Student Journalists: F*** Bush Editorial Is About Free Speech

Do student journalists understand the difference between free speech and common sense? If they are at Colorado State University, the answer appears to be a resounding no.

According to the Associated Press, the editorial staff of the student-run Colorado State University newspaper The Rocky Mountain Collegian published an editorial which in its entirety read 'Taser This... F*** Bush'. Then the student staff claimed that it was all about free speech,

Collegian Editor David McSwane said a group of seven student editors discussed the statement for several hours before agreeing to publish it.
"We felt it illustrated our point about freedom of speech," McSwane told 7NEWS. "I think we could write 250 words and ramble on and I don't think anyone would pay attention."

So what exactly was their point? Writing 'F*** Bush' makes no point about free speech that I can see- it rather shows the lack of erudition in the Colorado State University Journalism Department, since the students apparently could not create an actual reasoned argument. It shows no courage since it seems to the be the majority viewpoint among reporters and college faculty. Instead, it simply shows the appalling level to which so many so called journalists and journalists in training have sunk. They appear to believe that by running this 'editorial' it somehow makes a statement about free speech. And it also shows the lack of maturity in most journalism departments that apparently no faculty advisor stepped in to talk to these oh-so-brave students about consequences of speech that is designed to offend.

And speech does have consequences- something that apparently these students have never learned. Apparently after they ran the editorial, advertisers responded by pulling advertisements. The AP article states that the Rocky Mountain Collegian lost approximately $30,000 dollars in advertising on the heels of the editorial board's decision to attack a sitting President with foul language. The students were apparently 'extremely disheartened' by the reaction. Perhaps if the students had learned a little about speech and consequences, they would have understood that their viewpoint might not be popular outside their little cocoon and that others might not aggree with their decision- others might see their 'free speech' as a tasteless and pointless attack on an elected President, especially since the students were unable to make a reasoned argument and apparently missed that Bush has not Tasered anyone- it was a Kerry event at which the Tasering occurred.

What the students apparently do not understand is that yes, they have the right to say what they wish, as long as it is protected speech, which their appalling editorial was. However, others also have the right to respond as they see fit, and those who disagreed with the students have every right to refuse to be associated with them or with their newspaper. I am sure that the students think the loss of advertising constitutes censorship, but to me it shows that common sense in Colorado is not entirely missing. The advertisers have every right to react to the newspaper by pulling their ads if the newspaper does not reflect their views.

This event reflects the entire media world. Newspapers and news organizations have bad ratings, are losing their subscribers, and do not enjoy much public confidence. Yet they seem oblivious to the possibility that their skewed and biased coverage, coupled with their significant slant leftward- a slant not shared by the public, might actually have something to do with their dropping revenues. If I were to recommend a remedy, it would be to spend less time genuflecting in front of dictators and more time studying basic economics- starting with how to supply a quality product.

AP: La Raza Is Civil Rights; Minutemen Are Extremist

Can the Associated Press distinguish between racial supremacy groups and civil rights groups? Apparently not. AP writer Maria Sudekum Fisher covers the appointment of 73 year old Frances Semler to Kansas City's parks board, which Fisher opposes because Semler is a member of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps. As Fisher writes,

But Frances B. Semler's appointment could now cost the city millions of dollars because she is a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a group that advocates vigilante patrolling of the Mexican border and reports illegal immigrants to authorities. Her membership has drawn sharp criticism from the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group, and the NAACP. Both groups are threatening to show their displeasure by canceling conventions scheduled to be held in Kansas City. "We see the Minutemen as an extremist group that espouses hate and vigilanteism and some violence," said Janet Murguia, president of NCLR. "A member of such a group, no matter how upstanding in other ways, should have no place representing Kansas City."

Although Fisher herself admits that the Minutemen are merely trying to assist in enforcing the United States laws, no counter argument is provided from anyone associated with the Minutemen except Semler, who is allowed merely to respond that

Semler, who said she will not resign, calls the threats from the civil rights groups "the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." She said she joined the Minutemen because of the government's failure to enforce immigration laws. Minutemen members "sit on lawn chairs with binoculars and a can of Coke or something and watch to see if anyone is coming across" the border, Semler said. "I'm not even sure if they're armed, but there might be cases if a person has a legal right to carry a gun."

So Fisher refers to La Raza- an organization analogous to the Ku Klux Klan in that it promotes the advancement of one race over another- as a civil rights group, but allows La Raza to frame the Minutemen as an 'extremist group'. Since Fisher apparently cannot be bothered to perform any real research, I shall assist her.

La Raza is a Spanish word meaning 'The Race'. The National Council of La Raza is a racially-based organization designed to assist and promote Latino interests. It is opposed to all efforts by the United States to enforce it's own immigration laws, and often files legal challenges when communities attempt to evict the illegal aliens in their midst. As the NCLR says on its web site,

NCLR supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes the following principles: 1) a path to citizenship for the current undocumented population; 2) the creation of new legal channels for future immigrant workers; 3) a reduction of family immigration backlogs; and 4) the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. By legalizing immigrants who live, work, and contribute to life in the U.S., the U.S. could deal fairly with hardworking people who have responded to an economic reality ignored by the law. At the same time, the U.S. can become more secure by enforcing the new law and by allowing undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and participate fully in their communities.

NCLR also espouses drivers licenses for illegal immigrats and in general is an organization designed to assist illegals in any way possible.

By contrast the Minutemen are an organization set up to assist in enforcing U.S. law. As their website mission statement says,

To see the borders and coastal boundaries of the United States secured against the unlawful and unauthorized entry of all individuals, contraband, and foreign military. We will employ all means of civil protest, demonstration, and political lobbying to accomplish this goal.

Minutemen often patrol the border to keep watch for illegal crossings, but as they state on their website,

"Supported by a new and expanded national support team, The Minuteman Corps will observe and report suspected illegal border crossings to the proper authorities. As always, they will maintain a "no contact" policy with the humanitarian exception of providing emergency water to those illegal aliens found in distress in the wilderness.

So let's recap- an organization that promotes enforcing existing law and tries to secure our borders using civil protest, lobbying and demonstration and which works closely with law enforcement versus an organization that wants all current illegals to be made citizens, opposes border enforcement, opposes allowing cities and towns to determine if illegals are good for them. Yet Fisher allows La Raza to call the Minutement extreme, while not allowing any response, save a vague comment from Semler. Either Fisher is completely naive, or she is pushing an agenda. Based on her article, I would have to say the latter. Hat tip to NewsBusters reader Rick Sander. Cross-posted on StoneHeads.

UPDATE: Using the Ku Klux Klan as an analogy to La Raza was inappropriate, for which I apologize. As I was reminded by Tim Graham, the KKK's record of violence is not something that La Raza has emulated. However, as I was considering that, it occurred to me that I cannot think of a truly analogous group that advocates Caucasian racial preference as the NAACP does for blacks and La Raza and MeCHA do for Hispanics. If anyone can come up with a similar organization to La Raza on the Caucasian side of the aisle, please let me know.

Still Rather Complaining

Dan Rather apparently cannot tell when he crosses from simple hilarity to the realms of ridicule. Apparently not content with suing CBS, claiming that the network scapegoated him after he presented a false story that sought to impugn President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era Texas Air National Guard service, Rather made the astonishing claim today that government and large corporations were the primary reasons that he was removed as anchor of CBS Evening News. As reported by the Associated PRess, Rather told CNN's Larry King that government and large corporations have influence in newsrooms. According to the AP story,

Dan Rather said Thursday that the undue influence of the government and large corporations over newsrooms spurred his decision to file a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and its former parent company.
"Somebody, sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive, much less thrive with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news," he said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

So government has influence in newsrooms? Government was unable to prevent the New York Times from spilling national security secrets on at least two separate occasions last year, despite requests from elected officials on both sides of the aisle. And government certainly has not been able to influence the remorseless and uncalled for attacks on this Administration, nor has government managed to halt the relentless one-sided reporting engaged in by all the major networks on the campaign in Iraq. Nor has government been able to make the media wake up and cover events that actually deserve coverage, such as the Holy Land Foundation trial ongoing in Dallas, nor the case of the Flying Imams, nor the close ties of an elected official, Keith Ellison, to the Nation of Islam and the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR)- the latter of which is an organization that has been named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case.

Big corporations? Of course news outlets are corporations that exist, in the infamous words of the Harry Potter journalist Rita Skeeter, 'to sell themselves". And there is no questions that they are always trying to better their sales. But the ideological content of the newsrooms- proven time and again to be far to the left of the general public has also caused these organizations' sales to fall, and not one of the news organizations in questions has tried to determine why their sales are constantly falling, though it has been posited in many places that the lack of balance in most if not all the so-called mainstream media. Certainly business decisions can affect coverage, but the wrioters seem oblivious to how their out-of-touch opinionating has causede their employers' stock to suffer. So we can discount this as well.

In short, Rather seems to have finally slipped over the edge into true paranoia. Regarding the panel that investigated his work on the fake Guard story, he told Larry King,

"This was in many ways a fraud. It was a setup," he told King.

It was Rather's own attempted setup of a sitting President and the blind ideological focus of his team, especially his producer Mary Mapes, who had been apparently chasing this non-story for five years, that caused Rather's fall. Yet he cannot even admit that he was wrong- all he can do is cast paranoid theories to his sympathizers. Nor can he take responsibility for his own actions. Rather and Mapes tried to take down a President and ended up ending their own careers. That is no one's fault but their ownm, and their sad attempts to blame other simply reveal their lack of maturity and ability to take responsibility for their own actions. This lawsuit and the wild claims accompnaying it are just the latest attempt to shift the blame for something that was entirely of Rather's own making.

Remember Sergeant Jeffers

Sergeant Eddie Jeffers was killed in Iraq yesterday. Most of my readers probably don't know who Sergeant Eddie Jeffers was. Maybe they don't care- they never met him, and now they never will. But Sergeant Jeffers was a man who counted, a man who fouhgt even while he recognized that many of his countrymen could not or would not participate in the fight with him.

Let me tell you about Sergeant Jeffers. I never met him either, but I wish I had. He was a man who understood what counts, and a man of honor I would gladly stand beside. And though he was only 23 when he was killed, he had a more mature and responsible outlook on life and the war in which we are engaged than many of his countrymen, no matter their age or their supposed intelligence. Bloviating fools like Senator Edward Kennedy, or Representative Nancy Pelosi, or media hacks like Chris Matthews lack Sgt. Jeffers' comprehension. But maybe it is not too late even for such as they.

Back in February, Sergeant Jeffers penned a piece for the New Media Journal entitled Hope Rides Alone, wherein he introduced his readers to his life and how he views those who for political or partisan gain, or though ignorance are helping the enemies of this country. Regarding his ignorant countrymen and women back home, Sgt. Jeffers wrote,

People like Cindy Sheehan are ignorant. Not just to this war, but to the results of their idiotic ramblings, or at least I hope they are. They don't realize its effects on this war. In this war, there are no Geneva Conventions, no cease fires. Medics and Chaplains are not spared from the enemy's brutality because it's against the rules. I can only imagine the horrors a military Chaplain would experience at the hands of the enemy. The enemy slinks in the shadows and fights a coward’s war against us. It is effective though, as many men and women have died since the start of this war. And the memory of their service to America is tainted by the inconsiderate remarks on our nation's news outlets. And every day, the enemy changes...only now, the enemy is becoming something new. The enemy is transitioning from the Muslim extremists to Americans. The enemy is becoming the very people whom we defend with our lives. And they do not realize it. But in denouncing our actions, denouncing our leaders, denouncing the war we live and fight, they are isolating the military from society...and they are becoming our enemy.

Democrats and peace activists like to toss the word "quagmire" around and compare this war to Vietnam. In a way they are right, this war is becoming like Vietnam. Not the actual war, but in the isolation of country and military. America is not a nation at war; they are a nation with its military at war. Like it or not, we are here, some of us for our second, or third times; some even for their fourth and so on. Americans are so concerned now with politics, that it is interfering with our war.

But Sgt. Jeffers has room for hope, despite the sickening cowardice or partisanship of so many in this country. He concluded his piece by saying,

We are the hope of the Iraqi people. They want what everyone else wants in life: safety, security, somewhere to call home. They want a country that is safe to raise their children in. Not a place where their children will be abducted, raped and murdered if they do not comply with the terrorists demands. They want to live on, rebuild and prosper. And America has given them the opportunity, but only if we stay true to the cause and see it to its end. But the country must unite in this endeavor...we cannot place the burden on our military alone. We must all stand up and fight, whether in uniform or not. And supporting us is more than sticking yellow ribbon stickers on your cars. It's supporting our President, our troops and our cause.

Right now, the burden is all on the American soldiers. Right now, hope rides alone. But it can change, it must change. Because there is only failure and darkness ahead for us as a country, as a people, if it doesn't.

Let's stop all the political nonsense, let's stop all the bickering, let's stop all the bad news and let's stand and fight!

Isn't that what America is about anyway?

Isn't it? When did we cease being a nation that understood the darkness that is Muslim, or any totalitarian aggression? During World War II, we understood the stakes, and although we might have differed on strictly domestic issues, as certainly the Republicans did at that time, we stood together- no one made Roosevelt's handling of the war an issue during the campaigns of that time. When did it become acceptable to call a sitting President a Fascist, or call a commanding general a traitor?

We need more like Sergeant Eddie Jeffers, more men and women who understand the stakes and are willing to stand up against that darkness that threatent to overwhelm the world, as it has tried so many times before. But Sergeant Jeffer is right. Let's take his advice and stop the bickering. Give the troops what they need to win. Imperialist Islam is like a Hydra- cut off one head and many more appear, but it is cowardly at its heart- it will not attack those it perceives as stronger. We can only be defeated by ourselves. That is what the enemy hopes for- they know that they can never defeat us on a battlefield. So let us stand together and deny them that victory. And let us honor men and women like Sergeant Jeffers, for they stand between us and a barbarism like none the world has known for many a long year. May God rest your soul, Segeant Jeffers, and thank you, thank you for everything.

Rather Whiny

Dan Rather stepped down as anchor of CBS Evening News due to his complicity in a report thatused forged and falsified documents to accuse George W. Bush of neglecting his duties as a member of the Texas Air National Guard. Although Rather was not fired, he was forced to step down as anchor by the public fallout, and his career came to a fairly ignoble end.

One would think that Rather might have understood that one does not make provably false claims against a sitting U.S. President in the heat of an election and hope to come out looking good. One would be incorrect. The New York Times is reporting today that Rather has filed suit against CBS for 70 million dollars. According to the Times,

Mr. Rather, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him insufficient airtime on “60 Minutes” after forcing him to step down as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005. He also contends that the network committed fraud by commissioning a “biased” and incomplete investigation of the flawed Guard broadcast and, in the process, “seriously damaged his reputation.”

The suit, which seeks $70 million in damages, names as defendants CBS and its chief executive, Leslie Moonves; Viacom and its executive chairman, Sumner Redstone; and Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News

.

So Dan Rather, after trying to use the power of the media to falsely accuse a President of something that he did not do, and using shoddy an biased source material, which even CBS had to admit was not authenticated, he has the gall to accuse his network of using bias against him! This, while he stands as one of the most, if the the most, biased reporters in the sad history of the portwar American media. Only the false stories filed by Walter Duranty in Ukraine and Walter Cronkite on the Tet can surpass Rather's years of biased reporting.

Carter Says Iran No threat To Israel- Too Far Away

Proving once again that common sense is no prerequisite for occupying any government office, let alone the White House, former President Jimmy Carter said today that Iran was no threat to Israel. According to Breitbart News,

Former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday that it was almost inconceivable that Iran would "commit suicide" by launching missiles at Israel.
Speaking at Emory University, Carter, who brokered the 1979 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt, said Israel's superior military power and distance from Iran likely are enough to discourage an actual attack.

"Iran is quite distant from Israel," said Carter, 83. "I think it would be almost inconceivable that Iran would commit suicide by launching one or two missiles of any kind against the nation of Israel."

This displays a level of ignorance and naivete that I find almost unbelievable. Of course, Carter is not known for his political understanding. Iran's physical distance from Israel is irrelevant, when one considers that the commander of Iran's air force said yesterday that Israel is within range of Iranian medium-range missiles. In addition, Iran's president has said on a number of occasions that Israel should be destroyed. The belligernat statements emanating from Tehran seem to indicate that Iran thinks it can indeed destroy Israel without suffering serious damage to itself.

Israel is at risk, in part due to Carters' own feckless foreign policy, and his failure to act when Iran committed an act of war agsint the United States by seizing its embassy in 1979. the ramifications of that act are still unfolding and ultimately it is my belief that we are going to have to fight Iran, unless the population removes the mullahs before we have to go in with our own forces, which I find unlikely. The only thing that Carter's outburst does at this stage is reinforce his image as America's worst ex-President, and confirms us in our wisdom that Jimmy Carter is not to be trusted where his own country's intersts are concerned. He is more likely to give them away as he did the Panama Canal than to actually stand up and fight for his fellow countrymen.

New Journalists Missing Moral Clarity

Journalists are responsible for presenting the news of the day to ordinary citizens. Their requirements include objectivity and analysis. However, they are also expected to understand the difference between a mass-murderer who espouses a form of global slavery and an elected leader of the freest country on Earth. Unfortunately, it appears that Ryan Yeoman, of the Central Connecticut State University does not have that understanding. Writing today in the opinion pages of The Recorder, Central Connecticut State's college newspaper, Yeomans states,

As of late, if you were to bring up the president in a discussion you would find that many Americans disapprove of the decisions he has made. At the same time, Osama bin Laden presents many good arguments against the president and many of his reasons for disapproving of Bush are similar to those of anti-Bush Americans. Would it be wrong to assume that there is some kind of connection between feelings of the American people and those of Osama bin Laden? As I would love to make this connection, I ultimately cannot because of the actions of our president. If I were to say I agree with bin Laden, that would mean that I agree with a terrorist; under the Patriot Act, I could be labeled a potential terrorist and my phone could be tapped, and every move I make could be watched and analyzed.

In finding myself in this predicament, I questioned myself as to who the lesser evil actually is. I ask, “Who has done more damage to the lives of the American people?” Personally, I worry more about the next bad decision Bush is going to make than I worry about a potential Osama bin Laden organized terrorist attack.

One thing I have realized from these videos is that while Osama bin Laden remains free, Americans are slowly becoming bound by the decisions of the president to remove and restrict the rights given to us by our knowledgeable forefathers, without whom we would not be here. I can only hope that Americans will open their eyes and see what is in front of them, in order to prevent things from getting out of hand any further.

This writer displays such a lack of common sense that it is difficult to know where to start deconstructing. Let's take his statement that "Americans are slowly becoming bound by the decisions of the president to remove and restrict the rights given us by our knowledgeable forefathers". Mr. Yeomans, precisely what rights has the president removed from American citizens? I cannot think of a single right enumerated in the Constitution that Mr. Bush has either removed or restricted. In fact, the courts have created new rights for our enemies that have never existed previously, such as access to the US court system.

Yeomans also complains that although he agrees with bin Laden, "If I were to say I agree with bin Laden, that would mean that I agree with a terrorist; under the Patriot Act, I could be labeled a potential terrorist and my phone could be tapped, and every move I make could be watched and analyzed." Well, actually no. Free speech is protected, though advocating the assassination or other violence against the president is a federal crime and has been since long before the Bush Administration. I have not noticed any anti-war/pro-Islamic protestors being placed in prison for speaking their minds, and certainly the MoveOn.org folks who masterminded the 'Bush-as-Hitler' campaign are still free. If Mr. Yeomans were communicating with foreign nationals connected to terror via international phone calls, then yes, those calls could be and probably should be tapped. But tapping domestic calls (those are calls with both ends within the United States, as opposed to international calls, which have at least one end in a foreign country) require a warrant- no matter how many Democratic talking points bin Laden parrots.

However, the most startling aspect of this opinion piece is the complete lack of understanding betrayed by the writer. This is someone who will be entering the journalistic world and will be responsible for portraying the news to his fellow Americans. Yet, he displays the most astonishing lack of ability to differentiate between an elected leader who is bound (and who has followed) the law, and who has two other branches of the government overseeing him as well, and an unelected terrorist who wants a global Islamic caliphate, containing no rights whatsoever for non-Muslims. A leader who masterminded the attacks on September 11, 2001 that killed over three thousand American citizens. And Yeomans appears to be ignorant of how bin Laden's videos have increasingly adopted Democratic Party talking points, as he tries to elect a party that would be much easier to defeat than the current Adminstration.

It used to be that college students were taught the difference between murderous barbarians such as bin Laden and elective republics such as we. There is a difference between forces that refuse to wear uniforms, who hide amongst civilians and who behead and torture their enemies (the Muslims) as opposed to a society that adheres to a rule of law, wears uniforms, fights under a flag, and who actually provides their captives with food, Korans and exercise (the United States)- none of which privileges are granted to those unfortunate enough to fall into the hands of the Islamists. Mr. Yeomans has an understanding neither of history, which provides the context for bin Laden and his allies, nor for the proper use of force, which is often the only resort against aggression such as that espoused by bin Laden and his allies. Proper use of force saved Europe from Islamic aggression many times, beginning in 732 at the battle of Tours, and most recently in 1683 in the siege of Vienna.

If Mr Yeomans is the future of American journalism, then American journalism has fallen a long way since the days of Ernie Pyle. 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.

Barry Manilow: Conservatives 'Dangerous'

Barry Manilow epitomizes the liberal reaction to being forced to share a stage with someone with whom he disagrees- instant flight! Manilow is apparently cancelling his scheduled appearance on the mostly-liberal gabfest show 'The View' because new host Elizabeth Hasselbeck is a conservative. According to TMZ, Manilow said of Hasselbeck,

In an exclusive statement to TMZ, Barry says, "I strongly disagree with her views. I think she's dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her."

So it seems that is is perfectly acceptable for liberals and/or Democrats to only go where their views will not be challenged, isn't it, Barry? I seem to recall the major Democratic candidates for President refusing to appear in a Fox-sponsored debate because they consider Fox 'right-wing'. I suspect that the real reason was that they might actually have to answeer questions that are not softballs about how terrible George W. Bush is and how unfeeling/corrupt/warmongering/[insert your preferred criticism here] the Republicans are. It seems to be a liberal failing to be unable to handle a frank exchange of disagreeing viewpoints. Maybe it is because they are so used to having a liberal echo chamber in the mainstream media?

However, if a Republican were to refuse to go on, say CNN due to the left-wing viewpoints espoused by so many of CNN's reporters and talking heads, the liberal media would scream. It seems that liberals and the media want completely free speech for what ever they emote, no matter how offensive or untrue, but cannot grant that privielege to anyone with whom they disagree. Remind me again about liberlas' support of 'free speech'? It seems that only they are entitled to free speech- anyone who might be *gasp* a conservative is not granted that right. I'm wondering when the media will denigrate Manilow's cowardice as he surely deserves. I won't hold my breath. Cross-posted at NewsBusters.

Rediscovering Faith In the Face of Evil

Islam has always yearned to own and control the ancient lands of Europe. They have tried many, many times to conquer the West, beginning in 715 with the invasion of Spain and most recently in front of Vienna in 1683. With nuclear weapons, a vast population and a new generation of leaders who see the West as weak, sonner or later they may well succeed. The question is, what should the West, principally the United States, do about these barbarians?

Writing in the American Conservative, James Pinkerton has an audacious answer- revive Christendom and make a Council of the West to defend Christians around the world from the rapacious and bloody grasp of Islam. Channleing JRR Tolkien, Pinkerton suggests that the West take a page from the Council of Elrond, which brought together the races and groups- Men, Elves, Hobbitts- who opposed the evil of Sauron. Pinkerton proposes that the West do something similar to forge a grand council to oppose Islam and secure the West, while leaving the East to do what it will. Pinkerton writes,

Two years ago, the Eurocrats in Brussels drafted a 300-page EU constitution that consciously omitted reference to Europe’s specifically Christian heritage. The voters of France, as well as Holland, rejected that secular document.

Maybe there’s a lesson here. The people of Europe might not be so eager, after all, to declare that they are “united in diversity.” What does that phrase mean, anyway? How about trying to find something that unites Europeans in unity? How about a revival of Christendom as a concept—as a political concept? A revival, or at least a remembrance, of Europe’s cultural heritage could be the healing force that Europe needs.

After all, it worked in the past. In the words of the 19th-century French historian Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, the victory of Christianity marked “the end of ancient society”—and all the petty divisions that went with it. Fustel de Coulanges continues, “Man felt that he had other obligations besides that of living and dying for the city. Christianity distinguished the private from the public virtues. By giving less honor to the latter, it elevated the former; it placed God, the family, the human individual above country, the neighbor above the city.”

As history proves, a larger communion can be built on such sentiments. In the 9th century, Alcuin of York declared that the crowning of Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor would bring forth a new Imperium Christianum. Ten centuries later, Hilaire Belloc asserted, “The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the Faith.” Indeed, during those many centuries, Europe enjoyed a pretty good run. Only in the last century—the century of atheists, psychiatrists, and National Socialists—has Europe’s survivability come into question. Today, the Christian author Os Guiness puts the issue plainly: “A Europe cut off from its spiritual roots cannot survive.”

Some will smile at the thought that Christianity might be part of the solution to the problems of the Third Millennium. Admittedly, there’s an element of faith in the idea of trying to revive the idea of Christian unity. But Christendom is the Shire Strategy, applied.

But what about the groups who are neither Christian nor Mulsim? What about the Buddhist Chinese, Japanese and Korean? What about the Hindi Indians? These groups also are threatened by resurgent Islam. As the Indians know, Islam has no preferences- India was under the Muslim Mughal emperors for centuries. Pinkerton suggests that as long as Christians do not seek to expand their own lands by conquest, then Christians, Buddhists and Hindus can work together to surround Islam and force it to stay within it's own boundaries. As he says,

No matter what we say or do, the blocs of Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese are all going their separate cultural ways, rediscovering their own unique heritages. And Islam, of course, is at odds with all of its neighbors. In his book a decade ago, Huntington, mindful of the indirect danger posed by American universalism, was even more mindful of the direct danger posed by Muslims: “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards,” he writes. “Muslim bellicosity and violence are late-twentieth century facts which neither Muslims nor non-Muslims can deny.” That’s bad news, but there’s a silver lining: if Westerners, Russians, Africans, Hindus, and Chinese all feel threatened by Islam—and they all do—there’s plenty of opportunity for a larger encircling alliance, with an eye toward feasible strategies of containment, even quarantine. But not conquest, not occupation, not “liberation.”

Not everyone will agree with Pinkerton- for example, I suspect that the West is less reliable than the Anglosphere, but his suggestions are certainly a possibility, if only Europe will raise its collective head from the sands and realize the danger in which it stands. The Hagia Sophia, one of Christendom's greatest church, was turned into a mosque on the Muslim capture of Christian Constantinople in 1453. Today, it is a museum, but Chirstians are not permitted to worship within its hallowed walls. Could we face Muslims worshipping in the halls of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome? Diversity and multiculturalism are a recipe for cultural suicide in the face of an Islam that thinks it is finally in position to destroy the one region that has always resisted it and has surpassed it so badly in ther last few centuries. If the West does nto awake, there won't be a West. Freedom of press, dress, behavior and the ability to worship as one chooses are integral to the West. They are anathem to Islam.

Read the whole thing and make your own decision. One way or another, we will be faced with a murderous and religiously inspired Islamic world against us sooner or alter. How we deal with it will determine whether we survive or not. Hat tip to Jerry Pournelle.

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.

Marshall Prof: Media Not Liberal

Marshall University psychology professor W. Joseph Wyatt should probably stick to psychology as opposed to attempting media analysis. However, he has decided to write an op-ed in the West Viriginia Herald Dispatch claiming that media bias is a myth.

Professor Wyatt begins by claiming that,

However, a 2002 Gallup poll showed that slightly more than a third of journalists describe themselves as Democrats, meaning that the vast majority are something else, and unlikely to be liberal.

Unfortunately for the good professor, a 2007 Gallup poll as reported in the American Journalist actually found that,

When it came to the subject of party affiliation, 36% of the journalists said they were Democrats in 2002 compared with 44% in 1992. (That’s the lowest percentage of self-proclaimed Democrats since 1971.) The percentage of Independents dropped slightly from 1992 to 2002 and the ranks of Republicans grew incrementally from 16% to 18%.

So we have 36 percent Democrat, 18 percent Republican and 40 percent 'independent'. Since reporters tend to think that 'independent' usually means 'progressive', we can safely asssume that most ofd these self-described 'independents' actually vote mostly or entirely Democratic. And there is no doubt, as the poll concludes, that journalist are much more liberal than the general population. The same poll reported that, "If newsrooms have moved slightly rightward, the research shows, however, that journalists are still more liberal than their audiences. According to 2002 Gallup data in “The American Journalist,” only 17% of the public characterized themselves as leaning leftward, and 41% identified themselves as tilting to the right. In other words, journalists are still more than twice as likely to lean leftward than the population overall."

Professor Wyatt continues by claiming that the media gave an equal amount of time and space to Bill Clinton's well-documented lie about having sex with intern Monica Lewinsky annd what he characterizes as Bush's "lie about wiretapping. Wyatt writes,

Over the next 66 days, his lie was replayed on the major news networks (CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC) five times as often as was Bush's lie about wiretapping ("Any time you hear the United States government talking about a wiretap, it requires ... a court order.") in the 66 days after it had been revealed.

This would be interesting, but the facts are that President Clinton did indeed lie. However, to characterize President Bush's wiretap comment as a lie is to betray a misunderstanding of truth and falsehood. Bush's statement was made in the context of discussing roving wiretaps- he was also specifically discussing domestic comunications. What he actually said was,

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

I remind the good professor that the widely misunderstood NSA program (which he does not directly mention but to which he is clearly alluding) focused on calls one end of which was in a foreign country. By definiteion, those are not domestic calls, not matter how hysterical the media wants to get. So Bush's statement, taken in context, was not a lie, whereas Clinton's clearly was. In that context, to state that the media gave as much attention to Bush's statement as Clinton's actually reinforces the fact that the media focused more on Bush's comments, which were not lies, than Clinton's which clearly were. And I don't see Professor Wyatt even discussing the furor over the famous 'sixteen words' which were by no stretch of the imagination a lie. And those sixtenn words received far more attention than Clinton's provable falsehoods.

Professor Wyaatt then proceeds into the realms of hysteria, claiming that,

Last October, President Bush signed the controversial Military Commissions Act. That new law allowed the president, free of oversight, to order any American citizen to be snatched off the street, imprisoned without being charged, held without notice to his family, without hearing evidence against him, without access to a lawyer -- forever. The law was a shot across the bow of Americans' rights like no other in memory.

The good professor completely mis-states what the Act does. It does not apply to American citizens, who remain unaffected by the provisions of the act. It specifically applies only to aliens who are unlawful combatants. The summary of the Act itself clearly states that,

Amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to codify and establish procedures governing the use of commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants (combatants) engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses specifically made triable by commissions under this Act. Defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as a person who has: (1) engaged in or supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant; or (2) been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or other tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense (Secretary). Defines a "lawful enemy combatant" as a person who is a member of: (1) the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States; (2) a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or (3) a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

Not content with mis-stating the purpose of the Military Commissions Act, Professor Wyatt then descends into the fever swamps, claiming,

DeLay, under indictment for money laundering, recently told the NBC "Today" show audience that the media frenzy relative to Sen. Larry Craig's public bathroom activities are never cast on Democrats. Really? Maybe DeLay somehow missed the media feast on the Clinton-Lewinski matter.

The Clinton-Lewinsky matter, if the good professor recalls, was broken by Matt Drudge, at which point the mainstream media could no longer ignore it. They did do their best to avoid reporting on it. And can anyone claim that Democrats receive the same treatment as Republicans? Senator Craig's party identification was blazoned from every headline. Does the professor remember how the Swift boat vets, who had legitimate questions about John kerry's fitness to be Commander-in-Chief, and all of whom were willing to be identified, received far less favorable media attention than an anonymous source with forged docuemnts puporting to prove that George Bush did not fulfill the conditions of his National Guard service? And I am still waiting for most of the mainstream media to include Representative William Jeffferson's (Democrat) in most stories. I also don't recall Rhode Island Democratic Representative Patrick Kennedy's DUI getting anywhere near the Craig-level coverage from the mainstream media.

Wyatt's op-ed is merely the childish complaints of the neighborhood bully who no longer has his uway uninhibited by countering forces. Hat tip to NewsBuster reader Michael Fidanza. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Common Sense Lacking in North Carolina Schools

Apparently the school administration in North Carolina has completely forsaken any attempt at using common sense. According to North Carolina's NBC17 news channel, school administrators banned students from wearing clothing displaying the American flag. Apparently this is a new rule, and thought the news story does not say, it appears to have beeen placed into efect just before the Sepatember 11 anniversary, as a student who wished to wear an American flag to school was dissuaded by her mother. In attempting to justify this monumental idiocy,

The superintendent of schools in Sampson County calls the situation unfortunate, but says educators didn’t want to be forced to pick and choose which flags should be permissible.

"Having to pick and choose"???? Where have these people been? Do we not live in the United States? Are not our students citizens of this great country? If this is true, then why should they be banned from wearing their own country's flag? Allowing students to wear clothing displaying the American flag should not even be a question. How low have we fallen when our own flag is treated on the same basis as a foreign country's flag. Students shouldd be allowed to wear American flags whenever they wish- after all, if burning the flag is apparently constitutionally protected, then how can wearing clothing displaying the flag not be permissible?

the root problem, of course, is not really that adminstratorss actually equate the U.S. flag on the swame level as other countries' banners (though I suspect that for many of these so-called educators, they would prefer to see the US flag placed less prominently than say, the flag of Russia), but that they fear lawsuits from such anti-American organizations as the ACLU or La Raza if they dared to actually allow students to wear the US flag while not allowing them to wear the Mexican flag.

Until we bring some common sense back into the judicial system and stop allowing groups whose agendas are clearly against the mainstream of American thought to threaten lawsuits, I fear we will continue to see situationss like this.

But Never Question Their Patriotism!

The so-called anti-war forces both in the United States and around the world love to be associated with 'peace'. Although they are never sure exactly how to achieve 'peace' without either surendering to or tgriumphing over those who would do us harm, they are always very outspoken about their desire for peace.

The anti-war movement's other great mantra is that they 'support the troops but not the mission' and they become very upset if one should actually questions their patriotism based on their admitted desire to ssee their own countrymeen and countrywomen defeated. However, it iss rare that they actually admit their real animus is their hatred for the U.S. President and American military personnel.

Today, a horrifying story from the Netherlands lays clear the underlying thought processes of most of the anti-war movement. According to Breitbart, an American living in the Netherlands took an axe to an innocent Dane when he could not find any U.S. troops to attack. As reported, this disturbed person, one Carlos Hartmann of Michigan,

The suspect, Carlos Hartmann, 41, of Tecumseh, Mich., has confessed to the Sept. 8 killing on a train platform in the southern city of Roosendaal, defence lawyer Peter Gremmen said.

Gremmen said Hartmann wanted to punish the Netherlands for its support of the war in Iraq.

Hartmann appeared before a judge Tuesday and was ordered held for another two weeks for investigation.

"He hates soldiers, and says that the army kills people, so it would be legitimate if he were also to kill someone . . . from the American military - or from its NATO allies," Gremmen said in a telephone interview.

While I abhor the act of unprovoked violence on an innocent, I would applaud Mr. Hartmann for his clear enunciation of the motives that I believe inspire most of the anti-war movement. It is not war they actually hate- if it were, they would have spoken out against Syria's twenty-plus year occupation of Lebananon, China's equally long occupation of Tibet, the Khmer Rouge's campaign against the Hmong, as well as the religious war Islam is conducting agasinst Sudanese Christians in Darfur and around the world. No, it is not actually war that they hate- it is the United States willingness to use military force to defend itself and promote its interests that they despise. They hate soldiers because soldiers, unlike the ''peace' movement, are patriotic, love their country and have the courage to actually do something about it. 'Peaceniks' have none of these virtues.

An isolated group of bad apples at the prison camp in Abu Ghraib weere made the face of the U.S military by the Press. How much does anyone bet that the Press will make this unhinged maniac the face of the peace movement, though he surely represents that movement's underlying beliefs more accurately than the Abu Ghraib group represented their fellow soldiers.

Media Focuses on Hsu Flight - Not Finances

I have been following the strange (and mostly unreported) case of fugitive criminal and major Democratic Party fundraiser Norman Hsu since September 5. Paul Mirengoff of the Power Line blog has a post today wherein he notes that the mainstream media, led by the Wall Street Jornal, are finally taking the time to look into Hsu's attempted flight from justice. However, as Mirengoff pointedly notes,

I think the pertinent questions are: Where did the money come from? And why was it so important to Norman Hsu that Hillary Clinton become president?

This is all too true. And as NewsBusters contributing editor Warner Todd Huston wrote ealier today, even the New York Times admits that the media is not doing a good job of cov ering the Hsu scandal. I am still waiting for one of the so-called major media organs to actually devote some investigative resources to delving into the root of Hsu's money. The man appears to have absolutely no real source of income, and even the MSM admits that his listed addresses appear to be at best distantly related to the man himself. So where did his money come from? I am ssure that with all those levels of editors and the resources to sspend so much time on the Larry Craig scandal, the MSM can find someone to discover the answers to these two questions raised by Mirengoff. Anyone in the MSM? Anyone at all?

Hat tip to Power Line. Cross-posted on 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.

Durham Police Motto- To Falsely Accost & Arrest (Especially Duke Students)

KC Johnson's fabulous Durham-in-Wonderland blog, along with John in Carolina and LieStoppers is an essential source for all things concerned with the Duke Rape Hoax. KC has recently posted a Sunday Roundup, wherein he recaps the events of the previous week. This week's recap highlights the depositions and performances of Durham Police Department (DPD) Officer Ben Himan and Sergeant Mark Gottlieb.

As Professor Johnson writes,

There are some figures about whose performance on the case it’s easy to pass moral judgment: Mike Nifong. Mark Gottlieb. Wahneema Lubiano.

But other actors bequeathed a more mixed legacy. Take, for instance, Ben Himan. Himan was critical in obtaining the fraudulent March 23 non-testimonial order—which started the whole case in motion. And he was willing to carry Nifong’s water as the only officer to testify before the grand jury that indicted Dave Evans.

Yet, in sharp contrast to Gottlieb, Himan did take—and turn over—handwritten notes. And, whether by accident or design, he was excluded from the two highest-profile instances of law enforcement malpractice in the case—the April 4, 2006 lineup, and Linwood Wilson’s December interview with Crystal Mangum.

Moreover, while some members of the DPD continued their corruption (Gottlieb); others maintained the “hear-no-evil/see-no-evil approach (Hodge, Chalmers); and still others retreated behind the blue wall of silence (Soucie, Clayton), Himan worked to redeem himself. From all accounts, he performed professionally during the AG’s inquiry, vindicating the office’s decision to employ him as the only Durham police officer involved in Cooper’s handling of the case. Unlike Gottlieb, he provided an honest deposition to the State Bar.

After reading Professor Johnson's recap of the depositions, I have to say that with potential lawsuits agains the City of Durham and the DPD looming, and taking into account the performance of the majority of the Durham Police Department, specifically Corporal David Addison, Sergeant Gottlieb and the entire upper management, I would be very concerned if I were Gottlieb, Addison or upper management. Professor Johnson characterizes Gottlieb as follows,

Gottlieb comes across as a figure who plays fast and loose with the rules, and who harbors a deep dislike for Duke students. Although he doesn’t say it explicitly, he also leaves little doubt that he continues to believe a crime occurred.

As for the performance of the DPD upper management, the Chief of Police Steve Chalmers seems to have been permanently on vacation and no one in the higher ranks appeared to have any interest in stopping Nifong's rush to falsely accuse the Duke students. Most of those higher rankers are still in the DPD and are still in positions where they can unlawfully abuse their responsibility. If I were a resident of Durham, I would be very wary of having any dealings with Addison or Gottlieb- both of these officers appear to be the sort of people that give police departments a bad name. And for the city management, these two officers should be dismissed with extreme prejudice as soon as possible- though not before allowing them to be fraced with civil suits for their callous and prejudicial behavior. From Professor Johnson's report, it sounds as though Himan, while he deserves to face some consequences, he is the only member of the DPD who behaved professionally and who did his best to make up for his actions in allowing the Rape Hoax to proceed.

Like it or not, Durham city management allowed a rogue prosecutor and police officers to come entirely too close to framing three innocent men. No one from the DPD higher echelons or from city management made any efforts to intercede in a prosecution that was clearly out of control, and indeed, in the cases of Addison and Gottlieb, made every effort to assist in a clearly illegal attempt to railroad these Duke students. In addition, Gottlieb hass shown both in statements and in his behavior that he appears to harbor a deep dislike of Duke students, admitting he treats them more harshly than non-Duke students. There should be no place for this type of police officer- in Durham or anywhere else. And because of their failure to control Mike Nifong's rogue prosecution, Durham is now facing legal retribution that will cost in the millions, and hopefully will end the law enforcement careers of Gottlieb and Addison.

Hat tip to Durham In Wonderland.

Researching the Obvious

Some scientists seem to be much better at wasting public money on things that really do not need researching than actually performing worthy research. Sky News of Australia reporter Will Dunham begins his article on a new study comparing toddlers to great apes by writing,

In another case of researchers reporting the bleeding obvious, European scientists have found that children are smarter than chimpanzees.

Kudos to Mr. Dunham for pointing out that this is already known and has been so for a very long time. So why are these scientists wasting what is undoubtedly public taxpayer money by researching this? If this was part of a study to determine HOW children learn things, I could completely understand, because that is something that is definitely worthy of study. But merely to tell us that toddlers are smarter than chimpanzees or orangutans is a compelte waste of time, money and the paper used to print the results.

This 'study' ranks down with those that come out on a regular basis to tell us that 'telling teenagers not to do something actually encourages them to do it' or similarly ill-conceived studies of the blatantly obvious. Perhaps the public would be better served by removing the research funds from 'scientists' like these and applying them to more useful purposes- like returning said funds to the taxpayers who unwittingly financed the study!

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

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.

San Francisco Sanctuary 2.0

San Francisco is one of the worst offenders regarding illegal immigration. Not content with refusing to obey laws with which they disagree, San Francisco actively encourages illegal aliens to come to their city and prohibits any city agency- including the police- from assisting the federal government in deporting these criminals.

Now comes the news that San Franscisco wants to take the next step- providing these illegals with formal idenitification cards so as to allow them access to services that they have no right to. According to the SFGate online magazine, one of San Francisco's supervisors is writing a law to create a city ID card especially for illegals. However, what is worse, he is pressuring financial institutions to accept it. As SFGate writes,

San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano is drafting legislation to create a city identification card for immigrants unable to get traditional ID cards, a move likely to anger advocates of tougher immigration enforcement.
The cards would be accepted by all city agencies and organizations that receive city funding. Ammiano plans to introduce the legislation within a couple of weeks. He also is trying to persuade financial institutions to allow residents to use the cards to open accounts.
"There is a large community who contribute, and there are not a lot of safeguards around their (immigration) status, their piece of mind and their ability to participate," Ammiano said, adding that the card would be available to all people living in San Francisco regardless of their immigration status.

This is a bad idea on so many fronts I hardly know where to start. Firstly, illegal aliens are, by definition, illegal. Why is the City of San Francisco so eager to assist foreign nationals brak United States law? Do these ignorant fools in the city council not understand that if one does not like a law, then one changes it. However, one does not have the right to selectively disobey laws simpply because one does not like them.

Secondly, this is a problem on legal grounds. Courts have thrown out laws by cities trying to help enforce the government's illegal alien enforcement. How can a court allow San Fracnisco's blantant attempt to create their own immigration policy? If a city cannot enforce immigration laws, how can a city be allowed to create a new form of ID that floutss immigration law?

This also creates a problem for the 'financial institutions' Supervisor Ammiano is pressuring. They are, or should be, under pressure from the federal government NOT to accept this kind of identification- the Mexican matricular card was bad enough. If San Francisco starts pressuring them to accept the new illegal ID card, then banks have to choose which laws to obey- federal or state.

San Francisco and other 'sanctuary cities' need to be firmly reined in. No matter if they are elected or not, Supervisor Ammiano and his fellows on the SF City Council are conspiriing to break federal law. They can and should be arrested and tried on those charges. In addition, all federal funding should be yanked from the city until the council comes to its senses. Unfortunately, we will probably have to wait for a new President in order for any of this to occur. The Bush Administration, stalwart though it has been in conducting the war against imperialist Islam, has been less than active regarding the invasion of illegals coming across the sourthern border.

Justice Dept Fraternizes With Terror Defendants: Media Silent

The crew at Power Line has been doing a superb job of following up the case of the Holy Land Foundation, in which the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was named as an unidicted co-conspirator. The offical indictment can be found in the previous link. The national media, on the other hand, has been virtually silent, both on the case itself, which has exposed all kinds of illicit relationships, and on the uneasy relationship the United States government has with these Muslim organizations such as CAIR, many of whom are linked with the very people whom we are currently fighting.

In today's Power Line, Scott Johnson writes about the fact that while the government has been trying a case in which CAIR is named as an unidicted co-conspirator, the Justice Department has a booth at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)- another unidicted co-conspirator's convention! As Mr. Johnson wrote,

On the other hand, the government was fraternizing with one of the unindicted co-conspirators this past weekend in Rosemont, Illinois. The Justice Department sponsored a booth at ISNA's national convention. The Justice Department has declined to say how much it paid for the booth at the convention, but we can infer it paid something. And not just the Justice Department. Janet Ellen Levy usefully summarizes the roster of government departments and agencies attending the convention: "The Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the FBI, USAID, the Department of Transportation, and the TSA all had booths at the ISNA [convention]."

Mr. Johnson quite correctly noted that this had some interesting aspects- the government fraternizing with some of the same people it was currently engaged in trying a criminal case - with grave consequences for the United States - while at the same time trying to play buddy-buddy with the defendants. And the media, just as they have ignorde most if not all of the Holy Land case, virtually ignored this strange event as well. As Mr. Johnson wrote, "I can find precisely one news story noting -- shall we say? -- the tension in the government's actions."

The one news story was in the Indianapolis Star, headlined Tense ties between Muslims, U.S. on display. Where is the rest of the media on this incredibly important story? ABC News had room to write a lengthy story headlined Iraqi Forces 'Dysfunctional' and 'Corrupt', but no room to talk about the Islamic terrorists hiding in the United States. The New York Times did nto mention the case at all. Neither did CNN, NBC News or CBS News. Why? Or are they only interested in spilling secrets that might actually damage the United States in its fight against Muslim aggression? Perhaps telling the truth about the Muslim groups that purport to speak for American Muslims is not in the best interests of the purveyers of dhimmitude who reside in the offices of the mainstream media? For if they actually reported on the Islamic groups who are so outspoken in claiming they have been targeted, Americans might realize that these groups, and the clientele they represent, are in fact essentially the same kind of people who drove airliners into the Twin Towers on Spetember 11, 2001. Hat tip to Power Line. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

CORRECTION: The convention was ISNA's, not CAIR. Thanks to reader Clay from NewsBusters, who caught my mistake.

Kucinich Kraziness

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who is apparently running for President, though his chances are only slightly better than mine, appears to have a very strange view of what is and what is not illegal. During his current visit to the Mideast, he found time to visit the dictatorship of Syria, and praise them for taking in Iraqi refugees. According to the Jerusalem Post,

Kucinich, who accused the Bush administration of policies that have destabilized the Mideast, met with Syrian President Bashar Assad during his visit to Damascus. He said Assad was receptive to his ideas of "strength through peace."

He also praised Syria for taking in Iraqi refugees.

However, at the same time, Kucinich exposed his limited understanding both of international law and of the real facts of the Middle East. He reportedly refused to visit Iraq due to his dislike of the Bush Administration and his possibly sincere though naive and ignorant belief that the United States' overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is illegal. As the Post wrote,

Kucinich, a strong anti-war opponent who trails far in the US presidential polls, also said he won't visit Iraq on his trip to the region because he considers the US military deployment there illegal.

"I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," he said in an interview in Lebanon, after visiting Syria. "I will not do it."

In these two statements, Kucinich showed clearly why he should not even be consdiered as a serious contender for the nation's highest office. Firstly, his refusal to visit Iraq showed his disdain for the men and women of the UNited States Armed Forces. Democrats like to say they support the troops but not the mmission. However, visiting Iraq to get an actual picture of how conditions are for many fellow Americans could be accomplished whether one supports the rationnale for sending them or not. Kucinich showed that for him, military servicemen and servicewomen do not count. How then can he consider himself qualified to ask to be their Commander-in-Chief?

Secondly, Kucinich apparently has no problem with Syria's far longer occupation of Lebanon, judging by his willingness to visit. He accused his own country of acting 'illegally' in occupying Iraq- a nation whose leader representeed a clear threat to the United States, yet showed no concern with a much longer, far more brutal and continuing pressuring of Lebanon by Syria. If the US occupation of Iraq is 'illegal' according to Kucinich, how can Syria's occupation fo Lebanaon not be 'illegal'?

Of course, the media did not appear to be interested in asking those questions. Even the Jerusalem Post, which one would have thoughb aware of the inherent contradiction in Kucinich's comments, failed to ask the congressman of how he could determine one occupation illegal and one not. Especially since the Syrian occupation was condemned by the United Nations as well.

Fortunately, Kucinich's chances of becoming President are slim. But it is worrying that a candiadte for the Presidency in this day and age should display such shocking ignorance and disdain his fellow countrymen and women as blatantly as did Kucinich. And it is also worrying that the media do not call him on this, though their role as watchdog seems to occur to them only when a Republican might be embarrassed.

Farewell, Luciano

Lucaino Pavarotti, one of the greatest operatic tenors of all time, passed away early this morning at his villa in Italy, according to the Associated Press. Pavarotti was known as the king of operatic showmen, and was blessed both with a glorious voice and a winning personality, by all accounts. As the AP wrote,

Pavarotti's charismatic personna and ebullient showmanship - but most of all his creamy and powerful voice - made him the most beloved and celebrated tenor since the great Caruso and one of the few opera singers to win crossover fame as a popular superstar.
"He has been, of course, one of the greatest tenors ever, one of the most important singers in the history of opera," colleague Jose Carreras told reporters in Germany. "We all hoped for a miracle ... but unfortunately that was not possible, and now we have to regret that we lost a wonderful singer and a great man."

While I myself spend the majority of my time playing jazz, I have played in a number of operatic productions, and have had the honor to hear Pavarotti in concert as well. He was a true superstar, and his talent will be sorely missed.

Thank you for everything and rest in peace, Luciano Pavarotti.

Hsu Flees: Press Not Interested in Cash Source

Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, whose many large contributions to Democratic coffers, including Hillary Clinton came from an apparently non-existent source, has jumped bail yet again. As reported by the Associated Press,

Hsu, a Hong Kong native, was also supposed to turn over his passport Wednesday. Hsu's prominent Silicon Valley criminal defense attorney Jim Brosnahan said Hsu failed to give the passport to the legal team on Monday.
"Mr. Hsu is not here and we do not know where Mr. Hsu is," Brosnahan said outside court. Brosnahan said that "there was some contact" with Hsu a few hours before the scheduled 9 a.m. court appearance, but he declined to say how and who talked to Hsu.
Hsu pleaded no contest in 1991 to a felony count of grand theft, admitting he'd defrauded investors of $1 million after falsely claiming to have contracts to purchase and sell Latex gloves. He was facing up to three years in prison when he skipped town before his 1992 sentencing date.

This raises a number of questions- primarily why anyone would even think that a man who jumped bail once would bee trustworthy of being allowed to post bail a second time. However, the questions that should really be asked are where Hsu got his money, as it appears that he had no real source of income- certainly not enough to finance contributions on the scale that he made. So far it appears that not a single major news source has been interested enough to dig into Hsu's finances, just as they have neglected to report on the fact that most of his donations bear strong signs of beeing fronted through others. His benefitees, including Clinton, are only returning money given directly to their campaigns, but there was far more cash delivered via third parties who do not appear to have the resources to make large contributions, such as the Paw family.

Contrast this with the trweatment that the Press gave John Abramoff, who at least was a registered lobbyist with real sources of income. It would seem that Hsu should merit at least that level of interest. But at this time, nto a single MSM news organization has shown any interest in investigating Hsu's finances, with a few exceptions. In the same AP report that announced Hsu's flight, the reporter wrote merely,

But a few years ago, Hsu re-emerged in New York as an apparel executive and a wealthy benefactor of Democratic causes and candidates.

The fact that the money is difficult to trace to any source, appears to trouble no journalists on a national scale. is the threat of foreign corruption of the United States election process not tgrouboling to any of these so-called reporters? They still find the troubles of Idaho Senator Larry Craig newsworthy enough to be on the front page. Why is a Democratic fundraiser, with no known source of income, who is wanted for skipping bail on fraud charges and who may be linked to Chinese military money for all we know, not receiving more in-depth scrutiny?

Cross-posted on NewsBusters.