A New Year

Disclaimer: In the aftermath of the election disaster that showed so clearly how many Americans will put their own personal selfishness over the needs of our country as a whole, and with the Obama campaign's well-known tendency to silence critics, I thought that this blog had outlived its usefulness. However, as I survey the scene, I see that perhaps my commentary may have some value, so i shall re-open this blog.

Well, it is now 2009. The Great Obama is occupying the White House and the eeeevil George W. Bush is no longer President of the United States. But have things changed for the better? Let us see...

1. Congress-critters still unable to follow the rules they want to impose on the rest of us? Check.


2. President pushing for massive expansion of powers? Check.


3. Media prostrating themselves at the feet of government? Check. (Yes, that would be CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, AP, UPI, AFP, {insert newspaper name here], and most local 'news' stations.


4. Complete failure by the federal authorities to deal with a disaster in Kentucky? Check. (Funny how a far lesser failure was front-page news for weeks in New Orleans, where most of the failures were a direct result of the local and state failures, but this time, where it is unquestionably a federal failure, the Press is silent. Could it be they don't care about rural white folks?)

And several things have gotten worse. The economy, which the mainstream media has been lying about for the past eight years, is actually in much worse shape now than it ever was during the Bush Administration. This is partly due to forces beyond Obama's control (the spending orgy engaged in by both the Bush Administration and the last several Congresses), but also partly (and as we shall see largely) due to forces that can be laid squarely at the feet of the Democratic Party.

The financial mess, as has been stated earlier, was caused mainly by Democratic power grabs. See John Pilla's excellent essay on the causes of the financial crisis at Public Opinion Online. And many of the power-brokers in the Congress have taken more than their share of goodies from the people who caused the mess in the first place. John Murtha, Chris Dodd and Charlie Rangel are all guilty, as are most other members of the current party leadership on both sides of the aisle.

In short, this Administration seems to combine arrogance with incompetence. This is only to be expected, as President Obama has no executive experience and has never had to actually live up to any promises in the past (he is a creature of the Chicago political machine, after all). For the sake of our country, I hope that Obama grows up fast and begins to exhibit some leadership skills. Otherwise, I fear greatly for our country.

Couric: Hillary Coverage 'Unfair', 'Biased'

Katie Couric will never be recognized for her analytical skills, Nor is she likely to ever go down as a foremost student of history. However, her latest outburst should convince even the most blinded observers of the national media that that institution has lost whatever vestige of objectivity that it pretends to.

According to the website Media Bistro, Couric was honored by he Sewall-belmonth House and Museum. While there, she took the occasion to comment on the press coverage of the recently-ended campaign by Hillary Clinton for the Presidency of the United States. According to Media Bistro,

Some thoughts from Couric at the event:

However you feel about her politics, I feel that Sen. Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I've ever seen.

Couric went on to say that latent sexism contributed, in part, to Hillary's defeat.

If Couric thinks that the coverage of Senator Clinton was 'the most unfair, biased coverage' she had ever seen, it would seem that she has been blind to the coverage that current President George W. Bush has been receiving for the entirety of his seven-and-a-half years in office so far. If Couric had any knowledge of history, she would know that this is the most hostile Press Corps any president has faced since Richard Nixon. And in Nixon's case, there was some good reason- the man was a crook. However, in Bush's case, there has yet to be offered any rational reason for the Press' amazing hostility and their ferocious hatred of the man. If Couric can only moan about the coverage of Hillary (which was mostly positive until Obama emerged as a legitimate challenger, and still is far more positive than that received by any Republican, including Presidential nominee John McCain), then she displays her own lack of knowledge in the areas of history and context. And this is the person that we are supposed to trust with the duty of accurately and objectively reporting to us the events of the day?

As for Couric's moan about 'latent sexism', the Democratic Party and their willing enablers in the media have long been completely invested in the politics of class, sex and race. If Obama had not happened to be black, it is my firm belief that Clinton would have continued to sail unimpeded to the nomination. However, she had the misfortune to be running against a member of the one group of victim who have a stronger pull than women- blacks. I do not believe that Barack Obama's sex had anything to do with his victory- other than the fact that he is younger than Senator Clinton.

No, I suspect that the reason Clinton lost had nothing to do with sexism- latent or otherwise. Obama is younger, apparently more attractive to women than Clinton is to men, and a far better orator. And of course, he is racially identified as black. Clinton on the other hand, arouses strong emotions, much of which are negative. She is not seen as trustworthy, and is certainly not going to fire anyone up as Obama does on a regular basis. In the Democratic Party, it is all about winning- regardless of the costs. Obama was seen as a better shot to beat the Republicans and return the White House to it's rightful occupants, thus the Press turned on Clinton to help Obama sew up the nomination as quickly as possible. Had Obama not been in the race, I believe the Press would have been as firmly in Clinton's pocket as they have in the past. And if Katie Couric does not understand that, then she has proved once again how unfit she is to be a news anchor and why the mainstream media is losing subscribers and viewers in droves.

Hagee V. Wright

The intemperate and anti-American sermons of Barack Obama's minister Jeremiah Wright have received surprisingly wide airplay. Perhaps because this is something that even the dinosaur-like media know they cannot hide in this day and age. However, they are not defenseless- they are pointing to Pastor John Hagee as McCain's equivalent of Wright, right down to the fiery sermons. The only problem is that according to Joel Mowbray in the Washington Times newspaper- the two men are not comparable. wright is by any definition an anti-American, highly racist preacher whose brand of Christianity is questionable. Hagee by contrast is a preacher whose devotion to inter-religious harmony appears to be extremely strong. According to Mowbray,

The long knives are out for Rev. John Hagee. The fiercely pro-Israel evangelical leader is being branded a bigot—again—but this time the media have tagged him with the worst possible association: Hitler.

Granted, Hagee himself raised the specter of Hitler in a sermon reportedly from a decade ago that was recently dredged up by a left-wing blogger, in which he said that God sent Hitler and “allowed” the Holocaust to happen “because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

Far from the ugly media-driven perception that Hagee was justifying—or even somehow praising—the Holocaust as Heaven-sent, he was actually trying to answer the question with which countless rabbis and survivors have grappled ever since: How could there be both an all-powerful God and the unimaginable horrors of the Holocaust?

While anyone could rightly be outraged at his theology or even his apparent hubris in purporting to know God’s motives, it cannot be said that he is anti-Semitic. The charge, in fact, is completely counter to what is most beautiful about Rev. Hagee’s ministry, that it has been so dedicated to combating Christian anti-Semitism.

Mowbray's article is a must-read if one wants to understand the controversy swirling around Pastor Hagee and the endorsement of John McCain that McCain refused to accept. But to compare Hagee with Wright is merely another example of why the mainstream media is mostly a lazy, partisan group of camp-followers. As Mowbray so accurately writes,

In an ideal world, anyway, journalists should be in search of the truth.

In the real world, sadly, most journalists are too busy—and lazy—to meaningfully research Rev. Hagee’s theology and documented teachings. Even given this reality, however, it might seem appropriate that before rushing to reduce 40 years of a man’s career down to a headline-worthy Hitler association, the media ought to spend 40 minutes to see if they’re actually getting the story right.

But that of course could prevent the press from accomplishing their goal- getting a Democratic President. And for the American press, partisanship trumps professionalism any day of the week. Hat tip to the guys over at the Power Line.

Reporter Writes False Story- Actually Apologizes

In the wake of the infamous (and illegal) antics of the New England Patriots, having admitted they repeatedly and blatantly broke the rules and cheated during their Super Bowl run of the early 21st century, a story appeared in the Boston Herald newspaper that the Patriots had taped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough prior to beating the heavily favored Rams in the 2001 Super Bowl.

Since the Patriots are admitted cheaters, this was not a stretch of the imagination, especially since a member of the Patriots' video staff- one who illegally taped other team- was setting up while the Rams were walking through their game plan. However, the story has not been corroborated by anyone, and the member of the Patriots' staff who did most of the illegal taping told the NFL commissioner that he had no knowledge of anyone doing said taping, and that he certainly did not. Following this, the Herald and its reporter, one John Tomase, have apologized- and on the front page, no less. Tomase wrote on the Herald's website today

"First and foremost, this is about a writer breaking one of the cardinal rules of journalism. I failed to keep challenging what I had been told," wrote John Tomase in Friday's editions of the newspaper.

Tomase explained what led up to the publication of the Feb. 2 story, which appeared one day before the Patriots' 17-14 Super Bowl loss to the New York Giants. The Herald on Wednesday apologized for the story, after former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh told NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell that he did not tape the walkthrough and did not know of anyone who had.

This is a rare occurrence in the media. The normal process is for some organ of the media to make blazing accusations on their front page, and then publish the retraction- if in fact they actually retract, which again is extremely rare- on the back page. The New York Times is particularly egregious in this regard, writing stories that impugn public figures' honor on an almost daily basis, yet never actually admitting that there is no truth to these allegations. Case in point is the Times' heinous pursuit of the Duke lacrosse students, assigning biased and incompetent reporter Duff Wilson to write a story virtually every point of which has been proven wrong- yet the paper has never apologized.

I applaud Mr. Tomase and the Herald both for the intestinal fortitude to admit they got the facts wrong and for their willingness to put that admission on the front page. Of course, I do have a suspicion that the fact that the patriots are owned by a powerful, very rich man who employs lots of good lawyers (and that he is not a member of that eeeevil Bush Administration- remember the breathless press coverage of the supposed illegal events in the Plame case?) might have had something to do with their admission of wrongdoing). In any event, i congratulate them for doing the right thing. When will the rest of the media being following their example? Too often the media is willing to publish allegations without evidence, yet they will not put the exoneration in an equally prominent place? Remember Richard Jewell, the security guard whose reputation was so badly damaged by the media? Or how about Dr. William Hatfill, the media-determined guilty party in the anthrax cases? I haven't noticed any apologies from the media who tried so hard to wreck his life.

In all cases, the media should be prepared to grant the Constitution's requirement of 'innocent until proven guilty'. And if the subject of the media coverage is indeed innocent, then the media have a responsibility to print that exoneration in the same place that they printed the initial allegations. But that would actually require professional ethics and an ability to be objective- something that the US media appears to lack. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

CORRECTION: I mistakenly wrote Dr. Hatfill's name as William. It is actually Steven. I apologize for the mistake. Thanks to my commenter 'Anonymous' for catching the mistake.

Big News in Italy- Press Yawns

Michael Ledeen over at the National Review's Corner reminded me today that the recent elections in Italy resulted in a historic first- for the first time since World War II, no Communist was elected to the Italian Parliament. And in an equally positive corollary, no member of the fellow-traveling Green party won either.

Mr. Ledeen also noticed something that the Big Media around the world managed to miss- the incoming government will be decidedly pro-American and pro-George W. Bush. Ledeen writes,

Tomorrow's papers will pretend that this didn't happen, and warn that Berlusconi's allies in the Northern League are mercurial and dangerous, and that his majority isn't as stable as it looks. But it is. And there's an even more annoying feature to these elections, as seen by the chattering classes: Berlusconi is an outspoken, even passionate admirer of George W. Bush and the United States of America. Reminds one of the elections that brought Sarkozy to the Elysee, doesn't it? Best to keep that quiet, or somebody might notice that hatred of America doesn't seem to affect the voters in Italy, France or Germany.

When many foreign governments were in office that enjoyed spiting Mr. Bush's initiatives, the media reported that Bush's America was 'unilateral', although the U.S. would have liked to work with those countries- it was their incumbent governments who preferred not to co-operate with the United States. Now that Germany, France and Italy are governed by those who are more admiring of Mr. Bush, will the Press report that in fact, the previous issues were mostly caused by the attitudes of the foreign governments, and not Mr. Bush's supposed arrogance and unilateralism? Will the Press admit that from the first, this Administration has worked well with many other countries, though those workings are not always in plain view?

Certainly the Bush Administration has made a great number of mistakes. However, the level of vitriol directed at this Administration by the Press is astonishing, especially considering that there appears to be no logical reason for it. The Press has distorted and downright twisted many of the actions the Administration has taken, and their dishonest presentation of the Coalition and its accomplishments has limited the ability of the American people to understand the magnitude of the task and how things have changed. If not for real journalists like Michael Yon, perhaps the media would have succeeded in twisting the tale of Iraq to match their dark victory in Vietnam.

Perhaps all that loud talk about Bush's 'going it alone' was simply blather. But I won't hold my breath waiting for the media to acknowledge how wrong they were- they never apologize, just move on to the next hit job. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

NY Times: We're Above the Law

The mainstream media seems to believe that they are above the law. they feel that anything that they do should be protected by law, no matter if they are engaging in actions that walk close to the line of treason. Today, Breitbart News is reporting that New York Times reporter James Risen, one of the two reporters who blew the whistle on the US government's use of overseas wire-tapping (a program, mind you that has not been declared illegal) is being subpoenaed over his source in a 2006 book on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

According to Breitbart,

Attorney David N. Kelley said the subpoena issued last week seeks the source of information for a chapter of James Risen's book "State of War" regarding CIA efforts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program. Risen plans to fight the subpoena, Kelly said. The reporter has been ordered to appear before the grand jury in Alexandria, Va., on Feb. 7. "He has an agreement of confidentiality with his sources and he intends to stand by that in the highest degree of journalistic traditions," Kelley said. Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the paper "strongly supports Mr. Risen and deplores what seems to be a growing trend of government leak investigations focusing on journalists, particularly in the national security area."

To me, this is simply more evidence that the Press needs to be reined in. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Press appointed to be the arbiter of what information can and should be released to the public. And there is no defense against publishing information, as the Times is so pleased to do, that helps America's enemies and causes the deaths of Americans.

In addition, the Press seems to think that they are a class above ordinary Americans. Where in the Constitution do they find a right to refuse to assist in grand jury investigations? The sources of many of these reporters are in fact breaking the law, and the reporters are at the very least accomplices in this law-breaking. Especially if the law-breaking, as in the NSA and SWIFT cases hurts the ability of the US government to protect its citizens, then the Press should have absolutely no protection. Unfortunately, Risen and the Times have shown time and again that they would rather see their countrymen killed by Muslim extremists than lift a finger to help his government protect them. And since most of the press is virulently anti-American and anti-George W. Bush, they will try to wrap their actions in the cloak of the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment does not give the press any exemption for the responsibilities of assisting in criminal cases, which is what this is.

Ultimately, I hope that the court sends Risen to jail for a good long time and fines both him and his employer for their disrespect for the law. And this should be more evidence that the Press needs to be taught a sharp lesson about where the First Amendment ends and their responsibilities as American citizens begin. I believe that while we desperately do need a free press, it is time Congress passes a law specifying that if classified information is released like this, then reporters must assist in the subsequent investigations or face trial as accomplices. In addition, they ought to face punitive fines and jail time until they release their sources. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Media Headlines Mislead- Again

File this under the 'Misleading headlines' category. On Drudge today, there was a link to story headlined Greenwich School Bans Desserts. Drudge's link was entitled 'School Bans Desserts; Parents Given Strict Policy For Bag Lunches'.

The only problem with this was that that was NOT the actual content of the story. According to the actual story, as reported by WCBS TV Channel 2 in Connecticut,

Glenville School in Greenwich is trying to turn things around, starting this year ice cream and cookies are no longer sold in the cafeteria. Instead they have fruit and yogurt as an option.

Parents were doing their best, sending their kids to school with healthy lunches or hoping they'd make decent choices if they were buying lunch at school. But when cookies and ice cream were offered two days a week, things changed in a hurry.

In other words, the school simply ceased selling certain desserts in the school cafeteria- they did not ban students from eating said desserts, nor are students forbidden from bringing these desserts from home. Despite the headlines, the story clearly made the point that,

Parents can pack anything they want in their kids' lunch, but they've all received the school's wellness policy that encourages them to go for healthy snacks.

Personally, I have nothing but approval for the school's actions. For too long, kids have had access to food that has essentially no nutritional value. However, the story does not agree with the sensational headline. the headline strongly suggests that the school not only forbade students from eating desserts, but also forbade parents from determining what foods to give their kids in bag lunches. To the contrary, if one actually reads the story, the school merely sent suggestions to parents- they did not ban parents from making whatever lunches they wish for their children.

To me this is a problem with the media's desire to sensationalize everything. This story is almost a non-event- a school stops selling cookies and ice cream in its cafeteria. But the headline tries to make it into a cause celebre, which in fact was not the case. And I consider that both the original news outlet- in this case WCBS TV channel 2 in Connecticut and Drudge are complicit in this.

News should exist to present real, straightforward stories. The original report had a very misleading headline, and Drudge made it even worse. yet the actual story contains virtually nothing that is cause for complaint, at least in my opinion. Yet if one only reads the headlines, as so many people do, then one would have a completely incorrect idea of the case.

Media in the United States has a very bad habit of inflaming stories with headlines that bear little resemblance to the facts. Think of the Duke rape hoax and the role media played in the inflaming of that case. Think of the Katrina reports that proved to be untrue or over-hyped. The media bears huge responsibility for this, and they need to do a better job of presenting reports in a sober, factual light.

Unfortunately, as this incident shows, the media has a long way to go. And if they cannot even do a good job on a small, local story such as this, how can Americans trust them on much bigger issues such as Presidential elections or the campaign in Iraq? Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

The Great White Fleet Remembered

Renowned military historian and reporter Austin Bay has reminded me, via a column posted over at Townhall.com, that this week, specifically December 16, is the 100th anniversary of the circumnavigation by the Great White Fleet. I doubt that a celebration of the famous cruise will appear in any of the so-called mainstream press. However, in his article, he provides a masterly summation of the cruise, which officially was simply the round-the-world cruise by the United States Atlantic Fleet. Bay writes,

President Theodore Roosevelt sent the fleet of 16 white-painted battleships on the 14-month cruise for a number of reasons. I doubt the headline "TR PR" appeared in 1907, but it would have been accurate, as well as succinct. The Great White Fleet's journey certainly served as a global public relations event.

In a recent interview, naval historian Dr. A.A. Nofi agreed with that assessment. "The voyage was an announcement," Nofi said. "America had been quietly building up the second-largest navy in the world, and no one was paying attention. The Great White Fleet said, 'Hey, we're here.'"

Nofi said, however, there was another reason to send the fleet, one that had less to do with showoff bravado and more to do with calculated geostrategic signaling in the wake of Japan's victory over Russia in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. An Asian power had defeated a European power in a major naval engagement that featured the movement of the Russian fleet from European waters to East Asia. "In the immediate political context (of the early 20th century)," Nofi said, "the fleet's voyage was a message to Japan that said that unlike Russia, if America has to cross the ocean to fight you, its navy will be there in force and ready."

Precisely. Theodore Roosevelt, much like Ronald Reagan, understood that if there was to be war, the United States needed to be ready. To that end, he was a strong supporter of the nation's armed forces, and particularly the Navy- a favoritism that rubbed off on his cousin Franklin as well. And although his muscular (and largely personal) diplomacy was replaced by the muddle-headed do-gooding of Woodrow Wilson, he laid the groundwork for the US Navy's successful performance in World War I. The United States Navy's site provides additional information on the 1907 cruise. According to the Navy, as recorded by Mike McKinley,

The cruise provided the officers and men of the fleet with thorough at-sea training and brought about improvements in formation steaming, coal economy, gunnery and morale. It also stressed the need for overseas bases that could provide better coaling and supply services along with more auxiliary ships. Foreign coaling ships or ports were used 90 percent of the time for coaling and resupply.

For the sailors who participated in this historic once-in-a-lifetime adventure, the cruise reinforced their pride in service and country. They had been the ambassadors of good will and the vehicles through which others perceived and judged America and the Navy. The results were gratifying. But even more concretely, the sailors saw their individual roles and the role of the Great White Fleet as providing the muscle behind US foreign policy.

As one sailor succinctly put it, "We just wanted to let the world know we were prepared for anything they wanted to kick up. We wanted to show the world what we could do."

Taken as a whole, the cruise did indeed provide invaluable experience to the men of the Fleet as well as the master planners in Washington. It opened the world's eyes to the growing power of the upstart republic. And it opened America's eyes to the fact that they had truly arrived on the global stage and that the world was beginning to be our stage. Finally, the cruise and his successful arbitration of the Russo-Japanese War provided Roosevelt and his Administration with two valuable public relations coups, overshadowing anything that the opposition (in those days a mostly loyal opposition, it must be said) could do to submarine his Administration.

Pity that today's Press and many of our political so-called 'leadership' has neither the intestinal fortitude nor the love of country to repeat such an experience. I would hope that some mainstream press organ might pick up on this story. But since even they cannot find anything in the story of the Great White Fleet to shame current President George W. Bush, I doubt that they will waste any of their precious newsprint on a story that holds only glory and praise for this great country and our wonderful Navy.

Bobby Calvan: Arrogant Idiot

I missed this story over the past week, but cannot resist posting on it. Apparently Bobby Calvan, a staff reporter for the Sacramento Bee in California had a little confrontation with an enlisted soldier in Iraq. The cause of said confrontation? Calvan did not have the proper identification to pass a checkpoint. Instead of behaving in a civilized manner, Big Man Bobby tried to pull the 'Do You Know Who I Am?' card. Not only did this card fail resoundingly, Big Man Bobby then blogged about his arrogance on his blog. Not surprisingly, his readers failed to be impressed by his 'courage' and responded overwhelmingly negatively. Bobby's reaction? He pulled the entire blog, rather than respond.

Fortunately, by the time Big Man Calvan showed the world his courage in real adversity, several other bloggers had saved the original blog, including many of the comments. They can be read at Doc Weasel's blog.


UPDATE: The original blog entry is now back up, minus the comments, along with Calvan's following note:

(NOTE: This post was previously edited, then removed. By doing so, I was informed, I have violated blog protocol. I have reposted it in its entirety, with the caveat that it was reproduced using a post from another blogger who had preserved my original post.)

Notice that Big Man Calvan is so brave when facing an American soldier trying to do his duty (protecting Calvan), but cannot even face negative comments on his personal blog. And also note how Calvan admits that he doesn't know blog protocol. This is a professional reporter? Someone paid to present the news and who is supposed to be a master of communication? Yet he cannot handle criticism and doesn't understand that he can't simply delete content that does not meet universal acclaim. Where in journalism school did he learn that? Or is this the Old Media tradition- never admit mistakes or slanted coverage and pretend that content one dislikes does not exist?

This arrogant little Mr. Big perfectly typifies all that is bad about the media, and explains why so many are abandoning the dinosaur media. As so many of the commentators wrote, this little boy is no MichAel Yon. Perhaps if Calvan spent some time with Mr. Yon, he MIGHT learn what real reporting is all about. of course, that would require him to leave his arrogant attitude at the door and also to actually report, as opposed to bloviate. Two things that I fear are beyond Calvan's capabilities. After all, he is merely a media hack, not a real journalist like Yon.

By the way- Michael Yon subsists entirely on his own resources, so drop something in his tip jar if you can. It is brave journalists like Yon that we rely on to counter the propaganda propagated by inflated asses such as Calvan.

Hat tips to Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds.

To Ph.D or Not To PhD.?

Classic books of etiquette from the Victorian era are filled with tips on the precise way to address various titled members of society. Kings, Presidents, Lords, Generals, Viceroys, Admirals and country squires all have their particular little niche and proper mode of address. But what about Doctors of Philosophy, or as they are commonly called, PhD.s?

My father was for thirty-four years a full professor at a California State University. However, as he entered the teaching profession as a newly-minted Master of Science in the early 1950s, he never actually earned a doctorate, though he did complete coursework and a good portion of a dissertation at the University of Southern California in the mid-1980s. However, throughout his career, students were prone to addressing him as 'Doctor' a title he felt he did not deserve and which he did his best to dissuade said students from using. He preferred to be addressed as 'Professor' or even 'Mr.', both of which being titles he had long since earned and which he felt were more appropriate in any case.

National Review's resident expert on all things linguistic, Jay Nordlinger, wrote a column back in 2002 on the New York Times and its highly inconsistent approach to calling various members of academia in strikingly different manners. As Nordlinger writes,

What’s in an honorific? Not Shakespearean, I realize, but it is our topic for today. The question came up — not for the first time — when the New York Times ran its several articles on the Cornel West controversy at Harvard. (West, a star professor in the Afro-American Studies department, was tiffing with the university’s new president, Lawrence Summers. It seems that Summers wanted West to straighten up his scholarly and professorial act. West, quite naturally, got upset.) Some of us suspicious types noticed that the Times referred to West and other Afro-Am profs as “Dr.” — “Dr. West,” “Dr. Gates,” “Dr. Wilson” — while referring to Summers as plain ol’ “Mr.” (The Times did the same with the school’s former president, Neil Rudenstine. All these people have Ph.D.’s, of course.) This was passing strange — the kind of thing that “made you go, ‘Hmmm,’” in the words of the old rap song.

Nordlinger continues by pointing out that then-Harvard President Summers is himself the possessor of a doctorate in economics and was the youngest man ever to receive tenure from Harvard's Department of Economics. Economics, unlike African-American Studies, is a discipline that actually requires real research and which does not present degrees based on racial politics. However, Summers prefers to be addressed as 'Mr.' in the pages of the New York Times, as opposed to 'Dr.' Cornel West. Seems Summers perchance is less interested in parading his credentials- perhaps because those credentials have far more intrinsic prestige and value than those of Cornel West. Nordlinger ends by writing,

For some, to be called “Dr.” is a way of saying, “I am somebody,” in the words of the Rev. Jesse Jackson. (Ah, “the Rev. Mr. Jackson” and “the Rev. Al Sharpton” — that’s “a whole ’nother” article, as we say in my family.) Many years ago, another NR senior editor, Rick Brookhiser, surveying all the mail sent to Bill Buckley, adjudged that the most interesting letters were those from prison. And the least interesting? The ones from people who signed themselves “Ph.D.” I know someone who’s a lawyer in West Virginia who has found that the surest way to rattle his opposition’s expert Ph.D. witness is to refer to him as “Mr.”

But then, I have another acquaintance who earned a Ph.D. in biochem — and he pleads for his “Dr.” because, “There aren’t many perks in this line of work, and I’d like my little payoff from polite society.” Well, at least he’s not a drama teacher. The bulk of the Ph.D.’s I know balk at being called anything but “Mr.” (or maybe “Professor,” in the case of academics), believing that “Dr.” has come to mean Marcus Welby, and that’s about it. As for those who feel slighted when they are “Dr.”-less, all we can say is, “Ph.D., heal thyself.”

The entire article is an expose both on the corrupt labelling employed by so many liberal news organs and on the general practice of modes of address as practiced in the United States. Though of 2002 vintage, Nordlinger's commentary rings as true today as it did when he wrote it. Read the whole thing.

Politico Thinks Defamation OK For Congresspeople

The Politico apparently thinks that Congresspeople should be allowed to defame members of the US military. After Representative Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) was ordered to testify in Marine Sergeant Frank Wuterich's defamation case against him, The Politico opined that,

Frankly, I don't understand this ruling at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is appealed by the Justice Dept. and/or House general counsel's office on behalf of Murtha. Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts.

I think the Politico understands, they simply do not wish to allow any limits on the garbage that Congresspeople can spew. Murtha's comments were, so far as I am aware, based on no documents whatsoever, and no matter whether he was speaking as a public or as a private person were despicable and should be punishable. I think the judge was absolutely correct in this case, especially since the investigating officer in the case has recommended the dismissal of charges against Wuterich and most of the other Marines involved in the case. If Murtha did indeed possess infomration that led him to make thsoe charges, then that is a different story. However, this country still believes in innocent until proven guilty. Wuterich and the other Haditha Marines have not been found guilty, and indeed, most of them have already been either cleared or charges have been recomended to be dropped. It is time for Murtha to answer for his defamatory attacks on these men who are far better men than Congressman Murtha.

Media Silent on Military Good Samaritanship

Reuters is busy smearing the troops by claiming they opened fire on civilians. But while accusations of misconduct are always good for several months worth of front-page stories, somehow the media never has time to comment on the many good deeds that the United States Armed Forces perform all over the world. And unfortunately, the US military does not do as well as we would wish at getting the word out. A case in point is the story posted on the United States Navy's site today, as USS Stout (DDG 55), came to the assistance of a Tanzanian passenger ferry off the coast of Somalia. As the Navy reported,

Spice Island, which was carrying no passengers, hailed for engineering assistance when it ran out of fuel while transiting to Tanzania. Stout provided the crew with food, water and fuel and helped to get the vessel operational under its own power. Coalition forces have a long-standing tradition of helping mariners in distress by providing medical assistance, engineering assistance and search and rescue efforts.

This is worthy of being reported, and once upon a time, maybe the media might have done so, instead of spending their time bashing the forces that allow them to propagate their poisonous penmanship. But at the present time, the media is too busy tearing down to think of actually reporting something that would reflect some credit on the many men and women who take seriously the idea of actually doing something to help their fellow Americans. Most journalists, unfortunately, do not qualify for that role.

Flat Tax Succeeds, Media Silent

In the United States, the flat tax has long been an object of complete derision by the media and the Democratic Party. However, as the Investors' Business Daily (IBD) reported in an editorial on Spetember 24, Eastern Europe is rushing to embrace flat taxes and it has already caused massive improvements. Yet the American press has been completely silent. Accident or deisgn? I fear the latter, as it does not fit the media's preferred mold.

However, their silence is becoming increasingly unsustainable. According to the IBD,

In America, cutting tax rates is an ideological issue. In the former Soviet satellites of Europe, it is increasingly not an issue at all — so obvious is it that it gives people better lives.

It began with Estonia in 1994, when Mart Laar as prime minister, thinking he was just emulating the capitalist West, made it the world's first nation in modern times to enact a flat tax. A major fiscal crisis resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union was soon fixed, Estonia was growing at 7% a year and the "Baltic Tiger" was born.

...

Nearby nations soon began getting their feet wet. First, Latvia and Lithuania, both at rates of about 25%. Then Russia in 2001 enacted a flat tax on personal income at 13%; revenues doubled there in less than three years.

Serbia followed in 2003 with a 14% flat rate. Ukraine set its flat tax at 13% in 2004.

Slovakia activated its 19% flat rate the same year. Romania's flat tax was pegged at 16% in 2005.

Georgia outdid them all, passing a 12% flat tax into law on an overwhelming parliamentary vote just before Christmas 2004. Macedonia's flat tax rate, inaugurated this year, is also 12%.

And the flat tax has improved conditions in every single state that has adopted it. Yet the media and the Democrats continue to claim that our progressive tax code is necessary. Maybe necessary to the reams of tax lawyers, IRS flunkies and people like most Congressmen who can afford to pay others to find the loopholes, but certainly not necessary to ordinary people like me. The flat tax has been proven in Eastern Europe. How much could we increase our economy if only the cowardly politicians in Washington and their socialistic flunkies in the media would actually report honestly on the European experience with the flat tax. They would prefer to sugarcoat the ravages of socialism than tell the truth about a capitalist success, it would seem.

Media: Clinton Censorship OK

Is the media hypocritical on censorship when conducted by Democrats versus Republicans? It would seem that this may indeed be the case. The media likes to claim that President George Bush's Administration is clamping down on civil rights, although they have a difficult time citing any actual examples of such. However, when the Clinton campaign really does exercise press censorship, the media is largely silent.

According to the Politico online magazine, GQ magazine was poised to run a story that would have been critical of the Hillary Clinton campaign. This in itself is a relative rarity in the current media. However, by threatening to withold access to former President Bill Clinton, the campaign managed to force GQ to pull the planned story. Editor Jim Nelson then tried to claim that this was normal procedure,

“I don’t really get into the inner workings of the magazine, but I can tell you that yes, we did kill a Hillary piece. We kill pieces all the time for a variety of reasons,” Nelson said in an e-mail to Politico.

He did not respond to follow-up questions. A Clinton campaign spokesman declined to comment.

This is normal procedure? I can believe that magazines kill stories all the time, but the fact is that no media source would have been willing to kill a story critical of a Republican in return for access to a former president. The Politico claims that Bill Clinton's star status gives his wife's campaign unprecedented power over the press, but I find this rationnale suspicious. The Poliltico also tries to make equivalency by writing,

The 2004 Bush campaign banned a New York Times reporter from Vice President Dick Cheney’s jet, and Sen. Barack Obama threatened to bar Fox News reporters from campaign travel.

Somehow, I cannnot see the equivalence between the 2004 Bush campaign banning a writer who was known to be hostile to the campaign and forcing a media organ to print what a campaign wants to be printed. The one simply denies personal access to the candidate but does not try to influence what is written, whilst the other is actually practicing censorship- something the press claims to be very much opposed to. Even the Politico admits that "But a retreat of the sort GQ is alleged to have made is unusual, particularly as part of what sources described as a barely veiled transaction of editorial leverage for access."

One would think that a press which genuinely wants to defend their editorial freedom would be up in arms over this blatant attempt to shape how events are reported, especially since the spiked story was apparently news, not opinion. However, the majorioty of the media have beeen completely silent on the affair. And unfortunately this is entirely unsurprising.

Let President Bush try to listen to foreign communications and the press screams about First Amendment rights. Let there be discussion of prosecution for publishing illegally leaked national security secrets in the New York Times and the press screams about their freedom to report whatever they see fit. But if Hillary really does exercise censorship, the press emits a collective yawn. Apparenlty Democratic censorship is OK to the Press. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Newsweek Shills For Smart Cars

The Smart car, a tiny two-seater produced by Mercedes-Benz, is being released in the United States, and Newsweek decided to celebrate by shilling for the supposedly socially-conscious vehicle. Newsweek allowed Smart's U.S. president David Schembri essentially free space to advertise in what is being represented as a news column.

Reporter Tara Weingarten served up softballs such as "With just two seats, it’s the perfect car for the friendless. And you don’t have to be nice and offer people rides." Weingarten also allowed Schembri to get away with such marketing-speak as,

You can help out other drivers by taking up a smaller parallel parking space, consume less fuel, thereby helping the environment, and feel great about it. Why is that bad?

Weingarten did not challenge Schembri by pointing out that parking spaces are unlikely to be resized for a car such as Smart, and thus a smaller car does not really help out any other drivers- it is more equivalent to a motorcycle taking up a single normal-sized parking space. She also failed to follow up on what was potentially her toughest question- asking Schembri about the Smart's safety features if involved in a collision with a large vehicle such as an SUV. Schembri replied that,

But the Smart will work hard to protect you. The safety management system of the Smart is a safety cell, a reinforced steel cage that acts very much like a NASCAR roll cage. You’ll notice that you sit up high, eye-to-eye with other drivers, so this also allows crash energy to be absorbed underneath the car. And there are standard safety features that are usually found only in luxury automobiles, like the electronic stability program, four front airbags, including head and thorax protection, ABS brakes and something called electronic brake-force distribution that helps the car stop fast. This is a tough car. It’s David vs. Goliath.

Weingarten allowed him a pass on that statement, instead of comparing the Smart's safety features with those of other environmentally popular vehicles such as Toyota's Prius or Honda's Civic hybrid, both of which are more standard-sized cars than the Smart. Another feature Weingarten did not discuss was the Smart's complete lack of storage space. As a musician myself, I would rather drive a car with some storage space (and maybe room for some extra band members to reduce parking) than something like the Smart that has room neither for other passengers nor for any luggage of any real consequence. But I found Weingarten's shameless enabling to be the worst part of the article. Can anyone imagine a similar scenario if the interviewee were a member of one of the US automobile companies?

Overall, it seems Newsweek's motives were more to push yet another elite-supported 'green' product than to make an attempt to provide honest and objective reporting. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Media Not Interested In American Islamists

Is the mainstream media uninterested in radical Islamists in America? Recent events would seem to indicate that that may indeed be the case.

Today, according to the Dearborn, Michigan Press & Guide, a Muslim medical student named Houssein Zorkot was arrested while wearing full combat gear and carrying an AK-47 rifle. His website contained a plethora of anti-American imagery and included shots of him posing with a picture of Hezbollah leader Sheik Nasrallah. Of course, the local media neglected to mention the Islamic connection when reporting Zorkot's arrest. He was identified only as a 'third-year medical student'. The Press & Guide appears to think that ostrich-like behavior is the best course of action when confronted by murderous barbarians like Zorkot and his Muslim allies. So far not a single national news organ has picked up this story. This is all too similar to the story of North Carolina terrorist Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, whose clear motivation for his act of terror was his religion. Despite Taheri claiming that 'Allah is my lawyer' and similar phrases, the local ABC affiliate did not post a single reference to his religion in their story on the attack.

Simultaneously, it appears that the case of the US government against the Holy Land Foundation- a Muslim organization strongly linked with the fundamentalist Muslim organization the Muslim Brotherhood- has managed to fly beneath the mainstream press' mention. Fortunately, despite the disinterest of the major media ogans, Rod Dreher has been attending this trial. As reported by Dreher in the Dallas Morning News,

"Our strategy is this," President Bush said last month. "We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America."

He was talking about jihadists, of course. And Mr. Bush is behind the curve. The president apparently missed the smoking-gun 1991 document his own Justice Department introduced into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas. The FBI captured it in a raid on a Muslim suspect's home in Virginia.

This "explanatory memorandum," as it's titled, outlines the "strategic goal" for the North American operation of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). Here's the key paragraph:

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.

Although virtually ever single American Muslim organization- the Council on Muslim American Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim American Society (MSA) are intricately involved in the Muslim Borhterhood's attempt to destroy the United States and all other Western nations from within, not a single majro media outlet has managed to report on this amazing trial as yet.

As Dreher concludes in his article,

As long as they commit no crimes, CAIR, ISNA and the other Brotherhood-related groups have the right to advocate for their beliefs. But they don't have the right to escape critical scrutiny, and they deserve informed opposition. Courageous Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy are sounding the alarm about radical Islam's stealth takeover of U.S. Muslim institutions. Why are the news media ignoring this? Fear of being called Islamophobic?

This has got to stop. Six years after 9/11, we're still asleep. Islamic radicals have declared war on us – and some are fighting here in what looks like a fifth column. Read their strategy document. It's there in black and white, for those with eyes to see.

I agree. The media has too long ignored these groups who claim victimhood. Muslims claimed that the Spetember 11 attacks created a backlash, and the media appears to have bought this argument hook, line and sinker. Since then, they have bent over backwards to avoid exposing the unseemly and downright dangerous motives that underlie many, if not all of these groups. Is it because exposing these groups' ideology would actually buttress the President's claim that the war on Islamic terror really is global? DOes partisanship take precedence over protecting our own country and way of life? Or is it because the media are frightened? What ever the cause, the media must remove their blinders regarding the terrorists in ouir midst, and the organizations that try to manipulate Americans' freedoms to destroy us from within. Cross-posted at NewsBusters.

Never Forget

Today is the sixth anniversary of the deadly terror attacks on the United States by Osama bin Laden's al-Quaeda organization, part aof a worldwide Muslim imperialist movement to destroy Christian and Jewish civilizations. al-Quaeda, like many other Islamist groups around the world, espouses a traditional, fundamentalist approach to the Kporan, taking its words literally. Thererfore, when the Koran tells its followers to destroy the infidel, al-Quaeda and its allies take that as divine orders, and thus the current war against Islamic fundamentalists should be considered a part of Islam's long-running war against the West.

We should never forget the heroism displayed by so many that day in 2001, and also we should never forget the despicable attacks by these cowardly men- afraid of granting women rights, afraid of showing their faces in publicl, and afraid to fight an open war against the United States military. But we shouldd also never forget that Islam has been attacking and destroying non-Islamic civilizations since the mid-sixth century AD. The invasion of Spain, India and the destruction of the ancient civilizations of North Africa was unprovoked by any attack on Islam. The attacks and eventual conquering of one of Christiandom's most ancient cities- Constantinople (known today as Istanbul), were unprovoked- the Eastern Roman emperors had little interest in conquering Islamic territory, and I am unaware of any such attempts from the West. In addition, the Muslims weere invading Europe as far west as Vienna in 1699, where they were repulsed. Since that time, no Muslim armed force has attempted to defeat the West by force of arms- they have preferred the Soviet method of destruction from within, using the many useful idiots and ignorant do-gooders who reside in the ranks of the Press and the educational establishments.

On this day, let us remember the bravery of men like Staff Sergeant Dave Karnes and Sergeant Jason Thomas. Let us remember the courage of Todd Beamer and his 'Let's Roll' that led to the frustration of the Flight 93 hijackers' plans. Let us celebrate their heroism, along with the bravery of all the current and former members of the United States Armed Forces who are currently defending us by taking the fight to Islam in the deserts of Iraq and all around the world.

But let us remember also that our enemy is patient, without mercy and utterly conscienceless. To Islamists, no Christian is an innocent. There are no such things as 'civilians' and fighting using methods that most of us find abhorrent is their modus operandi, as they are well aware that they cannot defeat us on the battlefield in a straight fight. Our enemy also has learned well the Soviet art of disinformation and undermining- helped, I regret to say, by the cowardly partisan hacks who are so prevalent in our media and in Congress.

Today is the sixth anniversary of a deadly attack. But if our eyes were opened, and if we can but sustain the resolve, we will triumph in the end. Islam cannot offer anything compared to what our society's freedom can, and ultimately, I believe we will win, if only our politicians and media will allow us.

Media- Liberal Brains Better Than Conservatives

Yet another story is in the media highlighting the supposed superiority of liberals' brains to those of conservatives. Not long after the president of the American Publishers' Association claimed that liberals were simply more intelligent, based on a poll that showed liberals tend to read more books (one a year) than conservatives, a new study is highlighted by the Agencie France-Presse claiming that liberals and conservatives brain functions differ.

The story waits only four short paragraphs beofre focusing on the supposed superiority of liberals by claiming that,

Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

So, liberals show a 'higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity'? I guess we poor conservatives simply can't deal with complex and ambiguous issues. The story continues to point out the liberal advantage in dealing with change, stating,

The match-up was unmistakable: respondents who had described themselves as liberals showed "significantly greater conflict-related neural activity" when the hypothetical situation called for an unscheduled break in routine.

Conservatives, however, were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits "despite signals that this ... should be changed."

So I gather that conservatives cannot change even when it is necessary. To do it credit, the study does admit that these results could be seen in different ways, pointing out that,

Whether that is good or bad, of course, depends on one's perspective: one could interpret the results to mean that liberals are nimble-minded and conservatives rigid and stubborn.

Or one could, with equal justice, conclude that wishy-washy liberals don't stick to their guns, while conservatives and steadfast and loyal.

However, the main thrust of the story leaves no doubt of the writers' opinions- liberals are superior to those poor, plodding, inflexible conservatives. The repeated references to the supposed adaptability of liberals to 'unexpected situations' is one example. The equally repetitious nature of the authors' references to conservatives' 'refusal to deviate from old habits'. The point is made- adaptability and flexibility in reacting to conflict is good, steadfastness is bad.

This story is amusing on a variety of fronts. Firstly, the story assumes that change is a good thing, but history shows that change is not always for the best. Who can deny that the change to Communism was disastrous for millions in Russia and China (and we won't even mention the bloodletting upon the fall of South Vietnam)? Who can deny that the change in the educational system here in the US over the last forty years or so has had disastrous effects as the once-accepted concentration on classical liberalism and core skills (the three 'R's) has degenerated into a potpourri of multiculteralist garbage and a loss of some of our best and brightest with the de-emphasizing of mathematics, reading and writing. Today's students are indoctrinated- not taught to think for themselves. And who can deny that the so-called welfare society has been an unmitigated disaster, destroying the economies in Europe, while potentially also causing huge problems here in the US with the imminent insolvency of Social Security?

And that brings us to the second howler in this story. Liberals in fact are not known for their adaptability. In both higher education and in politics, liberals who are faced with a new situation- the loss of the once-monolithic liberal press voice- are reacting by trying to silence their opponents, not adapt to the changed playing field. Case in point is Dartmouth's recent decision to pack the board of trustees with appointed members so as to silence the voice of the alumni-elected members. On the current battlefield, liberals are unable to concoct a strategy to fight the Muslim imprialists who are trying so hard to kill us either, though conservatives have been willing to change strategies as events on the ground have changed. Liberals still are calling for a withdrawal of forces, irregardless of the actual conditions. They seem unable to embrace change and adapt to it.

So once again the media take a study that could be interesting, depending on the criteria used, and twist it into yet another 'liberal brain better' story.There may indeed be a difference in the way that liberals and conservatives think. but I serioiusly doubt that one is superior to the other. And certainly based on current events, to suggest that liberals are somehow more flexible is a laugher. You would think that after liberals and the media have been proven wrong on so many fronts- from socialism to communism to the war on paverty to their hopes for a defeat in Iraq- they might take stock of the fact that conservatives seem better able to actually analyze events and make the right calls on a more regular basis. Instead of actually taking stock and analyzing events however, the media is still pushing stories on why those poor conservatives are just dumb reactionaries. Media bias? Oh, you mean that media bias....

Hat tip to Power Line for the stories on Dartmouth College and the Democrats' pre-emptive attacks on General Petraeus. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Jane Wyman- Classy Lady

Todya's Hollywood stars and much of the Press could takie lessons in class and good judgement from Jane Wyman. Wyman, star of multiple Hollywood features and the long-running soap opera 'Falcon's Crest', passed away yesterday at her home in Palm Springs. Besides her acting prowess, Wyman was also former PResident Ronbald Reagan's first wife.

Although her ex-husband reached political prominence, Wyman always refused to talk about him, though she did tell a reporter why. Her remarks should be required reading for most Hollywood actors and actresses today, as well as a large proportion of the media. According to Breitbart news, Wyman said,

"It's not because I'm bitter or because I don't agree with him politically. I've always been a registered Republican. But it's bad taste to talk about ex-husbands and ex-wives, that's all. Also, I don't know a damn thing about politics."

"I don't know a damn thing about politics". That is an honest admission, and Wyman knew her limitations. Clint Eastwood once said in "Magnum Force", "A man'ss got to know his limitations" or words to that effect. Too many actors and actresses (and politicians and reporters) seem to think that expertise in acting somehow brings expertisse in other, completely unrelated fields. Al Gore, a man whose personal fortune was buiklt on oil, and who has never actually wored at a real job in his left, somehow thinks he is an expert on global temperature. George Clooney, the detestable Jane Fonda and many other Hollywood names somehow think that they are miltiary strategy experts. And politicans like Nancy Pelosi, who have little or no real experience with finance, ssomeho think they can manage huge projects like national healthcare.

People should stick to what they know. Jane Wyman was not only a class lady, who understood the bad tasste of talking about one's former partner, but she also understood her lack of knowledege. Too bad more of her modern successors cannot do the same.

Media Still Not Interested In Hsu Money

Fugitive Democratic Party donor Norman Hsu was arrested today in Colorado, according to the Associated Press. However, while discussing the fact that many of the politicians to whom Hsu gave money are returning it or giving it to charity, the AP seems strangely reluctant to discuss the mysterious sources of Hsu's contributions. The story talks about several Democrats who are returning Hsu's gifts, and states,

The growing flap over Hsu's contributions prompted Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd to release a statement Thursday vowing "to refuse to accept or possess campaign contributions raised, solicited, or delivered by fugitives from justice."

"Growing flap". That's nice. But it would be even nicer if one of the so-called professional media organizations would devote some time to digging into the actual source of Hsu's large contributions. As of this writing, not one has managed to find an actual business that could be said to have supported Hsu- certainly not to the extent of being the grand-scale fundraiser he was, and none of the supposed mainstream media organizations has spent any invetigative resources whatsoever trying to discover exactly where Hsu- a failed businessman with apparently no real business- got the money to live on, let alone give so much to Democratic politicians.

Although few of the mainstream media seem interested, the Wall Street Journal is a prominent exception, and has actually done some investigating. The Journal wrote,

In recent years, he moved to New York, and told acquaintances he was working in the fashion industry. While he did run apparel companies at various times, some of the firms listed as his employer on campaign-contribution records are hard to track.

Mr. Hsu has maintained a very low profile within New York's apparel industry. Representatives of one of the country's main import groups, the U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel, said they had never heard of Mr. Hsu. Firms that track shipments to significant U.S. importers also found no record that companies listed by Mr. Hsu had imported goods into the U.S. over the past year.

And now, many acquaintances in New York say they aren't sure what he did for a living.

Good for the Journal. But it would be nice if the rest of the media would take a harder look at this as well, instead of continuing to post front-page stories on Larry Craig. Considering the amount of resources that have been deployed to follow the Abramoff story, the Valerie Plame non-scandal and the equally non-scandal of the fired US attorneys, it would seem possible that the media would be able to devote some resources to dig into a story that may actually lead to evidence of foreign meddling in the US political system- which is a genuine scandal. Don't forget that Charlie Trie, Bill Clinton's Asian financier, fled the country to avoid answering questions. We still don't know the real source of that money. For all we know, it could have come from the Chinese government or the Chinese military- neither of whom are allowed to contribute to U.S. candidates. Norman Hsu is a major question mark. If the media are as professional asx they like to claim, they need to follow this one up- no matter how embarrassing it might be to the Democrats. Oh, wait. Embarrassing to Democrats? I won't hold my breath.

Hat tip to Sweetness and Light for the Wall Street Journal story. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.