The Poverty Pimp Paints Picture of Racial Tension and Division

I don't think there is a more divisive person on the planet fostering racial hate and tension than Rev. Jesse Jackson.

The Reverend was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace today in full poverty-pimp mode, stirring up hate and fanning the flames of Ferguson even as things begin to settle down.  You see, if things settle down and a community is left to heal its own wounds then people like Jackson become irrelevant and he can't stand that idea.

Jesse Jackson isn't alone in this race-baiting game; he is always joined by Al Sharpton and the media usually joins in as well.  Nobody wants to be irrelevant.

Consider this headline from The New York Times...

Timeline for a Body:  4 Hours in the Middle of a Ferguson Street

...as if nobody cared enough about Michael Brown to pick his body up out of the road.  It would seem obvious to most of us that this was a crime scene and anyone with an iota of sense knows that crime scenes must be documented, photographed, and investigated.  Yet there is the New York Times, fanning the flames against the police:

For about four hours, in the unrelenting summer sun, his body remained where he fell. 

The lengthy article ends with:

Mr. Brown’s body was checked into the morgue at 4:37 p.m., more than four and a half hours after he was shot.

You can just hear the writer tsk-tsking as he shakes his head in wonder.

I turned my television off a few weeks ago and seldom have it on anymore, yet one evening this week I tuned in to Fox to see what was going on while I ate supper.  Greta van Susteren was on and she was talking to some young reporter in hipster glasses and a plaid shirt.  The reporter, I forget his name, went on to air on-the-street interviews he had conducted with protesters in Ferguson.

One guy said that officer Wilson "should be arrested and convicted of first-degree murder!"

Ignorant.  Does he even know what the criteria for first-degree murder entails?  And the guy that said that made more sense than anybody else in the hip reporter's montage.  Sickening.

Why would a network air such garbage if not to fan the flames?  I was outraged, but even more so when the reporter cuts back to Greta who shakes her head and proclaims how we don't know the facts of this case yet but....let me just air this bullshit anyway because I don't want to be irrelevant and sensational television has always been my ticket to fame (see:  Natalie Holloway).

But back to the good Reverend Jesse Jackson today who was the guest of Chris Wallace along with Dr. Ben Carson on Fox News Sunday.  Dr. Carson, a man who is always calm and reasonable, offered solutions and sound advice on the situation while Jackson just did his usual smug shtick.

Consider this exchange between Wallace and Jackson:

WALLACE: Well, there has been a contention, the only point that I'd make, that he hit the officer in the face. And there are various unconfirmed reports about how severe that was. There is another report that he was charging at the officer. I mean I guess the question is, if we don't know, why are we declaring a verdict? 

JACKSON: Well, it seems to me that the police acted as judge, jury, and executioner. And even on the worst scenario, if he had hit him in the face, does that require at a distance, I was there where he'd been shot, about 20 feet, does that mean you shoot him six times, four times at point blank range? I don't think so.

One has to wonder how it is that Jackson has lived all these years without realizing that  it is at least possible that a person with adrenaline coursing through his system, as Brown must have been, can be almost superhuman.  It's at least possible that Wilson actually needed six shots to stop Michael Brown as medical experts have suggested based on the autopsy results and order of the shots.

The fact is that still nobody knows.

Yet Jackson has to incite hate against police in general by saying that they "acted as judge, jury, and executioner."

In response, Dr. Ben Carson:

You know, anger issues get in the way. And if you take race out of the issue altogether, and you take a group of young men and you raise them with no respect for authority, not learning to take on personal responsibility, having easy access to drugs and alcohol, they're very likely to end up as victims of violence or incarceration. It has nothing to do with race. So, yes, is there racism? Are there problems? Yes. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But we need to start looking at bigger issues here. We only have 320 million people in this country. We're on a global stage where we are competing with countries with over 1 billion people. We have to save all of our people. They are all precious. And we have to develop our resources appropriately.

Sounds like pretty good advice to me.

Jackson:

...it seems to me that when blacks kill whites, which is rare, it's swift justice. When whites kill blacks, it's rebellion (ph), when it's black on black, there's a shrug of the shoulders as a kind of (inaudible). Guns in, drugs in, jobs out. Racial disparity and alienation and mistrust are very combustible formulas, factors.

What?  I can't really decipher that in whole, but I do wonder why Jackson isn't in Chicago trying to stop all the killing there?

In the end, I think Victor Davis Hanson said it best this week:

What will save us are not more elite and self-serving “conversations” about racial difference, but a new classically liberal effort to consider race irrelevant in our shared American culture. Perhaps if we started treating people as unique individuals and not as hyphenated and anonymous groups, we could deal with these tragic shootings as individual tragedies rather than collective conspiracies.

It's time for people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to quit race-baiting and pitting us against each other and start working to solve problems.  If the two poverty-pimps need a tutorial on how to do that, I would recommend they watch this video which is full of people of all races who have chosen not to be a victim.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

Distinguished Service Cross Awarded to Delta Force Operator Who Saved Numerous Lives in Benghazi

I'm a little slow to this story but I feel that it's noteworthy enough to post anyway, especially since I'm not seeing much about it in legacy media.  The Washington Times reports that Master Sgt. David Halbruner was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross recently, likely for his role in saving lives in Benghazi on Sept 11-12, 2012.  The citation reads:

“Without regard for his own safety, Master Sergeant Halbruner’s valorous actions, dedication to duty and willingness to place himself in harm’s way for the protection of others was critical to the success of saving numerous United States civilian lives. Throughout the operation, Master Sergeant Halbruner continually exposed himself to fire as he shepherded unarmed civilians to safety and treated the critically wounded. His calm demeanor, professionalism and courage was an inspiration to all and contributed directly to the success of the mission. Master Sergeant Halbruner’s distinctive accomplishments are in keeping with the finest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his Command and the United States Army.”

Is the White House still sticking with that silly video story?

I think this is probably closer to what really happened, as opposed to a "spontaneous attack" over a video.

Has the mainstream media reported on Master Sgt. Halbruner's medal?  Or are they just hoping Benghazi will go away so it won't be a stone in Hillary's path back to Pennsylvania Avenue?

A Spontaneous Stop in a Sports Bar?

A few weeks back, on Pundette's blog, PoliticalJunkieMom pointed out how often the press now makes mention of Obama and his affinity for beer:

This is why the Obamas are making such a big deal of the home brew. This is why they're travelling with bottles of beer: to make a rather subversive point about Romney's Mormonism. They could do it with coffee. Or soda. But beer is the most effective way to show how "out of touch" he is while they follow the "traditional All-American home brewing" methods.

Because we couldn't possible elect a president who doesn't like beer, right?   How shallow.

The pandering continues in this report by Mary Bruce who reports on Obama's most recent beer stop:

Rolling to Orlando this evening, President Obama’s bus tour made a surprise stop at a local sports bar for beer and a little college football.
“There he is,” a girl squealed, according to pool reports, as Obama walked into Gators Dockside bar and grill, doing the “gator chomp.”
The president went straight to the bar and ordered a pint of beer before working his way around the room, chatting with patrons as the Florida State vs. Savannah State game played on the TVs.

Are we really to believe that the big black armored bus was rolling down the road when Obama spontaneously saw a sports bar and decided he wanted to stop for a beer?    That the Secret Service hadn't come through and cleaned the place?  That Obama just wanted to catch the game and have a brew?

Sigh.

Okay.

There isn't much the president of the free world does that is quite that spontaneous.

That the press thinks we would be fooled by this transparent attempt to make Romney appear as The Other and Not Normal is pathetic.  It's sad.

I don't care if Obama drinks beer or if Romney doesn't.  Does anybody really vote that way?

I suppose next we'll be hearing about a new Oktoberfest celebration on the White House lawn.

Loose Thoughts for Friday

I've been busy this week, thus the light posting.

I was asked to read Michael and William Henry's newest book, Atmosphere of Violence, and offer feedback and that kept me busy the front part of the week.  The book is wonderful and I'll put up a review this weekend.  You can get it now on Kindle for just $2.99; for that price you just can't go wrong.  If you like early John Grisham, you'll love this series.

I've also had several other irons in the fire this week one of which has been campaigning for Mike Grady to perform at the Highland Jazz & Blues Festival this fall.  I'm lobbying the booking committee to get him on the bill.  Grady has expressed interest in the idea and I think it would be great fun!

I've been keeping up with Barrow Peacock's insurance bill (SB655) in which he was attempting to pass legislation to require electronic or telephone verification of insurance coverage in the case of an automobile accident.  I have it on reliable source now that the bill has been killed in committee; as it happens, La. Senator Ronnie Johns of Lake Charles, who is with State Farm, and other insurance agents didn't want the bill to go through.  Go figure.  Irony in action: State Farm is currently ponying up the expenses for my son's auto accident in February because the other driver was uninsured.  Lame.

Meanwhile, in the blogosphere, my stats are in the cellar.  Good thing I don't obsess about that anymore or else I'd just turn out the lights.  I check 'em every now and then, but hey...when you can't post every day, all day, that sort of thing happens.

But since I blogged last, Rick Santorum dropped out of the race which for all intents and purposes (Newt is still technically in, and Ron Paul), means Romney is assured the nomination.  So now that we're down to a two man race and we've got our ducks in a row, what is everyone talking about?  Why, whether Ann Romney has ever worked, of course.  Whether or not raising five kids constitutes "work."  Who cares?

No disrespect intended to anyone, but aren't there more relevant issues we need to be worrying about with a critical election coming up in less than 8 months?  We've got half of the Memeorandum aggregation filled with Hilary Rosen, Ann Romney, and "the war on women"?

I've all but quit checking Drudge; he's been so blatantly Romney for so long now I got bored with that; then every banner headline was about the Trayvon Martin case often with intentionally misleading and inflammatory headlines.

I've grown weary with Hot Air, too.  Just about the only writers I enjoy reading over there are still Ed Morrissey and Allahpundit.  Since the sale to corporate it just hasn't been the same.

I miss Bride of Rove's voice of reason (she will laugh at that description).  I wish her job-life would settle and she'd get back to regular posting.

 Oh well - it's the weekend.  Five more weeks of school for me.  One of the things I'm going to be doing this summer is working on the blog (and elsewhere)  to fight against Obama's re-election.   We've got some very serious issues ahead of us and if that means coalescing behind Mitt Romney then that's what I'm going to do.

My advice to Romney right now?  Be very wise and forward thinking when you select a VP candidate.  Much depends on that choice.

That is all.

More Media Bias

If you Google "Rick Perry Drunk" you get over 13,000,000 results.

This is, in part I suppose, to his latest speech in New Hampshire and the viral video that was compiled of it.  Personally, I'd rather have a little more relaxed Perry than the guy I've seen at the debates.

I don't know if he was under the influence of anything or not.  I just want to know where were all the questions by the same media about Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers when Barack Obama was a candidate, outside of conservative blogs?

The same media who now vilifies Herman Cain over an incident 15 years ago did not have any questions for Obama and his alliances.  No questions about his college thesis.  No questions about anything, really.

Valid questions or not, it's still hypocrisy. 

BREAKING: There are People That Write About Rick Perry!!

Politico needs some new headline writers. 

Their piece this morning that seemingly targets Rick Perry's skeletons is titled "Old Texas Story Lines Resurface as Perry Goes National."  The caption of the photo of Perry that is with the article says, "Old issues have taken at least some of the bloom off of Rick Perry's candidacy."

So...what do you expect might be in an article with that title and caption?  Maybe I'm too literal, but I was expecting an article about, oh, say, old Rick Perry story lines in Texas.

Instead, the article isn't really about Perry so much as it is about the people that write about Perry.  After opening with an introduction to some guy that's written a book about Perry, the article goes on to explain how much in demand said author and others like him are now that everyone wants to know about Perry.

The only thing I could find about "old story lines" is a brief mention (two sentences) of the crony capitalism charge hurled at Perry.  From there the article explains how Perry's entrance into the race has been a hit-a-palooza boon to the Texas Tribune site:

This exposure translated directly into dollars for the Tribune. Smith said he was able to raise $300,000 since Perry announced, expressly for covering Perry.

The Tribune’s all-Perry, all-the-time coverage has helped the website achieve record numbers - more than 660,000 unique visits in August, according to its CEO and editor-in-chief, Evan Smith.

“This is the only time in my 45 years on this earth that my prayers have been answered,” Smith said. “I have dropped to my knees before bed every night and prayed that this man would run for president.”

Presumably, Smith has been praying for Perry's entrance into the race because it's been such a financial boon to his website, not because he's all that into Perry.

And how sad for him that "this is the only time" in his 45 years that his "prayers have been answered."

For me, my prayers are answered every day when I wake up that I have one more day.  Just sayin'.

For their part, Politico doesn't link to The Texas Tribune site; presumably they've gotten enough hits on their Perry coverage without any linkage from Politico even though Politico does link to the Dallas Morning News, The Houston Chronicle, and the New York Times, among others.  For their part, The Texas Tribune describes themselves:

The Texas Tribune is a nonpartisan, nonprofit media organization that promotes civic engagement and discourse on public policy, politics, government, and other matters of statewide concern. Our vision is to serve the journalism community as a source of innovation and to build the next great public media brand in the United States.

The entirety of the Politico article, however, is about the people that write about Perry rather than any "old story lines" that are "taking the bloom" off Perry's candidacy.  It's a misleading headline at best, intended to have you think that there are scurrilous story lines in Perry's past that should make supporters second guess his viability as a strong candidate.

Is it a big deal?  Not really.  It just goes to show the Politico bias, though.  And we already knew that.  And if you aren't convinced about Perry's tarnished candidacy by their headline, buried near the end of the article is "a rumor" about Perry's sexual orientation (linked back to...of course, Politico).

How about just some honest reporting, Politico?  If you want to write about the people that write about Perry that's fine.  Interesting, even.  But don't attempt to mislead with an inflammatory headline and unsubstantiated rumors.


We get enough of that from the main stream media.

Update:  Politico changed their headline.  It now reads:  "As Rick Perry Goes National, So Do Tales From Texas." 

Is that better?   Or even different?

Perry's Stance on "Strategic Fencing" Does Not Translate to Soft on Immigration

Rick Perry's position on the border fence is not necessarily a weakness.  At a rally in New Hampshire yesterday, Perry said:

"No, I don't support a fence on the border," he said, while referring to the long border in Texas alone. "The fact is, it's 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good."

Instead, Perry said he supported "strategic fencing" and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.

According to the AP report, Perry's audience didn't like this answer, but frankly, I don't see anything wrong with it.  

Unless you're going to build something like the Berlin wall with armed guards shooting down those who breach the boundaries, Perry's answer could be a rational one.  He'll have to provide more details to satisfy the Tea Party voters.

In Fed Up, Perry discusses his immigration views.  He acknowledges that drug cartels and drug violence is a huge problem and equates those people to terrorists.  Perry says that the "federal government's actions [on immigration] fall somewhere between raging incompetence and outright dereliction of duty" (119).    No disagreement here.

Perry distinguishes between "border security" and "comprehensive immigration" and makes the case that you must deal with them separately.  Maybe you can legislatively deal with them separately, but one does feed the other.  The incentives for coming illegally must be removed. 

Legal immigration is the way to go, Perry says, but it needs reform:  "The visa  and naturalization system is not working efficiently for anybody," he says.  Deportation is backlogged and most orders are simply unenforced.  Case in point:  Uncle Omar.

Perry even criticizes fellow republican George W. Bush for not doing as much as he'd hoped on enforcing immigration laws already on the books, while at the same time, conceding that Bush did "step up workplace enforcement."  Obama, Perry says, has "reversed course."

Mitt Romney in Tampa this week highlights one of the differences between himself and Rick Perry:

“Our country must do a better job of securing its borders, and as president, I will,” Romney told the Republican National Hispanic Assembly in Tampa, according to his prepared remarks. “That means completing construction of a high-tech fence, and investing in adequate manpower and resources.”

 

Will Perry's approach to building a high-tech fence at "strategic locations" and using National Guard troops elsewhere cost him enough votes to give Romney the win?  

I think Romney's albatross of RomneyCare will be a bigger problem.

On the other hand, Perry signed into law a bill allowing illegals in Texas in-state tuition, which drew the ire of the Tea Party.  He'll have to do a better job explaining his position in the debates, and I'm sure he will.  The AP and the Obama-media will try to paint Perry as soft on immigration and likely won't report it when Perry clears that up. 

The Eye Of Irene

Fox News has been showing 24/7 wall to wall coverage of Hurricane Irene.  Is this a little excessive?  Yes, hurricanes are serious business; but, it seems to me that all this over-coverage just freaks people out.  Is that the point?  Freak people out so they pay attention and "get the hell off the beach"?  Maybe.

The media doesn't really need imminent threat of landfall to go berserk over a hurricane, either.  Around here, at least, once a tropical depression spins off the coast of Africa they are all over it, scaring the crap out of anyone who might potentially be in the path of any of a dozen possible tracks.  It's the Katrina Syndrome.  These frenzied reports, especially as the storm/depression/hurricane gets closer to (any) landmass, often include shots of the flooded streets of New Orleans. 

It's as if every time there is a storm now, we're all expecting to end up on our roofs or in the attic waiting for a rescue chopper.  (Don't forget to put an axe in your attic!)

Never mind that what got New Orleans was the failure of the poorly constructed levees and that the city is a bowl under sea level.  A good thunderstorm could have done almost the same thing.

The media whips people up into such a frenzy that they all run down to Home Depot for generators and WalMart for all the bottled water they can find.  Target sells out of batteries in two hours.  Why is this necessary?  Why don't people prepare ahead of the season?  Plan ahead and get your batteries, flashlights and bottled water a long time before that storm even develops.  If nothing ever happens, hey, at least you were ready.

In 1954 E.B. White published an essay entitled "The Eye of Edna" about a hurricane that threatened his Maine home.  It's a beautifully written anecdotal piece about how the media whips everyone into a frenzy (and this was well before 24/7 cable coverage!).    He says, "I heard about Edna during the morning of Friday, September 10th, some thirty-six hours before Edna arrived, and my reaction was normal.  I simply buttoned up the joint and sat down to wait." 

They they turned on the radio, where hundreds of miles away the news reports became increasingly frantic.  He says, "It became evident to me after a few fast rounds with the radio that the broadcasters had opened up on Edna awfully far in advance, before she had come out of her corner, and were spending themselves at a reckless rate." 

What would White think about today's coverage? 

Eventually he takes refuge from "the storm" on the radio by going outside where things are quite calm and normal.    By the time the storm finally got to his place, it had passed by the broadcasters who had by then gone on to normal programming. 

Not to make light of hurricanes.  As I said, they're serious and the tornadoes they spawn and the flooding they cause are nothing to scoff at.  But how many shots do we need of some reporter getting bandied about in the wind on a beach with pounding surf behind him?   How many times in 30 minutes do I need to see the satellite loop?  This guy in on television right now is talking about "high wind gusts" and "metal debris," as if we don't know to expect this sort of thing with a hurricane.

All in all, I think 24/7 coverage is too much.  Calm, responsible reporting on the hour or half hour is fine.  Keep us informed.  But don't whip us into a frenzy.

Sarah Palin Drives the Media

Love her or hate her, Sarah Palin is driving the media crazy and she gets props for that from me.  As she takes her bus tour around the country, the media is feeling slighted because she isn't keeping them informed or talking to them.  She only talked to us for three minutes!  screams this NYT piece.   The New York Times notes:

It was a surreal situation given the fact that Ms. Palin and her advisers had shown an almost complete contempt for the press corps and its usual rituals. But the grumbling among the press corps notwithstanding, reporters and camera crews continued to follow her across three states and hundreds of miles over the long holiday weekend.

Why should she have anything but contempt for the press corps when that's all they've ever held for her?  Because she's a candidate?  She's not.  Not so far as we know, anyway.  Why should she make herself available to them?  Because she might run for president?

MSNBC pouts that Palin was a "no-show" at the Gettysburg battlefield, even though, as others have noted, she never announced plans to go there:

Palin was a no-show for several hundred supporters, celebrity-watchers and media who turned out in hopes of seeing her at the Civil War battlefield of Gettysburg on Monday. She and her entourage arrived at a hotel outside the town late in the day and spoke to a smaller group of people gathered there.

A non-story.  But for a non-story, it's at the top of Memeorandum.  Palin's travels are all over Twitter (even with its own hashtag: #wherespalin).  Savvy political move or just a family vacation?

The only thing that is certain right now is that Palin is in a big, bright bus traveling the country with her family.   The press is hovering because they are consumed with Palin and there might be a story if she decides to announce along the way.  If she decides to announce her candidacy in the 2012 race they all want to be there.

And why is that?

Media Coverage and the Oil Spill

Jim Geraghty is concerned that the oil spill is falling off the front pages and getting pushed to the back burner in the media and he's justified in that concern.  This is what the Obama White House wants to happen.

The president also declared, “make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. . . . we must make a commitment to the Gulf Coast that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment.” Well, a search of Obama’s speeches on the Washington Post website reveals he has not said “BP”, “gulf” or “spill” since June 30. I realize there’s a national holiday in the past week, but it certainly is hard to believe this is still the top priority if he can go a week without even mentioning it. Back on May 27, he was insisting it was his top priority.

Now that the Department of Homeland Security is set to take over the information website, expect this trend to continue.

The US government is expected to take over control of the central information website on the Gulf oil spill response that has been run jointly by various agencies and BP for the 2 1/2 months since the rig explosion.

The spill is such a top priority for Team Obama, in fact, they're sending .... Michelle .... to come check it out. I'm at a loss to discover what good that will do except interrupt important work being done for more photo ops.

And The Hill also reports that Good Time Joe Biden is also planning a return trip to the Gulf.  Is that so he can do something constructive or so he can actually give Billy Nungesser more than 30 seconds this time?

A survey of Louisiana newspapers and blogs shows that we're still reporting on the crisis whether the mainstream media is or not and whether Obama is worried about it or not.  For example:

An editorial in The Times-Picayune calls for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to expedite the hearing on the moratorium.  They're to hear arguments today but a decision could be months away unless it is expedited.

Houma Today posts an interactive map by the AP of abandoned wells in the Gulf.

The Acadiana Gazette has a story on the hardships faced by the Pointe-au-Chien Indians because of the spill.

The Advocate has a story on the tar balls in Lake Ponchartrain

The Hayride continues its oil spill thread.

Jim Brown at Bayou Buzz wonders "as more states become directly affected by the polluted waters, and the Louisiana political and business leadership continues to call for more drilling, national sympathies are beginning to wane. Is Louisiana pushing the envelope, and trying to have it both ways?"

Whether the mainstream media stays on the story or not, we in Louisiana will.  The Heritage Foundation is staying on it as well.

I suppose the New York Times will get back to it whenever Michelle comes to visit in a couple of weeks.

The Traditional Media is Now "Frustrated" With The White House

It would appear that the "traditional media" is getting testy at being dumped by The White House for "the new media." 

This would be the same "traditional media" that helped drive Barack Obama's narrative during the campaign, that covered for him, that refused to chase down the real stories and hunt information on an unknown candidate while reporting instead on his latest HORSE game or his trip to the ice cream shack. 

The White House had a staffer interview Elena Kagan shortly after the briefing announcing her selection.  The interview was then posted to The White House website causing ire and rancor among the press pool who laments that the White House is filtering Kagan's message.  Via CBS News:

While the White House seems to believe the American people deserve to hear from Kagan, it has not made her available to reporters. That prompted some consternation at today's White House briefing.

"It appears that Solicitor General Kagan did an interview yesterday right after the president's announcement," said a reporter. "You've now posted that on the White House Web site. Who did the interview? And can I have one?"

"I think it's -- I think it's on the website if you want to see it," responded Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Soon after, the reporter can be heard saying, an edge in her voice, "So a White House staffer interviewing her."

Gibbs says yes, and the reporter asks if Kagan would like to do another interview.

"She has -- she's not told me that, no," replied Gibbs, prompting the reporter to respond, "Tell her we're deeply frustrated." 

"Deeply frustrated" indeed. That's how many of us felt when the mainstream media refused to investigate or report on the many dark and undisclosed areas in Obama's background.  Forget the birth certificate issue; I'd have been more interested in his associations with Rashid Khalidi, for example, (remember that tape the LA Times refused to disclose?), or those mysterious college transcripts and papers, among other things.

If the mainstream media is frustrated by the stonewalling by The White House they truly have no one but themselves to blame.

The Shreveport Times Lets Their Bias Through

The Gannett owned Shreveport Times posted their article on yesterday's Tea Party protest with the usual bias and misinformation.  It's hard to believe Drew Pierson was at the same event that I was.  The headline is the first misleading fact in the post:

Hundreds Come Out for Tea Party

Hundreds?  I don't have a good crowd shot because there was no higher elevation for me to ascend to get one, so mine are all ground shots, and not panoramic, but I think we can conclude from the pictures that it was absolutely more than "hundreds" in attendance.

By 5:00 there were at least 800 there and that was thirty minutes before the event started.  By 6 or 6:30 there were easily 3000 there.  One security officer told me 4000 but even if you go with the more conservative 3000 broadcast by KTBS last night, it's still more than "hundreds." 

Pierson's bias comes through loud and clear in his reporting of the event itself when he writes of one of the speakers, Mike Johnson:

Johnson listed various offenses made by the current administration to Thursday evening's receptive crowd, gathered on the lawn next to the First Baptist Bossier and Bossier City Hall, such as the Thursday morning ruling by a federal judge in Wisconsin that the government-recognized National Day of Prayer, a Congressional act calling for the president to issue a proclamations urging the American public to pray on the first Thursday of May, was unconstitutional.What Johnson didn't mention, however, was that the lawsuit was filed by a non-profit atheist group, and was not only defended in court by the Obama administration, but Obama actually issued such a proclamation last year.

Besides misrepresenting what Mike Johnson was saying, Pierson misses the point and confuses the mission of the Tea Party.  Yes, protesters are angry and Obama, but it's not just Obama.  We're angry at all the liberal policies coming out of Washington and the disregard of the Constitution.  We're angry about the out of control spending.  The point Johnson was making was what he called the assault on religious values and the need for conservatives to defend their rights to prayer. 

Pierson makes no mention of the moving speech of Sharon McCullar; there would be little he could disparage there.  Sharon talked about, among other things, the military service of her sons and the sacrifices our soldiers make for us. 

It was a brief, token article and I suppose for that we can be grateful. 

So Obama Was Anti-Nuke in College ... Is That News?

What amazes me most (and really, it shouldn't) about the 1983 Obama article is that it has just now been "discovered."

Oh yes, the article exposes his radical viewpoints, his anti-militarism, and his anti-nuclear proliferation viewpoints, but how is it that the piece just now comes to light? And would it have made any difference if it had come out earlier? In answer to the second question, not really. I don't think it would have swayed many votes one way or the other. I think the article just shows what most of us already knew about him.

What amazes me though is that this new "discovery" shows that the media just hasn't done the digging to find these pieces that it should have done during the campaign. The worse alternative would be to consider that they DO have these articles and papers that Obama wrote, and are just choosing not to reveal them. If the New York Times can chose to sit on the story of a captured journalist for several months, it's not too much of a stretch to think they could also sit on unflattering articles by Obama. Just a supposition.

Obama has been quite secretive and quiet about his college years. He's written two memoirs but we can't find anything he wrote at Columbia or Harvard? Seriously?

This 1983 piece reveals, as others have pointed out this morning, his radical and naive views of nuclear disarmament. I don't think this article is particularly shocking or revealing. We already know this about him. He expressed these views during the campaign. Does it matter that he felt this way in college? Not really; not to me. We already know he has little sense of history and a naive outlook on foreign policy. He has not grown intellectually one iota since college. He still believes we can all hold hands and make nice and the world will be a happy, peaceful place.

I'd be more interested in seeing what other papers are out there. Has he written anything about Israel? Race relations? Could he have written anything at Harvard that might have given us insight about how he wants to shape the Supreme Court? Anything on Cuba or Venezuela? Ever? Any of these things could have informed us during the campaign. The press chose not to go there.

We are in dangerous hands, but we already knew that.

Melissa Missed One

The Playboy Hate article seems to have started off a new round of "hot" lists, the latest coming from Melissa Clouthier at Right Wing News with her "The 10 Hottest New Media Guys on the Right". Check out her list, then come back and tell me how she missed this:




Update: Thank goodness. Melissa has updated her post to include RSM. The world is right again.

Wiley Hilburn's Fox News Phobia

Last month a local columnist published an opinion piece in which he complained about the prevalence of Fox News on televisions everywhere he went.

Wiley Hilburn has been publishing in The Shreveport Times for years and I've often enjoyed his columns while at the same time overlooking his obvious liberal political views. Not all of his columns are about politics; he often writes lovely, nostalgic pieces about daily life. He is also the head of the Journalism department at Louisiana Tech University.

In his column of May 4, Hilburn wrote,

"Yet, in an era when conservative Republicans have manifestly combined politics and religion, I find myself broadsided by political opinion — in the form of Fox News — wherever I turn for customer services. My service station man, dentist and restaurant owner — for example — would argue they do not try to impose their political views on me.

"But they don't hesitate to hit me with Fox News on their locked-in TV sets, which is one long diet of red-meat, right-wing Republican opinion. It's true. I can't elude the arbitrary, angry views of Fox News even while filling up with gas, enduring tooth repair or dining out."

Unless he's limiting his experience to just Ruston (where the university is), Hilburn and I obviously hang out in different places. While it's true that I do see Fox News on the occasional public television, more often than not it is sports on the television.

He goes on to say (emphasis mine),

"Making customers swallow a Fox entree while they try to digest their Cajun catfish is the same as imposing the restaurant owner's personal political views on the customer, a captive audience. Imagine, for another example, enduring a root canal while being tortured by Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or Shepard Smith on Fox.That would be the equivalent of being waterboarded by former Vice President Dick Cheney, the Fox enforcer."

I guess I don't need to assume what Hilburn's feelings are on Gitmo? I differ with Hilburn on much of this but especially on the "captive audience" point. He's free to go other places where he is not so offended by their television habits if he so chooses. He can probably eat Cajun catfish lots of places around this part of Louisiana if what is on television is so offensive to him. But at some point don't you make a choice? "Hmmm, the catfish here is just so damn good, but I can't stand the taste any longer because Fox News is on their TV."

I don't care much for Spanish television (mostly becuase I don't speak Spanish) but I'm not about to abandon Nicky's Mexican Restaurant because they have a Spanish soap opera on the TV.

Hilburn goes on to back up his argument with * gasp * pseudo-stats: "Around here, Fox is Radio Rush Limbaugh for a majority constituency which believes that George Bush is still president and that Obama is a Quran-spouting interloper.

"Indeed, I would imagine that in these parts eight out of every 10 people are Fox-watchers, anyway, so why wouldn't business cater to that unsilent majority, you ask. The answer to that question is that business owners, like my father, should aspire to please 10 out of 10 customers, not eight out of 10. Profits before ideology."

Readers responded to Hilburn's column; that week the "Letters" space on the editorial page was filled with responses to Hilburn. The letters I happened to see were wildly against him, one even going so far as to vow to cut off their yearly donations to Louisiana Tech. Hilburn posted a follow-up column saying he received mail both in support and against as well as some neutral responses. He said about 50% was in favor of Fox.

Since the column I've been more aware of what's on the TV where I go. I just don't see the Fox phenomena that Hilburn describes. There's no television in my car repair place but if there was, I'm not hanging out there long enough to be offended by it. My dentist has piped in music, but no TV. The last restaurant I was in (The Blind Tiger) has sports on their TV. I don't darken the door of a health club, and they may have news. Steve tells me sometimes that Fox is on at the gym where he goes. But that's on a military base, does that count?

And what of the issue of Hilburn being Journalism professor at Louisiana Tech? Is there anything to be made of the issue of politics in the classroom? We know that liberal professors indoctrinate our students (and presumably, conservative ones do too, to be fair). What are the boundarys there? Does he tell his students to avoid Fox News? I can just imagine the political discussions in Hilburn's class.

I think he needs one of these toys which will turn off any television you might find offensive (H/T: The Corner). Imagine the havoc Hilburn could create with such a toy!

The bottom line, to me, is that the entire column was just silly. If the TV offends you, then leave. If you can't stand to eat catfish in a place that watches Fox News then just go somewhere else. Your priorities are screwed up. You pick your battles in life and this one is small potatoes.

Equally unhinged is the guy who is withholding his donations to the college because of this column. No reason the entire college should suffer because of the rantings of one liberal professor; it's not like he's Ward Churchill. THEN you might have a case.

Andrew Klavan and the Limbaugh Challenge

Andrew Klavan is daring liberals to listen to Rush Limbaugh. What genius!

Full disclosure - I'm an EIB subscriber; I love Rush and listen to him whenever I can. When I can't listen live, I can go back and listen to the recorded show. I think he's a genius.

Klavan sums it up for me when he says: "I listen to Limbaugh every chance I get, and I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word. Do I always agree with him? Of course not. I'm a conservative; I think for myself. But Limbaugh, by turns insightful, satiric, raucously funny and wise, is one of the best voices talking about first principles and policy in the country today."

The problem many people have with Rush is that they fall victim to The Ransom Note Method and hear only distorted clips of what he says as reported by the media they already prefer to listen to. A prime example is the "I hope he fails" comment. Widely reported to have been taken out of context, everyone jumped on Rush for being unpatriotic and unwilling to support our new president; they accused him of wishing certain doom on the Obama presidency. Rush is powerful, but if doom comes to the Obama presidency it won't be because Rush wished it so.

No, the media chopped that comment out of context and skewed it the way they wanted it. And what's with the New Yorker Octo-Rush cover?

Klavan calls on liberals to spend some time listening to Limbaugh before judging him based on what they have heard about him. And as Klavan correctly asserts, they will say, "I have heard him!" but they haven't, really. Or you might get the "I can't STAND to listen to him!" Tolerant souls. But you can stand Al Gore. Bore.

The thing about Rush is that yes, he is an entertainer, but he is brilliant. He can knock the dirt away and get to the root of an issue faster than anyone else out there. He has a quick and a logical mind and the logic is the thing that scares the liberals off.

So I'm going to second Klavan's dare. Listen to Rush. You may never be converted to conservatism, but at the very least, you'll laugh. Rush is funny. And you will occassionally feel the synapses in your brain fire off as he makes a truly logical and clear point.

As Arsenio Hall used to say, ...things that make you go "Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!"

I mean, it's hard to argue with facts. Rush on the Notre Dame invitation to Obama:

"We secure the truth on this program, and the truth is, that President Obama -- by virtue of his votes, as a member of the Illinois Senate, and as a member of the United States Senate -- is perhaps the most anti-life president. Well, there's no question. He is the most anti-life president we have had in American history. This is a man who three times voted for infanticide in Illinois. He tried to excuse it any number of ways, but this is a man who voted three times, that if a baby survives an abortion, it may still be killed because of the mother's original intent to abort it. "

Klavan promises to run an update if any libs take his challenge and let us know how it comes out. If you're a liberal and you take the challenge, let me know how you do. Comments are open.

An Icy Washington Response to Kentucky Ice

I've been swamped at school lately so blogging has been light; progress reports go in on Friday and we've had several important visitors to our school, so between the two, I've been snowed under. On top of that, The Teenager has been under the weather and I've been back and forth to the doctor's office and pharmacy. We're on the downhill side of it all now though, so life is good!

Speaking of weather, or weather analogies anyway, the Washington reaction to the Kentucky ice storm has me just about outraged. Not just the federal response but mostly, WHERE is the press criticism of the lack of response!?

The Anchoress has written in a most excellent fashion on this here and here and I can't add anything more eloquent than what she has written. But I have to say that the national press was ALL OVER Bush for not rushing down to New Orleans as soon as the storm clouds of Katrina lifted. There were so many oddball factors in that situation that made the Bush-attacks so misguided.

Gov. Blanco and Ray Nagin were running a circus down there and absolutely must take the blame for what happened, starting with their decision not to make a forced evacuation. I knew when Ray Nagin came on the television and told people to go to the Superdome and to "bring your own food and water" that we were going to have problems!

Then you had Blanco who would not allow Bush to send aid in until it was far too late.

Once the storm was over, here came the media: we had Shepard Smith and Geraldo, we had Anderson Cooper, the whole mess of 'em. Looters on TV, taking potshots at helicopters, mass insanity. This was not George Bush's fault. This is not to say FEMA handled everything perfectly - they didn't. But Bush could not come in immediately and get in the way of first responders. Folks were trying to rescue people off roofs and get them out of the Superdome and the Convention Center (and WHO told them to even go there?!)

When things settled down and he could go in without being a distraction, he did.

But I don't want to re-hash the Katrina debacle. Over a week ago Kentucky was hit with a horrible ice storm. As of today, about 256,000 people are still without power. The only thing Obama has done is sign the emergency delcaration. No pleas for Red Cross donations. No flyover in a helicopter to survey the damage. No words of support to the residents. No visits to shelters.

And to be fair, he has other things on his plate right now, like talking up the Porkulus bill - the massive governmental SPENDING bill. He's got to deal with the tax cheats that got through the vetting process and the lobbyists working in positions where he vowed no lobbyists would be. He had a SuperBowl party to host and a cocktail party a day or two before that. He's busy serving $100 lb. Waygu steak dinners and cranking up the White House thermostat.

Bush took a lot of criticism, mostly undeserved, for the Katrina response. But he learned from that. When Iowa flooded this summer, he was there. Oh I know, Obama went down there for a photo op and filled some sandbags. But now the campaign is over. He "won" as he reminded us recently. Now is the time he should give an appropriate response to the people in Kentucky.

One email I received said, "He knows we didn't vote for him, so he doesn't care." Somebody please call FEMA and tell them that the people in Kentucky need some help. Thanks.

Joe and Tim

Can someone please explain to me why when it is discovered that Joe the Plumber owes $1,200 in back taxes he is vilified and totally discredited but when Timothy Geithner is discovered to have not paid some $32,000 in back taxes and had an illegal in his employ, it's an "honest mistake"?

Hmm. What, media bias? You think?

Obama the Fashion Icon

Obamamania overload:

"Just as President John F. Kennedy's affinity for looser two-button suits and his eschewing of hats revolutionized 20th-century menswear, Obama's post-baby boom approach to work wear — worn with hip-hop generation self-assurance — could transform how Americans view presidential fashion in the 21st century.

"Barack gives you this very simple slate. When you see him speak, you think of the man, not what he's wearing. But what he's wearing is important because it's the canvas he drapes himself in," said Jim Moore, the creative director at GQ magazine. "There's a very modern thinker there. He's not the pattern-mixing guy, not even the khaki guy. You'll very rarely even see him in jeans. He has an urbane, citified kind of palate. He has a vitality to him, and his image transcends race."

There's actually MORE of this nausea inducing drivel if you need it. Pass the Dramamine.

Film at 11: NO ICY ROADS

From our local news station's website:

"The KTBS News team has made calls all around the Ark-La-Tex to keep you updated on how the winter weather may affect you. Currently there are no icy roads to report. Stay with KTBS 3 News Now as we keep you up to date with the winter weather."

Hunh? No icy roads is a news story? WTF?