Tuesday, May 31, 2005
The Transnational Wing of the MSM
Today the New York Times published a story about a charter airline that does a lot of business with the CIA. I suspect it didn't contain any information that was subject to a government security clearance, but the piece definitely contains information of interest to, and probably of benefit to anti-American terrorists, whether al-Qaeda or some other breed.
The Times may be based in New York City, but its outlook has become much like CNN's -- they apparently don't have any allegiance to the United States or any other country, with the possible exception of Cuba, since they never seem to miss an opportunity to fawn over Dr. Castro and his cronies. Rather, there is a segment of the mainstream media, including but not limited to the NYT, CNN and the Los Angeles Times, that has become, in a way, a country unto itself. Their only allegiance is to the story, and if the story can be spun in such a way as to make the US look bad, so much the better.
I can't figure out why these organizations think this way. I have a lot of theories, including greed and political bias, but none of them satisfactorily explain why these "journalists" are assisting the bad guys against the one entity on the planet that is willing to expend blood and treasure to assure, among other things, the existence of a free press. One thing is certain -- they all believe to the core that despite their publishing information that aids and abets the terrorists, the United States will ultimately win the struggle. I say this because, if the likes of al-Qaeda were to win, there would no longer be any such thing as a free press, and the very reporters who are now writing stories like the one linked above would likely be among the first to be publicly beheaded on the pitcher's mound at Yankee Stadium.
(0) comments
The Times may be based in New York City, but its outlook has become much like CNN's -- they apparently don't have any allegiance to the United States or any other country, with the possible exception of Cuba, since they never seem to miss an opportunity to fawn over Dr. Castro and his cronies. Rather, there is a segment of the mainstream media, including but not limited to the NYT, CNN and the Los Angeles Times, that has become, in a way, a country unto itself. Their only allegiance is to the story, and if the story can be spun in such a way as to make the US look bad, so much the better.
I can't figure out why these organizations think this way. I have a lot of theories, including greed and political bias, but none of them satisfactorily explain why these "journalists" are assisting the bad guys against the one entity on the planet that is willing to expend blood and treasure to assure, among other things, the existence of a free press. One thing is certain -- they all believe to the core that despite their publishing information that aids and abets the terrorists, the United States will ultimately win the struggle. I say this because, if the likes of al-Qaeda were to win, there would no longer be any such thing as a free press, and the very reporters who are now writing stories like the one linked above would likely be among the first to be publicly beheaded on the pitcher's mound at Yankee Stadium.
Monday, May 16, 2005
A Pox on Thee, Newsweek!
By now, everyone who can either read or understand a TV news show (and cares to do so) has probably heard about how the weekly news rag Newsweek stepped in its own s--t. Once again, a member of the MSM has made me wish I had a subscription, so I could write an indignant letter to the editors and cancel it. Newsweek joins such (ahem) distinguished organizations as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and CBS on my list of undependable news sources.
The blogosphere is abuzz with commentary, and I can't add anything of substance to the comments that are already out there, so I will just link to a few that I found perceptive or illuminating: Glenn Reynolds, Jeff Jarvis, Powerline and Michelle Malkin. I think this excerpt from Jeff Jarvis' post says it all in a nutshell:: UPDATE: In The Times, Kit Seelye says that Newsweek is not retracting:
Update 20050516:0950PDT: BTW, Newsweek's "apology" isn't. Editor Mark Whitaker doesn't retract the item, and doesn't admit that their fact-checking sucked. He only "explains" how the story came to be and expresses "... regret that we got any part of our story wrong...."
Update 20050516:1409PDT: Fox News is reporting that Newsweek just retracted the story.
(0) comments
The blogosphere is abuzz with commentary, and I can't add anything of substance to the comments that are already out there, so I will just link to a few that I found perceptive or illuminating: Glenn Reynolds, Jeff Jarvis, Powerline and Michelle Malkin. I think this excerpt from Jeff Jarvis' post says it all in a nutshell:: UPDATE: In The Times, Kit Seelye says that Newsweek is not retracting:
But Mr. Whitaker said in an interview later: "We're not retracting anything. We don't know for certain what we got wrong."And neither do you know for certain what, if anything, you got right. That's the problem.
Update 20050516:0950PDT: BTW, Newsweek's "apology" isn't. Editor Mark Whitaker doesn't retract the item, and doesn't admit that their fact-checking sucked. He only "explains" how the story came to be and expresses "... regret that we got any part of our story wrong...."
Update 20050516:1409PDT: Fox News is reporting that Newsweek just retracted the story.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
What Is One To Make of This?
I'm at the grocery store today, waiting for my service deli order, and a couple of young women, one wearing black shorts and a T-shirt with a college sorority's name on it, walk up to the counter and place their order. The one wearing the T-shirt turns around and there, printed in big pink letters across her butt, are the words, "MAN of the HOUSE."
!!
Campus life today must be A LOT different from when I went to college.
(0) comments
!!
Campus life today must be A LOT different from when I went to college.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Full Tilt Bozo
After reading this post at Power Line and this one at Michelle Malkin, I fear that the asylum is now completely within the control of the inmates.
(0) comments
Deadly Pies?
Recent discussion at PowerLine Blog and elsewhere about how Ann Coulter is often treated when she speaks at colleges and universities reminded me that she was attacked by a pie-thrower a while back. At the time I kind of chuckled about the pie assaults on Coulter and others, but upon reflection, it isn't funny at all.
In these times of global terrorism, not always of the Islamofascist stripe, it's all too easy to obtain the recipes for building nuclear bombs, improvised explosive devices, illegal drugs and poisons from the Internet and elsewhere. Imagine if someone were to lace one of those pies with, say, ricin. I daresay that the victim of the pie assault would not die laughing.
If I were in charge of security at the event where the pie assault occurred, or if I were a bodyguard for the victim, I would take a pie in the face very seriously, indeed. In fact, I might, under some circumstances, be inclined to use deadly force to prevent the pie thrower from completing his or her mission. I hope it never comes to that, but folks, stranger things have happened, and what passes for political discourse these days went over the top a long time ago.
(0) comments
In these times of global terrorism, not always of the Islamofascist stripe, it's all too easy to obtain the recipes for building nuclear bombs, improvised explosive devices, illegal drugs and poisons from the Internet and elsewhere. Imagine if someone were to lace one of those pies with, say, ricin. I daresay that the victim of the pie assault would not die laughing.
If I were in charge of security at the event where the pie assault occurred, or if I were a bodyguard for the victim, I would take a pie in the face very seriously, indeed. In fact, I might, under some circumstances, be inclined to use deadly force to prevent the pie thrower from completing his or her mission. I hope it never comes to that, but folks, stranger things have happened, and what passes for political discourse these days went over the top a long time ago.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Schwarzenegger's Border Remark
Governor Ah-nold is taking a lot of heat from Hispanic group-identity types for his recent remark that the federal government should close/control the border with Mexico. The Governator is right and the critics are wrong.
Schwarzenegger is not anti-Hispanic, or anti-immigrant. What he is against is the illegal human traffic across our borders which is costing the State of California over $10 billion annually at a time when it is nearly insolvent. I don't know if that figure includes the money that the illegals send back home, but if it doesn't, then that cash outflow (estimated at $13 billion in 2004 to Mexico alone) represents another drain on the economy of California and the Nation.
One organization estimates that 10.3 million illegal immigrants resided in the United States in 2004. That's about equal to the entire population of Los Angeles County. I suspect that the actual number is greater, given that illegal immigrants are not likely to advertise their status, or discuss it with strangers carrying clipboards.
I am not anti- Hispanic, or anti-Asian or anti-anyone. I'm not anti-immigration -- I'd like it to be easier for people who want to come to the US and live here and contribute to our society to do so, with the caveat that everyone is thoroughly screened and anyone who is perceived as being a potential threat to the United States be banned from entering, even as a tourist. But I am against illegal immigration because it is dangerous to the country. The federal government has got to get control of the borders or the United States is in deep, deep trouble. Failure to act on this issue is my biggest disappointment with the Bush administration.
Ronald Reagan is attributed with saying, "A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation." If the United States cannot or will not control its borders, it is only a matter of time before the likes of al-Qaeda and Hamas will exploit the weakness. And it will take only a little more time before the US has the kinds of problems that Canada has with Quebec.
(0) comments
Schwarzenegger is not anti-Hispanic, or anti-immigrant. What he is against is the illegal human traffic across our borders which is costing the State of California over $10 billion annually at a time when it is nearly insolvent. I don't know if that figure includes the money that the illegals send back home, but if it doesn't, then that cash outflow (estimated at $13 billion in 2004 to Mexico alone) represents another drain on the economy of California and the Nation.
One organization estimates that 10.3 million illegal immigrants resided in the United States in 2004. That's about equal to the entire population of Los Angeles County. I suspect that the actual number is greater, given that illegal immigrants are not likely to advertise their status, or discuss it with strangers carrying clipboards.
I am not anti- Hispanic, or anti-Asian or anti-anyone. I'm not anti-immigration -- I'd like it to be easier for people who want to come to the US and live here and contribute to our society to do so, with the caveat that everyone is thoroughly screened and anyone who is perceived as being a potential threat to the United States be banned from entering, even as a tourist. But I am against illegal immigration because it is dangerous to the country. The federal government has got to get control of the borders or the United States is in deep, deep trouble. Failure to act on this issue is my biggest disappointment with the Bush administration.
Ronald Reagan is attributed with saying, "A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation." If the United States cannot or will not control its borders, it is only a matter of time before the likes of al-Qaeda and Hamas will exploit the weakness. And it will take only a little more time before the US has the kinds of problems that Canada has with Quebec.
