Wednesday, August 31, 2005
New Title for the NYT, AP, NBC, CBS, ABC etc.
Scott, one of the guys at Power Line Blog referred to the entities variously known as the Mainstream Media, Elite Media, Legacy Media, and Exempt Media, among other things, as the "lamestream media." (Next to last paragraph in the linked item.)
I like that. They've earned the sobriquet for their outstanding coverage of one side of issues like the Iraq War, global warming, and a whole host of social causes, while giving short shrift to anyone who disagrees with their agenda. Henceforth all of that ilk will be referred to here as the Lamestream Media, or LSM.
(0) comments
I like that. They've earned the sobriquet for their outstanding coverage of one side of issues like the Iraq War, global warming, and a whole host of social causes, while giving short shrift to anyone who disagrees with their agenda. Henceforth all of that ilk will be referred to here as the Lamestream Media, or LSM.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Do We Really Need This?
Call me an old fogey, unhip, square, or whatever currently insulting name you'd like, but if this is what rap music teaches our kids to behave like, we don't need it, and I won't let my kid listen to it. (I know, I know, what she listens to outside the house I have no control over, but it's banned in our home -- I'm sending the message I want to send.)
(0) comments
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Air Time for Casey Sheehan
First, go to Blackfive and read about Casey Sheehan -- the kind of man he was, and the circumstances surrounding his death in Iraq. Do it now -- I'll wait.
Welcome back. I agree with Michelle Malkin's reader that Casey should be getting a lot more air time. Certainly more than his mother Cindy, this summer's anti-Bush darling of the MSM.
Some observations: For all the wailing by Cindy about how she lost her child (and I don't intend to diminish her loss or her grief here), the fact is that Casey Sheehan was a grown man, 20 years of age, when he first enlisted in the Army in 2000 -- in case you need reminding, that was before September 11. By all accounts he was intelligent, serious and level-headed. Moreover, he re-upped at the age of 24 after first-hand experience with military life. Whatever his state of mind when he first enlisted (he couldn't have been swept up in post-9/11 patriotic fervor), he certainly knew what the Army was about when he signed on for a second tour, and he certainly knew that the odds were much better than even that he would go to Iraq.
My point here is that Casey Sheehan was no wide-eyed naif when he first enlisted. There's no indication (other than his mother's rantings) that he was seduced by glowing descriptions of military life, nor that he was lied to by his recruiter or his military superiors. It is particularly noteworthy that he volunteered to go on the rescue mission where he met his death, knowing the dangers and knowing that he was not a combat-trained infantryman. Casey had courage, and it is a credit to his parents that they raised a man like him.
Some commentator made the point that the lefties backing Cindy Sheehan are always trying to portray our soldiers in Iraq as babes in the woods who signed up for military service with stars in their eyes, believing that they'd never see combat and seduced by evil recruiters with promises of glory and learning a trade. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I live near several military installations, and I grew up as a military dependent. I know from my own experience that the young people who enlist in today's military go in with full realization that they are entering a dangerous profession, and they do so willingly because they believe in the United States of America and what it stands for. They are not the conscript force of the Vietnam era -- they are smart, motivated, well-trained and disciplined (in the sense that all real discipline comes from within). Those who portray these courageous young people as romantic know-nothings who need to be protected from their own decisions do them a grave disservice, and don't deserve to be beneficiaries of their sacrifices.
(0) comments
Welcome back. I agree with Michelle Malkin's reader that Casey should be getting a lot more air time. Certainly more than his mother Cindy, this summer's anti-Bush darling of the MSM.
Some observations: For all the wailing by Cindy about how she lost her child (and I don't intend to diminish her loss or her grief here), the fact is that Casey Sheehan was a grown man, 20 years of age, when he first enlisted in the Army in 2000 -- in case you need reminding, that was before September 11. By all accounts he was intelligent, serious and level-headed. Moreover, he re-upped at the age of 24 after first-hand experience with military life. Whatever his state of mind when he first enlisted (he couldn't have been swept up in post-9/11 patriotic fervor), he certainly knew what the Army was about when he signed on for a second tour, and he certainly knew that the odds were much better than even that he would go to Iraq.
My point here is that Casey Sheehan was no wide-eyed naif when he first enlisted. There's no indication (other than his mother's rantings) that he was seduced by glowing descriptions of military life, nor that he was lied to by his recruiter or his military superiors. It is particularly noteworthy that he volunteered to go on the rescue mission where he met his death, knowing the dangers and knowing that he was not a combat-trained infantryman. Casey had courage, and it is a credit to his parents that they raised a man like him.
Some commentator made the point that the lefties backing Cindy Sheehan are always trying to portray our soldiers in Iraq as babes in the woods who signed up for military service with stars in their eyes, believing that they'd never see combat and seduced by evil recruiters with promises of glory and learning a trade. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I live near several military installations, and I grew up as a military dependent. I know from my own experience that the young people who enlist in today's military go in with full realization that they are entering a dangerous profession, and they do so willingly because they believe in the United States of America and what it stands for. They are not the conscript force of the Vietnam era -- they are smart, motivated, well-trained and disciplined (in the sense that all real discipline comes from within). Those who portray these courageous young people as romantic know-nothings who need to be protected from their own decisions do them a grave disservice, and don't deserve to be beneficiaries of their sacrifices.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Thanks, Pat
Televangelist Pat Robertson has called for the assassination of Venezuelan Dictator President Hugo Chavez by covert American operatives.
Thanks to Mr. Robertson, we are now assured that:
(1) If anyone ever makes an attempt on Mr. Chavez' life, the United States will be accused by the usual suspects of perpetrating or sponsoring the attempt, and millions around the world will accept the accusation as Gospel truth;
(2) In the event of (1), the United States government will be painted by every anti-American organization from al-Qaeda to the ACLU as being in the thrall of right-wing Christian religious extremists, and millions around the world will accept the characterization as Gospel truth.
By putting his mouth in gear without first engaging his brain, Mr. Robertson has, in my opinion, single-handedly complicated the US government's ability to deal with Mr. Chavez by at least an order of magnitude. He was able to accomplish this by virtue of his media presence and the fact that he has had the ear of many American politicians over the years.
All of which leads me to pose the question, has Mr. Robertson gone completely off the rails, or is he a secret agent of some anti-American power?
The only saving grace is Mr. Robertson's past history of making outrageous statements. According to the Fox News story linked above,
Thus it at least can be argued that Mr. Robertson is just a daffy old preacher who's merely reverting to type, although that argument won't hold water with anyone who is predisposed to thinking the worst of the USA.
(0) comments
Thanks to Mr. Robertson, we are now assured that:
(1) If anyone ever makes an attempt on Mr. Chavez' life, the United States will be accused by the usual suspects of perpetrating or sponsoring the attempt, and millions around the world will accept the accusation as Gospel truth;
(2) In the event of (1), the United States government will be painted by every anti-American organization from al-Qaeda to the ACLU as being in the thrall of right-wing Christian religious extremists, and millions around the world will accept the characterization as Gospel truth.
By putting his mouth in gear without first engaging his brain, Mr. Robertson has, in my opinion, single-handedly complicated the US government's ability to deal with Mr. Chavez by at least an order of magnitude. He was able to accomplish this by virtue of his media presence and the fact that he has had the ear of many American politicians over the years.
All of which leads me to pose the question, has Mr. Robertson gone completely off the rails, or is he a secret agent of some anti-American power?
The only saving grace is Mr. Robertson's past history of making outrageous statements. According to the Fox News story linked above,
"Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.""
Thus it at least can be argued that Mr. Robertson is just a daffy old preacher who's merely reverting to type, although that argument won't hold water with anyone who is predisposed to thinking the worst of the USA.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Sobering Words
Wretchard's post from 16 August is required reading. Go now!
(0) comments
Monday, August 08, 2005
Shameless Product Plug
I wholeheartedly recommend Miracle Hand Repair by Ontel Products Corp. of Fairfield, NJ, available at Bed Bath & Beyond and Linens & Things for about $10.
I do a lot of things that involve detergents and solvents that suck the natural oils and moisture from skin. My hands were so dry, chapped and cracked that I didn't need to use my nails to scratch an itch -- just rubbing a fingertip over the itch worked fine. I had open cracks at the edges of my nails that were painful enough to make me avoid any activity that required a strong pinching motion. Having so many open wounds on my hands, I was concerned about acquiring a serious infection. I had tried Vaseline Intensive Care, Eucerin, and a few other dry skin creams but none worked satisfactorily.
A neighbor recommended Miracle Hand repair and I bought a tube. My hands felt better the first day, and within a week of twice-daily use the cracks had healed over. I'm now using it once a day and maintaining healthy skin on my hands. Life is good!
(0) comments
I do a lot of things that involve detergents and solvents that suck the natural oils and moisture from skin. My hands were so dry, chapped and cracked that I didn't need to use my nails to scratch an itch -- just rubbing a fingertip over the itch worked fine. I had open cracks at the edges of my nails that were painful enough to make me avoid any activity that required a strong pinching motion. Having so many open wounds on my hands, I was concerned about acquiring a serious infection. I had tried Vaseline Intensive Care, Eucerin, and a few other dry skin creams but none worked satisfactorily.
A neighbor recommended Miracle Hand repair and I bought a tube. My hands felt better the first day, and within a week of twice-daily use the cracks had healed over. I'm now using it once a day and maintaining healthy skin on my hands. Life is good!
NYT: Democratic Party Organ
For about the third time in a month, the New York Times has done something that makes me wish I subscribed, so I could cancel my subscription. This time it was digging into the details of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' adoption of his two children.
In the first place, adoption records are sealed by law to protect the privacy of the family involved. Whether, how and when to disclose to a child that he or she was adopted is entirely the choice of the parents. It is not the legitimate business of any media outlet, whether print, broadcast or web-based, to intrude upon this very private and personal intrafamilial relationship.
Second, if the details of how Judge Roberts adopted his children have any bearing on his qualifications for sitting on the Supreme Court, the connection is beyond my ability to see it. On the other hand, if the NYT wishes to engage in ad hominem attacks on Judge Roberts to divert the discussion away from his judicial qualifications, I can very much see why the paper would dig into this kind of information. In this case, the NYT, in my estimation, is somewhat sleazier than the National Enquirer and not too far removed from the Weekly World News.
I have said before that it is a shame that the New York Times, which once was a great paper, has sunk so low. It has gotten to the point that I can identify stories in my hometown paper that originate with the NYT news service without reading the byline. And once I confirm that the story is from the Times, I immediately discount its veracity because of the obvious leftward bias that the paper exhibits. I hope that the Times can return to the greatness that it once exhibited, but at the moment I'm rather pessimistic about its chances.
(0) comments
In the first place, adoption records are sealed by law to protect the privacy of the family involved. Whether, how and when to disclose to a child that he or she was adopted is entirely the choice of the parents. It is not the legitimate business of any media outlet, whether print, broadcast or web-based, to intrude upon this very private and personal intrafamilial relationship.
Second, if the details of how Judge Roberts adopted his children have any bearing on his qualifications for sitting on the Supreme Court, the connection is beyond my ability to see it. On the other hand, if the NYT wishes to engage in ad hominem attacks on Judge Roberts to divert the discussion away from his judicial qualifications, I can very much see why the paper would dig into this kind of information. In this case, the NYT, in my estimation, is somewhat sleazier than the National Enquirer and not too far removed from the Weekly World News.
I have said before that it is a shame that the New York Times, which once was a great paper, has sunk so low. It has gotten to the point that I can identify stories in my hometown paper that originate with the NYT news service without reading the byline. And once I confirm that the story is from the Times, I immediately discount its veracity because of the obvious leftward bias that the paper exhibits. I hope that the Times can return to the greatness that it once exhibited, but at the moment I'm rather pessimistic about its chances.
