are blamed or credited, depending on your point of view, for drawing the United States into the Spanish-American War. Print media, and later on radio and television media, have continued to fall into a consistent pattern of employing such journalistic "tactics" in order to sell papers or garner ratings from listeners and viewers. In the process, someone always suffers the consequences for being the target of biased reporting.
This time, however, the law of unintended consequences factors in. The Palestinian refugees, a product of political and social manipulation and wrangling as well as yellow journalism, have been used for years as a thorn in the side of Israel, with Arab nations not allowing these people to come across their borders into their nations. As recently as this past spring, Palestinians breached a wall separating their villages from Egypt, opening a route for refugees to travel to markets in Egypt to shop and do business. The Egyptian response was to agree with Israel that Palestinian authorities reseal the wall, as a chaotic situation had ensued with the masses of people flooding into Egypt, some returning with weapons to their villages.
But this time, as violence continues to shift and wind it's way across the Middle East, the media is turning it's attention elsewhere, unable to blame Israel for the danger in which Palestinian civilians find themselves facing. The clear message sent by the silence of the media? "If Israel isn't to blame, it ain't news."
Sometimes the hypocrisy, the double standards, are so glaringly obvious, and yet they remain ignored.
Not here, not when I see them.
The latest "outrage" comes from Georgia, where a Marietta bar owner, Mike Norman, is seeing protests outside his Mulligan's Food and Spirits over a tee shirt that he's been selling since April.
The protesters gathered Tuesday outside Mulligan's Food and Spirits, saying the shirts with the slogan about the Democratic presidential candidate are racist.
This is what they're so bent out of shape about...
Ok. So the guy thinks Obama looks like Curious George. What of it? This is just ONE example of where the hypocrisy comes in:
Where is the outrage over President Bush being depicted as Curious George? Where have the protests been?
Hypocrisy and double standards.
Rick Blake, a spokesman for publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which owns Curious George, said Wednesday that the company didn't authorize the use of the character's image, but hasn't been in touch with anybody selling or manufacturing the shirts.
"We find it offensive and obviously utterly out of keeping with the value Curious George represents," Blake said. "We're monitoring the situation and weighing our options with respect to legal action."
HEED MY WORDS. If Houghton Mifflin Harcourt pursues legal action against Norman, they're also going to have to go after each and every site out there comparing the President to Curious George as well. If not, then they are guilty of witch hunting one individual in the name of liberal bias.
No rant this time, just an example, a clear, cut and dried example of how hypocritical people can be when it's a democrat who is being made fun of instead of a republican.
I wonder why? In MY mind and MY way of thinking, I would have thought that this would have been EXACTLY the sort of thing Ms. would have wanted the young ladies of America to see.
Women in positions of leadership. Women out front taking charge. Women in key governmental positions. And Ms. doesn't see it as something positive that they can put in their magazine?
Needless to say, this decision is causing quite a bit of stir, NEGATIVE stir, probably more than RUNNING the ad would have caused.
The message, I take it, is pretty clear — "Feminists should like the way women are treated in Israeli life," coupled with the pretty strong implication of "... and look how favorably it compares on this score to Israel's enemies." Yet this is what the American Jewish Congress reports happened when the ad was submitted to Ms. magazine:
When Director of AJCongress’ Commission for Women’s Empowerment Harriet Kurlander tried to place the ad, she was told that publishing the ad “will set off a firestorm” and that “there are very strong opinions” on the subject -− the subject presumably being whether or not one can say anything positive about Israel. Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal failed to respond to a signed-for certified letter with a copy of the ad as well as numerous calls by Mr. Gordon over a period of weeks.
A Ms. Magazine representative, Susie Gilligan, whom the Ms. Magazine masthead lists under the publisher’s office, told Ms. Kurlander that the magazine “would love to have an ad from you on women’s empowerment, or reproductive freedom, but not on this.” Ms. Gilligan failed to elaborate what “this” is....
Reproductive freedom. Does that translate into abortion? More:
Ms. Magazine has a long record of publishing advertisements rallying readers to support reproductive choice; opposing the Religious Right; highlighting the fragility of the pro-Roe v. Wade majority on the Supreme Court; charging that “Pat Robertson and his Religious Right cohorts don’t like individual freedom;” announcing support for the “struggle for freedom and human rights;” opposing the Bush administration’s campaign to fill federal courts with judges who “will reverse decades of progress on reproductive rights and privacy, civil rights, religious liberty, environmental protection and so much more;” as well as accusing the Bush administration of being “bent on rewarding big corporations and the rich, turning back the clock on women’s rights and civil rights, and promoting a U.S. empire abroad.”
“This flagship publication of the American women’s empowerment movement publishes ads that are controversial in the general culture but not so among its readership,” Ms. Kurlander said. “Obviously, Ms. believes our ad would enflame a significant portion of their readers.”
So it's a POLITICAL thing, then. HMMMMMMMMMM. More:
Mr. Gordon added, “What really amazes me is that just recently, in their Winter 2007 issue, Ms. ran a cover story with a picture of Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi with the heading in big letters: “This is What a Speaker Looks Like.” While Ms. has every reason to be proud of Speaker Pelosi and her accomplishments, as are we, the only discernable difference between Speaker Pelosi and Speaker Itzik apparently is that Speaker Pelosi is not Israeli.”
Well ISN'T that special. Nancy Pelosi can grace Ms. magazine and get big letters for her plastic molded face as she stands before Congress and fails to demonstrate any sort of leadership at all, but the women of Israel who are in similar positions somehow DON'T measure up to the HIGH standards of Speaker Pelosi and Ms. magazine.
Maybe they should have included something along THIS line and Ms. would have found it more acceptable:
“What other conclusion can we reach,” asked Richard Gordon, President of AJCongress, “except that the publishers − and if the publishers are right, a significant number of Ms. Magazine readers − are so hostile to Israel that they do not even want to see an ad that says something positive about Israel?”
Wake Up America's very own Spree has also jumped into the fray. The following is her email to Ms. magazine in regards to their blatantly anti-semitic stand:
This story is becoming hot and this email as well the original story and PDF will be linked at my blog as dozens of others, as well as already being linked to around the blogosphere and the media, is about to become even hotter for MS Magazine.
Your refusal to print this ad, stinks of Anti-Semitism and as a Jewish American woman, I will be printing all your contact information for other Americans that despise Anti-Semitism to be contacting you about your apparent disregard for a legitimate ad with no reasonable explaination other than "there are very strong opinions" on the subject".
What subject praytell? The fact that three high powered positions in Israel are held by women?
Is that not something YOU are a proponent of?
Others already speaking on this subject and we have all JUST gotten started are:
Mine is being written now if you would like your response included, I will add it in, if it comes after I hit publish, i will consider adding it as an update.
Respectfully,
Susan Duclos Owner and Editor of Wake Up America Blog.
Want to have a say of your own to Ms. Magazine? Well, folks, I'm here to help with that. The following links can take you to Ms. or will allow you to email them yourself and LET THEM KNOW that this isn't going unnoticed. If you wish for us to include your comments to them here on our site, feel free to email with a forward of your message, and if they respond to you, forward us that and we'll post it as an update as well, or leave them as comments to the article.
Queries/ Ms . magazine 433 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills , CA 90212
Standing on the side of Justice,
Once and Always, an American Fighting Man
[Update] One of our contributors, Roger Gardner, has also written a letter to Ms Magazine as well as doing his own piece on Radarsite and Faultline USA:
Dear Ms. Kort -- Being a 70 year old male, I have not had occasion to read Ms. lately, although I have certainly heard of it. Today, however, I heard about Ms. in a somewhat different and quite disturbing context. I read several reports in well-known and respected conservative blogs about your refusal to run the Israeli ad in question. Your excuses for refusing to publish this pro-Israeli women's ad come off at best as disingenuous, at worst as downright deceptive.
Never before in recent history have women's rights been so blatantly and brutally suppressed and trampled on as they are being right this moment in the Arab/Muslim cultures of the Middle East. The only exception to this pervasive onslaught against women's equality is the tiny brave state of Israel. If ever women's advocates, such as Ms. and other such publications and organizations, who purport to be fighting for the rights of women, were needed in this great civilizational battle the time is now.
But where are you? Where are those powerful voices of protest that were so vocal and pervasive all during the sixties and seventies? Where are all those multitudinous angry demonstrations and those media-savvy bra-burnings now? Where are you now that we, the world, need you most?
The battle rages on and you are AWOL. And your silence is deafening. Now more than ever, when American women need to speak up on behalf of their downtrodden Muslim sisters around the world -- and even here in the United States -- not only do you choose to remain silent on the sidelines, you actually race to support the cause of our enemies. This kind of self-centered pettiness is totally incomprehensible to me -- and to many other rational and disgusted citizens across this country.
Is your political hatred of Bush and his foreign policies so great, so blinding, that it even causes you to turn against those very women for whom you claim to be speaking? How can you justify this cowardly betrayal of your constituents and your country?
If there is any hope at all of bringing about some sea change in that brutal male-dominant culture of the Middle East, it lies with Israel, and with your Muslim sisters and in their ability to stand up and fight against this wicked Islamic oppression. But they need your help. They need the help and support of women's orgs like yours. Yet, for the sake of making some misguided liberal political statements -- or perhaps expressing some not-so-subtle anti-semitism -- you have dishonored your mission and given aid and comfort to our enemies.
Have you no shame?
I intend to publish this email in the form of an article which I will then disseminate to as many websites as possible. If you reply with something other than your previous meaningless obfuscations, I will be happy to publish your response as well.
Sincerely, Roger W. Gardner Radarsite http://radarsite.blogspot.com/
[Update] IHBAUM, via email sent me this, which was CC'd to mkort@msmagazine.com as well.
Roger Gardner's letter says it all. I can't conceive of a more disingenuous, and therefore reprehensible, action on the part of this publication. Hypocrisy, Ms. is thy name -- how the mighty have fallen.
Continue to leave your letters in the comment section or forward them to me and I will continue to add them as updates. .
400 Scientists Dispute Man Made Global Warming Claims
Let me start with what caught my eye first.
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)
52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, stating that there was a "consensus" that determined that global warming was man made and yet 400 scientists disagree.
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.
It gets worse, or better, depending on your beliefs.
Any time anyone affiliated with the government tells you "the debate is over," hang on to your wallet. Taxes (i.e, theft of your money by your government) are about to be imposed.
One of the first things they teach you in science classes is that there is no such thing as something being proven as a fact. There are only hypotheses that have been tested and stand as the basis of what we know unless and until they are disproved.
What we DO know, from the data and evidence collected, is what I have been harping on and saying and spouting for longer ago than I wish to remember. The Earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. There are times when it is WARMER (such as when T-Rex and the gang roamed the Earth) and times when it is COOLER (this would be the time period that Ug the caveman lived with his wife Ugli, and he spent the day hunting woolly mammoths so that she could cook a mammoth steak for dinner and make woolly mammoth clothes for the Uglings).
Warm periods...and COLD periods...
Right now we're between two cold periods, so that would lead us where, by using logic as our guide in developing a rational argument that isn't based on political hype and media hysteria? Yes, Johnny, that would lead us into a WARM period.
I theorized long ago while sitting in philosophy class in college (and probably concentrating more on the hot little brunette behind me than on the lecture, but that's just my mind rambling so let's just pretend I didn't mention that) that everything in the Universe operates on frequency ranges (as a telecommunications contractor, frequency is something I deal with from time to time). It hit me like a thunderbolt from a clear blue sky. My professor could tell I had had an epiphany, evidently, because he looked at me with this rather odd smile on his face that said "you've just stumbled on to one of the great truths of the Universe." I'm still waiting for someone with a bit more mathematical skill (OK, a lot more mathematical skill) to validate my hypothesis, but that was the thought that sprang into my mind.
Let me explain in a little more coherent way. Suppose you drew a straight line and then superimposed a sine wave over the line. It would look something like this:
Now, at the top of the wave, you could put "hot period," and at the bottom part of the wave, you could put "cold period," adjust the wavelength to represent the correct number of years, and voila, you have a frequency chart showing the Earth going through cycles of global warming and global cooling. As you look over the number of CENTURIES involved in the global cycles of warming and cooling, it would be logical to conclude that Man has made about as much difference on the temperature of Planet Earth as dinosaur farts did. In fact, I'm not the only one who thinks this way:
The bottom line is this: If you want to do something real about Global Warming, let's begin with removing politics from science. We can't continue to demand that scientists produce something by specific deadlines in order to justify their research. When we put that kind of political pressure on our scientists, we wind up with information that is geared toward telling the politicians what they want to hear rather than allowing the data and research to bear the true fruit of what the evidence shows. We wind up with scam artists like Al Gore preaching gloom and doom to us in order to have us buy "carbon credits" so that he can make a profit from it when people go out and buy trees from the companies he and other doomsday prophets are invested in.
Is this a politically correct way of thinking? No. It's a realistic way of thinking. Political correctness is an indoctrination into thinking like a group of people want you to think, rather than using your own rational mind to come to a conclusion based upon fact rather than feeling. If you think I'm wrong about how politics influences science, I'm going to leave you with this little reminder from Newsweek about global COOLING from 1975:
The Cooling World Newsweek, April 28, 1975
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
Feel free to use your own minds to think about this, rationally. Just remember, as you do, that 400 scientists have come out denouncing Al Gore's 52 scientists and their "Inconvenient Truth."
I stopped watching CNN after they showed one of our soldiers being taken out by an enemy sniper. Through the years, they have done little more than piss me off anyway, so it was no big loss for my news hunting to do without the Caliphate News Network.
Now they're trying to call into question Fred Thompson's NRA and gun support because he doesn't have a current hunting license. Well big deal, I don't either, and haven't for several years. It's not that I don't like hunting, don't advocate it, and don't wish that I had the TIME for it, I simply DON'T have the time with my work schedule or I would be out there as much as I could doing the hunting and fishing I love to do and look forward to doing one of these days when I retire.
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) — Fred Thompson has made a point of visiting gun shops and gun shows while hitting the campaign trail in New Hampshire and South Carolina, usually with camera crews in tow.
But Thompson said Wednesday he does not have a hunting license, nor has be been hunting recently.
"It's been too long, it's been too long," Thompson told CNN Wednesday.
Asked if he has a hunting license, Thompson said he currently does not.
"At the present time I do not, but I have been hunting plenty of times. I usually hunt birds and used to have my own skeet shoot, and I got a chance to shoot and practice a lot back then."
Thompson, an ardent defender of Second Amendment rights, was appearing in Columbia to pick up the endorsement of South Carolina Citizens for Life.
(...)
Thompson said Wednesday he wished he had more time to go hunting.
"It seems like other things seem to be getting in its way," he said.
I can certainly relate to that sentiment, all too well.
It's like this. The Second Amendment is about the right to bear arms, NOT the right to hunt. It's a stretch on the part of CNN to try to make this into something that it isn't, and, as usual, highly irresponsible of them to make this attempt.
One more instance of CNN trying to twist things. Seems to me they're afraid of Fred Thompson...
I'm done with calling CNN the Communist News Network, as many of you already know. I've begun to refer to them instead as the Caliphate News Network. Time after time they slant their stories so as not to show Jihadists in a bad light. Time after time they show us how they are so ready and willing to embrace Islam.
I wonder how many of their cutesy little anchorettes would be allowed to continue broadcasting in their mini skirts and plunging necklines under Sharia law? Not that I mind mini skirts and plunging necklines, mind you, but um, err, you get my point, I think.
Five years ago two Muslim extremists went on a killing spree in the DC area. CNN today is ignoring the fact that these two knuckleheads are Muslims. In doing so, they disregard motive of behavior, and they disregard and disrespect the victims of these two animals.
The Following is Kellie Adams, one of the victims of these two animals.
BURN that image into your minds. Radical Islam, and their friends at CNN. Our prayers and thoughts are with you, Kellie, and we wish you a speedy continued recovery.
It's been five years since John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo terrorized Washington D.C. for three weeks by randomly shooting people, killing 10 and wounding three. The news at the time avoided all mention of anything Islamic including calling Muhammad by his old name before Islamic conversion, John Allen Williams.
Investor's Business Daily reveals how CNN's one hour special, "The Minds of the D.C. Snipers," still makes no mention of the Islam connection despite the following evidence:
"The jailhouse drawings of the younger sniper, Malvo, tell it all:
• One sketch of Osama bin Laden exalts him as a "Servant of Allah."
• A self-portrait of him and Muhammad is captioned: "We will kill them all. Jihad . . . Allah Akbar!"
• A sketch of the burning Twin Towers has as its caption: "America did this. You were warned."
(...)
• The White House is drawn in cross hairs, surrounded by missiles, with the warning: "Sep. 11 we will ensure will look like a picnic to you," and "you will bleed to death little by little."
• Another warning reads: "Islam. We will Resist. We will conquer. We will win."
Somehow CNN's "special investigations unit" managed to overlook this pile of courtroom evidence. It showed only one drawing — a self portrait of Malvo shedding tears.
CNN also omitted the fact that while Muhammad and Malvo were in county jail awaiting trial, their lawyers insisted they be fed Islamic "halal" meals, such as veggie burgers, instead of ham sandwiches. They also got copies of the Quran."
And CNN doesn't see this as relevant to the story.
Take a GOOD LONG LOOK at Kellie Adams again in that video.
You decide if the Islam factor is relevant.
Call CNN and their advertisers, let them know what you think. I think wua has a link somewhere that lists their numbers. (hint hint)
Once and Always, an American Fighting Man
[Update-] Ok, I do not need a shovel to the head to get the hint. Communist News Network Part #2 has a list, provided by Tony Sutherland to the CNN advertisers, all with links to email them at. [End Update]
We hear so much rumbling from some of our retired generals about the war in Iraq. The dinosaur media is quick to put a camera and microphone in front of them and give them a world wide audience so that they can condemn our policies and criticize our war efforts. Hat tip to Bill Shannon for forwarding us in email to the website the views of one of our retired generals who isn't aspiring to political ambitions.
I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective.
Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger that just Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our kids and grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond.
Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century.
They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can never be totally defeated.
Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.
There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really going to support and commit to that support. That answer is simple. They both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win. We are not sending very good signals in that direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.
The other six, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift. Now, let's look more closely.
Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran. We have scared Gaddafi's pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear weapons, so I don't think Libya is now a threat. North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran. Syria is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner, or later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran, and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.
In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost three years.
My job there was to observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada. If any shot was threatening to either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only minutes to respond. I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day long, for months. They killed hundreds of thousand of their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply.
At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we could not see an immediate threat. Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them.
They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, the United States. They are convinced they will win, because the United States is so divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are pulling out.
Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran, which they will obviously do if we pull out? It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. Oil will not be made available to this country at any price. I personally would vote for any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program---declare a goal to bring this country to total energy independence in a decade.
Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the "good-old-days".
The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.
One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war---if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age. I urge you to read the book "END GAME" by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney. They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country during the war on terror. You can find that book by going to the internet through Stand-up America at www.ospreyradio.us or www.rightalk. com.
On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their anti-war claims.
You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should stop here, as that level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is right up there with alien abductions and high altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped produced those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you we were not seeding the atmosphere. The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it deserves the consequences...
And he has SO MUCH MORE to say about the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, all the way back to the Nixon administration; it's an incredible read, and gives the insights of an incredible mind.
The bottom line is this: he's right on target with the things that he says, and he backs up the opinions of many Middle East analysts and observers. By his own admission he has nothing to gain politically by stating his observations, and his credentials are more than sufficient to back up what he says.
This is the difference between a general who is a warrior and one who is a politician. George Patton, at the end of World War II, had the foresight to realize that the United States needed to deal with the Soviet Union RIGHT THEN, but the politicians would have none of it. The result of not listening to one of our warriors was decades of "Cold War" between the U.S.A and the U.S.S.R.
Who will we listen to this time? The warriors, or the politicians?
It's been sort of a surreal week for news. The typical stupidity of the Beltway notwithstanding (nothing that goes on in DC surprises me any more), it's been sort of a strange week for news, and the weekend has kicked off with a gala of even more weirdness.
Definitely not normal news.
I suppose from time to time the dinosaur media and even the NEW media have to find things that are, for lack of a better word, different. The "different" for this past week, however, have the taintings of the ghost of Rod Serling to them...
Let's start with the dinosaur media itself. I used to like Charles Gibson; he came across as personable, likable, and someone you could actually sit down with in the morning and discuss the issues of the day over a cup of coffee. Perhaps that's why he had such staying power on Good Morning America. He really, really showed his true self this week, however, on World News Tonight:
According to a front page story in The Washington Post, “The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group.”
Wait -- isn’t that good news? As Charlie Gibson put it on ABC’s World News Tonight, “One item from Baghdad, today. The news is that there is no news. The police told us that to their knowledge, there were no major acts of violence. Attacks are down in Baghdad, and today, no bombings or roadside explosions were reported.”
Oh, come on, Post. Come on, ABC. You’re not trying hard enough. Any story can be bad news if you’re willing to dig deep enough.
Luckily for us, the Baghdad bureau of McClatchy Newspapers did just that. “A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months,” Jay Price and Qasim Zein reported. “That’s cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.”
You can almost hear the late Peter Jennings in the quote that has been covered up and not to be found but I and other people I know heard him say one night, "We did not mean to mislead you more than we had intended."
Moving right along.
Ernest Hemingway remains one of the best known authors of modern time. Tourists can still visit his mansion on Key West and see where he lived and wrote for more than a decade. Among the other things visitors can find while touring the grounds are the descendants of Hemingway's six toed cat Snowball. It would seem, however, that some people at the USDA have decided that they HAVE to step in on private property and make assertions:
By Laura Parker, USA TODAY Literary legend's six-toed legacies live on in Key West — much to the dismay of some. The fight over the felines has grown to include the USDA and the courts.
The legendary American novelist Ernest Hemingway lived in Key West for a decade in the 1930s, in a stone mansion on Whitehead Street with his wife, Pauline, and a six-toed cat named Snowball.
Hemingway divorced Pauline in 1939, but Snowball stayed on. Today, about 50 of Snowball's descendants roam the grounds, to the delight of many tourists who visit the Hemingway Home and Museum. But the cats won't be roaming much longer, if the federal government has its way.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has cited the museum for violating a 1966 federal animal welfare law, and has threatened to impose stiff fines or confiscate the cats if the Hemingway Home does not do more to control the felines. Department inspectors say that the museum must be licensed as an exhibitor of animals, and that the cats, which sometimes climb over the wall surrounding the grounds, must be confined to the property.
After initially moving to comply with the government's demands, the Hemingway Home now is fighting them. The dispute has festered into one of those big-government-vs.-the-little-guy showdowns that involves a growing cast of characters, including locals in Key West, members of Congress, the U.S. Department of the Interior and, last week, a federal judge.
In an effort to resolve the spat, the museum sued last July in federal court and asked a judge to determine whether the USDA has jurisdiction over the museum. On Dec. 18, U.S. District Court Judge K. Michael Moore dismissed the museum's suit, saying that it first should pursue remedies in administrative hearings and appeals.
Darby Halladay, a USDA spokesman, says the agency will schedule a hearing before an administrative law judge.
"There's always a possibility of confiscation," he says of the cats. "The likelihood of that occurring, I can't state. But that is a remedy."
The museum also could face thousands of dollars in fines.
Cara Higgins, the museum's attorney, says that the federal Animal Welfare Act, which sets care standards for animals in zoos and circus acts, should not apply to the Hemingway Home.
The cats "are born and raised and live their lives in Key West," she says. "They've been doing so for over 40 years. They're not sold, they're not distributed, they're not taken across state lines."
Neighbor's complaint
The dispute began when a USDA inspector showed up at the museum in October 2003 in response to a complaint about the cats.
Long negotiations and multiple inspections ensued. The USDA suggested several methods for containing the cats, including hiring a night watchman, adding an electrified wire to the top of the property's 6-foot stone wall, or adding to the stone wall, which Hemingway had built in 1937.
The museum countered that a wire could shock tourists as well as cats, and that altering the wall would put at risk the house's designation by the Interior Department as a National Historic Place.
At the height of the USDA's investigation of the museum, the agency rented a room in a guesthouse near the Hemingway property in order to videotape the cats.
In a report of one inspection, on Dec. 1, 2004, the USDA noted that "during the inspection, a cat was seen scaling the fence and leaving the property." Another report cited the death of a cat named Toby, which had been fatally struck by a car after leaving the property.
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican who represents Key West, wrote to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, calling for a compromise over the Hemingway cats. Ros-Lehtinen, noted that "this extraordinary museum serves as an essential bond to past and revered American culture."
The Hemingway Home flunked three inspections. When the USDA declined to grant it a license, the museum sued to try to avoid having to get a federal license.
The Hemingway Home is one of Key West's most-visited attractions. Although Hemingway wrote most of his novels in Key West, including To Have and Have Not and A Farewell to Arms, Higgins says many tourists come just to see the cats.
Key West is known as much for its cats as it is for its zany festivals and eccentric charm. Located 159 miles from Miami and 90 miles from Havana, it is the southernmost point in the continental USA. Cats arrived in Key West long ago with visiting sea captains, who employed them as shipboard rat catchers. Today, cats wander Key West.
The neighbor who complained about the Hemingway cats is Debbie Schultz, a former official at the local animal shelter who lives four doors away from the museum.
"I contacted the USDA," Schultz says. The museum "made it appear I am the villain, that I am out to undermine everything they stand for in cats, which is absurd. My whole thing is the cats need to be cared for properly."
Those interested in positions as cat herders should contact the office of Senator Hillary Clinton, who is rumored to have much experience with cat fights and cat herding...
Ahem.
Speaking of cat fights, who could have seen this one coming? Any Harry Potter fans in the audience? Of course there are, even I like the Potter movies. But you know, watching the movies, I frankly didn't catch something that must have been obvious to J. K. Rowling. I haven't read the books yet; my 17 year old son has all of them and now I may have to borrow them from him and do a little digging to see if there is anything that suggests what Rowling revealed this week to fans in New York:
There could hardly have been a bigger sensation if Russell Crowe, Rod Stewart or Sven-Goran Eriksson had come out of the closet. Millions of fans around the world were yesterday digesting the news that one of the main characters in the Harry Potter novels, Albus Dumbledore, is gay.
The revelation came from author JK Rowling during a question-and-answer session at New York's Carnegie Hall. It instantly hurtled around the internet and the world. News websites in China and Germany announced starkly: 'JK Rowling: "Dumbledore is gay".' One blogger wrote on a fansite: 'My head is spinning. Wow. One more reason to love gay men.'
After reading briefly from her mega-selling book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, on Friday night, Rowling took questions from an audience of 1,600 students. A 19-year-old from Colorado asked about the avuncular headmaster of Hogwarts School: 'Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?'
The author replied: 'My truthful answer to you...I always thought of Dumbledore as gay.' The audience reportedly fell silent - then erupted into prolonged applause.
Rowling, 42, continued: 'Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald [a bad wizard he defeated long ago], and that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent, but he met someone as brilliant as he was and, rather like Bellatrix, he was very drawn to this brilliant person and horribly, terribly let down by him.'
Can you say "making it up as you go along?" Interesting that Rowling waited until after finishing the series to make this "outing." I wonder if George Hamilton will play a "younger" Dumbledore. I can see it now, Dumbledore, the Gay Wand. Has a ring to it.
Speaking of goofy gay things, what about Ellen Degeneres and the the whole puppy adoption breakdown this week?
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The pooch at the center of the dog-adoption drama between Ellen DeGeneres and an animal rescue agency has found a new home. Iggy was placed with a new family earlier this week, a spokesman for the agency's owners said Friday.
"We're not revealing the family's identity to protect their privacy," attorney Keith A. Fink told The Associated Press. "The dog is fine."
The tug of war over the little dog named Iggy began after DeGeneres, who had initially adopted the terrier mix, gave the dog to her hairstylist after Iggy couldn't get along with her cats.
Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun, who own the nonprofit Mutts and Moms adoption agency, said DeGeneres violated her signed agreement, which called for Iggy to be returned if things didn't work out.
Iggy was removed from the hairstylist's home on Sunday during a confrontation that DeGeneres said left the woman's daughters in tears.
You know, she KNEW up front what the conditions were. Did she think that she was an exception because she's Ellen? Maybe she should have just built a four foot fence, like the following story discusses:
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) -- A congressman disputes the state's contention that it's worth $318,000 in federal money to keep turtles from becoming roadkill.
Installation is expected to begin this week on a 2-mile-long fence along both sides of U.S. 31 in Muskegon, in west-central Michigan. It is intended to prevent hundreds of turtles, some of them protected species, from being killed as they migrate to nesting sites along the Muskegon River, which the highway crosses.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., questions why the Michigan Department of Transportation did not consider using the money on other projects "more related to the movement of people and products."
"Serious times require a serious approach to the very real problems Michigan faces," Hoekstra said in a news release issued Wednesday.
The 4-foot-high chain-link fence has been planned for two years. State officials consider it a relatively inexpensive solution to a problem that affects traffic safety and the environment of rare turtle species.
The fence will cover a stretch of road that is Michigan's deadliest for turtles and one of the nation's worst for the reptiles, Tim Judge, manager of a Transportation Department service center in Muskegon, said Thursday.
Two state-protected species - the wood turtle and Blanding's turtle - are common traffic victims, as are snapper, painted, box and map turtles.
Department spokeswoman Dawn Garner didn't know whether any drivers swerving to avoid turtles have gotten into crashes, but said: "There is definitely the potential for improving the safety of motorists."
Yes, let's all watch out for those turtles jumping out in front of us as we drive along not suspecting that we're in danger of TURTLE ATTACKS. Such horrid criminals these turtles can be, catching drivers off guard and causing huge amounts of damage each year.
Speaking of criminals, our last piece comes from Japan, where those creative and ingenious Japanese police officers are trying to be like the Canadian Mounties, and always get their man:
TOKYO, Oct. 19 — On a narrow Tokyo street, near a beef bowl restaurant and a pachinko parlor, Aya Tsukioka demonstrated new clothing designs that she hopes will ease Japan’s growing fears of crime.
Deftly, Ms. Tsukioka, a 29-year-old experimental fashion designer, lifted a flap on her skirt to reveal a large sheet of cloth printed in bright red with a soft drink logo partly visible. By holding the sheet open and stepping to the side of the road, she showed how a woman walking alone could elude pursuers — by disguising herself as a vending machine.
The wearer hides behind the sheet, printed with an actual-size photo of a vending machine. Ms. Tsukioka’s clothing is still in development, but she already has several versions, including one that unfolds from a kimono and a deluxe model with four sides for more complete camouflaging.
Hat tip to Steve Gill for that one. His comment is that the Diet Coke one is more slimming...
Once and Always, a Still Highly Amused American Fighting Man
I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that the majority of the American public remember that today is the anniversary of the attack by jihadists on the U.S.S. Cole. I'm not even going to delude myself into thinking that the vast masses even know what the U.S.S. Cole is.
Yes, I can be that cynical, and if you think that's bad, you ain't seen NOTHIN yet, just keep coming back, I promise I can be much, much darker in my thinking.
I'm glad to see, however, that News Busters is carrying a rememberance to the Sailors of the Cole.
HOWEVER, all that having been said, I wish to say this.
To the families who lost members in the bombing of the Cole, God bless you, each and every one. We know your loss is great, and we thank you for the service of those members of your family.
I don't really think that it's healthy to get as mad as I do about things. Injustice, hypocrisy, blatant lies and personal attacks on those exercising their constitutional liberties really, really get my dander up.
We've heard much ado about the Fairness Doctrine over the past year or so. Fred Thompson speaks out against this intrusive governmental policy being implemented again:
High Praise in The American Thinker Fairness Doctrine Makes No Sense in Today’s World Posted on October 8th, 2007 By Fred in Individual Liberty, Commentaries
[NOTE: The American Spectator reports this chilling news:
Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”
“Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio,” says a House leadership source. “We don’t have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we’ll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail.”
This news about Democrats trampling on the First Amendment for political purposes ties into Fred’s latest commentary. –Sean]
Whether it’s the situation in Iraq, talking about the economy, or the culture, conservatives and like-minded people are putting up a fight on TV, radio and alternative forms of media, and challenging what Democrats and some in the mainstream media would like to set as conventional wisdom. So – big surprise – Democrats are crying foul and are literally trying to change the rules. The latest example of this is Democrat attempts to pull the Fairness Doctrine out of the dustbin of history.
The Fairness Doctrine is an artifact from the days when there were only a handful of television channels and radio stations on our dials. Then, there might have been something to the fear that somebody might get control of all the media outlets in an area — so equal time rules were put in place.
As television and radio stations increased, it became clear that the rule was a bust. Instead of protecting free speech, it imposed costs on broadcasters that killed political discussion entirely. Why run the risk of dealing with anything controversial and having the regulators and the lawyers come down on you? Instead of talking about issues, news directors used stopwatches to measure candidates’ airtime.
Finally, in 1987, the Federal Communications Commission ended the antiquated policy. Today, with more cable, satellite, and local access TV channels than anybody can keep track of — the equal time rule makes even less sense. Throw in the Internet, podcasts, and satellite radio, and it’s absurd.
(...)
Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can’t compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts — because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.
(...)
Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too – meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?
I'm not surprised, either. The left want nothing more than to shut down and shut up conservative commentators, conservative radio, and conservative blogging.
As seen on WUA earlier today how that CNN doesn't consider reporting good news from Iraq as being newsworthy, and how many people distrust the media. That's really great, guys, and it goes to show EXACTLY why we need the conservative outlets.
Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? This isn't a Fairness Doctrine, it's the inception of the Thought Police.
Government belongs to the PEOPLE, the people do NOT belong to the government.
Make America safe again, people. Fire the liberals in political office next election season. The LAST thing they want is to protect your individual rights afforded to you by the Constitution.
Water, water, every where, And all the boards did shrink ; Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink.
The very deep did rot : O Christ ! That ever this should be ! Yea, slimy things did crawl with legs Upon the slimy sea.
About, about, in reel and rout The death-fires danced at night ; The water, like a witch's oils, Burnt green, and blue and white.
(...)
Her lips were red, her looks were free, Her locks were yellow as gold : Her skin was as white as leprosy, The Night-mare LIFE-IN-DEATH was she, Who thicks man's blood with cold.
Is it there a reason that we aren't seeing a poll showing Rudy ahead of Hillary? Is there some sort of unspoken agreement between the dinosaur media outlets that they are keeping this from us? Hat tip to The Influence Peddler for their posting, Hillary Clinton: Albatross or Millstone, on a story that you AREN'T seeing in the dinosaur media...yet. I predict that after enough of us in the blog world start talking about it, it, like so many other stories that bloggers have broken in the past year or so, will soon be a major talking point by the reluctant Jurassic era outlets...
By Chris Cillizza And Shailagh Murray Sunday, September 23, 2007; Page A02
Conventional wisdom dictates that Democratic voters are thrilled with their choices for president, bursting at the seams to rally behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) or whoever gets the party's nod next year.
A recent survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, however, showed Clinton and Obama trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances.
The poll was conducted in August but has not been previously reported. It paints a "sobering picture" for Democrats, according to a memo by Lake and Daniel Gotoff that accompanies the poll report.
Giuliani takes 49 percent to Clinton's 39 percent, while the former mayor's lead over Obama is far smaller, 41 percent to 40 percent. "Despite Obama's relative advantage over Clinton, both candidates are significantly underperforming against the generic Democratic edge in the presidential and even against party identification," Lake and Gotoff wrote.
So.
Guliani ahead of Clinton by ten points, and the dino's aren't reporting it. It makes you wonder what, exactly, ARE they any good for any more? Kudo's to WAPO for being the first to carry it. I'm sure there were many, many tight sphincter muscles as the story went to press. I'll let ya'll decide why I would say that.
Personally, and I know there are those out there who don't agree with me, that's their right, but I'm with Fred. I've made no bones about that since BEFORE he was a candidate, even before he started "testing the waters."
For the main stream media to SIT on a story for over A MONTH is irresponsible journalism, in my book.
Ten points.
And if you take a look around at Democrats across the country, and listen to what they are saying, they ain't happy. They were counting on 2006 to be the year that everything changed for them. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. What has Congress actually DONE since the Democrats took the majority last election? They've renamed a few post offices, and put forth bill after bill that has been shot down like Mallards and Canada Honkers during duck season.
It's been the season of change for the Democrats, all right. It's been a real wake up call for the country exactly how deeply the party leadership is willing to go to shoot themselves in the foot. Wait, scratch that analogy, everyone knows that TRUE leftinistra's are pro gun control, so they wouldn't be shooting anything but dirty looks and the middle finger while they defecate on the American flag...
John Wayne wasn't a Southerner, but he had a firm grasp on the mindset of BEING from the south in some cases. "Talk low, talk slow, and don't talk too much."
In the generations following the Civil War (I'll refrain from calling it the War of Northern Aggression for this piece, but make no mistake about my feelings on the matter as both a Southerner AND a historian) the South has endured the hateful punishment of the Reconstruction era, repressive industrial practices that deliberately left the South agrarian during the turning of the last century up until the middle of the century, depictions of Southerners as uneducated, unsophisticated, and unintelligent by Hollywood (The Beverly Hillbillies and the more recent modern version of The Dukes of Hazard come to mind).
From Wikipedia (I know it's generally not considered a refereed source, but for general information, sometimes it's a great place to look for things):
The Culture of the Southern United States or Southern Culture is a subculture of the United States that has resulted from the blending of a heavy amount of rural Scot-Irish culture, the culture of African slaves, Native American culture, and to a lesser degree that of French and Spanish colonists. Southerners have a unique shared history, which includes remembrance of difficult times such as the institution of slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Great Depression, segregation and the Civil Rights Movement, and more recent events or tragedies such as Hurricane Katrina.
The South also hosts a vibrant African American subculture, a sense of rural isolation, and a strong regional identity. It has also developed its own customs, literature, musical styles (such as country music, bluegrass, southern gospel, rock and roll, blues and jazz), and cuisine. This unique cultural and historical blend has caused many scholars such as sociologist John Shelton Reed to speculate that Southerners are a separate ethnic group.
The largest group of Southerners are primarily the descendants of the Celtic immigrants who moved to the South in the 17th and 18th centuries. According to an 1860 census, "three-quarters of white Southerners had surnames that were Scottish, Irish or Welsh in origin." 250,000 settled in the USA between 1717 and 1770 alone. They were often called "crackers" [2] by English neighbors. As one wrote, "I should explain… what is meant by Crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascals on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, who often change their places of abode." Most had previously lived in Scotland, usually in the Lowlands and Scottish Border Country. The "Celtic Thesis" of Forrest McDonald and Grady McWhiney holds that they were basically Celtic (as opposed to Anglo-Saxon), and that all Celtic groups (Scots Irish, Scottish, Welsh and others) were warlike herdsmen, in contrast to the peaceful farmers who predominated in England. Author James Webb uses this thesis in his book Born Fighting to suggest that the character traits of the Scots-Irish, loyalty to kin, mistrust of governmental authority, and military readiness, "helped shape the American identity," and indeed, these features commonly seen in the South have long been woven into fabric of American society and policy.
The other primary population group in the South is made up of the African-American descendants of the slaves brought into the South. African-Americans comprise the United States' second-largest racial minority, accounting for 12.1 percent of the total population according to the 2000 census. Despite Jim Crow era outflow to the North (see Great Migration (African American)) the majority of the black population remains concentrated in the southern states, and have transmitted their foods, music (see "negro spirituals"), art, and charismatic brand of Christianity to white Southerners, and the rest of the nation.
There has been much criticism over the years by both Southerners and Northerners alike of the negative stereotypes of southerners (especially those of the Appalachian regions) depicted in the media and in the general attitudes of some people from other regions. Critics argue that in this age of "political correctness" and sensitivity (especially taught in American schools since the 1990's) that the people of the southern United States are today one of the few groups that can be openly and "safely" ridiculed and discriminated against[citation needed]. This is primarily due, critics point out, to other Americans' lack of knowledge of the region and because of hostile feelings and prejudices in response to the south's history of poor education (in some areas) and racial problems. Offensive terms such as "redneck" and "hillbilly" are often used to pervasively blanket the entire region.
It is this mindset that seems to have shrouded Fred Thompson during the first stages of what is likely to be his bid for the White House. Critics, especially Northern critics, have labeled him as "slow, unfocused, and gloomy." Is it gloomy to present the reality of things to the American people rather than doing the standard dance of rhetoric? I think not, and in Jonathan Martin's Fred: Sober and Serious, I find that I'm not alone in thinking so.
INDIANAPOLIS — Fred Thompson thinks the country faces a tough road ahead and he's not glossing over the problems we face. In fact, he's anxious to outline the daunting litany and appears to be basing his forthcoming campaign on the assumption that his party shares the same outlook.
In a 25-minute after-dinner speech to attendees of the Midwestern Republican Leadership Conference here, Thompson offered a stark assessment of what he described as America's perilous condition.
"I simply believe that on the present course that we're going to be a weaker, less prosperous, more divided nation than what we have been," Thompson told the crowd in a deep baritone that rarely strayed from an even tone. "I do not say that lightly, but I think it's the truth. And I think the American people are ready for the truth."
There are three major challenges, Thompson said, and none are being given appropriate attention or sufficient commitment. National security ("our country's in danger; it's going to be that way for a long time to come"), the economy ("we are doing steady damage to our economy, that if we don't do things better it's going to result in economic disaster for future generations") and the polarization, cynicism and incompetence gripping the capital ("in order to have leadership you got to have somebody who's going to follow; our people follow, but they don't have any confidence in what's being said or who's saying it").
And Thompson's tonic for these thorny matters?
Well, befitting his still not yet being a formal candidate he didn't have specific solutions. Instead he returned to what he calls "first principles."
"I don't think the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are outmoded documents," Thompson declared, finally giving the crowd something to clap about after the gloomy bill of particulars was laid out. Federalism or devolving power to the states would help, he said. Also, the rule of law, the market economy, respect for private property, free trade and competition came in for praise — hardly dangerous ground among conservative activists.
Perhaps recognizing that all his rhetoric was depressing a crowd that given him a loud and extended welcome, Thompson said it was very much possible for things to turn around. "We know how to do that, we've done it so many times before," he reminded.
We do know how, and yes, we have done it before.
In my mind, Fred Thompson's greatest opponent will not be Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama. The greatest challenge will be in fighting Southern stereotyping. Fortunately, there seem to be enough educated people stepping up to the plate from other sections of the country to help fight this.
And I think we can surpass it, and Fred Thompson can win the Presidency.
Just the thoughts of a modern Southerner (and fellow Tennessean) who also happens to be...
WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY By Michael Hirsh Newsweek Updated: 12:10 p.m. CT Aug 23, 2007
Aug. 23, 2007 - The Soviet Union was in its final days of existence when I visited Vietnam in late December of 1991. The cold war was about to end forever with the collapse of one of the two adversaries that had kept it going for 40-odd years. A lot had changed in Vietnam, too, I discovered during my trip. The coziness between Moscow and Hanoi, once comrades within the Soviet bloc, had curdled into mutual hatred. Throughout the country, but especially in the North, the Vietnamese had come to despise the large resident Russian population for its cheap spending habits and arrogance. Visiting Americans, by contrast, were welcomed with smiles (“Russians with dollars,” we were called.) On the day I visited the old U.S. Embassy in Saigon—the where some of those iconic photos symbolizing American defeat were taken—I discovered government workmen removing a plaque that once commemorated the North’s victory over the “U.S. imperialists.” In the waning days of that epochal year, 1991, the propaganda against American involvement in Southeast Asia was suddenly no longer politically correct. Hanoi’s new message: Yankee Come Back (and bring your investment dollars). Today Vietnam remains nominally communist, but Hanoi knows it is an ideological relic surrounded by Asian capitalist tigers, all of them U.S. allies or dependents (one reason Vietnam was so eager to have Bush visit last November: it wants to be part of that club). The cold war dominoes did fall—but the opposite way.
I'm sure all those killed after the fall of Saigon would love to read this happy happy report. I'm sure that all those out there who SERVED in the Nam are overjoyed to know that they went and served so that this analysis could be made. I'm sure that every GI who bought it in the Nam would be ecstatic to know what Michael Hirsh has to say about Vietnam today.
Vietnam was faced with a choice a few years back, not so long ago at all. Turn to capitalistic economics or die out. They chose not to die out. It wasn't because they suddenly love us, it's because they need our cash. Soviet Russia is no more.
