Recently, much has been made about the news coverage dedicated to dubious celebrities, single white female kidnappings and wardrobe malfunctions. Paris Hilton's recent 3 week stint on the porridge generated hours of undue television time, as did the activities of her contemporaries like Nicole Ritchie, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan. Updates on kidnappings like those of Lacy Petersen and Natalee Holloway were so pervasive that a couple of young women decided to stage their own abductions simply in hopes of drawing attention to themselves. Thanks to Harvey Levin and TMZ.com, minor incidents involving Mel Gibson, Don Imus and Michael Richards became major scandals, with the fallouts headlining the news for several weeks.
In the grand scheme of things, these stories are trivial and the amount of airtime they're given is laughable. The United States is at war with militant Islam. The Bush Administration is working to protect the country from terrorists but is facing constant interference from Congressional Democrats and the news media. The Bush tax cuts have led to unprecedented economic prosperity. The President and Congress have failed at passing a bill that would give amnesty to illegal aliens because the American people stood up to the government. Meanwhile, Islamic terrorists plot more attacks on the United States and the U.S. legal community does everything in its power to make us more vulnerable to such attacks. There's more than enough hard news each day to fill an entire 24-hour cable network's programming. So focusing on all this Hollywood garbage is hardly necessary, right?
In the last several weeks two media members have put the public on notice that they will no longer play the game. Mika Brzezinski, a newsreader on MSNBC climbed atop her high horse by publicy refusing to cover the Paris Hilton saga. On a show with Joe Scarborough, Brzezinski was supposed to read a wire story about Hilton's incarceration. Instead, she attempted to light her script on fire in an on-air protest. When the page failed to catch fire, she proceeded to tear it up. In the following hour, she used a paper shredder to dispose of the offending story. Needless to say, Mika expected and, in some cases received, congratulations for her petulant act of shameless grandstanding. This past weekend, Jim Pinkerton, a conservative columnist, made his regular weekly appearance on the Saturday show FoxNews Watch. During the program, the subject of Lindsay Lohan's DUI arrest came up. Pinkerton, a normally reasonable commentator, ascended his bully pulpit to scold the public and the news networks for covering this relatively frivolous news event. He "took a stand" by ripping up a piece of paper in disgust.
News personalities have occasionally indulged in this kind of self-important obstinance before. Some will remember that Keith Olbermann refused to dignify the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal several years ago, as he deemed it unworthy of his analysis. The networks will often put up with the tantrums because such tantrums can be portrayed as acts of populist rebellion...as if the newsreader is somehow speaking up for those who feel the same way but can't be heard.
What we must understand is that television networks are in the business of making money, first and foremost. Networks like FoxNews and CNN depend on ratings to stay in business. The fact that some networks seem more interested in presenting high speed car chases than in tracking government waste is a reflection of the audience at large. In truth, there's only so much hard news the average person is willing to watch. In order for a news network to succeed, it has to give the audience what the audience wants. At the end of the day, the news business is a service industry. So it doesn't make much sense for the employee to try to dictate to the customer what should be of interest to the customer.
More irritating than anything is this need for people like Brzezinski, Pinkerton and Olbermann to make such a public spectacle of themselves. If these people don't want to discuss what they believe to be trivial matters, they have every right to take it up in private with their bosses. But these public displays of protest are pathetic cries for help. These people are so concerned about getting their disdain on record that they ignore the fact that no one is interested in their opinions. These on-air displays are no less embarrassing than the tantrums of a 5-year-old in a grocery store. These attention-seeking newsreaders may think they're above reporting this kind of news, but they work for the viewers. As the ratings numbers show, the viewers want these stories covered. The customer is always right. You work for us and we want to see you dance. So dance, monkeys!
Monday, July 30, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
E! SPN
Once upon a time, ESPN Sportscenter was the original "Must See TV". In a detailed, yet fast-paced one hour program, ESPN covered the highlights of all the day's sporting events with style and a good dose of humor. Somewhere along the line, however, the network lost its way.
When ESPN was launched in 1979, it filled a tremendous void. It was a network dedicated to presenting live athletic events and to delivering complete sports news to the whole country each day. Fans who once settled for catching very limited highlights at the end of local news broadcasts could now get all the information they wanted in one comprehensive show. Sportscenter was the perfect entertainment fix.
At some point during the 1990s, ESPN began to tinker with the format of Sportscenter. In came the derivative empty suits presenting the highlights while armed with overly-rehearsed catchphrases. Additional ESPN Channels were launched to offset new competition presented by the multi-channel Fox Sports Network. Apparently, the simple highlights package was no longer ambitious enough. Sports had to become "transcendent", crossing paths with music, entertainment and even politics. With more airtime to fill, ESPN had to cover more than sports. It had to cover sports plus subjects only tangentially related to sports: investigations, arrests, shoe contracts, "best of" lists and the WNBA. 24-Hour Sports Talk Radio added another dimension...now fans could call in to shows and discuss sports-related stories at length and ad nauseum.
Soon, the personality profiles you'd once only see during the Olympics started to creep into the daily programming on Sportscenter. You'd have a story on a basketball player overcoming drug addiction, a baseball player facing down illiteracy, a hockey coach coping with a death in the family. I even remembered a "Breaking News" story about how Tiger Woods fired his caddy. Even the bag carriers were becoming celebrities! From Magic Johnson "attaining" HIV, to Nancy Kerrigan getting clubbed in the knee and OJ Simpson killing two people and evading the cops, sports news was turning up in the front page news. Football players began cutting rap albums and rappers began trying out for pro basketball teams. Meanwhile, ESPN stopped delivering the news in order to become the news. Political correctness reared its ugly head. From Al Campanis and Jimmy "The Greek" to Charles Barkley and Tim Hardaway, sports personalities were being held accountable more for their public statements than for their job performances.
Whether or not this troubling evolution has Disney's fingerprints on it is debatable. However, it's hardly coincidental that much of the frivolous extracurricular programming on ESPN came about after Disney added ESPN and ABC to its roster. The non-stop promotional tie-ins, the incessant hyping of overrated sports rivalries like Yankees-Red Sox and North Carolina-Duke all came about on Disney's watch. How often does a network need to deconstruct Bobby Knight in order to question "what makes this enigma tick"? How often does a network need to play golf with Hootie and the Blowfish to show that a popular rock band can be just a collection of down-to-earth regular guys? Why does a network need to make a list of the top 100 athletes of the 20th Century just to reinforce the myth that Michael Jordan was the greatest of the 1900s?
As if the unnecessary addition of the self-congratulatory ESPY Awards Show wasn't a pointless enough marketing gimmick, I think ESPN hit rock bottom this week. They have created a segment called "Who's More Now?". Apparently the purpose of this segment is to determine what current athlete is the most socially relevant. Set up like a seeded NCAA Tournament Bracket, this contivance matches up two athletes in a subjective head-to-head battle over who is the better on and off-field performer. Apparently, the player with the best combination of game statistics, endorsement contracts and celebrity gossip will ultimately be crowned the "Most Now"...whatever that's supposed to prove. Personally, I'd prefer to subject myself to what passes for "torture" in Gitmo than to sit on one of these Dance Fever-inspired panels and embarrass myself discussing whether or not Kobe Bryant is "More Now" than Tom Brady. The fact that respected former professional athletes have reduced themselves to engaging in these verbal contortions saddens me. ESPN has now fully evolved into self-parody with Sportscenter being totally unwatchable. The makeover from respectable sports highlight program to utterly trivial entertainment news farce is now complete. Bring on Ryan Seacrest and Melissa Rivers, for ESPN has become another E!
When ESPN was launched in 1979, it filled a tremendous void. It was a network dedicated to presenting live athletic events and to delivering complete sports news to the whole country each day. Fans who once settled for catching very limited highlights at the end of local news broadcasts could now get all the information they wanted in one comprehensive show. Sportscenter was the perfect entertainment fix.
At some point during the 1990s, ESPN began to tinker with the format of Sportscenter. In came the derivative empty suits presenting the highlights while armed with overly-rehearsed catchphrases. Additional ESPN Channels were launched to offset new competition presented by the multi-channel Fox Sports Network. Apparently, the simple highlights package was no longer ambitious enough. Sports had to become "transcendent", crossing paths with music, entertainment and even politics. With more airtime to fill, ESPN had to cover more than sports. It had to cover sports plus subjects only tangentially related to sports: investigations, arrests, shoe contracts, "best of" lists and the WNBA. 24-Hour Sports Talk Radio added another dimension...now fans could call in to shows and discuss sports-related stories at length and ad nauseum.
Soon, the personality profiles you'd once only see during the Olympics started to creep into the daily programming on Sportscenter. You'd have a story on a basketball player overcoming drug addiction, a baseball player facing down illiteracy, a hockey coach coping with a death in the family. I even remembered a "Breaking News" story about how Tiger Woods fired his caddy. Even the bag carriers were becoming celebrities! From Magic Johnson "attaining" HIV, to Nancy Kerrigan getting clubbed in the knee and OJ Simpson killing two people and evading the cops, sports news was turning up in the front page news. Football players began cutting rap albums and rappers began trying out for pro basketball teams. Meanwhile, ESPN stopped delivering the news in order to become the news. Political correctness reared its ugly head. From Al Campanis and Jimmy "The Greek" to Charles Barkley and Tim Hardaway, sports personalities were being held accountable more for their public statements than for their job performances.
Whether or not this troubling evolution has Disney's fingerprints on it is debatable. However, it's hardly coincidental that much of the frivolous extracurricular programming on ESPN came about after Disney added ESPN and ABC to its roster. The non-stop promotional tie-ins, the incessant hyping of overrated sports rivalries like Yankees-Red Sox and North Carolina-Duke all came about on Disney's watch. How often does a network need to deconstruct Bobby Knight in order to question "what makes this enigma tick"? How often does a network need to play golf with Hootie and the Blowfish to show that a popular rock band can be just a collection of down-to-earth regular guys? Why does a network need to make a list of the top 100 athletes of the 20th Century just to reinforce the myth that Michael Jordan was the greatest of the 1900s?
As if the unnecessary addition of the self-congratulatory ESPY Awards Show wasn't a pointless enough marketing gimmick, I think ESPN hit rock bottom this week. They have created a segment called "Who's More Now?". Apparently the purpose of this segment is to determine what current athlete is the most socially relevant. Set up like a seeded NCAA Tournament Bracket, this contivance matches up two athletes in a subjective head-to-head battle over who is the better on and off-field performer. Apparently, the player with the best combination of game statistics, endorsement contracts and celebrity gossip will ultimately be crowned the "Most Now"...whatever that's supposed to prove. Personally, I'd prefer to subject myself to what passes for "torture" in Gitmo than to sit on one of these Dance Fever-inspired panels and embarrass myself discussing whether or not Kobe Bryant is "More Now" than Tom Brady. The fact that respected former professional athletes have reduced themselves to engaging in these verbal contortions saddens me. ESPN has now fully evolved into self-parody with Sportscenter being totally unwatchable. The makeover from respectable sports highlight program to utterly trivial entertainment news farce is now complete. Bring on Ryan Seacrest and Melissa Rivers, for ESPN has become another E!
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Uneasy is the Head That Chases the Crown
Barry Bonds broke out of a slump today, smacking two home runs and bringing his career total to 753. That leaves him two away from tying the record established by Hank Aaron more than 30 years ago.
Strangely, the reaction to Bonds' accomplishment has been rather mixed. San Francisco Giants fans have openly embraced the record chase. But most of the rest of the country exhibits either indifference or outright hostility at the prospect of a man like Bonds holding such a precious record. In short, many baseball fans believe that Barry Bonds is unworthy of such an honor.
More than any other sport, baseball is heavily focused on individual statistics. Perhaps that's because the season is so long, with literally dozens of meaningless games to be played. Even the worst teams play 162 games each year, and no-hopers have to find ways of attracting fans to dull games. Promotions and give-aways draw some crowds to specific games, but sometimes the game has to sell itself. When a team is languishing in last place, individual players and their statistics may provide the only chance for clubs to fill the seats.
Major League Baseball alienated millions of fans during a season-ending work stoppage in 1994. Lifelong fans had vowed never to return to the sport and prospects for a full comeback looked grim in 1995. Fortunately for Major League Baseball, a couple of high-profile players were chasing individual statistical records, injecting an excitement into the game that the player's strike had removed. First, Cal Ripken, a universally popular player, chased down the long-standing record for most consecutive games played. Then, three years later, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa staged a friendly but compelling duel in attempting to break the single-season home run record. Both McGwire and Sosa ended up the season shattering Roger Maris' 37 year-old record, with McGwire establishing a new record of 70. A couple of years later, Bonds broke McGwire's single-season home run record, and Major League Baseball had completed the comeback from its low point in 1994. Sosa, McGwire and Bonds pursued their single season records amid whispered allegations of steroid abuse, but the fans were happy, the media were happy and the league was prospering, so nobody seemed to care. Until Jose Canseco resurfaced in 2005.
Jose Canseco had a long career in Major League Baseball. He was Rookie of the Year in 1986 and American League Most Valuable Player in 1988. Though he won 2 World Series rings and clobbered 462 home runs, Canseco's baseball career was considered a huge disappointment in some circles. Many felt that Canseco had the talent to be one of baseball's all-time great players, but injuries and personal shortcomings caused him to fall far short of his potential. Rumors surfaced that he had been taking performance-enhancing drugs, rumors that were further fuelled by accusations of domestic violence. In the end, Canseco will probably be best known for allowing a routine fly ball to bounce off his head and over the fence for a home run. In 2005, however, Canseco assumed the role of whistleblower. Whether he was motivated by legitimate concerns or by his own bitterness, Canseco shed light on the issue of steroid use in baseball. In his book entitled "Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits & How Baseball Got Big", Canseco admitted taking steroids during his playing career, then accused a number of other players by name. As a result, a handful of high-profile active and retired players were called before Congress to testify and address allegations that they had used performance-enhancing drugs during their careers. Sosa and McGwire, who had once been credited with "saving" baseball, now stood accused of cheating. Short of clearing up the matter, their testimony before Congress only aroused more suspicion, forever tarnishing their careers and reputations. Meanwhile, Barry Bonds, another suspected steroid user, was chasing the most prestigious statistical record in baseball.
Barry Bonds has never been a universally popular player. As the unchallenged star of his team, Bonds has often demanded and received star treatment, leading him to be perceived as selfish and aloof. Bonds is not averse to confrontation, either. Throughout his career, Bonds has clashed with teammates, management and especially the media. In general, he is not seen as a very sympathetic character, and he leaves himself open to heavy media scrutiny. For the most part, Bonds does not get along with the press...and the press rarely misses an opportunity to magnify his shortcomings. In the wake of the Congressional Hearings on steroid use in baseball, Bonds was beginning to mount a serious challenge to Henry Aaron's career home run record. Until recently, Aaron's record of 755 home runs looked untouchable. Even after Bonds hit a record 73 home runs in 2001, it was generally accepted that the Giants' slugger was on the downside of an illustrious career. Since he was nearing the age of 40, his production was expected to slow down significantly, leading to retirement before the home run record was threatened. But he followed up his 73 home run season with several more big years. What once seemed impossible was starting to appear inevitable.
The closer Bonds was getting to the career record, the more questions were being asked. "Before" and "after" body comparisons were frequently featured on sports news programs to show how his physique had developed over the years. When Bonds first broke into baseball, he had a slim, muscular build. Years later, his body became more bulky and the size of his head appeared to increase significantly. His personal trainer was indicted on suspicion that he had distributed steroids to his clients. Bonds, of course, was implicated. Take a surly player who has never won a World Series, add allegations of steroid use and you have a controversy made for ESPN junkies: is Barry Bonds a worthy home run king? It certainly doesn't help Bonds' case that Henry Aaron, the current record holder is a very honorable man. A consistently great player, Hank Aaron was often upstaged by flashier players in bigger media markets. As Aaron quietly approached the career home run record in the early 1970s, he was subjected to hate mail and death threats from a lunatic fringe that didn't want to see a black man break the existing record. On occasion, Bonds hinted that racism motivated his detractors, as well. When compared to the overt racism Aaron faced, Bonds' complaint rings hollow.
So Bonds is just three home runs away from breaking Henry Aaron's record. As fans, writers, baseball executives and TV analysts compete to decide who is most outraged that such flawed person is about to be crowned king, I admit that I'm torn. It's sad that such a humble, decent man is about to lose his place in the history books to such a nasty piece of work. But I can't help but feel a little sorry for Barry Bonds. Here's a guy who's had a sparkling career, someone who was an automatic selection for the Hall of Fame even before his single season and career home run record chases kicked off. He's one of the 4 or 5 players most responsible for bringing Major League Baseball back from the ashes. Besides, baseball wasn't concerned about steroids in the game...as long as Bonds, Sosa and McGwire were making the league money hand over fist, it didn't matter how they did it. Now that Bonds is about to break the record, the hand-wringers emerge to discuss whether an asterisk should be attached to the new record as a sort of scarlet letter. After years of benefitting from looking the other way on the drug issue, some in baseball are looking to hang Barry Bonds out to dry. Come to think of it, I hope Bonds gets the record. Baseball deserves Barry Bonds as home run champion.
Strangely, the reaction to Bonds' accomplishment has been rather mixed. San Francisco Giants fans have openly embraced the record chase. But most of the rest of the country exhibits either indifference or outright hostility at the prospect of a man like Bonds holding such a precious record. In short, many baseball fans believe that Barry Bonds is unworthy of such an honor.
More than any other sport, baseball is heavily focused on individual statistics. Perhaps that's because the season is so long, with literally dozens of meaningless games to be played. Even the worst teams play 162 games each year, and no-hopers have to find ways of attracting fans to dull games. Promotions and give-aways draw some crowds to specific games, but sometimes the game has to sell itself. When a team is languishing in last place, individual players and their statistics may provide the only chance for clubs to fill the seats.
Major League Baseball alienated millions of fans during a season-ending work stoppage in 1994. Lifelong fans had vowed never to return to the sport and prospects for a full comeback looked grim in 1995. Fortunately for Major League Baseball, a couple of high-profile players were chasing individual statistical records, injecting an excitement into the game that the player's strike had removed. First, Cal Ripken, a universally popular player, chased down the long-standing record for most consecutive games played. Then, three years later, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa staged a friendly but compelling duel in attempting to break the single-season home run record. Both McGwire and Sosa ended up the season shattering Roger Maris' 37 year-old record, with McGwire establishing a new record of 70. A couple of years later, Bonds broke McGwire's single-season home run record, and Major League Baseball had completed the comeback from its low point in 1994. Sosa, McGwire and Bonds pursued their single season records amid whispered allegations of steroid abuse, but the fans were happy, the media were happy and the league was prospering, so nobody seemed to care. Until Jose Canseco resurfaced in 2005.
Jose Canseco had a long career in Major League Baseball. He was Rookie of the Year in 1986 and American League Most Valuable Player in 1988. Though he won 2 World Series rings and clobbered 462 home runs, Canseco's baseball career was considered a huge disappointment in some circles. Many felt that Canseco had the talent to be one of baseball's all-time great players, but injuries and personal shortcomings caused him to fall far short of his potential. Rumors surfaced that he had been taking performance-enhancing drugs, rumors that were further fuelled by accusations of domestic violence. In the end, Canseco will probably be best known for allowing a routine fly ball to bounce off his head and over the fence for a home run. In 2005, however, Canseco assumed the role of whistleblower. Whether he was motivated by legitimate concerns or by his own bitterness, Canseco shed light on the issue of steroid use in baseball. In his book entitled "Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits & How Baseball Got Big", Canseco admitted taking steroids during his playing career, then accused a number of other players by name. As a result, a handful of high-profile active and retired players were called before Congress to testify and address allegations that they had used performance-enhancing drugs during their careers. Sosa and McGwire, who had once been credited with "saving" baseball, now stood accused of cheating. Short of clearing up the matter, their testimony before Congress only aroused more suspicion, forever tarnishing their careers and reputations. Meanwhile, Barry Bonds, another suspected steroid user, was chasing the most prestigious statistical record in baseball.
Barry Bonds has never been a universally popular player. As the unchallenged star of his team, Bonds has often demanded and received star treatment, leading him to be perceived as selfish and aloof. Bonds is not averse to confrontation, either. Throughout his career, Bonds has clashed with teammates, management and especially the media. In general, he is not seen as a very sympathetic character, and he leaves himself open to heavy media scrutiny. For the most part, Bonds does not get along with the press...and the press rarely misses an opportunity to magnify his shortcomings. In the wake of the Congressional Hearings on steroid use in baseball, Bonds was beginning to mount a serious challenge to Henry Aaron's career home run record. Until recently, Aaron's record of 755 home runs looked untouchable. Even after Bonds hit a record 73 home runs in 2001, it was generally accepted that the Giants' slugger was on the downside of an illustrious career. Since he was nearing the age of 40, his production was expected to slow down significantly, leading to retirement before the home run record was threatened. But he followed up his 73 home run season with several more big years. What once seemed impossible was starting to appear inevitable.
The closer Bonds was getting to the career record, the more questions were being asked. "Before" and "after" body comparisons were frequently featured on sports news programs to show how his physique had developed over the years. When Bonds first broke into baseball, he had a slim, muscular build. Years later, his body became more bulky and the size of his head appeared to increase significantly. His personal trainer was indicted on suspicion that he had distributed steroids to his clients. Bonds, of course, was implicated. Take a surly player who has never won a World Series, add allegations of steroid use and you have a controversy made for ESPN junkies: is Barry Bonds a worthy home run king? It certainly doesn't help Bonds' case that Henry Aaron, the current record holder is a very honorable man. A consistently great player, Hank Aaron was often upstaged by flashier players in bigger media markets. As Aaron quietly approached the career home run record in the early 1970s, he was subjected to hate mail and death threats from a lunatic fringe that didn't want to see a black man break the existing record. On occasion, Bonds hinted that racism motivated his detractors, as well. When compared to the overt racism Aaron faced, Bonds' complaint rings hollow.
So Bonds is just three home runs away from breaking Henry Aaron's record. As fans, writers, baseball executives and TV analysts compete to decide who is most outraged that such flawed person is about to be crowned king, I admit that I'm torn. It's sad that such a humble, decent man is about to lose his place in the history books to such a nasty piece of work. But I can't help but feel a little sorry for Barry Bonds. Here's a guy who's had a sparkling career, someone who was an automatic selection for the Hall of Fame even before his single season and career home run record chases kicked off. He's one of the 4 or 5 players most responsible for bringing Major League Baseball back from the ashes. Besides, baseball wasn't concerned about steroids in the game...as long as Bonds, Sosa and McGwire were making the league money hand over fist, it didn't matter how they did it. Now that Bonds is about to break the record, the hand-wringers emerge to discuss whether an asterisk should be attached to the new record as a sort of scarlet letter. After years of benefitting from looking the other way on the drug issue, some in baseball are looking to hang Barry Bonds out to dry. Come to think of it, I hope Bonds gets the record. Baseball deserves Barry Bonds as home run champion.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Coddling Young Sociopaths
Back in 1993 a crime of unspeakable cruelty took place in Liverpool, England. A two-year old by the name of James Bulger was found murdered near some railroad tracks. The toddler had been beaten with stones, bricks and an iron bar. Before leaving the scene, his attackers had thrown paint in his face and laid him on the tracks in the hopes that he would get run over by an oncoming train. As shocking as the crime itself was the fact that the two murderers, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, were 10-year old boys.
As Venables and Thompson were tried and sent to prison, their identities were protected from an angry public. Eventually their names and mug shots were leaked, and the predictable social worker hand-wringing followed. To some people, the most important function of prison, especially for young offenders, is rehabilitation...not punishment. During a sentencing appeal, a judge reduced the sentence for these two sociopaths, claiming that prison is a poisonous atmosphere for young offenders. Venables and Thompson were released from prison in 2001, having served about nine years for their sickening crime. The British Government has taken measures to protect the killers and their families, moving them out of the area, giving them new names and identities and preventing the world's media from releasing their age-progressed pictures.
I am reminded of this awful story after reading accounts of another stomach-turning crime recently committed by a couple of teenagers in Northern California. Two 15 year-old girls were arrested for setting fire to a two-month old kitten named Adam. Second and third degree burns were left on 75% of Adam's body, and he is currently fighting for his life. Needless to say, the identities of the two perpetrators are being protected and they are likely to be coddled for a short time in a juvenile detention center or mental institution.
These incidents are just two examples of the sadistic violence some "minors" are capable of committing. While reasonable people are outraged at these senseless acts of torture, an alarming number of social workers, media members, judges and trial lawyers do their best to soften or even eliminate punishment for minors who perpetrate such cruelty.
I cannot understand why some people refuse to recognize evil when they see it. Contrary to popular academic belief, children grasp the difference between right and wrong very early on, some just choose to be malicious. Then, when sociopaths attack the defenseless, the academics come to the aid of the sociopaths. The same people who will argue that underwear placed on the head of a terrorist constitutes torture will do everything in their power to prevent the proper punishment of actual torture. Sympathy for human garbage like Venables, Thompson and these two teenaged brats is pointless. If, at an early age, someone is capable of beating a toddler to death or lighting a kitten on fire, that someone is not worthy of rehabilitation. One can only hope that these girls get their own taste of the suffering they administered to that poor cat. And, more importantly, let's hope that the little fella pulls through and finds a loving home. The world would be a safer and better place if we stopped wasting time searching for good in evil people.
As Venables and Thompson were tried and sent to prison, their identities were protected from an angry public. Eventually their names and mug shots were leaked, and the predictable social worker hand-wringing followed. To some people, the most important function of prison, especially for young offenders, is rehabilitation...not punishment. During a sentencing appeal, a judge reduced the sentence for these two sociopaths, claiming that prison is a poisonous atmosphere for young offenders. Venables and Thompson were released from prison in 2001, having served about nine years for their sickening crime. The British Government has taken measures to protect the killers and their families, moving them out of the area, giving them new names and identities and preventing the world's media from releasing their age-progressed pictures.
I am reminded of this awful story after reading accounts of another stomach-turning crime recently committed by a couple of teenagers in Northern California. Two 15 year-old girls were arrested for setting fire to a two-month old kitten named Adam. Second and third degree burns were left on 75% of Adam's body, and he is currently fighting for his life. Needless to say, the identities of the two perpetrators are being protected and they are likely to be coddled for a short time in a juvenile detention center or mental institution.
These incidents are just two examples of the sadistic violence some "minors" are capable of committing. While reasonable people are outraged at these senseless acts of torture, an alarming number of social workers, media members, judges and trial lawyers do their best to soften or even eliminate punishment for minors who perpetrate such cruelty.
I cannot understand why some people refuse to recognize evil when they see it. Contrary to popular academic belief, children grasp the difference between right and wrong very early on, some just choose to be malicious. Then, when sociopaths attack the defenseless, the academics come to the aid of the sociopaths. The same people who will argue that underwear placed on the head of a terrorist constitutes torture will do everything in their power to prevent the proper punishment of actual torture. Sympathy for human garbage like Venables, Thompson and these two teenaged brats is pointless. If, at an early age, someone is capable of beating a toddler to death or lighting a kitten on fire, that someone is not worthy of rehabilitation. One can only hope that these girls get their own taste of the suffering they administered to that poor cat. And, more importantly, let's hope that the little fella pulls through and finds a loving home. The world would be a safer and better place if we stopped wasting time searching for good in evil people.
Monday, July 16, 2007
The Church Rots from the Mitre Down
Los Angeles seems to be devoid of admirable leaders these days. In a region where perception trumps reality, perhaps this should come as no surprise. From location sets to botox injections, this city was built on phoniness, and lately the politicians have illustrated that point.
In truth, Los Angeles has always had its fair share of dubious characters in positions of power. And more often than not these city leaders have been more ambitious than competent. You had District Attorney Gil Garcetti, a man so focused on cultivating his image that he failed to keep his eye on the ball long enough to convict the Mendendez Brothers and OJ Simpson. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo apparently had designs on a future White House run when he formed "Team 1600". After his unauthorised and uninsured wife damaged his city vehicle, Delgadillo demonstrated his "Presidential" judgment by passing the repair bill on to the taxpayers. For some reason Antonio Villaraigosa, the slick, plastic Mayor of Los Angeles, is seen as a rising star in the Democrat Party. Hillary Clinton had even recruited him to co-chair her Presidential Campaign. She may want to reconsider the appointment since the Mayor has created his own vast right wing conspiracy by giving "exclusives" to a Telemundo reporter. The chorus of boos he received at David Beckham's unveiling underscores Villaraigosa's current popularity.
But the most egregious example of the modern day LA figurehead has to be Roger Mahoney. As the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahoney has enjoyed an elevated status in the community. He has always been treated like royalty, highly visible during ceremonial events and immune to any public scrutiny. By virtue of his title, Mahoney assumes an uncommon level of trust and credibility. When he publicly comments on any social issue, Cardinal Mahoney is seen to be speaking on behalf of all Catholics in the Archdiocese. When state laws conflict with Catholic teachings, Church law is controlling.
For more than 20 years as Archbishop of Los Angeles, Roger Mahoney has presided over the coverup of dozens of sexual assaults and violations by members of his clergy. Hundreds of lives have been damaged because several pedophiles were hidden among the ranks of the priesthood. No doubt many of the Church's victims were afraid to come forward, some because they were ashamed and others because they didn't think they'd be believed. As a result, the Church was able to avoid responsibility for far too long. A few years ago, the lid was finally blown off this scandal. The abuse of children and teenagers by Catholic clergy and laity was pervasive througout the world. Many of the victims who had once been isolated by their fear and their shame began to realize that they were not alone in their experiences. They banded together in support groups, realizing that their anger coupled with their newly found numerical strength could force the Catholic Church to face up to its accountability. Unfortunately, in many cases, the Church was less than eager to atone for its sins. Especially Roger Mahoney.
In truth, the sex scandal was an inconvenience to Cardinal Mahoney. A notorious social climber, the Cardinal was too busy putting the finishing touches on his legacy, the brand new downtown cathedral, to be distracted by this trifle. Mahoney handled the fallout from the sex scandal not like a spiritual leader, but like an embattled politician. He created a bunker approach placating his loyalists while isolating his detractors. He spoke publicly in carefully crafted platitudes, creating the impression among his supporters that he was showing enough contrition for his failures and enough willingness to make it right. Once his loyalists were appeased, he could portray himself and his supporters as victims of anti-Catholic bigotry. Any scrutiny of Mahoney or his tactics could be viewed by his apologists as "Catholic bashing". Mahoney kept the media at bay by changing the subject. In performing his media slight-of-hand, Mahoney zeroed in on media pet causes to garner favorable treatment...and, more importantly, to avoid unfavorable treatment. So Mahoney and his followers got out front and center to involve themselves in the anti-war movement and the illegal immigration debate. If the media was spending its time presenting puff pieces on Mahoney's outspoken pro-illegal immigration views, they would have to spend less time looking into the priest sex scandal and Mahoney's involvement therein. In effect, he used other political issues to buy him some time, to get himself some positive coverage and to stifle any negative coverage. Meanwhile, Mahoney and his attorneys began stonewalling the abuse victims who had filed lawsuits against the Archdiocese. In an attempt to avoid releasing priest personnel files sought in discovery motions, Mahoney pulled an especially creative and cynical stunt. He and his attorneys argued that any conversations between a priest and the Cardinal constituted an extension of priest/penitent confidentiality rights. Therefore, in their opinion, Mahoney was under no obligation to provide such information to the plaintiffs. Mahoney and his lawyers pretended to be concerned for the well-being of the molestation victims, instead, they treated the victims with indifference and even hostility. Mahoney kept losing discovery motions in court, only to appeal the decisions. He even went as far as the U.S. Supreme Court when his appeals failed. He lost at the Supreme Court, as well. In the meantime, the clock was ticking on the statute of limitations for some of the cases. If he could drag some of the processes out beyond the statute of limitations, he could make some of the cases simply go away. The $660 million settlement that was reached this week stopped imminent trials from going forward and protected Mahoney from having to testify in court under oath.
Over the years, Roger Mahoney has become part of the furniture in Los Angeles. He is still considered a holy man, but he has embraced the sleazy political world to the extent that he no longer has any moral authority. The Catholic Church has always taught that honoring a moral code is more important than following institutional law. Ironically, Mahoney has repeatedly exploited loopholes in the "inferior" institutional law to avoid honoring the "superior" moral code. Mahoney and Los Angeles were apparently made for each other.
In truth, Los Angeles has always had its fair share of dubious characters in positions of power. And more often than not these city leaders have been more ambitious than competent. You had District Attorney Gil Garcetti, a man so focused on cultivating his image that he failed to keep his eye on the ball long enough to convict the Mendendez Brothers and OJ Simpson. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo apparently had designs on a future White House run when he formed "Team 1600". After his unauthorised and uninsured wife damaged his city vehicle, Delgadillo demonstrated his "Presidential" judgment by passing the repair bill on to the taxpayers. For some reason Antonio Villaraigosa, the slick, plastic Mayor of Los Angeles, is seen as a rising star in the Democrat Party. Hillary Clinton had even recruited him to co-chair her Presidential Campaign. She may want to reconsider the appointment since the Mayor has created his own vast right wing conspiracy by giving "exclusives" to a Telemundo reporter. The chorus of boos he received at David Beckham's unveiling underscores Villaraigosa's current popularity.
But the most egregious example of the modern day LA figurehead has to be Roger Mahoney. As the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahoney has enjoyed an elevated status in the community. He has always been treated like royalty, highly visible during ceremonial events and immune to any public scrutiny. By virtue of his title, Mahoney assumes an uncommon level of trust and credibility. When he publicly comments on any social issue, Cardinal Mahoney is seen to be speaking on behalf of all Catholics in the Archdiocese. When state laws conflict with Catholic teachings, Church law is controlling.
For more than 20 years as Archbishop of Los Angeles, Roger Mahoney has presided over the coverup of dozens of sexual assaults and violations by members of his clergy. Hundreds of lives have been damaged because several pedophiles were hidden among the ranks of the priesthood. No doubt many of the Church's victims were afraid to come forward, some because they were ashamed and others because they didn't think they'd be believed. As a result, the Church was able to avoid responsibility for far too long. A few years ago, the lid was finally blown off this scandal. The abuse of children and teenagers by Catholic clergy and laity was pervasive througout the world. Many of the victims who had once been isolated by their fear and their shame began to realize that they were not alone in their experiences. They banded together in support groups, realizing that their anger coupled with their newly found numerical strength could force the Catholic Church to face up to its accountability. Unfortunately, in many cases, the Church was less than eager to atone for its sins. Especially Roger Mahoney.
In truth, the sex scandal was an inconvenience to Cardinal Mahoney. A notorious social climber, the Cardinal was too busy putting the finishing touches on his legacy, the brand new downtown cathedral, to be distracted by this trifle. Mahoney handled the fallout from the sex scandal not like a spiritual leader, but like an embattled politician. He created a bunker approach placating his loyalists while isolating his detractors. He spoke publicly in carefully crafted platitudes, creating the impression among his supporters that he was showing enough contrition for his failures and enough willingness to make it right. Once his loyalists were appeased, he could portray himself and his supporters as victims of anti-Catholic bigotry. Any scrutiny of Mahoney or his tactics could be viewed by his apologists as "Catholic bashing". Mahoney kept the media at bay by changing the subject. In performing his media slight-of-hand, Mahoney zeroed in on media pet causes to garner favorable treatment...and, more importantly, to avoid unfavorable treatment. So Mahoney and his followers got out front and center to involve themselves in the anti-war movement and the illegal immigration debate. If the media was spending its time presenting puff pieces on Mahoney's outspoken pro-illegal immigration views, they would have to spend less time looking into the priest sex scandal and Mahoney's involvement therein. In effect, he used other political issues to buy him some time, to get himself some positive coverage and to stifle any negative coverage. Meanwhile, Mahoney and his attorneys began stonewalling the abuse victims who had filed lawsuits against the Archdiocese. In an attempt to avoid releasing priest personnel files sought in discovery motions, Mahoney pulled an especially creative and cynical stunt. He and his attorneys argued that any conversations between a priest and the Cardinal constituted an extension of priest/penitent confidentiality rights. Therefore, in their opinion, Mahoney was under no obligation to provide such information to the plaintiffs. Mahoney and his lawyers pretended to be concerned for the well-being of the molestation victims, instead, they treated the victims with indifference and even hostility. Mahoney kept losing discovery motions in court, only to appeal the decisions. He even went as far as the U.S. Supreme Court when his appeals failed. He lost at the Supreme Court, as well. In the meantime, the clock was ticking on the statute of limitations for some of the cases. If he could drag some of the processes out beyond the statute of limitations, he could make some of the cases simply go away. The $660 million settlement that was reached this week stopped imminent trials from going forward and protected Mahoney from having to testify in court under oath.
Over the years, Roger Mahoney has become part of the furniture in Los Angeles. He is still considered a holy man, but he has embraced the sleazy political world to the extent that he no longer has any moral authority. The Catholic Church has always taught that honoring a moral code is more important than following institutional law. Ironically, Mahoney has repeatedly exploited loopholes in the "inferior" institutional law to avoid honoring the "superior" moral code. Mahoney and Los Angeles were apparently made for each other.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Democrats: The Cliff's Notes Answer to Politics
When I was taking English Literature courses in high school and college, the teachers always warned us not to read the Cliff's Notes in place of the assigned books. Cliff's Notes were pamphlets that were sold as supplemental study aids to fine works of literature. You were supposed to read the assigned chapters of "To Kill a Mockingbird", "The Great Gatsby" or "A Tale of Two Cities", before using the Cliff's Notes to recap what you'd just read. Teachers feared that students wouldn't be bothered reading the full books when they could simply read the condensed summaries from the Cliff's Notes. Classic literature can be dry, detailed and certainly not ideal for those with short attention spans. But teachers worried that by taking the easy way out, students would be unwilling or unable to form their own conclusions on the meaning of the stories they were assigned. In other words, rather than do the work and think for themselves, many students would be inclined to skip the work and rely on someone else's interpretation of the facts.
In political terms, Democrats have always embraced the Cliff's Notes approach when seeking voters. The less details people know, the better. Liberals don't like individuals who are curious and think for themselves. Instead, they separate people into categories or interest groups, by race, gender, sexual orientation and employment status, among others. Then they arbitrarily assign "leaders" to speak on behalf of each interest group. The various community leaders are then tasked with the responsibility of delivering votes for the Democrat Party. So the self-annointed, party-approved community leaders set about trying to convince a group of individuals that they will get farther in life collectively rather than individually. The spokespeople for the various Democrat interest groups stir up their members by creating a phony us vs. them posture. They proceed to demonize those with differing viewpoints and suggest that the "opposition" isn't interested in "our needs". Or, worse, they're working in direct conflict to make sure those needs are never met. The assigned leaders then shepherd their flocks into the voting booths so that their masses will mark all the boxes with (D) next to them. And, the Democrat leadership always has a ready-made excuse whenever they don't deliver on their promises: it's Republicans who are at fault...and if you just vote for more Democrats the next time around, these failures will turn into the promised successes. As long as they keep their little commodities from thinking for themselves, they can continue this charade in perpetuity.
Liberalism is a much easier sell to the so-called "have nots" than is conservatism. It takes no critical thought to be a liberal, just fall into line behind the leaders and let them do the thinking and the advocating for you. On the other hand, conservatives, by nature, are individuals who know that you don't get ahead in life by letting others speak for you. You are the master of your domain and you want to have the ultimate say in determining your fate. As a conservative, you understand that there are risks that you must assume in order for you to have a chance to excel. You have to look out for yourself and your family first, and there's nothing wrong with that.
On the issues, liberals and Democrats believe in collectivism and government control. Their mission is Centralized power, where no one has more than anyone else (except, of course, for those who work in government). In appealing to the lowest common denominator, stirring jealousy and hatred for the successful, liberals have sought to convince their followers that you can somehow make the poor rich by making the rich poor. Liberals have a lack of faith in the ability of individuals to make their own choices in life and to succeed without government interference. That is why they embrace collectives like labor unions, minority groups and bureaucratic health insurance schemes. That is why they repackage their stale and failed ideas by calling themselves "progressives" and by insisting their punitive tax grabs are only "tax increases on the rich". That is also why they employ group intimidation tactics to frighten and weaken those who dare to follow their own paths. From the violent picket lines to the threatening language they use to bully those who run afoul of standard groupthink, liberals do their utmost to stifle substantive debate. And think of how proud Democrats save special mistreatment for those they believe should naturally, by birth, side with them. It's no overstatement to say that more than 40 years on, the left has treated Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas with about as much hatred and ill-will as Ross Barnett had for James Meredith in Mississippi. It's not hyperbolic to suggest that so-called Women's groups have given Tammy Bruce about as much respect as they've reserved for their aborted fetuses. And how much courage does it take for a bunch of oversized union goons to surround a woman and her children entering a grocery store? It's much easier for some people to accept Kathy Griffin's assessment of Condi Rice as something akin to a "house nigger" than to consider that Ms. Rice is a talented, accomplished woman who earned her stripes on her own and who would make a great President.
In politics as in school, it's always better to read the book cover to cover and draw your own conclusions than to scan the Cliff's Notes and parrot someone else's. Besides, I would much rather be Clarence Thomas than one of the faceless followers of Al Sharpton.
In political terms, Democrats have always embraced the Cliff's Notes approach when seeking voters. The less details people know, the better. Liberals don't like individuals who are curious and think for themselves. Instead, they separate people into categories or interest groups, by race, gender, sexual orientation and employment status, among others. Then they arbitrarily assign "leaders" to speak on behalf of each interest group. The various community leaders are then tasked with the responsibility of delivering votes for the Democrat Party. So the self-annointed, party-approved community leaders set about trying to convince a group of individuals that they will get farther in life collectively rather than individually. The spokespeople for the various Democrat interest groups stir up their members by creating a phony us vs. them posture. They proceed to demonize those with differing viewpoints and suggest that the "opposition" isn't interested in "our needs". Or, worse, they're working in direct conflict to make sure those needs are never met. The assigned leaders then shepherd their flocks into the voting booths so that their masses will mark all the boxes with (D) next to them. And, the Democrat leadership always has a ready-made excuse whenever they don't deliver on their promises: it's Republicans who are at fault...and if you just vote for more Democrats the next time around, these failures will turn into the promised successes. As long as they keep their little commodities from thinking for themselves, they can continue this charade in perpetuity.
Liberalism is a much easier sell to the so-called "have nots" than is conservatism. It takes no critical thought to be a liberal, just fall into line behind the leaders and let them do the thinking and the advocating for you. On the other hand, conservatives, by nature, are individuals who know that you don't get ahead in life by letting others speak for you. You are the master of your domain and you want to have the ultimate say in determining your fate. As a conservative, you understand that there are risks that you must assume in order for you to have a chance to excel. You have to look out for yourself and your family first, and there's nothing wrong with that.
On the issues, liberals and Democrats believe in collectivism and government control. Their mission is Centralized power, where no one has more than anyone else (except, of course, for those who work in government). In appealing to the lowest common denominator, stirring jealousy and hatred for the successful, liberals have sought to convince their followers that you can somehow make the poor rich by making the rich poor. Liberals have a lack of faith in the ability of individuals to make their own choices in life and to succeed without government interference. That is why they embrace collectives like labor unions, minority groups and bureaucratic health insurance schemes. That is why they repackage their stale and failed ideas by calling themselves "progressives" and by insisting their punitive tax grabs are only "tax increases on the rich". That is also why they employ group intimidation tactics to frighten and weaken those who dare to follow their own paths. From the violent picket lines to the threatening language they use to bully those who run afoul of standard groupthink, liberals do their utmost to stifle substantive debate. And think of how proud Democrats save special mistreatment for those they believe should naturally, by birth, side with them. It's no overstatement to say that more than 40 years on, the left has treated Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas with about as much hatred and ill-will as Ross Barnett had for James Meredith in Mississippi. It's not hyperbolic to suggest that so-called Women's groups have given Tammy Bruce about as much respect as they've reserved for their aborted fetuses. And how much courage does it take for a bunch of oversized union goons to surround a woman and her children entering a grocery store? It's much easier for some people to accept Kathy Griffin's assessment of Condi Rice as something akin to a "house nigger" than to consider that Ms. Rice is a talented, accomplished woman who earned her stripes on her own and who would make a great President.
In politics as in school, it's always better to read the book cover to cover and draw your own conclusions than to scan the Cliff's Notes and parrot someone else's. Besides, I would much rather be Clarence Thomas than one of the faceless followers of Al Sharpton.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Larry Flynt vs. the People
In one of Oliver Stone's most tortured productions of revisionist history - and that's saying something - smut peddler Larry Flynt is portrayed as one of the great pioneers of American free speech. A particularly tasteful marketing poster for "The People vs. Larry Flynt" featured Woody Harrelson as Flynt, stretched across the lower torso of a half naked woman in a mock crucifiction. Harrelson is also carrying the prop that all self-righteous first ammendment martyrs have used since Lenny Bruce first suffered for his art, the duct tape mouth gag. Needless to say, the film generated much unwarranted praise for the dubious pornographer.
On the heels of his respectability makeover, Flynt decided that he would use his new A-list celebrity to stick it to some of his enemies. Apparently displeased that investigations into Bill Clinton's perjury and sexual misconduct were ongoing, Flynt decided to pursue the hypocrisy angle to see if he could catch any Republicans operating outside the marriage. In an attempt to portay himself as a modern-day "muckraker", Flynt used "Hustler Magazine" to put up a bounty of $1 million on the head of any Republican caught having an extramarital affair. Anyone with information leading to the exposure of a Republican as a "hypocrite" would be entitled to a cash prize. Under Flynt's logic, Republicans were to be the primary targets for his investigation because they were most often the politicians running for office as "family values" candidates with the support of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other conservative Christians. Flynt had always been symbolic of the moral decay in modern American Society, as seen by those in the so-called "Religious Right". He had to have seen this as an ideal opportunity for revenge and for him to be able to proudly say to his detractors, "see, you're no better than I am". The biggest fish caught in Flynt's net was Bob Livingston, at the time Speaker-Elect of the House of Representatives. Livingston had been one of the more high-profile officials seeking the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury, and Livingston's subsequent resignation was seen as a feather in Flynt's cap. This also served as a justification for the Democrats who continued to support the embattled Clinton by, among other things, falsely portraying the perjury charges lodged against Clinton as petty intrusions into his sexual privacy.
Fast forward to 2007 and yet another sex scandal is brewing. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, head of Pamela Martin & Associates, is facing charges that her company is a front for a prostitution ring. Palfrey, nicknamed the D.C. Madam, has been slugging it out with prosecutors as she claims her business is entirely legal. Palfrey has a book filled with phone numbers of clients who have used her company's services, and has been threatening to make the book public. Palfrey alleges that several high profile people, including some Washington, D.C. politicians, have been clients over the years. Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has already admitted to being on the list, and some have suggested that he resign. In the meantime, Flynt has stated his intention to parse through the Madam's phone book to see if he can catch some more Republicans in the act. Of course, if any Democrats get caught in the net, Flynt's henchman are likely to throw them back in the ocean...because according to Flynt, Democrats are not hypocrites on the issue of sex.
To me, the hypocrisy comes from Flynt and his buddies on the left. How is it that a Republican like Mark Foley can be removed from office for sending inappropriate text messages to underaged pages, but Democrat Gerry Studds can have sex with an underaged male page and keep his Congressional seat? How is it that a partisan attorney like Ronnie Earle can get Tom DeLay to step down from Congress by bringing bogus corruption charges against him, yet William Jefferson gets to stay in Congress while legitimate fraud charges are lodged against him? How is it that Dick Cheney can be harassed for allegedly steering government contracts to a company he no longer works for, while the press completely ignores the fact that Dianne Feinstein personally awarded $1 billion in government defense contracts to her husband's company? With regard to demands for David Vitter to step down, let's get something straight. The minute a drooling, slackjawed pimp like Larry Flynt can dictate who is permitted to hold office and who is not is the minute we stick him back in the cesspool where he belongs. David Vitter may be a flawed individual, but I'm not about to accept imminent tax increases and immediate amnesty for illegal aliens because Flynt's porn machine opens the door for Kathleen "Katrina Disaster" Blanco to choose Vitter's successor. Vitter may fall short of Republican standards on a personal ethics level, but I encourage him to stay strong and fight for his place. The alternative would be indecent.
On the heels of his respectability makeover, Flynt decided that he would use his new A-list celebrity to stick it to some of his enemies. Apparently displeased that investigations into Bill Clinton's perjury and sexual misconduct were ongoing, Flynt decided to pursue the hypocrisy angle to see if he could catch any Republicans operating outside the marriage. In an attempt to portay himself as a modern-day "muckraker", Flynt used "Hustler Magazine" to put up a bounty of $1 million on the head of any Republican caught having an extramarital affair. Anyone with information leading to the exposure of a Republican as a "hypocrite" would be entitled to a cash prize. Under Flynt's logic, Republicans were to be the primary targets for his investigation because they were most often the politicians running for office as "family values" candidates with the support of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other conservative Christians. Flynt had always been symbolic of the moral decay in modern American Society, as seen by those in the so-called "Religious Right". He had to have seen this as an ideal opportunity for revenge and for him to be able to proudly say to his detractors, "see, you're no better than I am". The biggest fish caught in Flynt's net was Bob Livingston, at the time Speaker-Elect of the House of Representatives. Livingston had been one of the more high-profile officials seeking the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury, and Livingston's subsequent resignation was seen as a feather in Flynt's cap. This also served as a justification for the Democrats who continued to support the embattled Clinton by, among other things, falsely portraying the perjury charges lodged against Clinton as petty intrusions into his sexual privacy.
Fast forward to 2007 and yet another sex scandal is brewing. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, head of Pamela Martin & Associates, is facing charges that her company is a front for a prostitution ring. Palfrey, nicknamed the D.C. Madam, has been slugging it out with prosecutors as she claims her business is entirely legal. Palfrey has a book filled with phone numbers of clients who have used her company's services, and has been threatening to make the book public. Palfrey alleges that several high profile people, including some Washington, D.C. politicians, have been clients over the years. Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has already admitted to being on the list, and some have suggested that he resign. In the meantime, Flynt has stated his intention to parse through the Madam's phone book to see if he can catch some more Republicans in the act. Of course, if any Democrats get caught in the net, Flynt's henchman are likely to throw them back in the ocean...because according to Flynt, Democrats are not hypocrites on the issue of sex.
To me, the hypocrisy comes from Flynt and his buddies on the left. How is it that a Republican like Mark Foley can be removed from office for sending inappropriate text messages to underaged pages, but Democrat Gerry Studds can have sex with an underaged male page and keep his Congressional seat? How is it that a partisan attorney like Ronnie Earle can get Tom DeLay to step down from Congress by bringing bogus corruption charges against him, yet William Jefferson gets to stay in Congress while legitimate fraud charges are lodged against him? How is it that Dick Cheney can be harassed for allegedly steering government contracts to a company he no longer works for, while the press completely ignores the fact that Dianne Feinstein personally awarded $1 billion in government defense contracts to her husband's company? With regard to demands for David Vitter to step down, let's get something straight. The minute a drooling, slackjawed pimp like Larry Flynt can dictate who is permitted to hold office and who is not is the minute we stick him back in the cesspool where he belongs. David Vitter may be a flawed individual, but I'm not about to accept imminent tax increases and immediate amnesty for illegal aliens because Flynt's porn machine opens the door for Kathleen "Katrina Disaster" Blanco to choose Vitter's successor. Vitter may fall short of Republican standards on a personal ethics level, but I encourage him to stay strong and fight for his place. The alternative would be indecent.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Katie Misses the Point Again. Any Wonder She's Dead Last?
Reports today have surfaced that there's been a shakeup in the John McCain Presidential campaign team. A few staffers have been released, others have been reassigned. Apparently the fundraising efforts have fallen far short of their targets, and McCain needs to rearrange the deck chairs on his sinking ship. Given his rather uneven performance the last couple of years, it's not surprising that his Presidential bid is already dead on arrival. Also not surprising is the intentional misrepresentation of the facts by CBS anchor Katie Couric, who has insisted that McCain's slump is down to his continuing support of the Iraq War. Anyone who has even a minimal grasp of the facts knows that McCain's struggles owe very little to his Iraq position. His weak numbers can be almost exclusively attributed to three things: 1) His stubborn, even maniacal support of the Kennedy Illegal Immigration Amnesty Bill, 2) His coauthoring of the Free Speech infringing McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill and 3) His puzzling obsession with perceived "torture" at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. In fairness to Couric, NBC's David Gregory went out of his way to miss the point, as well. But he's just a reporter. Katie Couric, for better or worse, IS CBS News.
In discussing the abject failure that is the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, a great deal of time is spent focusing on her style of news delivery. Dan Rather, her embittered predecessor referred to it as "tarting it up" and "dumbing it down". But to simply reduce her problems to style trumping substance is to gloss over the facts. Substantively Katie Couric is doing no better or worse than either Dan Rather or Walter Cronkite did. They had just as little substance as she has, only her delivery is less formal. Journalistic malpractice is much harder to pinpoint when it's used by an old man in a navy suit. It's much harder to mask such malpractice when it's delivered by someone scolding the Secretary of State by borrowing a quote from her spoiled, school-aged daughter. Katie Couric isn't the disease, she's just a symptom of a greater disease that started with Walter Cronkite, continued with gusto throughout the Dan "Forged Documents" Rather era and remains to this day. The disease: acute arrogant indifference to the truth. CBS News has never been interested in reporting the facts. Instead, its reporters and anchors have tried to frame the news to advance their agenda and profiles.
Lyndon Johnson suggested that with regard to the Vietnam War, he had lost the American people once he'd lost Walter Cronkite. Cronkite turned that infamous line into the myth that he was somehow the "Most Trusted Man in America". This senile old coot had the nerve to suggest that Karl Rove coordinated the making of a video tape with Osama Bin Laden in an effort to rig the 2004 election! If you trust him now, I would have to have serious questions about your intelligence.
Dan Rather raised his profile over a nasty, sarcastic exchange he had with Richard Nixon. For his entire "career", he was totally in the tank with the tax and spend socialists in Washington. He was noticeably bitter whenever a Republican triumphed, he despised Ronald Reagan and had an appalling Captain Ahab-type obsession with the Bush family. The so-called mainstream media completely ignored the fact that Rather and his staff were caught trumping up charges relating to the National Guard and George W. Bush. And worse, some who acknowledged his shoddy journalism subsequently turned around to defend him. An embittered, partisan hack by the name of Bill Burkett provided Rather's producers with obviously fake documents in hopes of supporting the notion that George W. Bush had skipped some of his required National Guard duty. After getting caught trying to pass off phony documents as legitimate, Rather would have been well advised to own up to his fraud and resign in disgrace. Instead, he went on the offensive, repeatedly demanding that Bush respond to these cooked up allegations AS IF THEY WERE LEGITIMATE. Already a ratings failure, Rather's credibility became a serious liability to CBS. The network finally got tired of carrying the dead weight of his miserable ratings and cut bait.
Seeking a clean slate and a new vibe, CBS opted for Katie Couric. Her bias and her journalistic integrity were on a par with Rather's, but as a woman who'd had a successful reign on The Today Show, Couric was seen as an exciting breath of fresh air. Perhaps, it was thought, Couric would be able to draw ratings from a previously untapped audience, young and middle-aged women. Where Rather was seen as old and stuffy, Katie would be counted on to bring a softer touch to the network news. She tried some new stunts, like occasionally emerging from behind the newsdesk to more of a "talkshow" set. She had that "Free Speech" gimmick, where celebrities and Average Joes alike would have the opportunity to present a short on-camera editorial, but even then she couldn't resist injecting her liberal bias. In introducing an editorial given by a parent of one of the students murdered in the Columbine Massacre she suggested that the conservative Christian's views might be seen as "repugnant" by some viewers. Of course the "Free Speech" editorials presented by the likes of Katrina vanden Heuvel, Barack Obama, Arianna Huffington and Elizabeth Edwards were given no such introduction. Now, less than a year after Couric assumed the anchor position at CBS, many have drafted her obituary. Her newscast has consistently brought up the rear in the network evening news ratings. She's solidified the third-place position that Dan Rather secured during his dubious reign. In Los Angeles, Couric's newscast was getting beaten by, among other things, "That '70s Show" reruns. In the meantime, her apologists are in full spin mode. Lacking any credible conclusions, they've even been reduced to accusing non-viewers of being sexist...as if blaming the customer ever worked.
When all is said and done, Katie Couric was a dreadful choice to anchor the CBS News. CBS seemed to be under the impression that the product was fine, it was only the packaging that needed help. Unless they get to the root of the problem, their reckless and dishonest reporting, they're never going to get out of last place. But knowing CBS, they won't get rid of her. And even if they do, what are the odds they'll replace her with Keith Olbermann?
In discussing the abject failure that is the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, a great deal of time is spent focusing on her style of news delivery. Dan Rather, her embittered predecessor referred to it as "tarting it up" and "dumbing it down". But to simply reduce her problems to style trumping substance is to gloss over the facts. Substantively Katie Couric is doing no better or worse than either Dan Rather or Walter Cronkite did. They had just as little substance as she has, only her delivery is less formal. Journalistic malpractice is much harder to pinpoint when it's used by an old man in a navy suit. It's much harder to mask such malpractice when it's delivered by someone scolding the Secretary of State by borrowing a quote from her spoiled, school-aged daughter. Katie Couric isn't the disease, she's just a symptom of a greater disease that started with Walter Cronkite, continued with gusto throughout the Dan "Forged Documents" Rather era and remains to this day. The disease: acute arrogant indifference to the truth. CBS News has never been interested in reporting the facts. Instead, its reporters and anchors have tried to frame the news to advance their agenda and profiles.
Lyndon Johnson suggested that with regard to the Vietnam War, he had lost the American people once he'd lost Walter Cronkite. Cronkite turned that infamous line into the myth that he was somehow the "Most Trusted Man in America". This senile old coot had the nerve to suggest that Karl Rove coordinated the making of a video tape with Osama Bin Laden in an effort to rig the 2004 election! If you trust him now, I would have to have serious questions about your intelligence.
Dan Rather raised his profile over a nasty, sarcastic exchange he had with Richard Nixon. For his entire "career", he was totally in the tank with the tax and spend socialists in Washington. He was noticeably bitter whenever a Republican triumphed, he despised Ronald Reagan and had an appalling Captain Ahab-type obsession with the Bush family. The so-called mainstream media completely ignored the fact that Rather and his staff were caught trumping up charges relating to the National Guard and George W. Bush. And worse, some who acknowledged his shoddy journalism subsequently turned around to defend him. An embittered, partisan hack by the name of Bill Burkett provided Rather's producers with obviously fake documents in hopes of supporting the notion that George W. Bush had skipped some of his required National Guard duty. After getting caught trying to pass off phony documents as legitimate, Rather would have been well advised to own up to his fraud and resign in disgrace. Instead, he went on the offensive, repeatedly demanding that Bush respond to these cooked up allegations AS IF THEY WERE LEGITIMATE. Already a ratings failure, Rather's credibility became a serious liability to CBS. The network finally got tired of carrying the dead weight of his miserable ratings and cut bait.
Seeking a clean slate and a new vibe, CBS opted for Katie Couric. Her bias and her journalistic integrity were on a par with Rather's, but as a woman who'd had a successful reign on The Today Show, Couric was seen as an exciting breath of fresh air. Perhaps, it was thought, Couric would be able to draw ratings from a previously untapped audience, young and middle-aged women. Where Rather was seen as old and stuffy, Katie would be counted on to bring a softer touch to the network news. She tried some new stunts, like occasionally emerging from behind the newsdesk to more of a "talkshow" set. She had that "Free Speech" gimmick, where celebrities and Average Joes alike would have the opportunity to present a short on-camera editorial, but even then she couldn't resist injecting her liberal bias. In introducing an editorial given by a parent of one of the students murdered in the Columbine Massacre she suggested that the conservative Christian's views might be seen as "repugnant" by some viewers. Of course the "Free Speech" editorials presented by the likes of Katrina vanden Heuvel, Barack Obama, Arianna Huffington and Elizabeth Edwards were given no such introduction. Now, less than a year after Couric assumed the anchor position at CBS, many have drafted her obituary. Her newscast has consistently brought up the rear in the network evening news ratings. She's solidified the third-place position that Dan Rather secured during his dubious reign. In Los Angeles, Couric's newscast was getting beaten by, among other things, "That '70s Show" reruns. In the meantime, her apologists are in full spin mode. Lacking any credible conclusions, they've even been reduced to accusing non-viewers of being sexist...as if blaming the customer ever worked.
When all is said and done, Katie Couric was a dreadful choice to anchor the CBS News. CBS seemed to be under the impression that the product was fine, it was only the packaging that needed help. Unless they get to the root of the problem, their reckless and dishonest reporting, they're never going to get out of last place. But knowing CBS, they won't get rid of her. And even if they do, what are the odds they'll replace her with Keith Olbermann?
Friday, July 6, 2007
Tort Reform Can Be a Winning Issue for Republicans. Why Aren't They Using It?
I understand that Roy Pearson has resurfaced. The Washington, DC administrative judge, best known for trying to shake down a family of immigrant dry cleaners to the tune of $54 million over a pair of pants has apparently asked the court to reconsider the verdict. Fortunately, good sense trumped legal cynicism, and Pearson failed in his breathtakingly frivolous lawsuit...this time. He hasn't quite learned his lesson and seems ready to fight this hammer and tongs until both he and the dry cleaners are reduced to nothing.
The fact that the law enables human debris like Roy Pearson to continually terrorise hardworking people like the Chungs is maddening. Trial lawyers are like a cancer to our society, and the cancer continues to spread without treatment. Each year, a whole new class passes the Bar Exam and enters the legal profession, almost certainly outnumbering the deaths, resignations, retirements and disbarrments "suffered" by the industry. In other words, each year, there are more lawyers than there were the previous year. Some have pursued the legal profession, out of a blind idealism, to "change the world" to "hold criminals accountable" or "to make a mark on society". Surely others are motivated by the promise of big bucks and an exciting lifestyle. Many recent additions to the Bar are riddled in debt from the student loans they took out to go to Law School. Others are still saddled with student loan debt from their undergraduate institutions. Factor in the inevitable image debt...large expenditures on clothes, automobiles and homes for the self-fulfilling prophecy that you can only be successful if you look successful...and you have a cocktail for some serious and immediate cash pressure. And we haven't even added the potential divorce variable. If each year there are more lawyers carrying more debt and no more legitimate law to address, the industry has to drum up business somehow. The result: more frivolous lawsuits, more malicious prosecutions and more Roy Pearsons.
While tort abuse is one of the most destructive problems in the U.S., its damaging consequences are so rarely discussed. Even as slick lawyers have become the punchline to many a late night talk show joke, the legal profession is treated as if it's inherently noble. Every garden variety Patrick Fitzgerald likes to think of himself as Atticus Finch. Every Mark Geragos is really Clarence Darrow. John Grisham has made a fortune creating mythological symbols out of his simple, idealistic attorney characters. The legal profession is so smug and insular that many of its practitioners even have a hard time rebuking Mike Nifong.
It's the legal profession that allows a President to parse the meaning of the word "is" without universal ridicule. It's the legal profession that allows a man who made countless millions tricking juries into bankrupting obstetricians to run for President...twice. It's the legal profession, through political correctness, that allows our enemies to force frightened travellers to make the choice between possibly dying in a terrorist attack or getting sued. It's the legal profession through countless meritless lawsuits, that makes our insurance premiums go up and makes the cost of doing business prohibitive.
Why is it that Republicans rarely go on the offensive when it comes to tort abuse? Why don't the Republicans get out there and stand up to the trial lawyers? Why are Republicans so afraid to show the publc how devastating an untamed legal profession is and will continue to be? Why can't Republicans line up the likes of John Edwards, Mike Nifong, Mark Geragos, Patrick Fitzgerald and Roy Pearson for the shame that they all deserve. These men have managed to ruin the lives of many people over the years, and don't think for a second that you aren't paying for it. The John Edwards of the world have seen to it that we don't have enough willing and qualified medical practitioners to handle the expanding healthcare demand...the malpractice insurance premiums are too high, the potential for personal loss is too great and the risk of getting sued outweighs the reward for giving medical care. The Mike Nifongs and Patrick Fitzgeralds of the world have seen to it that their targets are harassed, terrorised and convicted in the court of public opinion whether or not they are convicted in a court of law. Because of rogue prosecutors like them, you can continue to expect to bankrupt yourself fighting bogus charges against a state with limitless resources. You could end up sitting in jail for 5 years awaiting trial like Raymond Buckey, an innocent man, did. The Mark Geragos of the world are simply famous for being famous. Throw your client under the bus to protect a Clinton and you, too, could get several high profile criminal cases and countless talk show appearances. Too bad for his clients that his bluster outweighs his competence. At least he's still famous enough to make the Larry King Show every once in a while. And finally, the Roy Pearsons of the world show us just how petty and mean-spirited lawyers can get. People like Roy Pearson are so pathetic and miserable that they only derive joy from foisting their misery on others. The fact that Pearson remains a lawyer to this day shames the legal profession to no end. The legal profession would be better without the likes of Roy Pearson. In truth, the world would be better without the likes of Roy Pearson.
The fact that the law enables human debris like Roy Pearson to continually terrorise hardworking people like the Chungs is maddening. Trial lawyers are like a cancer to our society, and the cancer continues to spread without treatment. Each year, a whole new class passes the Bar Exam and enters the legal profession, almost certainly outnumbering the deaths, resignations, retirements and disbarrments "suffered" by the industry. In other words, each year, there are more lawyers than there were the previous year. Some have pursued the legal profession, out of a blind idealism, to "change the world" to "hold criminals accountable" or "to make a mark on society". Surely others are motivated by the promise of big bucks and an exciting lifestyle. Many recent additions to the Bar are riddled in debt from the student loans they took out to go to Law School. Others are still saddled with student loan debt from their undergraduate institutions. Factor in the inevitable image debt...large expenditures on clothes, automobiles and homes for the self-fulfilling prophecy that you can only be successful if you look successful...and you have a cocktail for some serious and immediate cash pressure. And we haven't even added the potential divorce variable. If each year there are more lawyers carrying more debt and no more legitimate law to address, the industry has to drum up business somehow. The result: more frivolous lawsuits, more malicious prosecutions and more Roy Pearsons.
While tort abuse is one of the most destructive problems in the U.S., its damaging consequences are so rarely discussed. Even as slick lawyers have become the punchline to many a late night talk show joke, the legal profession is treated as if it's inherently noble. Every garden variety Patrick Fitzgerald likes to think of himself as Atticus Finch. Every Mark Geragos is really Clarence Darrow. John Grisham has made a fortune creating mythological symbols out of his simple, idealistic attorney characters. The legal profession is so smug and insular that many of its practitioners even have a hard time rebuking Mike Nifong.
It's the legal profession that allows a President to parse the meaning of the word "is" without universal ridicule. It's the legal profession that allows a man who made countless millions tricking juries into bankrupting obstetricians to run for President...twice. It's the legal profession, through political correctness, that allows our enemies to force frightened travellers to make the choice between possibly dying in a terrorist attack or getting sued. It's the legal profession through countless meritless lawsuits, that makes our insurance premiums go up and makes the cost of doing business prohibitive.
Why is it that Republicans rarely go on the offensive when it comes to tort abuse? Why don't the Republicans get out there and stand up to the trial lawyers? Why are Republicans so afraid to show the publc how devastating an untamed legal profession is and will continue to be? Why can't Republicans line up the likes of John Edwards, Mike Nifong, Mark Geragos, Patrick Fitzgerald and Roy Pearson for the shame that they all deserve. These men have managed to ruin the lives of many people over the years, and don't think for a second that you aren't paying for it. The John Edwards of the world have seen to it that we don't have enough willing and qualified medical practitioners to handle the expanding healthcare demand...the malpractice insurance premiums are too high, the potential for personal loss is too great and the risk of getting sued outweighs the reward for giving medical care. The Mike Nifongs and Patrick Fitzgeralds of the world have seen to it that their targets are harassed, terrorised and convicted in the court of public opinion whether or not they are convicted in a court of law. Because of rogue prosecutors like them, you can continue to expect to bankrupt yourself fighting bogus charges against a state with limitless resources. You could end up sitting in jail for 5 years awaiting trial like Raymond Buckey, an innocent man, did. The Mark Geragos of the world are simply famous for being famous. Throw your client under the bus to protect a Clinton and you, too, could get several high profile criminal cases and countless talk show appearances. Too bad for his clients that his bluster outweighs his competence. At least he's still famous enough to make the Larry King Show every once in a while. And finally, the Roy Pearsons of the world show us just how petty and mean-spirited lawyers can get. People like Roy Pearson are so pathetic and miserable that they only derive joy from foisting their misery on others. The fact that Pearson remains a lawyer to this day shames the legal profession to no end. The legal profession would be better without the likes of Roy Pearson. In truth, the world would be better without the likes of Roy Pearson.
How Dumb Do the Clintons Think We Are?
In a memorable episode of Seinfeld, Jerry sought advice from George on how to beat a polygraph test. George had a unique “gift”, he was an incredible liar. From the little white fibs to the earth-shattering whoppers, no one could spin yarn like George Costanza. Jerry was desperate, he had to pass this polygraph exam, and George, the master of deception, was his only hope. George had one bit of wisdom to pass on to Jerry in this time of need: “It’s not a lie, if you believe it.”
I’m reminded of this fictional exchange in the wake of the recent reaction to the Scooter Libby commutation. Predictably, media members worked tirelessly to parrot DNC talking points on the matter, distorting facts and learning all the wrong lessons from this farcical trial. Meanwhile, some reporters thought it might be interesting to get some perspective from a former U.S. President, one who may have come across a similar dilemma to the one President Bush faced earlier this week. Bill Clinton, President Bush’s direct predecessor was asked to shed some light on the subject. Did he think that President Bush made the correct decision? Clinton, who pardoned about 450 people, including an unprecedented 140 on his last day in office, said no. Then he attempted to make distinctions between his pardons and the Libby commutation in an on-air interview with Iowa radio host, David Yepsen.
“Yeah, but I think the facts were different. I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”
Typically, when splitting hairs, one highlights specific details and explains why one act should be seen differently from the other. Clinton has perfected the art of splitting hairs without making any distinctions. In his radio response, Clinton claims that the “facts were different”. But he doesn’t bother to explain which facts were, in fact, different. From there, he slithers into some lame, non-specific, ad hominem attack of the Bush Administration. Clinton has brought the classic “stick and move” technique from the boxing ring to the political arena. You might call it “attack and change the subject”. And Clinton makes sure that he never has to face a legitimate media opponent. Clinton’s promoters always match him up against some third-rate tomato can, so he can stay off the ropes and keep his bloated record intact. True to form, David Yepsen doesn’t lay a glove on him.
In a February 18, 2001 editorial in the New York Times, Clinton discusses some of the controversial pardons and commutations he ordered on his last day as President. In one sentence, Clinton, while attempting to give himself cover for some of his pardons, inadvertently gives future justification for President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence.
“In some cases, I granted pardons because I felt the individuals had been unfairly treated and punished pursuant to the Independent Counsel statute then in existence.”
No doubt, President Bush properly felt that Mr. Libby had been “unfairly treated and punished pursuant to the Independent Counsel statute then in existence”. As a result, he commuted the prison sentence, leaving open the door for a full pardon should Libby fail to clear his name through the court system.
Beyond the cynical and dishonest nature of Clinton’s partisan attack, it’s the corruption he tolerated, pardoned and participated in that bothers me. To put it bluntly, this guy has a lot of nerve criticizing President Bush when his own brazen acts of corruption are there for all to see.
Bill Clinton
-Committed and suborned perjury as President of the United States
-Pardoned 16 members of the FALN terrorist group responsible for 6 bombing deaths in the United States. He did this in 1999 to curry favor with New York’s Puerto Rican community for his wife’s 2000 Senatorial campaign
-Pardoned Marc Rich, a tax fugitive after receiving over $1 million in contributions and gifts from Rich’s ex-wife, Denise
-Pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, who were convicted of bank fraud. This pardon was secured by Hillary’s brother, Tony Rodham, who had received more than $100,000 from the Gregorys as a “loan” that, suspiciously has never been paid back
-Pardoned former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, who lied to the FBI during a background check. Cisneros was trying to cover up that he had paid an ex-mistress $250,000 in “hush money”. The ex-mistress eventually got busted for bank fraud in an attempt to cover up the fact that Cisneros was the source of the money
-And, if all that wasn’t bad enough, Clinton sent Sandy Berger to the National Archives to destroy documents relating to his Administration’s failure to prevent the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. Berger was fined $10,000 and will get his security clearance back in time for another Clinton Administration in 2009…and Clinton dares complain about Libby not going to prison?
Noted Hollywood liberal and one-time Clinton apologist David Geffen said it best, “everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease it’s troubling”. It’s disgraceful when an utter failure of a human being (not to mention a President) like Bill Clinton is given the opportunity to lie so publicly without the hint of a challenge. His was the most frivolous presidency in the history of the United States. When a man so completely devoid of dignity casts judgment on someone as honorable as President Bush, it’s profoundly sad. One can only hope he’s significantly less successful getting his wife elected as President as he was successful getting himself the job. One thing I’ll say for Bill Clinton though: I doubt you could find a person who’s better equipped to help you beat a polygraph test.
I’m reminded of this fictional exchange in the wake of the recent reaction to the Scooter Libby commutation. Predictably, media members worked tirelessly to parrot DNC talking points on the matter, distorting facts and learning all the wrong lessons from this farcical trial. Meanwhile, some reporters thought it might be interesting to get some perspective from a former U.S. President, one who may have come across a similar dilemma to the one President Bush faced earlier this week. Bill Clinton, President Bush’s direct predecessor was asked to shed some light on the subject. Did he think that President Bush made the correct decision? Clinton, who pardoned about 450 people, including an unprecedented 140 on his last day in office, said no. Then he attempted to make distinctions between his pardons and the Libby commutation in an on-air interview with Iowa radio host, David Yepsen.
“Yeah, but I think the facts were different. I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”
Typically, when splitting hairs, one highlights specific details and explains why one act should be seen differently from the other. Clinton has perfected the art of splitting hairs without making any distinctions. In his radio response, Clinton claims that the “facts were different”. But he doesn’t bother to explain which facts were, in fact, different. From there, he slithers into some lame, non-specific, ad hominem attack of the Bush Administration. Clinton has brought the classic “stick and move” technique from the boxing ring to the political arena. You might call it “attack and change the subject”. And Clinton makes sure that he never has to face a legitimate media opponent. Clinton’s promoters always match him up against some third-rate tomato can, so he can stay off the ropes and keep his bloated record intact. True to form, David Yepsen doesn’t lay a glove on him.
In a February 18, 2001 editorial in the New York Times, Clinton discusses some of the controversial pardons and commutations he ordered on his last day as President. In one sentence, Clinton, while attempting to give himself cover for some of his pardons, inadvertently gives future justification for President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence.
“In some cases, I granted pardons because I felt the individuals had been unfairly treated and punished pursuant to the Independent Counsel statute then in existence.”
No doubt, President Bush properly felt that Mr. Libby had been “unfairly treated and punished pursuant to the Independent Counsel statute then in existence”. As a result, he commuted the prison sentence, leaving open the door for a full pardon should Libby fail to clear his name through the court system.
Beyond the cynical and dishonest nature of Clinton’s partisan attack, it’s the corruption he tolerated, pardoned and participated in that bothers me. To put it bluntly, this guy has a lot of nerve criticizing President Bush when his own brazen acts of corruption are there for all to see.
Bill Clinton
-Committed and suborned perjury as President of the United States
-Pardoned 16 members of the FALN terrorist group responsible for 6 bombing deaths in the United States. He did this in 1999 to curry favor with New York’s Puerto Rican community for his wife’s 2000 Senatorial campaign
-Pardoned Marc Rich, a tax fugitive after receiving over $1 million in contributions and gifts from Rich’s ex-wife, Denise
-Pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, who were convicted of bank fraud. This pardon was secured by Hillary’s brother, Tony Rodham, who had received more than $100,000 from the Gregorys as a “loan” that, suspiciously has never been paid back
-Pardoned former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, who lied to the FBI during a background check. Cisneros was trying to cover up that he had paid an ex-mistress $250,000 in “hush money”. The ex-mistress eventually got busted for bank fraud in an attempt to cover up the fact that Cisneros was the source of the money
-And, if all that wasn’t bad enough, Clinton sent Sandy Berger to the National Archives to destroy documents relating to his Administration’s failure to prevent the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. Berger was fined $10,000 and will get his security clearance back in time for another Clinton Administration in 2009…and Clinton dares complain about Libby not going to prison?
Noted Hollywood liberal and one-time Clinton apologist David Geffen said it best, “everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease it’s troubling”. It’s disgraceful when an utter failure of a human being (not to mention a President) like Bill Clinton is given the opportunity to lie so publicly without the hint of a challenge. His was the most frivolous presidency in the history of the United States. When a man so completely devoid of dignity casts judgment on someone as honorable as President Bush, it’s profoundly sad. One can only hope he’s significantly less successful getting his wife elected as President as he was successful getting himself the job. One thing I’ll say for Bill Clinton though: I doubt you could find a person who’s better equipped to help you beat a polygraph test.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Hating Hillary Doesn't Make You Anti-Woman
A couple of years ago, I was visiting some relatives in Western Europe when one of my cousins asked me if I was looking forward to Hillary Clinton becoming the first female President of the United States. "God, I hope not!" was my answer. My cousin, seemingly convinced that Hillary was as universally popular in the United States as she seemed to be in Europe, was shocked at my prompt and certain negative response. "Why?" she inquired, "are you not excited about having a woman lead your country?" I told her that I'd be quite comfortable with a woman running the country, just not that woman.
Tokenism has become such a factor in modern society that it trumps any serious consideration of individuals. So someone who articulates a dislike for Hillary Clinton is often labelled "anti-woman", while someone who doesn't like Barack Obama might be considered a racist. Those who draw such conclusions are intellectually lazy, at best, and blatantly dishonest, at worst. But somehow, through repetition, perhaps, the perception that conservatives are anti-minority has been continually fostered. In a political climate where Democrat candidates still reap the benefits from pandering to assorted minority groups, treating each and every group as if they're the only one that matters, conservatives simply cannot win.
When the Republican Party invited an African-American gospel choir to perform at a presidential convention some years ago, the GOP was ridiculed for pandering to blacks. Cynical liberals joked about the stiff white choreography, and claimed that the choir constituted the only representives of the minority community in attendance at the convention. While the reality belied their claims, the perception remained. George W. Bush appointed the first African American Secretary of State, then replaced him with the first African American woman to fill the post. Was he credited for giving opportunities that no previous President had seen fit to give? Of course not. Instead, Colin Powell and Condeleezza Rice were often ridiculed as "house niggers" taking orders from a white master. The detestable Ted Rall and Jeff Danziger both subjected Ms. Rice to perverse racism in their cartoon strips without much backlash. Kathy Griffin, who last I checked is white, went so far as to suggest that Condi Rice follows "everything white men say". Of course, neither Kathy Griffin nor the white lefty cartoonists went through anything approaching the overt racism that Ms. Rice had to deal with. Condoleezza Rice's childhood friends were murdered in a southern church bombing by a White Democrat, after all.
While Democrats have always pretended to be morally superior on issues of race and gender, they've cornered the market on overt and covert racism. Jim Crow Laws and Bull Conner were tools of institutionalized white Democrat racism. In the 1990s, Democrats in the Senate attempted to torpedo the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of the highly qualified Clarence Thomas by making up sexual harassment allegations at the eleventh hour. The virtual lynch mob that was created by these baseless allegations was led by such shining lights as Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy. During the run-up to the 2006 elections, Chuck Schumer had his dirty tricks unit steal a copy of Republican candidate Michael Steele's credit report in an effort to dig up some pre-election dirt on the black Lieutenant Governor. Typical of the left-wing media that's more interested in endorsing liberals than in promoting African Americans, Schumer's theft went largely unreported.
Last November, Chris Matthews accused Tenneseeans of being racist for electing a white Republican, Bob Corker over a black Democrat, Harold Ford, to the open Senate seat in that state. Conveniently, Matthews failed to level the same charge against Maryland voters, who chose a white Democrat, Ben Cardin, over a black Republican, Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele for Maryland's open Senate seat. He also ignored the fact that Pennsylvania's corrupt white Democrat Governor, "Fast Eddie" Rendell clobbered his black Republican opponent, Lynn Swann.
It was conservatism and the Republican Party that freed Black Americans from slavery. And, in the spirit of Martin Luther King, conservatives have always been more interested in the content of one's character than in the color of one's skin. Great Americans like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, Thomas Sowell and countless others have been welcomed in the Republican Party not because of their race or gender, but because they were qualified candidates and superior human beings. And that's the way it should be. If a qualified woman is interested in running for President of the United States, I would consider voting for her. Hillary Clinton is not qualified, so I will not vote for her. If a qualified African American, perhaps a Michael Steele or Condi Rice, runs for President, I would seriously consider voting for him or her. Barack Obama is not qualified, and I will not vote for him. If a qualified Hispanic runs for President...and no, Bill Richardson is not qualified...I would give the candidacy its due consideration. John Edwards is ambulance-chasing scum, and I refuse to vote for anyone from that minority group. In short, I will always vote for the best candidate, whether that candidate be black, Hispanic, female, or, God forbid, a white male.
Tokenism has become such a factor in modern society that it trumps any serious consideration of individuals. So someone who articulates a dislike for Hillary Clinton is often labelled "anti-woman", while someone who doesn't like Barack Obama might be considered a racist. Those who draw such conclusions are intellectually lazy, at best, and blatantly dishonest, at worst. But somehow, through repetition, perhaps, the perception that conservatives are anti-minority has been continually fostered. In a political climate where Democrat candidates still reap the benefits from pandering to assorted minority groups, treating each and every group as if they're the only one that matters, conservatives simply cannot win.
When the Republican Party invited an African-American gospel choir to perform at a presidential convention some years ago, the GOP was ridiculed for pandering to blacks. Cynical liberals joked about the stiff white choreography, and claimed that the choir constituted the only representives of the minority community in attendance at the convention. While the reality belied their claims, the perception remained. George W. Bush appointed the first African American Secretary of State, then replaced him with the first African American woman to fill the post. Was he credited for giving opportunities that no previous President had seen fit to give? Of course not. Instead, Colin Powell and Condeleezza Rice were often ridiculed as "house niggers" taking orders from a white master. The detestable Ted Rall and Jeff Danziger both subjected Ms. Rice to perverse racism in their cartoon strips without much backlash. Kathy Griffin, who last I checked is white, went so far as to suggest that Condi Rice follows "everything white men say". Of course, neither Kathy Griffin nor the white lefty cartoonists went through anything approaching the overt racism that Ms. Rice had to deal with. Condoleezza Rice's childhood friends were murdered in a southern church bombing by a White Democrat, after all.
While Democrats have always pretended to be morally superior on issues of race and gender, they've cornered the market on overt and covert racism. Jim Crow Laws and Bull Conner were tools of institutionalized white Democrat racism. In the 1990s, Democrats in the Senate attempted to torpedo the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of the highly qualified Clarence Thomas by making up sexual harassment allegations at the eleventh hour. The virtual lynch mob that was created by these baseless allegations was led by such shining lights as Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy. During the run-up to the 2006 elections, Chuck Schumer had his dirty tricks unit steal a copy of Republican candidate Michael Steele's credit report in an effort to dig up some pre-election dirt on the black Lieutenant Governor. Typical of the left-wing media that's more interested in endorsing liberals than in promoting African Americans, Schumer's theft went largely unreported.
Last November, Chris Matthews accused Tenneseeans of being racist for electing a white Republican, Bob Corker over a black Democrat, Harold Ford, to the open Senate seat in that state. Conveniently, Matthews failed to level the same charge against Maryland voters, who chose a white Democrat, Ben Cardin, over a black Republican, Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele for Maryland's open Senate seat. He also ignored the fact that Pennsylvania's corrupt white Democrat Governor, "Fast Eddie" Rendell clobbered his black Republican opponent, Lynn Swann.
It was conservatism and the Republican Party that freed Black Americans from slavery. And, in the spirit of Martin Luther King, conservatives have always been more interested in the content of one's character than in the color of one's skin. Great Americans like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, Thomas Sowell and countless others have been welcomed in the Republican Party not because of their race or gender, but because they were qualified candidates and superior human beings. And that's the way it should be. If a qualified woman is interested in running for President of the United States, I would consider voting for her. Hillary Clinton is not qualified, so I will not vote for her. If a qualified African American, perhaps a Michael Steele or Condi Rice, runs for President, I would seriously consider voting for him or her. Barack Obama is not qualified, and I will not vote for him. If a qualified Hispanic runs for President...and no, Bill Richardson is not qualified...I would give the candidacy its due consideration. John Edwards is ambulance-chasing scum, and I refuse to vote for anyone from that minority group. In short, I will always vote for the best candidate, whether that candidate be black, Hispanic, female, or, God forbid, a white male.
Olbermann's Cranky Again, Must Need a Nap
Oh, so poor Keith Olbermann is upset over the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence. How precious.
KO and his MSNBC playmates David Schuster and Chris Matthews failed in their obsessive mission to get someone...anyone...associated with the Bush administration to go to jail over the "Valerie Plame Affair". It wasn't for a lack of hustle, though. Throughout this sham of an investigation, KO and the boys consistently misstated facts, interviewed partisan hacks like John Dean to promote the left-wing's spin and even accused Patrick Fitzgerald of going soft on Libby and the Bush Administration.
Let's review a few facts:
- Joe Wilson's infamous report on Iraq's pursuit of yellow cake uranium in Africa was categorically debunked by the Senate Intelligence Committee
- Joe Wilson lied repeatedly before Congress
- Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was NOT covert...therefore the leak of her name was not a crime
- Richard Armitage was responsible for leaking Plame's name
- Fitzgerald knew from Day One that Armitage was the leaker
- Knowing that Armitage was the leaker from Day One, Fitzgerald ordered Armitage and Colin Powell to stay silent on that fact
- Fitzgerald knew that Armitage had not committed a crime by leaking Valerie Plame's name, so he could not prosecute Armitage
- Fitzgerald also knew that Armitage was an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, so a prosecution of Armitage would be of no political value
- He therefore silenced Powell and Armitage so that he could proceed on a fishing expedition in an attempt to nail someone in the Bush Administration for this leak
- Lacking sufficient evidence to prosecute a Bush Administration official for the leak, he tried to set a trap via Grand Jury hearings for Administration officials to inadvertantly commit process crimes
- Failing to trap his two biggest targets, Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, he focused his attention on the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby
- Fitzgerald charged Libby with perjury when his evidence fell way short of proving perjury...he could only prove that Libby and a couple of journalists had differing accounts of the same conversations...certainly no crime
- Libby's defense was denied the opportunity to call Andrea Mitchell as a defense witness in testimony that would surely have bolstered reasonable doubt
- Libby's defense was also denied the opportunity to enter tapes into evidence that would have impeached an important piece of Tim Russert's testimony for the prosecution
- The presiding Judge, Reggie Walton, petulantly denied Libby's defense the opportunity to call Andrea Mitchell and to enter the crucial tapes. This denial was direct payback for the defense not calling Libby as a witness
- Members of the jury admitted convicting Libby because they believed Russert more than they believed Libby..."preponderance of the evidence" is a standard for civil trials, not criminal trials, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard in a criminal trial...the jury convicted based on the "preponderance of the evidence" standard
In short, Scooter Libby got railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor, a vengeful judge and an ingorant jury. Libby committed no crime leading up to the investigation, and Fitzgerald could not prove that Libby ever committed a crime. Ultimately, this fraudulent prosecution was cooked up by Senator Chuck Schumer and his cabal of left-wing partisan hacks including, among others, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and Patrick Fitzgerald...all in an effort to prevent the President from protecting this country from future terrorist attacks. The MSNBC cheering section of Schuster, Matthews and Olbermann was always on hand to spin the truth and create the myth that this prosecution was anything other than a disgrace.
George W. Bush did the right thing when he commuted the prison sentence yesterday evening. At least now, Libby will have the opportunity to appeal his conviction without having to go to prison. If there's any justice, the conviction will be overturned, Libby will get his good name back, and Fitzgerald will suffer a humiliating rebuke. If the appeals process fails, Bush must pardon Scooter Libby.
As for poor Olby, he's just going to have to save his schadenfreude for another occasion. He already threw his first on-air temper tantrum last night, and has foreshadowed another one for tonight. I understand he's going to demand that President Bush and Vice President Cheney resign. With any luck, Olby and his sandbox pals Schuster and Matthews will hold their breaths waiting for that to happen.
KO and his MSNBC playmates David Schuster and Chris Matthews failed in their obsessive mission to get someone...anyone...associated with the Bush administration to go to jail over the "Valerie Plame Affair". It wasn't for a lack of hustle, though. Throughout this sham of an investigation, KO and the boys consistently misstated facts, interviewed partisan hacks like John Dean to promote the left-wing's spin and even accused Patrick Fitzgerald of going soft on Libby and the Bush Administration.
Let's review a few facts:
- Joe Wilson's infamous report on Iraq's pursuit of yellow cake uranium in Africa was categorically debunked by the Senate Intelligence Committee
- Joe Wilson lied repeatedly before Congress
- Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was NOT covert...therefore the leak of her name was not a crime
- Richard Armitage was responsible for leaking Plame's name
- Fitzgerald knew from Day One that Armitage was the leaker
- Knowing that Armitage was the leaker from Day One, Fitzgerald ordered Armitage and Colin Powell to stay silent on that fact
- Fitzgerald knew that Armitage had not committed a crime by leaking Valerie Plame's name, so he could not prosecute Armitage
- Fitzgerald also knew that Armitage was an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, so a prosecution of Armitage would be of no political value
- He therefore silenced Powell and Armitage so that he could proceed on a fishing expedition in an attempt to nail someone in the Bush Administration for this leak
- Lacking sufficient evidence to prosecute a Bush Administration official for the leak, he tried to set a trap via Grand Jury hearings for Administration officials to inadvertantly commit process crimes
- Failing to trap his two biggest targets, Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, he focused his attention on the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby
- Fitzgerald charged Libby with perjury when his evidence fell way short of proving perjury...he could only prove that Libby and a couple of journalists had differing accounts of the same conversations...certainly no crime
- Libby's defense was denied the opportunity to call Andrea Mitchell as a defense witness in testimony that would surely have bolstered reasonable doubt
- Libby's defense was also denied the opportunity to enter tapes into evidence that would have impeached an important piece of Tim Russert's testimony for the prosecution
- The presiding Judge, Reggie Walton, petulantly denied Libby's defense the opportunity to call Andrea Mitchell and to enter the crucial tapes. This denial was direct payback for the defense not calling Libby as a witness
- Members of the jury admitted convicting Libby because they believed Russert more than they believed Libby..."preponderance of the evidence" is a standard for civil trials, not criminal trials, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard in a criminal trial...the jury convicted based on the "preponderance of the evidence" standard
In short, Scooter Libby got railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor, a vengeful judge and an ingorant jury. Libby committed no crime leading up to the investigation, and Fitzgerald could not prove that Libby ever committed a crime. Ultimately, this fraudulent prosecution was cooked up by Senator Chuck Schumer and his cabal of left-wing partisan hacks including, among others, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and Patrick Fitzgerald...all in an effort to prevent the President from protecting this country from future terrorist attacks. The MSNBC cheering section of Schuster, Matthews and Olbermann was always on hand to spin the truth and create the myth that this prosecution was anything other than a disgrace.
George W. Bush did the right thing when he commuted the prison sentence yesterday evening. At least now, Libby will have the opportunity to appeal his conviction without having to go to prison. If there's any justice, the conviction will be overturned, Libby will get his good name back, and Fitzgerald will suffer a humiliating rebuke. If the appeals process fails, Bush must pardon Scooter Libby.
As for poor Olby, he's just going to have to save his schadenfreude for another occasion. He already threw his first on-air temper tantrum last night, and has foreshadowed another one for tonight. I understand he's going to demand that President Bush and Vice President Cheney resign. With any luck, Olby and his sandbox pals Schuster and Matthews will hold their breaths waiting for that to happen.
Monday, July 2, 2007
When Liberals Want Your Opinion, They'll Give it To You
During a live report on Fox News last week, correspondent Laura Ingle was assaulted by a passer-by. The male attacker, apparently not a fan of Fox News, grabbed Ms. Ingle's microphone and tried to steal it from her while she was on the air. To Ms. Ingle's credit, she stood her ground and managed to deliver the report after regaining control of her mic.
To me, this incident serves as an interesting parallel to something the Democrats in Congress have been toying with lately: the reinstitution of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Recently, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein and John Kerry have all gone on record in support of the return of this blatant abridgement of free speech, claiming that talk radio presents only one side of the political debate and should therefore be "balanced" by government intervention.
Liberals run all the major newspapers, the broadcast networks, two cable news channels, most universities and public schools. And they use their dominance in these areas to present their point-of-view virtually unchallenged. Talk radio is the only medium where conservative thought is articulated on a consistent basis, and only because the liberal dominance in all other media created a rather fertile market in talk radio for conservatism. Liberals have failed consistently in the talk radio market, yet have concluded that the problem isn't with them, it's with the market. So rather than compete with conservatives in the talk radio market, liberals have decided instead to attempt legislation designed to diminish the impact of talk radio on the overall debate. They've hitched their wagon to the reintroduction of the "Fairness Doctrine" in the hopes that onerous new regulations will render conservative talk radio too expensive and burdensome to produce...thus shutting it down forever. The "Fairness Doctrine" isn't about fairness at all. Liberals aren't interested in fairness, and they're not interested in debate. Their arguments are too shaky to stand up to legitimate opposition. Like that disguised creep who assaulted Laura Ingle, if liberals don't like what they hear, they don't engage their opponents, they attempt to silence them instead.
Why would Nancy Pelosi want to silence talk radio and abuse free speech? Would it have anything to do with the fact that talk radio exposed her laughable demand for an airplane upgrade? She wanted to stamp her authority as the new House Speaker by getting a larger airplane than the previous Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert had. The fact that her shamefully frivolous demand was at odds with her stated purpose of cleaning up congressional excess was only highlighted by her enemies in talk radio. Perhaps payback is her motive?
Why is Harry Reid so upset with talk radio? Could it be that hosts like Rush Limbaugh were instrumental in helping to defeat the Immigration Bill that Reid tried to ram down our throats? Perhaps he's uncomfortable with the fact that he can no longer hide his shady land deals from the public. Or the fact that we all know that he's had supporters set up dubious make-work lobbying jobs for his sons.
If it was left up to the New York Times, CNN and the networks, no one would have known that Dick Durbin compared American Soldiers unfavorably to Nazis. But Senator Durbin was caught by talk radio, so he's portrayed talk radio as the villain.
Dianne Feinstein is one of the more vocal proponents of the Fairness Doctrine. Could it have anything to do with the fact that talk radio is on to her MILCON scam? Chairing a committee that gave billions of dollars in military contracts to her husband's companies gives Feinstein more than an appearance of impropriety. Meanwhile the mainstream media is too interested in Mark Foley's text messages to bother with this blatant fraud. If DiFi could just make that pesky talk radio go away...
Then, of course, there's poor old John Kerry. Undone on numerous occasions by his foot-in-mouth disease, John F. Kerry, who apparently served in Vietnam, has a notable desire to stamp out talk radio. If it wasn't for John Ziegler in LA, Kerry could have kept his latent hatred for the U.S. Military hidden from the public at large. Instead, his direct insult to the intelligence of American Soldiers was paraded for all to see. Talk radio caught Kerry red-handed insulting the troops, so the Junior Massachusetts Senator had a real problem. But rather than owning up to his disgraceful statements, Kerry sent out apologists like Keith Olbermann to assert embarassingly tortured clarifications (remember the "botched joke" excuse).
Why are liberals afraid to compete in a free marketplace? In my opinion, the network news, the mainstream newpapers, CNN and MSNBC are all biased to the left. I don't usually read these papers or tune into these networks anymore, but I have no right to demand that others follow my lead. We all have the power to change the channel if we don't like the content of what's on the air. But liberals don't appear satisfied with that. If they don't like what's being presented on a particular network or on a particular frequency, many liberals would prefer to steal the microphone than to enage in debate. If a political position can't stand up to much scrutiny or debate, it isn't much of a position, is it?
To me, this incident serves as an interesting parallel to something the Democrats in Congress have been toying with lately: the reinstitution of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Recently, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein and John Kerry have all gone on record in support of the return of this blatant abridgement of free speech, claiming that talk radio presents only one side of the political debate and should therefore be "balanced" by government intervention.
Liberals run all the major newspapers, the broadcast networks, two cable news channels, most universities and public schools. And they use their dominance in these areas to present their point-of-view virtually unchallenged. Talk radio is the only medium where conservative thought is articulated on a consistent basis, and only because the liberal dominance in all other media created a rather fertile market in talk radio for conservatism. Liberals have failed consistently in the talk radio market, yet have concluded that the problem isn't with them, it's with the market. So rather than compete with conservatives in the talk radio market, liberals have decided instead to attempt legislation designed to diminish the impact of talk radio on the overall debate. They've hitched their wagon to the reintroduction of the "Fairness Doctrine" in the hopes that onerous new regulations will render conservative talk radio too expensive and burdensome to produce...thus shutting it down forever. The "Fairness Doctrine" isn't about fairness at all. Liberals aren't interested in fairness, and they're not interested in debate. Their arguments are too shaky to stand up to legitimate opposition. Like that disguised creep who assaulted Laura Ingle, if liberals don't like what they hear, they don't engage their opponents, they attempt to silence them instead.
Why would Nancy Pelosi want to silence talk radio and abuse free speech? Would it have anything to do with the fact that talk radio exposed her laughable demand for an airplane upgrade? She wanted to stamp her authority as the new House Speaker by getting a larger airplane than the previous Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert had. The fact that her shamefully frivolous demand was at odds with her stated purpose of cleaning up congressional excess was only highlighted by her enemies in talk radio. Perhaps payback is her motive?
Why is Harry Reid so upset with talk radio? Could it be that hosts like Rush Limbaugh were instrumental in helping to defeat the Immigration Bill that Reid tried to ram down our throats? Perhaps he's uncomfortable with the fact that he can no longer hide his shady land deals from the public. Or the fact that we all know that he's had supporters set up dubious make-work lobbying jobs for his sons.
If it was left up to the New York Times, CNN and the networks, no one would have known that Dick Durbin compared American Soldiers unfavorably to Nazis. But Senator Durbin was caught by talk radio, so he's portrayed talk radio as the villain.
Dianne Feinstein is one of the more vocal proponents of the Fairness Doctrine. Could it have anything to do with the fact that talk radio is on to her MILCON scam? Chairing a committee that gave billions of dollars in military contracts to her husband's companies gives Feinstein more than an appearance of impropriety. Meanwhile the mainstream media is too interested in Mark Foley's text messages to bother with this blatant fraud. If DiFi could just make that pesky talk radio go away...
Then, of course, there's poor old John Kerry. Undone on numerous occasions by his foot-in-mouth disease, John F. Kerry, who apparently served in Vietnam, has a notable desire to stamp out talk radio. If it wasn't for John Ziegler in LA, Kerry could have kept his latent hatred for the U.S. Military hidden from the public at large. Instead, his direct insult to the intelligence of American Soldiers was paraded for all to see. Talk radio caught Kerry red-handed insulting the troops, so the Junior Massachusetts Senator had a real problem. But rather than owning up to his disgraceful statements, Kerry sent out apologists like Keith Olbermann to assert embarassingly tortured clarifications (remember the "botched joke" excuse).
Why are liberals afraid to compete in a free marketplace? In my opinion, the network news, the mainstream newpapers, CNN and MSNBC are all biased to the left. I don't usually read these papers or tune into these networks anymore, but I have no right to demand that others follow my lead. We all have the power to change the channel if we don't like the content of what's on the air. But liberals don't appear satisfied with that. If they don't like what's being presented on a particular network or on a particular frequency, many liberals would prefer to steal the microphone than to enage in debate. If a political position can't stand up to much scrutiny or debate, it isn't much of a position, is it?
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Matthews & Edwards vs. Coulter and Reason.
This past week, that smarmy creep John Edwards went back to the well in the hopes of reviving his flagging presidential campaign. He attacked Ann Coulter. Unsurprisingly, he chose a cowardly way to do so, by sending his wife, a cancer victim, to fight the battle for him. It's the oldest trick in the book, but one that liberals have used over and over again. Desperate times call for desperate measures, after all.
Ms. Coulter went on Good Morning America recently to promote the release of the paperback of her most recent book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Unsurprisingly, ABC chose Chris Cuomo, son of former liberal New York Governor Mario Cuomo, to conduct the interview. Taking a page out of the left-wing playbook, Cuomo attempted to open up some old wounds by bringing up that Ms. Coulter allegedly called John Edwards a "faggot" some months ago. Ms. Coulter, in defending herself, alluded to something Bill Maher had said about Dick Cheney at around the same time. Apparently, Vice President Cheney had narrowly avoided being killed in a terrorist attack while in Afghanistan. Maher asserted that if Dick Cheney had died, more people would live. While the press virtually ignored Maher's claim, Coulter's "faggot" comment was distorted and blown out of proportion for political purposes both by Edward's campaign and by the media. It seems reasonable to assume that the media would have been at least as outraged with what Maher said about Cheney as they were with what Ann Coulter said about John Edwards. Apparently they weren't bothered by what Maher said, though. So Coulter suggested that if instead of using the term "faggot", she had wished on Edwards what Maher wished on Cheney, she might not have gotten so much negative publicity. The result of her sarcastic speculation was entirely predictable...the media claimed that Ann Coulter had wished John Edwards would die in a terrorist attack.
The table was now set for Coulter's appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Frankly, I have no idea why she went on that show to begin with, there was no upside for her...though there was plenty for Matthews. For starters, Matthews is a left-wing political hack posing as a journalist...he worked for Tip O'Neill for God's sake! In addition, no one watches Matthew's show, his ratings are virtually a statistical zero. Even if she made some great points, Hardball is like the proverbial falling tree in the forest, no one would be there to hear about it. Coulter's appearance would, in fact double Matthew's typical ratings. As the interview carried on, Matthews went to the phones to take some calls. A mysterious caller was invited to join the conversation, the aforementioned cancer-stricken wife of John Edwards, Elizabeth. This, of course, was an ambush orchestrated by Chris Matthews and the Edwards campaign to make Ann Coulter look bad, to elicit sympathy and much needed money for the Edwards campaign and to bolster ratings for Matthew's weak show.
Ann Coulter spoke of this tactic when discussing the so-called "Jersey Girls" and their loud, largely uninformed and unchallenged criticism of the Bush Administration regarding the 9/11 Committee hearings. Here's how this often tested gimmick works: 1) pluck a "victim" who is at odds with a Republican and use that person to articulate a liberal point of view, 2) arm that "victim" with misstatements of fact and distortions of the truth to add credibilty to a poor argument, 3) play up the hardship of the "victim" so as to shield said "victim" from criticisms of the merit of the argument, 4) in effect, assert that the "victim's" victimhood automatically makes the "victim's" argument absolutely correct and unasailable for the mere fact that the argument came from a "victim" 5) accuse anyone taking issue with the fraudulent claims of said "victim" of being a bully and of further "victimizing" the "victim"...or of "lowering the level of debate". It's the classic "never hit a girl", "never hit a man with glasses" approach. Once the public is softened up, any liberal argument, no matter how specious, is given credibility. If it worked for Michael J. Fox, the Dixie Chicks, the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan, surely it would work for Elizabeth Edwards.
Here's how this often tested gimmick worked for Matthews and the Edwards campaign:
1) Pluck a cancer victim whose husband is running as a Democrat for president to articulate a liberal point of view, 2) Allow said cancer victim to misrepresent Ms. Coulter's statements uninterupted (a first for Matthews), 3) play up Ms. Edward's status as a cancer victim to shield Ms. Edwards from even substantive criticism,
4) Since Ms. Edwards is liberal and has cancer, therefore making her a victim, her argument is correct and she's morally superior to Ann Coulter, 5) because Ann Coulter is not a liberal and does not have cancer, she is a bully for having the nerve to argue with the poor cancer victim, Ms. Edwards. Furthermore, she's "lowering the level of debate" by disagreeing with Ms. Edwards, who has cancer. Oh, and the cherry on top is the fact that Matthews got away with comparing those who applauded Ms. Coulter on the set to characters in the movie Deliverance.
Ann Coulter is a strong woman, with strong opinions. She defends her positions vigorously, often upsetting her opponents and reducing their arguments to personal attacks. She is no more caustic than Kathy Griffin, Joy Behar or Stephanie Miller, yet she is subjected to far more abuse and character assassination than all three combined. Interestingly, when Rosie O'Donnell was criticized for hyperbolic and paranoid left-wing rants, her detractors were often portrayed as bullies. The misogynistic double standards created by the left allow someone to call Ann Coulter a "bitch" yet someone who refers to Hillary Clinton as a "bitch" would be considered, well, misogynistic.
If it takes a transparently cheap ambush on live television for the Edwards campaign to raise money and for Hardball to increase ratings, it doesn't look like there's hope for either of them.
Ms. Coulter went on Good Morning America recently to promote the release of the paperback of her most recent book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Unsurprisingly, ABC chose Chris Cuomo, son of former liberal New York Governor Mario Cuomo, to conduct the interview. Taking a page out of the left-wing playbook, Cuomo attempted to open up some old wounds by bringing up that Ms. Coulter allegedly called John Edwards a "faggot" some months ago. Ms. Coulter, in defending herself, alluded to something Bill Maher had said about Dick Cheney at around the same time. Apparently, Vice President Cheney had narrowly avoided being killed in a terrorist attack while in Afghanistan. Maher asserted that if Dick Cheney had died, more people would live. While the press virtually ignored Maher's claim, Coulter's "faggot" comment was distorted and blown out of proportion for political purposes both by Edward's campaign and by the media. It seems reasonable to assume that the media would have been at least as outraged with what Maher said about Cheney as they were with what Ann Coulter said about John Edwards. Apparently they weren't bothered by what Maher said, though. So Coulter suggested that if instead of using the term "faggot", she had wished on Edwards what Maher wished on Cheney, she might not have gotten so much negative publicity. The result of her sarcastic speculation was entirely predictable...the media claimed that Ann Coulter had wished John Edwards would die in a terrorist attack.
The table was now set for Coulter's appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Frankly, I have no idea why she went on that show to begin with, there was no upside for her...though there was plenty for Matthews. For starters, Matthews is a left-wing political hack posing as a journalist...he worked for Tip O'Neill for God's sake! In addition, no one watches Matthew's show, his ratings are virtually a statistical zero. Even if she made some great points, Hardball is like the proverbial falling tree in the forest, no one would be there to hear about it. Coulter's appearance would, in fact double Matthew's typical ratings. As the interview carried on, Matthews went to the phones to take some calls. A mysterious caller was invited to join the conversation, the aforementioned cancer-stricken wife of John Edwards, Elizabeth. This, of course, was an ambush orchestrated by Chris Matthews and the Edwards campaign to make Ann Coulter look bad, to elicit sympathy and much needed money for the Edwards campaign and to bolster ratings for Matthew's weak show.
Ann Coulter spoke of this tactic when discussing the so-called "Jersey Girls" and their loud, largely uninformed and unchallenged criticism of the Bush Administration regarding the 9/11 Committee hearings. Here's how this often tested gimmick works: 1) pluck a "victim" who is at odds with a Republican and use that person to articulate a liberal point of view, 2) arm that "victim" with misstatements of fact and distortions of the truth to add credibilty to a poor argument, 3) play up the hardship of the "victim" so as to shield said "victim" from criticisms of the merit of the argument, 4) in effect, assert that the "victim's" victimhood automatically makes the "victim's" argument absolutely correct and unasailable for the mere fact that the argument came from a "victim" 5) accuse anyone taking issue with the fraudulent claims of said "victim" of being a bully and of further "victimizing" the "victim"...or of "lowering the level of debate". It's the classic "never hit a girl", "never hit a man with glasses" approach. Once the public is softened up, any liberal argument, no matter how specious, is given credibility. If it worked for Michael J. Fox, the Dixie Chicks, the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan, surely it would work for Elizabeth Edwards.
Here's how this often tested gimmick worked for Matthews and the Edwards campaign:
1) Pluck a cancer victim whose husband is running as a Democrat for president to articulate a liberal point of view, 2) Allow said cancer victim to misrepresent Ms. Coulter's statements uninterupted (a first for Matthews), 3) play up Ms. Edward's status as a cancer victim to shield Ms. Edwards from even substantive criticism,
4) Since Ms. Edwards is liberal and has cancer, therefore making her a victim, her argument is correct and she's morally superior to Ann Coulter, 5) because Ann Coulter is not a liberal and does not have cancer, she is a bully for having the nerve to argue with the poor cancer victim, Ms. Edwards. Furthermore, she's "lowering the level of debate" by disagreeing with Ms. Edwards, who has cancer. Oh, and the cherry on top is the fact that Matthews got away with comparing those who applauded Ms. Coulter on the set to characters in the movie Deliverance.
Ann Coulter is a strong woman, with strong opinions. She defends her positions vigorously, often upsetting her opponents and reducing their arguments to personal attacks. She is no more caustic than Kathy Griffin, Joy Behar or Stephanie Miller, yet she is subjected to far more abuse and character assassination than all three combined. Interestingly, when Rosie O'Donnell was criticized for hyperbolic and paranoid left-wing rants, her detractors were often portrayed as bullies. The misogynistic double standards created by the left allow someone to call Ann Coulter a "bitch" yet someone who refers to Hillary Clinton as a "bitch" would be considered, well, misogynistic.
If it takes a transparently cheap ambush on live television for the Edwards campaign to raise money and for Hardball to increase ratings, it doesn't look like there's hope for either of them.
What's it all about?
Well, here goes...
I begin my blog with no preconceptions. For all I know, nobody will ever read what I have to say. At the very worst, this should be a cathartic experience for me. It will grant me the opportunity to "vent", on topics from politics and law to entertainment and sport, in what I hope is a productive outlet.
To those of you who listen to the Rush Limbaugh program, the term "Fitzfong" is self-explanatory. For those of you who have never heard the term, I will explain. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Limbaugh created the term "Fitzfong", nevertheless, he certainly popularized the expression.
The "-fong" comes from Mike Nifong, the disgraced and recently disbarred former District Attorney in Durham, NC. Nifong is infamous for having maliciously prosecuted three Duke University students for an alleged rape. In a greedy attempt to enhance his own career aspirations, he pursued a frivolous case against the three students, ignoring airtight alibis and hiding exculpatory evidence along the way. He used an eager and sypathetic media to perpetuate his mythical assertions, and he partnered with a shameful group of 88 Duke University professors to convict these innocent young men in the court of public opinion. The fact that his corruption was eventually exposed had much to do with good fortune...the families of the three students had both the means and the will to make certain that the truth came out and that an injustice was averted. Mike Nifong has finally been exposed as a fraud, and his name will forever be synonymous with prosecutorial misconduct and trial lawyer excess.
The "Fitz" comes from Patrick Fitzgerald, the lead prosecutor in the Scooter Libby trial. Patrick Fitzgerald is the moral equivalent of Mike Nifong, though he is somehow held in higher regard. Fitzgerald prosecuted an equally dubious case and managed to use the same media to parrot his deliberate misrepresentations of facts in an effort to convict Mr. Libby in the court of public opinion. Fitzgerald was further enabled in his mission by a transparently biased presiding judge, Reggie Walton, who tied the hands of Libby's defense team at every turn. Mr. Libby was convicted of perjury when, at best, Fitzgerald could only prove that Mr. Libby's recollections of fact were at odds with those of Judith Miller, Matt Cooper and Tim Russert...each of whom had inconsistencies in testimony, and one of whom (Tim Russert) actually did commit perjury at the trial. Fitzgerald never proved Libby had commited perjury, the jury just concluded that they believed Tim Russert's account as opposed to Libby's. The truth is that even with Reggie Walton's generous assistance, Fitzgerald didn't have a strong enough case to convict Mr. Libby, but got a conviction anyway. Without Walton stacking the deck in Fitzgerald's favor, however, the case would have fallen apart completely. Walton refused to allow the defense to enter evidence that would have poked holes in the prosecution's case, including potentially exculpatory witnesses and tapes that showed Russert perjured himself on the stand. After Mr. Libby's conviction, Fitzgerald, who should have been thankful he wasn't facing disbarrment himself, became increasingly cocky, demanding the maximum sentence to "send a message" (the catch-all phrase that blowhards in the legal profession use when they want to attach greater meaning to questionable victories). Walton, now clearly pleased with himself, took on the snide persona of Paul Lynde when he arrogantly dismissed the brief submitted on Mr. Libby's behalf by legal scholars as divergent as Robert Bork and Alan Dershowitz. It came as no surprise when Walton, in all his bluster, sentenced Mr. Libby to close to the maximum and denied him the opportunity to stay out of prison while pursuing his appeal. Patrick Fitzgerald is no better than Mike Nifong, he's just significantly more fortunate. His name should be synonymous with prosecutorial misconduct and trial lawyer excess.
So what is this blog about? Fitzfong starts with the egregious examples set by Patrick Fitzgerald and Mike Nifong, but it goes beyond that. Fitzgerald and Nifong are just two of many attorneys who abuse the legal system and often prosper with the willing assistance of the left-wing media. Vacuous empty suits like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are running for president having accomplished little more than bankrupting medical practitioners with tall tales presented to people too stupid to avoid jury duty. The ACLU, MALDEF and the Council on American Islamic Relations work diligently to pervert U.S. national security using political correctness and frivolous lawsuits as their weapons. But as much as this is a blog about rogue attorneys like Roy "$54 million pants" Pearson, it is about their victims, like the Chung family, Peter Reilly, Raymond Buckey, Scooter Libby and the Duke Lacrosse Team. It's about the people who somehow manage to avoid justice while simultaneously basking in the glow of a fawning press, like the 6 Imams, Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and O.J. Simpson. And it's about the so-called mainstream media who are more concerned with Florida 2000 than they are with September 11, 2001. Far from being objective, "journalists" like Katie Couric, Tim Russert, David Gregory and Terry Moran are about as balanced as lunatics like Rosie O'Donnell, Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann. If Dan Rather taught us anything, journalists who don't have the facts to match their agendas will simply make them up. Blogs are necessary, as a healthy skepticism of the mainstream press is crucial to the continued success of this nation. Thank you for the time.
I begin my blog with no preconceptions. For all I know, nobody will ever read what I have to say. At the very worst, this should be a cathartic experience for me. It will grant me the opportunity to "vent", on topics from politics and law to entertainment and sport, in what I hope is a productive outlet.
To those of you who listen to the Rush Limbaugh program, the term "Fitzfong" is self-explanatory. For those of you who have never heard the term, I will explain. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Limbaugh created the term "Fitzfong", nevertheless, he certainly popularized the expression.
The "-fong" comes from Mike Nifong, the disgraced and recently disbarred former District Attorney in Durham, NC. Nifong is infamous for having maliciously prosecuted three Duke University students for an alleged rape. In a greedy attempt to enhance his own career aspirations, he pursued a frivolous case against the three students, ignoring airtight alibis and hiding exculpatory evidence along the way. He used an eager and sypathetic media to perpetuate his mythical assertions, and he partnered with a shameful group of 88 Duke University professors to convict these innocent young men in the court of public opinion. The fact that his corruption was eventually exposed had much to do with good fortune...the families of the three students had both the means and the will to make certain that the truth came out and that an injustice was averted. Mike Nifong has finally been exposed as a fraud, and his name will forever be synonymous with prosecutorial misconduct and trial lawyer excess.
The "Fitz" comes from Patrick Fitzgerald, the lead prosecutor in the Scooter Libby trial. Patrick Fitzgerald is the moral equivalent of Mike Nifong, though he is somehow held in higher regard. Fitzgerald prosecuted an equally dubious case and managed to use the same media to parrot his deliberate misrepresentations of facts in an effort to convict Mr. Libby in the court of public opinion. Fitzgerald was further enabled in his mission by a transparently biased presiding judge, Reggie Walton, who tied the hands of Libby's defense team at every turn. Mr. Libby was convicted of perjury when, at best, Fitzgerald could only prove that Mr. Libby's recollections of fact were at odds with those of Judith Miller, Matt Cooper and Tim Russert...each of whom had inconsistencies in testimony, and one of whom (Tim Russert) actually did commit perjury at the trial. Fitzgerald never proved Libby had commited perjury, the jury just concluded that they believed Tim Russert's account as opposed to Libby's. The truth is that even with Reggie Walton's generous assistance, Fitzgerald didn't have a strong enough case to convict Mr. Libby, but got a conviction anyway. Without Walton stacking the deck in Fitzgerald's favor, however, the case would have fallen apart completely. Walton refused to allow the defense to enter evidence that would have poked holes in the prosecution's case, including potentially exculpatory witnesses and tapes that showed Russert perjured himself on the stand. After Mr. Libby's conviction, Fitzgerald, who should have been thankful he wasn't facing disbarrment himself, became increasingly cocky, demanding the maximum sentence to "send a message" (the catch-all phrase that blowhards in the legal profession use when they want to attach greater meaning to questionable victories). Walton, now clearly pleased with himself, took on the snide persona of Paul Lynde when he arrogantly dismissed the brief submitted on Mr. Libby's behalf by legal scholars as divergent as Robert Bork and Alan Dershowitz. It came as no surprise when Walton, in all his bluster, sentenced Mr. Libby to close to the maximum and denied him the opportunity to stay out of prison while pursuing his appeal. Patrick Fitzgerald is no better than Mike Nifong, he's just significantly more fortunate. His name should be synonymous with prosecutorial misconduct and trial lawyer excess.
So what is this blog about? Fitzfong starts with the egregious examples set by Patrick Fitzgerald and Mike Nifong, but it goes beyond that. Fitzgerald and Nifong are just two of many attorneys who abuse the legal system and often prosper with the willing assistance of the left-wing media. Vacuous empty suits like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are running for president having accomplished little more than bankrupting medical practitioners with tall tales presented to people too stupid to avoid jury duty. The ACLU, MALDEF and the Council on American Islamic Relations work diligently to pervert U.S. national security using political correctness and frivolous lawsuits as their weapons. But as much as this is a blog about rogue attorneys like Roy "$54 million pants" Pearson, it is about their victims, like the Chung family, Peter Reilly, Raymond Buckey, Scooter Libby and the Duke Lacrosse Team. It's about the people who somehow manage to avoid justice while simultaneously basking in the glow of a fawning press, like the 6 Imams, Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and O.J. Simpson. And it's about the so-called mainstream media who are more concerned with Florida 2000 than they are with September 11, 2001. Far from being objective, "journalists" like Katie Couric, Tim Russert, David Gregory and Terry Moran are about as balanced as lunatics like Rosie O'Donnell, Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann. If Dan Rather taught us anything, journalists who don't have the facts to match their agendas will simply make them up. Blogs are necessary, as a healthy skepticism of the mainstream press is crucial to the continued success of this nation. Thank you for the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)