Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 20, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

SELF-PARODY WATCH....Stanley Kurtz is one of the guys on my permanent "ignore" list, but today's contribution to the public discourse is so obliviously unglued that it's worth passing along for its slapstick value alone. Several bloggers linked to this earlier, but I didn't really believe he had said what they said he said (did you follow that?) until I actually read it myself. Here it is:

Conservative distrust of the media's very real bias has inclined us to dismiss reports about problems in Iraq that are real.

In the end, I think the media bears fundamental responsibility for this. Had they been less biased -- had they reported acts of heroism and the many good things we have done in Iraq -- I think conservatives would actually have taken their reporting of the problems in Iraq more seriously. In effect, the media's consistent liberal bias discredits even its valid reports.

....It's a terrible shame that we've come to the point where our ability to believe news reports hinges on a those rare cases where the record shows freedom from liberal bias. The media has discredited themselves, making it tough to take them seriously even when they are right, and that has hurt us all.

So sad. The media's consistent refusal to pay more attention to repainted schoolhouses and instead focus on stuff like insurgent attacks, ethnic rivalries, collapsing infrastructure, ineffective government, and corrupt police forces has fooled us all. How were we to know that they hadn't just made all that stuff up? After all, didn't that Koran flushing incident turn out to be wrong?

Kevin Drum 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (378)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Shorter Kurtz: We're feckless and it's your fault.

(frist?)

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Golly! What an amazing statement! My seven-year-old daughter uses this logic when she is very very aggrieved.

Posted by: troglodyte on December 20, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

yeah, imagine what would've happened if the media got behind the war, instead of fighting it every step of the way... i'm looking at you Judith Miller!

Posted by: cleek on December 20, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

GC

That's been the wingnut position since Viet Nam.

Posted by: klyde on December 20, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

This is why home-schooling is a bad idea.

Posted by: Nads on December 20, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

If the press had done the right thing and succumbed to our demands for good news from Iraq, we would have believed all that bad news from Iraq.

That's not even mockery. That's what he's actually saying.

Posted by: dj moonbat on December 20, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

I never cease to be amazed at how easy it is to surprise us. Wingnuts have never been reasonable people, have never been intellectualy honest and have never seen a pit of slime so deep and disgusting that they wouldn't wallow in it. Why would we, any nof su be standing here ready to believe that there is a realm of stupidity that wingnuts won't resort to?

That said, the sheer audacity of this one is breathtaking.

Posted by: CK Dexter Haven on December 20, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

How were we to know that they hadn't just made all that stuff up?

Some of it has been made up, unless you haven't paid any attention since the Koran incident. An astounding number of news stories are based on unnamed, uncheckable, and in some cases, what turns out to be non-existent sources. How many of the reports from Iraq are simply based on "police said?" What percentage of the facts are from first-hand reports by named reporters?

If there is one thing almost every returning soldier or Marine complains about, regardless of their political leanings, it's how the media has treated the war. This is not an imaginary issue, no matter how derisive you are.

Posted by: elmendorf on December 20, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

"After all, didn't that Koran flushing incident turn out to be wrong?"

Or at least plausibly covered up?

Which is ultimately what is demanded - would the media please be as gullible as I strive to be?

Dude. They're trying.

Posted by: Mysticdog on December 20, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Would you believe that "any nof su" = "any of us".

Missed him by (holds two fingers an inch apart" that much!

Posted by: CK Dexter Haven on December 20, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

If Goebbels were alive, he'd be developing an inferiority complex.

Posted by: Screw Godwin on December 20, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

After all, didn't that Koran flushing incident turn out to be wrong?

No, just misstated. A toilet bucket can't be flushed, but a Koran can be tossed into one.

Posted by: anandine on December 20, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

An astounding number of news stories are based on unnamed, uncheckable, and in some cases, what turns out to be non-existent sources.

Mrs Malkin, i believe we've found you an escort!

Posted by: cleek on December 20, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

I've often wondered why all of Fox News' reporters in the field in Iraq aren't reporting the good news. With all of the liberal media ignoring our many successes in Iraq, you would think Fox would have a superb chance to report on many heart warming, exclusive stories.

Posted by: Jim Ramsey on December 20, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

So right-wingers believe that the media has this crazy liberal bias that makes them misreport things, and this leads them to wrongly dismiss credible reports coming out of Iraq that all is not sound.

To most sane people, this would be strong evidence that the "liberal bias" hypothesis was dead wrong.

Posted by: Steve Reuland on December 20, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see - We have slaughtered 100,000+ Iraqi's, tortured them with dogs, waterboarding and beaten them to death with batons. Our soldiers have raped their women. We have allowed their museums to be looted. Their economy is in ruins. They have no clean water and electrical service is spotty at best. Their country is littered with our depleted uranium, which will be dangerous for 20,000 years.

Yup, we need to get tougher with those camel jockeys.

Good God, am I the only one who is horrified by this barbaric suggestion??

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on December 20, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

If by "media treatment of the war" you mean that there must be numerous daily instances where U.S. forces accomplish something good, helpful or decent in Iraq, yet such event is bumped off the evening news by the latest car bomb attack, you would be entirely correct.

Of course, that would also be irrelevant, as had the American people been told that the cost of the invasion of Iraq was going to be a thousand or so dead a year, more wounded, and some multiple of that in dead Iraqis, the "political will" for the whole adventure would not have been there in the first place.

Posted by: hank on December 20, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

So ex-lib is Kurtz. Makes sense.

Posted by: stupid git on December 20, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK
Stanley Kurtz is one of the guys on my permanent "ignore" list, but today's contribution to the public discourse is so obliviously unglued that it's worth passing along for its slapstick value alone.

How could you know this if he is on your “permanent "ignore" list”?

Posted by: cmdicely on December 20, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

The twin pillars of the coming Bush approach to Iraq appear to be a "surge" in U.S. force levels combined with the sacking of the generals opposed to it.

For more, see:
"Surge and Purge: The Bush Strategy for Iraq."

Posted by: AngryOne on December 20, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Breathtakingly horrible. Sounds just as stupid as our Al. Are they related?

Posted by: Keith G on December 20, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see - We have slaughtered 100,000+ Iraqi's, tortured them with dogs, waterboarding and beaten them to death with batons. Our soldiers have raped their women. We have allowed their museums to be looted. Their economy is in ruins. They have no clean water and electrical service is spotty at best. Their country is littered with our depleted uranium, which will be dangerous for 20,000 years.

That most of these items are misleading, and some completely false, illustrates the problem.

Posted by: elmendorf on December 20, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Which ones are false or misleading, elmendorf??

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on December 20, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

I agree that the media has had (and continues to have) a dreadful anti-war bias. Bad news is given far more coverage than good news. E.g., Newsweek finally reported on the booming Iraq economy, but that's old news.

However, Kurtz sounds bonkers when he blames the media bias for conservatives not realizing how badly things were going.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 20, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

"Which ones are false or misleading"

They actually have clean water mixed in with the dirty water.

Posted by: reino on December 20, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

In an early account of President Bush's Tuesday press conference, USA Today Online reported:

"The Baker-Hamilton Commission recommended a quick buildup of forces as part of an overall plan to arrest what it called a 'grave and deteriorating' situation in Iraq."

That is not accurate and I wonder who slipped it into the USA Today account.

USA Today often uses Associated Press reports at the outset of its coverage of an event and then replaces the AP material with a staff-produced rewrite. But I can find no AP account, early or late, that included the false report. And in the USA Today Online rewrite of the Bush press conference account that replaced the initial account, the false report was missing.

For the record, the official line of The Associated Press on the matter is as follows:

"Even the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which advocated removing most combat troops by early 2008, said it could support a temporary increase if U.S. commander believe it would be effective." You can see that this is at odds with the first USA Today Online account.

So -- who sneaked the false report into the early USA Today story.

Was it the staff writer who submitted the report or an editor who changed what had been submitted to suit his/her political viewpoint?

And, just for the record, who came on board and killed the false report?

What is going on at USA Today Online?

Posted by: Robert Dare on December 20, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Pat, we were outside of PS 69 in West Baghdad discussing the marvelous paint work at that most modern school, when an IED went off in the background.

The paint, (is that Sherwin-Williams, Alex?) consists of two coats of a delightful Puce over a base coat. Those very recent red splatters are being touched up by that superb paint crew from Halliburton even as I speak - T & M of course. Amazing how they able to step over all of those bodies to touch up. Real freedom pros in action.

The Jeld-Wen windows will allow a great deal of needed light into the classrooms - What's that, Alex? Oh yeah, the glaziers have arrived to replace the broken glass - Hmmm, those Medics do seem to be doing an amazing job of removing those shards. However, the new Hunter-Douglas blinds seem to be ok, Pat

Well, Pat, freedom is, indeed, on the march. Er, that was PS 96 - The IED kind of flip flopped it, ala Kerry - Yuk, yuk, to you too, Pat

Posted by: Trinity News Team on December 20, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Newsweek finally reported on the booming Iraq economy, but that's old news.

I don't think you were trying to make a pun, but it was funny anyway.

Posted by: haha on December 20, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

On the flip side, if the conservative media and the Republican administration it serves had been more restrained in selling the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, I might be more inclined to care what they have to say now. But, the inflamed and unsubstantiated propaganda they spewed leaves them with zero credibility in reflection of how we arrived at this mess.

Posted by: fcadmus on December 20, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

I guess the facts have a liberal bias. Damned facts.

Posted by: G Spot1 on December 20, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

G Spot1: I guess the facts have a liberal bias.

Facts? Wingnuts are post-modernists. There are no "facts" or "objective reality" (though I'm not sure that argument works well against IEDs).

Posted by: alex on December 20, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a typical example of media bias, from Reuters today:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces have captured a senior al Qaeda in Iraq leader accused of killing hundreds of Iraqi civilians, including women and children, the U.S. military said in a statement on Wednesday.

The military said the "terrorist leader," whom they did not identify, was captured on December 14 in the northern city of Mosul in a raid which also netted five other suspects.

Note the scare quotes around "terrorist leader", which is a way of implying that the military's description may not be trustworthy.

It will be interesting to see how much focus the media give this story. Anyone think it will be the lead story? Anyone think it'll be on the front page?

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 20, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Conservative distrust of the media's very real bias has inclined us to dismiss reports about problems in Iraq that are real.

Frankly, I had a bit of a problem parsing this sentence, until I broke it down to these simple assertions:

1. The writer considers himself a Conservative;

2. The media is very biased (I impute that as being against Conservatives or Conservative ideology);

3. Conservatives distrust the media;

4. There are major problems in Iraq;

5. Conservatives dismissed media reports about major problems in Iraq.

My goodness! Five delicious propositions all in one sentence. I'm sure that many of you would love to eat them for lunch.

Posted by: Dave Alway on December 20, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Why not declare the war "over" and a "victory"?

That'd be great news.

Posted by: Horatio Parker on December 20, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

"Note the scare quotes around "terrorist leader", which is a way of implying that the military's description may not be trustworthy."

And your point is . . . ?

Posted by: Joel on December 20, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

E.g., Newsweek finally reported on the booming Iraq economy, but that's old news.

No, what's old news is that the "booming Iraqi economy" claim has been debunked on these threads several times, and yet "ex-liberal" is unabashedly dishonest enough to cite it again.

Posted by: Gregory on December 20, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Blame the media for not doing its job in the sendup to the Iraq War.

Had the media done its job, a fully informed American public never would have permitted a war.

Of course, the Congress did not do its job either.

The media and the Congress also failed the American people in the runup to the Vietnam War.

Lessons learned? Never.

Posted by: stanley on December 20, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Well gosh, ex-lib, since our military rounded up and sent to Quantanamo some poor punks whose only crime was herding goats on the wrong side of the hill, it seems that a bit of journalistic caution is advised.

Posted by: Keith G on December 20, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Credit where due: Kurtz had the vision to use "inclined" as a verb...

Posted by: Steve in Sacto on December 20, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

I have the antidote to Stanley Kurtz.

To do this justice, I should just reprint the whole post here, but I'll just do a link and a snippet and ask EVERYONE to read it.

Jay Rosen writes about Ron Suskind and, in so doing, basically captures in one place so much good stuff and so many good points, one would think I was paid to shill for the guy.

Never heard of Rosen before today, say it on the Huffy Post, read the whole thing, and went, "damn! That's it!"

In Without a Doubt (subtitled “Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush”) Suskind was not talking about an age old conflict between realists and idealists, the sort of story line that can be re-cycled for every administration. It wasn’t the ideologues against the pragmatists, either. He was telling us that reality-based policy-making—and the mechanisms for it—had gotten dumped. A different pattern had appeared under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The normal checks and balances had been overcome, so that executive power could flow more freely. Reduced deliberation, oversight, fact-finding, and field reporting were different elements of an emerging political style. Suskind, I felt, got to the essence of it with his phrase, the "retreat from empiricism.”

Yes - the Bush Administration does reflect a 'retreat' from all things scientific or empircal.

Remember this article to you favorite wingnut relatives this holiday season.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK
Note the scare quotes around "terrorist leader", which is a way of implying that the military's description may not be trustworthy.

Er, no, those aren't scare quotes, they are attribution quotes, that indicate that the description is a direct quote from the military source, not a characterization by the author of the article.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 20, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Note the scare quotes around "terrorist leader", which is a way of implying that the military's description may not be trustworthy.

no, dim-wit. those are not "scare quotes". those are just quotes. and they're there because the reporter is quoting what someone said. the reporter can't verify who the "terrorist leader" is, because the military won't provide his name, so the reporter can only report that someone is calling this other person a "terrorist leader".

Posted by: cleek on December 20, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Note the scare quotes around "terrorist leader"

ex-, those are not scare quotes. They likely indicate that the story is directly quoting the description of the captured man given to the press by the US military.

Posted by: Tyro on December 20, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Note the scare quotes around "terrorist leader"

ex-, those are not scare quotes. They likely indicate that the story is directly quoting the description of the captured man given to the press by the US military.

Posted by: Tyro on December 20, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Stanley Kurtz: "The media's insistence on reporting the truth about Iraq forced us to ignore the truth about Iraq."

Even shorter Stanley Kurtz: "It's your fault I'm an idiot."

Posted by: Fred App on December 20, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

Someone should inform Mr. Kurtz that the transportation and document forgery industries are doing extremely well due to the increased demand from the 100K plus Iraqis fleeing the country every month.

Posted by: gregor on December 20, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Feel better, ex-lib?

Posted by: Keith G on December 20, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Note the scare quotes around "terrorist leader", which is a way of implying that the military's description may not be trustworthy.

Or it could also be an arcane typographical convention indicating what I'm told those in the business call a direct quote.

But more telling is your assumption that good journalism would involve repeating the military's description without question. I mean, if the military says he's a terrorist leader, only a flaming liberal would question the description, right? And those hundreds (at least) who've been released from US custody were also terrorist leaders, no quotes needed -- until the time of their release, when they no longer were terrorist leaders.

Posted by: Equal Opportunity Cynic on December 20, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Conservative distrust of the media's very real bias has inclined us to...

Clearly the only "news" shows "conservatives" watch are on Comedy Central.

Posted by: Thumb on December 20, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

That most of these items are misleading, and some completely false, illustrates the problem.
Posted by: elmendorf

I agree that the media has had (and continues to have) a dreadful anti-war bias. Bad news is given far more coverage than good news. E.g., Newsweek finally reported on the booming Iraq economy, but that's old news.
Posted by: ex-liberal

So willfully inaccurate on so many levels. Where to start? Going with elmendorf's assetions about the media being misleading, you are right about that but you're heading in the wrong direction. As this bipartisan hearing by Reps Kucinich and Paul examines the methodology and validity of the Lancet Study, we begin to see that there have not been ~55,000 Iraqi civilian deaths sine we invaded, but most likely 650,000 Iraqis killed. Or as Kucinich helps put it into perspective:

    According to the United Nations, the population of Iraq was 25 million in 2003, and we have now learned that since then, an estimated 650,000 have perished to violence. Now, if such a rate of violence were to be inflicted against the U.S., we would have lost about 7.8 million Americans. Such a level of violence is unimaginable, but this is the level of violence that the civilians in Iraq are subjected to.

So yeah, the media isn't being accurate, but the bias definitely favors President Bush and his war of choice, not the other way around as you claim.

As to ex-lib's assertion that the Iraqi economy is booming, the reason that hasn't been reported is that, for some reason, the media isn't buying the BS:

    "Nearly 5.6 millions Iraqis are living below the poverty line, according to our most recent studies. At least 40 percent of this number is living in absolute and desperate deteriorated conditions," said Sinan Youssef, a senior official in the strategy department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, adding that this level of poverty is a 35 percent increase over the level before 2003.

Can we assume that you'll be heading over to Iraq ex-lib to take part in this "booming" economy?

Posted by: cyntax on December 20, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Woah ... not including the accidental duped posts, that's *four* smackdowns of ex-lib's "scare quotes" in a row ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on December 20, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Tyro, cleek and cmdicely, I disagree with you. Those are scare quotes.

When a newspaper uses a quote as part of the report, is is supposed to quote an entire statement, not just 2 words.

I agree that the quotes indicate that the words "terrorist leader" were given to the press by the military spokesperson. However, putting just those two words in quotes indicates that the reporter doesn't necessarily agree with the military spokesperson.

Here's an exaemple. Today's New York Times has a headline, U.S. Sees Progress in Talks With North Korea Chances are their source may have used the word "progress." Nevertheless, suppose the headline read U.S. Sees "Progress" in Talks With North Korea. That would imply that the reporter doesn't necessarily agree that progress it taking place.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 20, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

I saw this very reasoning from Senior management years ago. A project failed. They blamed the quality and testing group, because the group 'should have given them advance warning.' Documents were produced which showed they had been warned, but the warnings were ignored. Senior managements response: "Still your fault. You should have made us believe you."

It is to cry.

Posted by: Tripp on December 20, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal:

Yeah, but "terrorist leader" wasn't used in a *headline*, either. Context is supplied in the body of the article.

You can't compare quotes in headlines (which are rarely if ever used) with quotes in the body of an article.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on December 20, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

I usually type FAUXLib, as I do believe that the young boy who posts as ex-lib was never a liberal and he certainly is FAUX.

However, as I do not find him to be trust worthy of imparting any news of factual basis, I will use " on each side of his handle - "ex-liberal"

Why does Schaife waste their money on this intern?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 20, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: Note the scare quotes around "terrorist leader", which is a way of implying that the military's description may not be trustworthy.

Even if your characterization were accurate, which would be a matter of opinion and yours is clearly biased towards giving the quotation marks the meaning "scare quotes," how does this demonstrate bias, much less bias against the war?

It would, if the characterization had been true, have been evidence that the media doesn't trust the military, but that reputation has been earned; it is not the result of "bias." Just ask Pat Tillman's relatives or Jessica Lynch herself, to reference instances of military lying.

In any event, the military has been wrong (and lied) before when identifying certain captured individuals as even simply "terrorist" much less "terrorist leader", so it is premature for the press to accept their identification until confirmed over and over and over again.

ex-liberal proves yet again that the conservatives's greatest enemy is truth, which is why they are constantly trying to defeat it by posing false allegations against those who report it.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

amazingly, instead of slinking away in sheer embarrassment, "ex-liberal" defends his/her/its stupid, groundless, false statement:

When a newspaper uses a quote as part of the report, is is supposed to quote an entire statement, not just 2 words.

No, that's simply not true. A partial quote is not only perfectly acceptable, but also preferable when indicating a direct quote as part of a paraphrased statement.

In addition, it's possible -- I don't have a transcript -- that the words "terrorist leader" were used outside of the context of an "entire statement". Example:

Q: How would you describe the person captured?

A: A terrorist leader.

Rough example, but you get the idea.

Seriously, "ex-liberal," it's like you aren't even trying any more. I'm glad you realize that your bullshit fools no one at all, but this statement is so obviously clueless and dishonest that it begs the question of why you even bother.

Posted by: Gregory on December 20, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Shamelessness from a wingnut? Perish the thought...

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Media bias is a real problem in this country. It is part of what is driving the great partisan divide and squashing informed political discourse. This degrades the ability of people to make good decisions because they do not know what sources to trust. Why is this hard for a liberal to believe or understand?

What amazes me is that a group of people who vote 85 - 90 % Democratic ( my personal guess since none of them will actually share their voting record ) in a country that is more like 50-50 Democrat-Republican actually have the arrogance to believe that they can produce an unbiased product. This is what is unbelievable.

Posted by: John Hansen on December 20, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Media bias is a real problem in this country. It is part of what is driving the great partisan divide and squashing informed political discourse. This degrades the ability of people to make good decisions because they do not know what sources to trust. Why is this hard for a liberal to believe or understand?

What we refuse to accept is the erroneous assertion that the bias is liberal.

Why is it hard for you to understand that?

Posted by: cyntax on December 20, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK
Tyro, cleek and cmdicely, I disagree with you. Those are scare quotes.

Well, you are quite simply wrong. So?

When a newspaper uses a quote as part of the report, is is supposed to quote an entire statement, not just 2 words.

Now, I don't have (for instance) an AP stylebook handy, but AFAIK standard journalistic style is to put in quotation marks anything that is being used because it is a direct quote from some source, and not a characterization by the journalist, whereas scare quotes are outright forbidden in standard journalistic style (they may appear in editorial content, of course, or in material that it itself quoted in journalistic material.)

I agree that the quotes indicate that the words "terrorist leader" were given to the press by the military spokesperson.

IOW, that they are properly used attribution quotes, not scare quotes.

However, putting just those two words in quotes indicates that the reporter doesn't necessarily agree with the military spokesperson.

Any time any material (whether two words or an entire paragraphj) is placed in quotation marks it indicates that it is the statement of a third party that the journalist isn't vouching for. This is also true when the material is explicitly paraphrased (as in, “The military said...”.)

However, there is a particular problem sometimes with paraphrases where a secondary characterization may be ambiguous as to whether it is from the material being paraphrased or the author.

For instance, if a journalist were to write:

The military said the terrorist leader was captured on December 14 in the northern city of Mosul in a raid which also netted five other suspects.

It would be somewhat unclear if the person who was captured was fairly characterized as a "terrorist leader" on the basis of objective evidence available to the reporter, or if the characterization that the captured person was a "terrorist leader" was simply part of the claim made by the military.

Expanding this to:

The military said the "terrorist leader," whom they did not identify, was captured on December 14 in the northern city of Mosul in a raid which also netted five other suspects.

Removes the ambiguity.

You seem to prefer either dishonest reporting (not identifying unverified claims of third parties as such at all) or ambiguous reporting (concealing which characterizations are taken directly from a source at face value, and which are the journalists own conclusions) over honest, direct, unambiguous reporting.

Why?

Posted by: cmdicely on December 20, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

What is easy to blow past in these discussions is the fundamental explination for how we got into this mess, namely "to a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail."

Well, that is half of the explination, the other half is that Bush and his administration were too stupid to realize the inherent risk of maintaining the military force we do -- that risk being sooner or later you can't help but use it.

You know, the men and women of our armed forces have made heroic sacrifices since this country was formed.

What may need to occur is some more sacrifice, in this case perhaps another ten to fifteen years of doing in Iraq what the British had to put up with in Northern Ireland, before even the dumbest person of voting age in this country realizes that WWII and the Cold War are officially over.

There is not going to be a 21st century version of "Band of Brothers" for some future Speilberg to make, because all of the nations which have the resources to field vast armies basically realize the futility of ground-acquisition conflict on that scale.

Even the idiot Bush administration has figured this one out, which is one reason why we are not attempting to invade North Korea at the moment, or for that matter at any time.

What the idiot Bush administration did not, obviously, figure out, was the incongruity of having a military desiged to liberate France from Nazi Germany attempt a decades long police action.

Of course, the idiot Bush administration did not also realize that this was a police/nation building action, but that is beyond obvious.

However, at this point, there needs to be quite a long rhetorical retreat from the "war or terror" and its the Democrats who should be leading such rhetorical retreat.

It is only because the rhetoric fit the armed forces we have that we got into this mess, and for those of us who always argued that the words "war on terror" were more dangerous than ridiculous, well, frankly, I would have been much happier if things had turned out better.

Sometimes being right all along totally sucks.

Its difficult, and tricky, becuase at every step along the way some NeoCon bullshitter will be attempting to make the arguments Kevin has already cited.

But this "war on terror" meme has simply got to go.

Posted by: hank on December 20, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Media bias is a real problem in this country.

What liberal media?

This issue has been talked to death--the media was in the tank for the Iraq war and did not do its job. Period. End of story. Ever heard of Judith Miller? Those front page stories in the New York Times?

"Media bias" is a myth--the Bush administration has had the most favorable coverage of any in the modern era. It has been consistently shown that the media has failed to hold the Bush administration properly accountable and to properly question the particulars with regards to the war on terror.

One very good example--Bob Woodward. When Woodward was writing about how "decisive" Bush was, the Bush administration was praising Woodward and giving him access that most journalists would only dream of.

As soon as Woodward pulled back the curtain and wrote something that blew the administration out of the water--State of Denial, suddenly, we went back to this mythical liberal bias.

Give it a rest, dude. It ain't selling when Bush sits at 33% in the approval rating polls and it ain't selling when people know we need to get our troops out of Iraq.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Hansen: Media bias is a real problem in this country.

No, it is a myth promoted by conservatives who are at war with the truth.

BTW, if you really think that 85-90% of the media are liberals, please explain why conservatives refuse to enter into journalistic careers and why it wouldn't be their own fault for refusing to take careers in this area?

Funny how conservatives also think that teachers are 85-90% liberal too.

So, why aren't conservatives engaging in teaching careers?

Explanation: they are selfish and greedy and couldn't give a damn about education or the truth. Thus, they disdain careers that focus on real facts, preferring careers where myth and belief and the law-of-the-con-game rule.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Wait...wait...maybe in the spirit of the thread, "ex-liberal" obliged us with a bit of self parody?

But who could tell?

Posted by: Gregory on December 20, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

From Wikipedia

Quotes are also sometimes used for emphasis in lieu of underlining or italics, most commonly found on signs or placards. This is discouraged not only because it is an improper usage, but also because it is easily confused with ironic or altered-usage quotation... (my boldface)

For sale: “fresh” fish, “fresh” oysters

The first statement above could be construed to imply that the word fresh is not being used with its everyday meaning, even so far as to mean that the fish or oysters are anything but “fresh.”

Similarly, even if the quotes around the words "terrorist leader" were innocent, they could easily be confused with ironic or altered-usage quotation marks. The editor left quotes (or added quotes) which he or she knew some readers would interpret as casting doubt on the military's version.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 20, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

they are selfish and greedy and couldn't give a damn about education or the truth. Thus, they disdain careers that focus on real facts, preferring careers where myth and belief and the law-of-the-con-game rule.

Which perhaps explains why so many members of the Christian clergy identify as Republican?

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK
Here's an exaemple. Today's New York Times has a headline, U.S. Sees Progress in Talks With North Korea Chances are their source may have used the word "progress." Nevertheless, suppose the headline read U.S. Sees "Progress" in Talks With North Korea. That would imply that the reporter doesn't necessarily agree that progress it taking place.

In the case of your example, aside from being in a headline vs. body as Bob points out, you have a paraphrase of the subjective impression of one party (the U.S. [executive branch, presumably; headlines are notoriously truncated]). There is only one potentially controversial characterization ("Progress") presuming, of course, that the fact of talks with North Korea is not a disputed point.

So, US Sees Progress in Talks With North Korea carries the same meaning as US Sees “Progress” in Talks With North Korea, as both convey unambiguously that the “progress” is the opinion of the U.S., not that of the headline writer.

This is not at all parallel to the earlier case, and is, therefore, a very bad analogy.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 20, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Media bias is a real problem in this country. ... Why is this hard for a liberal to believe or understand?

Oh, it's easy to believe and understand; it's just that the media's biases aren't, as dishonest conservatives -- but I repeat myself -- like to claim, liberal.

Posted by: Gregory on December 20, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

I am more inclined to put stock in a J-school definition than Wikipedia. Didn't you see Colbert save the elephants, single-handedly?

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Behar tried to soften the gabfest controversy Tuesday, in anticipation of Clinton's appearance, calling the Rumsfeld-Hitler comparison a "faux pas," and telling viewers: "I don't think Rumsfeld is an evil person in his heart, I just think he did some terrible things in this war, and he was very controversial.

Scare quote above ("faux pas"), ex-liberal, or not?

Bush, speaking to reporters in the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Building, said he would "gather all" recommendations from Gates, military leaders on the ground, diplomats and interested Iraqis for a way forward in Iraq.

How about "gather all" in the above, ex-liberal?

Reaction to Behar's — and the show's — latest blow-torch attack of the Bush administration ranged from an official "no comment," to a head-shaking "jerk."

How about "jerk" or "no comment"?

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Explanation: they are selfish and greedy and couldn't give a damn about education or the truth. Thus, they disdain careers that focus on real facts, preferring careers where myth and belief and the law-of-the-con-game rule.

Google_This: Don't you see that beliefs like this are really counter-productive to a better society. If I went around thinking that half the people in the country are "selfish and greedy", I would not be able to have a decent discussion with them. I invite you to actually engage some intelligent conservatives in a discussion and discover for yourself their motives, fears, feelings, and agenda. Either that or you could continue to congratulate yourself on how caring you are that you refues to associate with that "selfish and greedy" bunch and remain in ignorance.

Posted by: John Hansen on December 20, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

I invite you to actually engage some intelligent conservatives in a discussion and discover for yourself their motives, fears, feelings, and agenda.

I'll settle for engaging honest conservatives, because the people who you're encouraging us to speak to are the 33% that will always support the war in Iraq, always support Bush, and who can't stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq terrorist leader Zarqawi "eliminated"

Remember, ex-liberal, the truth will set you free [from conservatism].

Embrace it.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq terrorist leader Zarqawi "eliminated"

Remember, ex-liberal, the truth will set you free [from conservatism].

Embrace it.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal:

What I don't understand, ex-lib, is why you believe that "terrorist leader" should be taken as a statement of simple fact, and not a characterization by the people who captured him? What about the presumption of innocence?

Would you have preferred "alleged terrorist leader" to using quotes?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on December 20, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Similarly, even if the quotes around the words "terrorist leader" were innocent, they could easily be confused with ironic or altered-usage quotation marks. The editor left quotes (or added quotes) which he or she knew some readers would interpret as casting doubt on the military's version.

In short, "ex-liberal" embraces Kurtz's "logic" (now there are some scare quotes for you, "ex-liberal").

I invite you to actually engage some intelligent conservatives in a discussion and discover for yourself their motives, fears, feelings, and agenda.

What Pale Rider said. However, since most of the examples of "conservatvies" on these boards consist of the likes of Hansen, "ex-liberal", "minion of rove," Matthew Marler, etc. etc. etc., we discuss with the conservatives we have, not the conservatives we wish we had.

Posted by: Gregory on December 20, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Don't you see that beliefs like this are really counter-productive to a better society. If I went around thinking that half the people in the country are "selfish and greedy", I would not be able to have a decent discussion with them. I invite you to actually engage some intelligent conservatives in a discussion and discover for yourself their motives, fears, feelings, and agenda. Either that or you could continue to congratulate yourself on how caring you are that you refues to associate with that "selfish and greedy" bunch and remain in ignorance.
Posted by: John Hansen

Don't you see that believing half the country is ignorant is really counter-productive for a better society? I invite you to actually engage with Democrats and liberals and find out why we have these views of Republicans so that you may be able to get to know yourselves better.

Posted by: cyntax on December 20, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

There are a lot of fucked-up people in this world.

Posted by: Carl on December 20, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Correcto - There is soooo much "open" discussion in Utah, Idaho and other parts of Deseret.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 20, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Hansen: Don't you see that beliefs like this are really counter-productive to a better society. If I went around thinking that half the people in the country are "selfish and greedy", I would not be able to have a decent discussion with them.

You are the one that said the country is 50-50, not me; I am not a prisoner to your fantasy world of "fact."

I invite you to actually engage some intelligent conservatives in a discussion and discover for yourself their motives, fears, feelings, and agenda.

When I find them, I do.

Haven't found any here.

Besides, intelligent is not inconsistent with greedy and selfish.

And believing someone to be greedy and selfish is not inconsistent with an ability and willingness to discuss things with them.

It is conservatives who refuse to allow dissent and who want to marginalize and isolate liberal thought and speech.

Remember all the times the GOP threw "protesters" out of Bush events?

Probably not; you have selective memories.

Either that or you could continue to congratulate yourself on how caring you are that you refues to associate with that "selfish and greedy" bunch and remain in ignorance.

Believing someone to be selfish and greedy is not the same as refusing to associate with them.

That is a tactic of conservatives - a refusal to associate with those with whom they disagree. See reference to Bush events above.

Christ believed in the sins of those he associated with; he spoke with and preached to prostitutes, lepers, and other societal rejects.

Only in the mind of a conservative would belief in someone's sins be equated to disassociation.

That you believe the two are connected says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK
Similarly, even if the quotes around the words "terrorist leader" were innocent, they could easily be confused with ironic or altered-usage quotation marks.

Ironic and altered-usage quotation marks aren't used in standard journalistic style (and are frowned upon in formal writing generally), because they conflict with important uses of quotation marks to identify short direct quotes and/or to make use-mention distinctions (though domains in which the latter is common tend to prefer singlequotes for use-mention and double quotes for direct quotation, to disambiguate those two; still, that leaves no room for ironic/altered-usage quotations.)

So, presuming that people are aware they are reading a newspaper, there should be no particular risk of a literate reader confusing a short direct quote for a use of scare quotes.

The editor left quotes (or added quotes) which he or she knew some readers would interpret as casting doubt on the military's version.

The only reason they would cast doubts on the military's version is if the reader didn't trust unsubstantiated assertions by the military. Since the statement was, in fact, an unsubstantiated assertion by the military, the only "doubts" would be those resulting from the objective facts of the information available to the journalist. (OTOH, those inclined to blindly trust the military but to distrust independent judgment of journalists, either in general or the particular source, would find the characterization more credible this way.)

These are exactly the kind of doubts (or credibility, depending on the reader's biases) that the media should preserve: those that exist when the reader stands in the shoes of the journalist.

You seem to prefer, instead, deliberate obfuscation of the facts to suppress doubts that you don't share, or to create doubts that you prefer.

Why?

Posted by: cmdicely on December 20, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't Kurtz's argument basically "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" redux? And if so, is there any reason it can't contain some (overblown) kernel of truth, just as the fable reflects a reality we've all seen from time to time?

Posted by: Shelby on December 20, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

I'm actually not of the belief that conservatives are inherently any more intentionally dishonest than anyone else. We all have our fact filters, things we emphasize and deemphasize dependent on our core values.

Which isn't to say that dishonest conservatives don't exist or don't have high places in the media and punditocracy. Only that people who follow those cues are doing something other than deliberatly lying about something they know the truth about. They may have allowed themselves to be misled -- but that's a different thing than intentional dishonesty.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on December 20, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

if you really think that 85-90% of the media are liberals, please explain why conservatives refuse to enter into journalistic careers

They think 85% of the MSM is liberal. There's more to journalism than the MSM. This is a big difference. The NYTs, ABCNews, NBC, etc hire libs. They don't hide it. They'll have a token conservative but usually they're really moderates who seem conservative. George (ABC) and Tim (NBC)were liberal activists. But the media is now much larger that the NYTs and ABC.

The problem was better defined by David Brooks of the NYTs over a year ago. Liberals and conservatives live in different worlds with different information streams. What exposure I get to the NYTS, ABC, especially the BBC, AP and Reuters I immediately discount.

It's made for a dramatic difference almost all for the good. It's why Kyoto was voted down 95-0 (in a resolution) amd remains a scam and why tax rates stay in the mid 30's. It's how we found our Joe Wilson and Cindy Sheehan were such bizarre frauds, all about Xmas in Cambodia, Dan Rather, etc.

You think Dan Rather is as honest as the day is long. I don't believe a word he says. If you don't think it matters you are fools. Further, all the trends tell us this is just the beginning with newspapers falling to #4 as the source of news behind TV, Radio and the internet.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

What should be in scare quotes is the military's characterization of all Gitmo detainees as the world's "most dangerous terrorists".

If that were true, then the military has let out about 90% of these "most dangerous terrorists."

Who would trust someone who would let our worst enemies go free?

Who would trust someone who would lie abou8t the status of its detainees roughly 90% of the time?

Why shouldn't the media treat military characterization of the people it captures with some sense of caution?

Inquiring minds want to know, ex-liberal.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't Kurtz's argument basically "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" redux? And if so, is there any reason it can't contain some (overblown) kernel of truth, just as the fable reflects a reality we've all seen from time to time?
Posted by: Shelby

So we should look for the pony inside Kurtz's pile of crap?

If you find it, let me know. I'll be surprised if it's worth the effort.

Posted by: cyntax on December 20, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Don't you see that believing half the country is ignorant is really counter-productive for a better society? I invite you to actually engage with Democrats and liberals and find out why we have these views of Republicans so that you may be able to get to know yourselves better.

cyntax: If I believed that half the country is ignorant I wouldn't include "Political Animal" on my list of can't miss blogs would I?

Posted by: John Hansen on December 20, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

They may have allowed themselves to be misled

Why would anyone allow themselves to be misled?

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

And, as if on cue -- here comes rdw to soundly thrash my statement of conservative good intentions ...

Different information streams?

Dude, you exist in an atmosphere with an entirely different chemical structure.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on December 20, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Christ believed in the sins of those he associated with; he spoke with and preached to prostitutes, lepers, and other societal rejects.

Yeah, and look where it got him! There is no difference between the judgementalism of the Roman bureaucrats of 2,000 years ago and the judgementalism of the Bush administration--the dude we know as Christ would be sitting in Guantanamo Bay right now if he were walking around on this Earth--his fell-good message of love and tolerance would be heresy to the horrorshow and the torture policies brought to us by the current "Christians" who claim to have the moral authority to lead us.

Why, that Jesus fellow would be considered a hippie, and we all know that the worst thing you can be in this world is an advocate of peace and love, especially when we're at war against...who exactly? Stateless individuals who use the tactic of terror? Is that who? How about we go catch the guy who perpetrated all this nonsense? Doesn't anyone who claims to be a conservative want to honestly discuss why the most powerful nation in the world can't catch an old, sick and megalomaniacal six-foot-five dude with a noticeable coterie of unhappy little bad apples around him?

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

mrck1: What I don't understand, ex-lib, is why you believe that "terrorist leader" should be taken as a statement of simple fact, and not a characterization by the people who captured him? What about the presumption of innocence?

Would you have preferred "alleged terrorist leader" to using quotes?

Bob, I luv ya, but you seem to be arguing against yourself. Earlier you said the scare quotes don't imply doubt that the captured person is a terrorist leader. Here, you say the scare quotes do so imply, and properly so.

IMHO there's no need to use quotes or "alleged", because the article says the individual wasn't named. Therefore, it's clear that any description of him is attributed to the military, without confirmation by the reporter.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 20, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

What exposure I get to the NYTS, ABC, especially the BBC, AP and Reuters I immediately discount.

[rolls eyes] Obviosuly, Wooten. Your sole value here, other than as a source of amusement, is in conveying the delusions of the powerline crowd.

Posted by: Gregory on December 20, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Different information streams?

do you watch Fox?

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: They think 85% of the MSM is liberal.

Gee, I guess Blacks should never have tried to enter any profession that was 85% or greater White, cause being a minority in a profession is good enough reason not to pursue a career in that particular field, at least according to rdw.

That's conservative "logic" for you!

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

To the extent anyone is still reading, I googled and read what apparently is a relatively famous piece of war-news reporting "The Death of Captain Waskow" written by Ernie Pyle from the invastion of Italy in WWII.

I don't know what the reaction was to that piece in 1944, but if someone wrote something similar today, the entire "Conservative" (all quotes hereon are scare) media would do everything in their power to destroy them.

The media was not so different during WWII, the difference was that the American public had a pretty good understanding of what was going on in WWII, and a story like Pyle's would hardly swing public opinion on the war one way or the other.

Today, its not that the reporting is doing the "war" no justice, its that the "war" itself is not just.

Posted by: hank on December 20, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

You think Dan Rather is as honest as the day is long.

You mean the guy who hasn't been sitting in the anchor chair since March 9, 2005 and who had dismal, third place ratings for about a decade? That guy?

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Why would anyone allow themselves to be misled?

You would be in the best position to answer that question, having been a victim of this phenomenon.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Kurtz, if he were Homer Simpson after forgetting to pick up Bart at soccer practice:

"I know you're mad at me right now, and I'm kinda mad too... I mean, we could sit here and try to figure out 'who forgot to pick up who' until the cows come home. But let's just say we're both wrong and that'll be that."

Posted by: norbizness on December 20, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, rdw's back!

What exposure I get to the NYTS [?], ABC, especially the BBC, AP and Reuters I immediately discount.

Uh huh. Which, no doubt, is why you were convinced several months ago that the Democrats' chances of capturing a Congressional majority were "gone now." How did that election turn out for you, Wootten? Please remind me again what happened to Crazy Curt Weldon and Senator Rick.

I have no doubt you do get your information from other sources - like NewsMax, Michelle Malkin, WorldNetDaily, and other rather-less-than-unimpeachable sources. Shall we talk about Jamail Hussein? or how many books Jimmy Carter signed?

Posted by: Alek Hidell on December 20, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Why would any good German blindly follow a mandman like Adolf Hitler?

ex-liberal:

No, I don't think the attribution to the military is clear in context. Imagine if the "terrorist leader" was Zarqawi. My guess is that you wouldn't see the quotes, because by the time of his death it had become universally acknowledged that whatever else Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was, he was certainly a terrorist leader by anyone's definition.

All the quotes do here is affirm for the reader that the characterization came from the military. If a reader chooses to doubt that characterization or believe it speaks only to the reader's preconceptions about the military's track record in identifying terrorist leaders. Some might not question it. Some might doubt it vigorously. That's not an issue for the reporter -- especially, as Chris Dicely pointed out, that scare quotes are not part of the AP stylebook precisely to avoid such explicit characterizations of an ambiguous situation.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on December 20, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal," given that Bob is valiantly defending the point that conservatives aren't necessarily dishonest, it's poor form to undercut his position so quickly and completely.

Bob, I luv ya, but you seem to be arguing against yourself. Earlier you said the scare quotes don't imply doubt that the captured person is a terrorist leader. Here, you say the scare quotes do so imply, and properly so.

No, "ex-liberal," because they aren't scare quotes. The direct quotes indicate that the identification as a terrorist leader comes from the military, not the reporter, and are a necessity unless the reporter has firsthand information indicating the person is in fact a terrorist leader.

Really, "ex-liberal", you don't seem stupid -- other than for embrasing the inherently dishonset wing of conservatives (if you please, Bob), so the only conclusion is that you're being dishonest, and deliberately so.

Okay, Bob, I'll admit I'm being snarky in paraphrasing Mark Twain. Of course intellectual dishonesty isn't an inherent characteristic of conservatives in general. I do maintain, though, that some of the regular conservative posters here have exhibited enough dishonesty to justify the snark, and I see no reason at all to give them a free pass.

Indeed, I'm greatly encouraged and amused that the likes of Matthew Marler, John Hansen, the neoconservative shill "ex-liberal" and the like so consistently resort to dishonesty. They're conceding, up front, that there's no honest defense of the Bush Administration's mendacity, incompetence and corruption.

But I also maintain that the relentless dishoensty is offensive, and intentionally so, especialyl in the case of "ex-liberal." There people simply aren't here for the kind of honest discussion Hansen claims to champion. They're here to piss on the carpet, pure and simple.

Posted by: Gregory on December 20, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

There's nothing wrong with being a "conservative" so long as you remain connected to "reality."

I've always been socially liberal but fiscally conservative; I would say that we should make gay marriage perfectly legal and allow gay couples to adopt and become foster parents and I would say that if the Federal government were to freeze spending for a couple of years and maybe eliminate large, unwieldy parts of itself like the Dept. of Education and HUD (based on their track record, is this really money well spent?) that I would be perfectly OK with that.

If I had been of age in 1980, I would probably have been considered a Reagan Democrat as well. I don't know.

But to say that there's this notion where every Democrat has to be a flaming liberal, that's completely wrong; Democrats can have "conservative" beliefs and opinions because not one party has all the answers and a monopoly on the truth.

It'll be interesting to see how someone like Senator James Webb can function in Washington DC--I'm thinking he's a guy that will make everyone mad at him at one point or another and maybe we need more people like that in public life.

So quit with the bullshit--talking to an "honest" conservative doesn't mean I would have to be talking to a "Republican" because, at this point, I refuse to believe that someone with actual conservative beliefs would support what this administration has been doing since day one.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

To quote Bono:

"Will it make it easier on you now
You've got someone to blame?"

Posted by: Robert on December 20, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

cyntax: If I believed that half the country is ignorant I wouldn't include "Political Animal" on my list of can't miss blogs would I?
Posted by: John Hansen

Well, what were you suggesting then when you lecture us that we think half the country is greedy and seflish? The view you're attributing to us is not an accurate characterization of what liberals and Democrats think.

Posted by: cyntax on December 20, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

And we all remember that dirty liberal media trick -- Bush Administration officials leaking classified WMD lies to Judy Miller of the NYT -- in order to set up the echo chamber proving that Saddam Hussein had WMD because it was on the front page of that bastion of liberal bias, New York Times

Posted by: bcinaz on December 20, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, I missed your comment about the AP Stylebook. I don't have one either.

My guess is that it would not only prohibit scare quotes, but it would also prohibit usage that could be mistaken for scare quotes. However, that's simply my guess.

Note that the word "captured" was not in quotes, even though it's that word probably also came from the military spokesperson. What does it mean, that the reporter used quotes around "terrorist leader" but not around "captured"? A normal reading would be that the reporter accepts that somebody was captured, but questions whether the captive is truly a terrorist leader.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 20, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

I guess the facts have a liberal bias. Damned facts.
Posted by: G Spot1

"Facts are meaningless; you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! Facts, schmacks." - Homer Simpson

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 20, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

That's conservative "logic" for you!
Posted by: Google_This

Logic and rdw have never been introduced.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 20, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: Note that the word "captured" was not in quotes, even though it's that word probably also came from the military spokesperson. What does it mean, that the reporter used quotes around "terrorist leader" but not around "captured"? A normal reading would be that the reporter accepts that somebody was captured, but questions whether the captive is truly a terrorist leader.

Are you really as idiotic as you appear?

Confirmation of the identification of a captured individual requires time and can, as proven time and again by our military, be wrong.

One is rarely wrong about one's own actions undertaken, however.

Assume the reporter arrives at an arrest site moments after the suspect is apprehended:

'The police entered the building and captured the "rapist".'

Not, '[t]he "police" "entered" "the building" and "captured" the rapist.'

Are you really too stupid to realize that the military has time and again captured an alleged terrorist only to determine later that they apprehended the wrong person or the person they apprehended wasn't actually a terrorist at all?

Are you really that stupid?

Really?

We'd like to know.

The military characterized the captured individual as a "terrorist leader".

They've been wrong before, on the order of hundreds or even thousands of times.

The person might simply be a "terrorist," rather than a "terrorist leader."

Or, they may simply be an innocent bystander fleeing a shooting zone whom the military mistook for the person they thought was going to be there.

Get a grip on your sanity, it's slipping away.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

You mean the guy who hasn't been sitting in the anchor chair since March 9, 2005 and who had dismal, third place ratings for about a decade? That guy?

That guy who was the USAs longest serving anchor and who you STILL think is honest.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Well, what were you suggesting then when you lecture us that we think half the country is greedy and seflish? The view you're attributing to us is not an accurate characterization of what liberals and Democrats think.

My comments in that post were directed to Google_this - not to everyone posting here.

Posted by: John Hansen on December 20, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

I missed your comment about the AP Stylebook. I don't have one either.

Sorry, "ex-liberal," your admission that you're speaking from ignorance doesn't mean that you're not also being dishonest.

your ignorance couple with your dishonesty does mean that your bullshit opinion isn't worht a bucket of piss. But we knew that.

By the by, it's worth pointing out that even if "ex-liberal" were correct in his/her/its characterization -- which he/she/it isn't -- it'd still be a piss-poor example of "liberal media bias".

As it is, though, it's a downright sterling example of dishonest, blinkered conservatives interpreting media reports through the lens of cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: Gregory on December 20, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

If you think the Bush government always gets it right, ex-liberal, maybe you should read this.

Relieve your stupidity by exposing your mind to a little truth.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

A normal reading would be that the reporter accepts that somebody was captured, but questions whether the captive is truly a terrorist leader.

No. A normal reading that doesn't begin with an assumption of bias would be that the reporter accepts, or has verified, someone was captured but knows nothing else about who this person is or what their affiliation is and that the reporter is reporting the affiliation which the military attributes to the captured person, but hasn't verified it yet with any other sources.

You seem to come from the Colbertian school of thought that reporters are stenographers. This is understandable in one sense in that this is what reporters have been doing for the last few years, but their job actually entails fact-checking and verifying what they report.

Posted by: cyntax on December 20, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Why would any good German blindly follow a mandman like Adolf Hitler?

You didn't answer the question. Why would anyone knowingling allow themselves to be mislead?

The Germans didn't know what they were being led into and by the time they realized Hitler was insane it was too late.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who has any questions about writing style need only go to citationmachine.net for the APA and MLA rules.

Hope the Google works out for you.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: That guy who was the USAs longest serving anchor and who you STILL think is honest.

So, one mistake and Rather gets branded as a liar by rdw, but Bush who has actually lied hundreds of times, and at least once publically in the last 48 hours, is a man of truth in rdw's eyes!

Purrrrfect!

I love it!

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

My comments in that post were directed to Google_this - not to everyone posting here.
Posted by: John Hansen

Then I'll let G_t decide if that was an accurate characterization of his/her point of view.

Posted by: cyntax on December 20, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

My guess is that it would not only prohibit scare quotes, but it would also prohibit usage that could be mistaken for scare quotes.

"ex-liberal," the media isn't responsible for appeasing your twisted, biased, dishonest interpretation of bias.

But that's what this is all about, isn't it? The entire point of the "liberal media" campaign -- aside from allowing conservatives to silence cognitive dissonance by discounting inconvenient facts in favor of an alternate fantasy reality (see "rdw") -- is to "work the refs," hoping that the media will become more and more favorable towards an uncritical conveyance of GOP propaganda (see "Fox News").

Posted by: Gregory on December 20, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Note that the word "captured" was not in quotes, even though it's that word probably also came from the military spokesperson. What does it mean, that the reporter used quotes around "terrorist leader" but not around "captured"? A normal reading would be that the reporter accepts that somebody was captured, but questions whether the captive is truly a terrorist leader.

Huh?

The original report from Reuters:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces have captured a senior al Qaeda in Iraq leader accused of killing hundreds of Iraqi civilians, including women and children, the U.S. military said in a statement on Wednesday.

The military said the "terrorist leader," whom they did not identify, was captured on December 14 in the northern city of Mosul in a raid which also netted five other suspects.

If someone has already parsed this, my bad. There is no "bias" in this reporting, period. How can one claim bias when the reporter is being given this information directly from the US military?

See that little piece right there: ...The military said...?

That's your FIRST indication that the source of this story is the US military and that Reuters is merely reporting what it is that the US military said happened. Now, I'm not a journalist, but I have done basic reporter work--about two years or so when I worked in radio and covered local events and things like that--but the first part that jumps out at me is that there is no way Reuters can be biased against the military when their sole source of information IS the military.

"Questioning" the veracity of a piece of information that has only ONE source is good journalism. Having information spoon-fed to the media without checking it in other sources--very bad practice.

Given the known use of deception by the US military when it comes to identifying al Qaeda in Iraq--and you can go here for more on that nonsense -- I would hope Reuters would use quotes where appropriate and not just swallow the information without questioning it.

And "questioning" the veracity of information is not expressing any kind of "bias" so don't even try to go down that path.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

I have no doubt you do get your information from other sources - like NewsMax, Michelle Malkin, WorldNetDaily, and other rather-less-than-unimpeachable sources

I don't use any of those sources. I much prefer the WSJ, Fox and National Review Online as well as my local paper and a dozen other websites.

But you make my point. There's so much more than the MSM. In the past it was a matter of discussing what was on ABC or NBC. Those days are long gone.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Why would anyone knowingling allow themselves to be mislead?

It's called self-deception, aka denial.

As you well know, being a victim of that phenomenon.

Or maybe you are in denial about that too!

People allow themselves to knowingly be misled all the time because they can't live with the alternative; the truth is just too much to bear for them.

Conservatives couldn't live with the truth that Saddam didn't have WMDs and worse that it was the UN that was revealing this truth.

Thus, they went into self-deception and denial.

BTW, conservatives knew what they were being led into but by the time they realized Bush is insane it was too late.

I LOVE IT!

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

That guy who was the USAs longest serving anchor

What about someone like Jim Lehrer, who has been on since 1975? His liberal bias is soo-ooooo apparent to everyone.

Rather was the longest serving network news anchor, but many individuals have served longer. And with a heck of a lot more made-up and non-existent liberal bias!

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Here's another feel-good story for the sharks to feed on:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8229&Itemid=109

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on December 20, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

I much prefer the WSJ, Fox and National Review Online as well as my local paper and a dozen other websites.

Dude, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is often contradicted by the actual content of the very same newspaper!

Your local paper is what? The Drexel Hill Dipshit Times? The websites you look at? Hmmm....would "Powerline" be one of those? Or would "Pennsylvania Farmboys With Rough Hands and Conservative Hearts" be another one?

No one expects you to read the Huffy post or DailyKos, but come on. Have you ever read anything that didn't reinforce your own lack of intellectual curiosity?

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

elmendorf on December 20, 2006 at 1:07 PM,

You're pissing in the wind, brother. Nobody here wants to read that.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on December 20, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I much prefer the WSJ, Fox and National Review Online . . .

All of which have proven to use journalists and opinion writers who lie.

Now we know where you get your lies!

BTW, Fox and the WSJ are a part of the MSM.

Thanks for proving once again how truly inane your thought patterns are.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Your sole value here, other than as a source of amusement, is in conveying the delusions of the powerline crowd.

I try to amuse. And to pass on the news you don't get. For example newspaper subscribership has been collapsing for over a decade and the pace is faster than ever. The only one of the top 10 growing is the NY Post which just passed the Washington Post for 4th place.

It's also true that the networks continue to lose viewers with the perky one now getting crushed.

A great example of this brave new world is book sales. The conservative press is doing a goffo business. Mark Steyn's 'America Alone'm detailing the demographic collapse of Europe and the almost certain loss of their culture, is the number one seller in Canada and a NYTs BestSeller in the USA. Of course the NYTs has no and will not do a book review or mention it but it sells anyway. Mark of course has been all over Fox, Talk radio and the internet and the NYTs doesn't matter as it once did.

The major bookstores in Canada aren't even selling it but it's still #1. Amazon.com is but another example of the internet bypassing the MSM.

BTW: another piece of news you'll never read about in the NYTs, Western Europe is TOAST!

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

The Germans didn't know what they were being led into and by the time they realized Hitler was insane it was too late.
Posted by: rdw

That sounds like a gross over-simplification of what happened. If you're interpretation were correct then all the Germans except for Hitler were innocent of any wrong-doing. Nuremberg seems to have put the lie to that. As to the guilt of the country at large, it seems many, if not most Germans do think that their country shared in the guilt of what Hitler led them into:

    Berlin’s moving holocaust monument is an acknowledgement that the annihilation of European Jewry during World War II was Nazi driven and the primary responsibility of Germany. The country’s post-war politicians and governments conscientiously accepted this responsibility – in West Germany at least. The Federal Republic’s constitution, electoral system, foreign policy and European treaties all are guarantees that history will never repeat itself.

What seems to be currently under debate in Germany is not whether Germany at large was responsible then, but what responsibility generations born after WWII share.

Posted by: cyntax on December 20, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

elmendorf: An astounding number of news stories are based on unnamed, uncheckable, and in some cases, what turns out to be non-existent sources.

Pretty much what the "news" of WMDs in Iraq was based on, yet you swallowed that hook, line, and sinker without blinking or questions.

Interesting thing is, the returning soldiers are getting only the news that their commanders allow and the only returning soldiers who are allowed to speak out are those who are critical of the media and people opposed to the war; all other soldiers' views are subject to courts martial and other disciplinary action.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

BTW: another piece of news you'll never read about in the NYTs, Western Europe is TOAST!
Posted by: rdw

Mainly 'cause it's fantasy.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 20, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

more "faux news" from Pollyanna:

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/iraq-update/Handovers/

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on December 20, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Western Europe is TOAST!
Posted by: rdw

Really, I always found toast to be not all that popular outside of England. France was all about croisants, Italy was biscotti, and Germany seemed to like ham and cheese sandwiches.

Posted by: cyntax on December 20, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Western Europe is TOAST!

You said the same thing about the Democrats and you were just as wrong.

Have you ever considered therapy?

Posted by: trex on December 20, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

The conservative press is doing a goffo business

Ah, so that's why everytime I wade into Townhall.com or any similar sewer, they always have banner ads for 5 conservative books for $5.

goffo indeed. How about, conservative book clubs buy large orders in bulk to sit in a warehouse somewhere for ages until they are peddled for $1. Way to go.

But at least it get's Man Coulter on the NYT book list (gasp, oh no, I guess she really doesn't sell that many books, because everything the NYT publishes is a lie, right?)

You are a great punching bag, wooten. You are the gift that keeps giving.

Posted by: Flock of Pigeons on December 20, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

I don't use any of those sources. I much prefer the WSJ, Fox and National Review Online as well as my local paper and a dozen other websites.

But you make my point. There's so much more than the MSM. In the past it was a matter of discussing what was on ABC or NBC. Those days are long gone.

Um, I hate to tell you this, rdw, but the WSJ, Fox News, and the National Review are a part of the "MSM." And they've all been around for years, so there's nothing really "new" there, except that in the last decade they've developed a web presence.

I assume that when you refer to the WSJ, you mean its editorial page. The paper itself is superb; the editorial page is fishwrap, scarcely better than those sources I initially mentioned. Sometimes the factual rebuttal to its assertions can be found in the paper's very own pages.

But I'm not going to argue any further. You're going to see what you want to see, no matter what. And you go to your sources to confirm what you already believe.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on December 20, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: And to pass on the news you don't get.

"Lies" does not equate to "news."

Except when the "news" comes from the WSJ's political section, the National Review Online, or Fox.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, Fox and the WSJ are a part of the MSM.

They are not mainstream in the sense used in the term MSM. Mainstream = liberal. Each is far outside the mainsteam. The WSJ has run several editorials just this week mocking global warming, kyoto and the EU as well as those interested in raising taxes.

The UN just released emissions data and wouldn't you know the USA has dropped to less than 1/2 EU levels despite our faster economic growth. Now that's not something you'll hear on ABC.

Here's two more fun facts you'll not hear on ABC. As of 2004 (data just released by the IRS)The top 1% of earners increased taxes paid by 33% over 2002 and now pay 35% to total taxes paid.
Corporate tax collections have been surging up 15% in 2005 and running up 12% in 2006 so far. Corporate taxes are now at multi-decade highs in terms of percent of total tax receipts.

Suppy-side rocks!!!!!

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Marler sends us to a link for the offical web site of Multi-National Forces in Iraq.

Now, there's nothing wrong with them running their own public affairs website to highlight positive news and to put a positive spin on things--however, you'd have to be an idiot to think that this is unfettered, unfiltered and totally balanced and unbiased coverage. Taking this at face value is like the US Department of Justice setting up its own news reporting outlet that tells you how good of a job they're doing and then expecting the American people to not dismiss it as propaganda from a government agency is ludicrous.

See, the government doesn't really lend itself a whole lot of credibility when it functions as both the government AND the media at the same time--something about a lack of proper accountability and the possibility that the government MIGHT want to keep you from hearing bad news, the truth, or even--dare I say--negative information is...too silly for words.

As for the site itself? Well, there is a document here that is interesting. If you're a reporter, there are, of course, ground rules that must be followed when reporting on the actions of MNF-Iraq.

Here's one that stands out:

(2) At MNF-I tactical or field locations and encampments, a public affairs escort may be required because of security, safety and mission requirements as determined by the host commander. Media will remain with military escorts and follow instructions regarding their activities at all times, until released.

I think what that could be construed to mean is, don't even think about going anywhere without a public affairs officer to watch over you. (the female Major who was recently killed was holding Ollie North's hand while he was over there getting the unbiased "truth")

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: . . . the demographic collapse . . .

Aka, in rdw's world, "the dilution of the white races."

rdw: The conservative press is doing a goffo [sic] business.

Flatulence has always been 'boffo' with the right!

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Really, I always found toast to be not all that popular outside of England. France was all about croisants, Italy was biscotti, and Germany seemed to like ham and cheese sandwiches.
Posted by: cyntax

Atta boy. Get ya some Texas Toast while I'm up?

grin

Wanders off to fix a XL decaf...

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 20, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, the WSJ editorial page is not a journalistic enterprise, nor can it reasonably be said to be a news source in the sense that most people use it. It is an editorial page. I echo the opinions of others here by saying that the WSJ news pages are top notch. However, those who wish to have top-notch journalism in their newspaper without the slavish devotion to Republican talking points should think about subscribing to the Financial Times.

Posted by: Tyro on December 20, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Dude, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is often contradicted by the actual content of the very same newspaper!

Dude, unlike liberal papers the editorial page and news pages of the WSJ are totally separate. The Editorial page is always right. They, more than any other paper or institution were solidly behind Reagans supply-side management of the economy and his handling of socialism.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Marler:

more "faux news" from Pollyanna:

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/iraq-update/Handovers/

Again--it's perfectly OK for the Department of Defense to use websites to disseminate and release information to the public; but to expect that that information is free of bias and should be swallowed whole without questioning its veracity and checking it against independent sources is insane.

See my example above.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, I think I've been had. And I like to think I'm pretty good at spotting parodies.

But this version of "rdw" seems a little too rdw. He's hitting all the standard rdw talking points in rapid succession - Dan Rather, the "MSM," Katie Couric, Kyoto, Western Europe, etc.

Good work, whoever you are.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on December 20, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Dude, unlike liberal papers the editorial page and news pages of the WSJ are totally separate.

No, they're not. Journalistic standards at most newspapers require opinion columnists and editorial writers to actually source their material and not contradict actual facts; but thanks for exposing, for the 675,989th time, just how little you actually know about the world.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Mainstream = liberal.

That old Conservative Dictionary of Misdefinitions rears its ugly head again!

rdw: 'I will define any word in any way that I need to in order to make it fit any preconceived conclusions I have.'

BTW, '[t]echnically, "mainstream media" includes outlets that are in harmony with the prevailing direction of influence in the culture at large.'

So, you are admitting that the prevailing direction of influence in American culture is liberalism.

Good for you!

Confronting the truth and accepting it is the first step to recovery!

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

to the Financial Times

Not bad for Europe but even you have to agree the European papers are notoriously partisan. Those poor bastards over there are totally screwed. They have no idea what is going on. Their cultures are absolutely going to disappear. Native Europeans are just not re-populating while various immigrant groups are doing so with gusto. They so not share European culture nor do they wish to do so.

Demographics is destiny. There's no getting around it.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Parodies? No, this diseased and feverish swamp of a website got rid of them when moderation was added.

If someone is doing a parody, I DEMAND moderation! I demand it, I say! I demand it this instant!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on December 20, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

'Hansen: Media bias is a real problem in this country.

No, it is a myth promoted by conservatives who are at war with the truth.

'

Its a myth perpetrated by the right so they can justify FOX (and others) only 'reporting' conservative propaganda.

Posted by: jg on December 20, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Not bad for Europe but even you have to agree the European papers are notoriously partisan.

Kind of like Fox. Or to be more specific Bill O'Reilly: now there's some journalistic excellence.

Wonder who's winning the "War on Christmas?"*

*Yes, those are scare quotes.

Posted by: cyntax on December 20, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: They, more than any other paper or institution were solidly behind Reagans supply-side management of the economy and his handling of socialism.

They were also solidly behind Bush's no-plan invasion of Iraq, Bush's claims of massive stockpiles of WMDs, and Bush's claims that Iraq was a central front in the war on terror.

Oops. All wrong.

Just like their support of "Reaganomics".

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Now, now, Uncle Norman. Calm yourself before you do yourself an injury.

But Alek Hidell may be correct. The grammar's too good. There's none of rdw's eccentric use of capitalization. There's even too much internal consistency.

Needs work. I give it a 7 - it's got a catchy beat and you can dance to it.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 20, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Aka, in rdw's world, "the dilution of the white races."

Don't assign your biases to me. I said nothing about race because it has nothing to do with race. Even excluding the fact turks and many of the minorities are in fact caucasian the difference is culture and within the culture the religion.

It's not their genes. It's how they think and act. Europeans are firmly committed multi-culturalists. Muslims are not. Europe is a democracy. Muslims will be a majority in a great many places. Will they vote for tolerance? Think so do ya?

The real problem for Europeans is it's happening so fast and they have no idea. They really don't. One of the most popular names for baby boys in France, Sweden, Denmark and a few other nations is Mohammad. What happens when the most popular name in the Army is Mohammad?

It's why GWB hasn't walked away from Western Europe. He's run away. Their problems are just too great to be useful allies.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Atta boy. Get ya some Texas Toast while I'm up?
grin
Wanders off to fix a XL decaf...
Posted by: MsNThrope

I am unfamiliar with this "Texas toast"* of which you speak; please elaborate.

:)


*Attribution quotes.

Posted by: cyntax on December 20, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Why would anyone knowingling allow themselves to be mislead?
It's called self-deception, aka denial.
Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 4:08 PM

Kind of like voting the party ticket without actually checking the candidate's background or stand on issues? Kind of like mindlessly defending government officials no matter what they do? Kind of like letting the Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly mouthpieces do the thinking so one doesn't have to gear up the brain to think for oneself? That kind of being allowed to be misled?
And when things go south, selecting a group of people (other than oneself) to blame, in this case blanketing a whole host of problems with the word "liberal" (intended as scare quotes here) and using it like a swear word without actually understanding the ethics and beliefs of the wide swath of diverse people to whom the word refers?

Yea, "allowing to be misled" is exactly right (plain ole quotes this time).

As the wingnuts say: Peace on earth, good will toward men.

Posted by: Zit on December 20, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Journalistic standards at most newspapers require opinion columnists and editorial writers to actually source their material and not contradict actual facts

The WSJ, unlike the NYTs, keeps it's editorial board from directing it's news coverage. They are totally separate. The WSJ Editorial board has a far better reputation partially explaining why they have 2x's as many subscribers and are so much more influencial in govt.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, brother, I sure hope exlib doesn't post anymore. Today, for example, he's managed to take over the entire blog. Shades of America Online. Thanks to the instigation of exlib we have here little more than an AOL chat room seemingly occupied in large part by 13 year olds home from school and with nothing better to do. Congratulations, exlib. Do I hear from you the sound of champagne corks popping? Or perhaps Kool-Aid a la mommie?

Posted by: ernest on December 20, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Its a myth perpetrated by the right so they can justify FOX

Why would anyone justify Fox on a blog? They get good ratings making Murdoch a ton of money. They are more than well justified.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

The WSJ, unlike the NYTs, keeps it's editorial board from directing it's news coverage

And your proof is what that the NYT does this? Michelle Malkin? Gods, you are so funny, you don't even know do you...

Posted by: Flock of Pigeons on December 20, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK
Note that the word "captured" was not in quotes, even though it's that word probably also came from the military spokesperson.

How do you know? Its quite probable that the "captured" was a paraphrase, not a direct quote.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 20, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

difference is culture and within the culture the religion...It's not their genes. It's how they think and act. Europeans are firmly committed multi-culturalists. Muslims are not.
Posted by: rdw

Read history much? When Muslims controlled Jerusalem before the Crusades it was an open city with Christians and Jews in it. Then there were the Moors in the Spain:

    In Spain the candle of knowledge was kept burning by the Muslim conquerers called Moors. Not only did they possess a vast body of knowledge based on their own learning, they had also become the custodians of much of the earlier knowledge from the Greek philosophers including those of Alexandria such as Ptolemy.

Posted by: cyntax on December 20, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

That's better.

Particularly the persistent misuse of 'it's'...adds just the touch of authenticity.

Run on sentences. Good incorporation of non sequitors.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 20, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Just like their support of "Reaganomics".

You really need to look at a chart of per capital GDP and the stock market averages since 1981 to see the Reagan legacy is it's glorious detail.

Did you know at current rates of growth per capita GDP in the US will be double Western Europe by 2020 and triple by 2035?

That is just stunning! Western Europe is so over-taxed and over-regulated it has no hope of funding it's current welfare state obligations and that was before accounting for their collapsing demographics.

You think they hate us now? Wait 10 years. Every year they're going to watch us get richer while they get deeper in trouble.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Why would anyone justify Fox on a blog? They get good ratings making Murdoch a ton of money. They are more than well justified.
Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 4:56 PM
===============================================

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Posted by: H.L. Mencken on December 20, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Muslims will be a majority in a great many places. Will they vote for tolerance? Think so do ya?

Why should they be tolerant of people who have repeatedly stolen their land and natural resources (oil), imposed and supported brutal dictators in their lands, invaded their countries on pretexts, disparaged their religion, imprisoned and tortured innocent citizens from their countries, spit on and soiled their holy book, betrayed them at every turn, and denied them the same political, social, scientific, and religious freedom that the West has allowed for itself?

Historically, the Muslim world has been vastly more tolerant than the West and even the most radical Muslims have been no more intolerant than the most radical Western conservative Christians.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Marler sends us to a link for the offical web site of Multi-National Forces in Iraq. ... Now, there's nothing wrong with them running their own public affairs website to highlight positive news and to put a positive spin on things--however, you'd have to be an idiot to think that this is unfettered, unfiltered and totally balanced and unbiased coverage.

Or dishonest, don't forget. Or both.

Posted by: Gregory on December 20, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Did you know at current rates of growth per capita GDP in the US will be double Western Europe by 2020 and triple by 2035?

Which would owe nothing to reaganomics which failed miserably.

Clinton, however, succeeded.

Bush tried to destroy that and he may yet with his horrifically high deficits and continuing costly war.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

had they reported acts of heroism

The MSM reported Private Green's actions in Iraq.

Posted by: Hostile on December 20, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

When Muslims controlled Jerusalem before the Crusades it was an open city with Christians and Jews in it.

How about we keep it to the most recent century? A great many muslims are moderates. A great many are not. The radicals are estimated to be up to 10% of the muslim population. That's 120M radicals. Considering what they're teaching in many mosques and islamic schools today that number is going to be much larger.

If you are familiar with Samuel Huntingtons 'Clash of Civilizations' you are aware he was blasted for the line, "The borders of Islam are bloody". Very un-PC don't you know. He offended a great many liberals. But he was only blasted. He blasted back with data. He's asked to be corrected. That hasn't happened.

Sorry, hate to be the bearer of bad news but Western Europe is toast. The USA under Bush has acheived separation and will maintain separation. The defense umbrella has been reduced by 99% and will never be restored. The diplomatic corps have been reduced by > 15% with more to come. US corporations shifted their attentions 15 years ago. Intel gets 4x's a many sales from Asia and it'll soon be 5x's.

They just aren't reproducing.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

You gotta admit, a self-parody thread wouldn't be complete without rdw.

Posted by: Gregory on December 20, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

What happens when the most popular name in the Army is Mohammad?

the commanding officers have to start using last names to address their reports ?

or, maybe you're suggesting that it's impossible to be named "Mohammad" and to be loyal to America ?


Posted by: cleek on December 20, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Bush tried to destroy that and he may yet with his horrifically high deficits

Not at all. The 2006 deficit at 1.8% of GDP is below the 25 year average and almost half levels in France and Germany. Moreover tax receipts continue to surge and GDP grow such that our deficit will continue to shrink.

Sorry but the economic data going back to the 70's is quite dramatic. The inflection point is clearly 1981. RR inherited Carters mess of double digit inflation, interest rates and unemployment. We're all supply-siders now.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

You gotta admit, a self-parody thread wouldn't be complete without rdw.
Posted by: Gregory

So true.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 20, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

..Carters mess of double digit inflation

And yet I clearly remember Gerry Ford's WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons....

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 20, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

Europe iz toast, them thar a muzlims is a comin for th' whyyyte wimmin, mmm hmmm. an' them a thar muzlims is a comin into that them thar home of congress ur sumthin' mm hmmm, them a thar muzlims a gonna take over, mmm hmmm, even tho last year it was them mesikans who is a comin to amurica, mmm hmmm

Posted by: Are Dee Dubya on December 20, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

or, maybe you're suggesting that it's impossible to be named "Mohammad" and to be loyal to America ?

America reproduces and assimilates. Muslims come to America to be Americans. Muslims moving to France will never be French. We'll treat Mohammad the same as Sean or George or Georgio or Georgiana.

In Europe it will be quite different. In Europe the Dutch have to be concerned what they can do if the Muslim majority in Rotterdam (2035?) votes in Islamic law against the wishes of the national government. What happens if there are riots and the militia has to be called in? Can they trust a militia that is 30% islamic to put down islamic riots? I don't think they even attempt it.

We have situations now in certain sections of France, Sweden and the Netherlands where the police seek the cooperation of the local imam before arresting certain citizens. If they have different rules now what happens as Islamic society rapidly expands?

It's rather easy to see what Eurabia will look like. In most sections it will be safe to be gay. In many sections it will be very dangerous to be openly gay. The Euope of 2036 won't be anything like the Europe of 2006.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

MsNThrope:

Or non-sequiturs, for that matter. (Yes, it's Bob
actually using HTML. Don't expect it to become a pattern :)

rdw:

>> Why would any good German blindly
>> follow a madman like Adolf Hitler?

> You didn't answer the question. Why would anyone
> knowingling allow themselves to be mislead?

Well, others have explained this as willful self-deception, otherwise
known as denial -- but let's take what you said literally. Literally,
it's a meaningless tautology. Nobody would "knowingling (sic -- you
thinking it's Yuengling time this early? :) allow themselves to be
misled -- if they actually believed themselves to be misled to begin
with. But the trick is, people who have evidence to support the idea
that they might be being misled tend to suppress that evidence. Hence,
they are not *knowingly* being misled -- by definition. They are,
however, simply choosing *not to know.* And that's called denial.

> The Germans didn't know what they were being led into and by
> the time they realized Hitler was insane it was too late.

What, you think there was no opposition to Hitler? He was ridiculed
as a thuggish buffoon for years, and only won 32% of the vote in
a multiparty election when he became Chancellor. Kind of like
Reagan, nobody took him seriously enough to oppose him vigorously --
but not because people didn't have severe criticisms of his ideas.

If the Germans "didn't know what they were being led into" until it
was too late -- then you make precisely our point about how easy it is
to become willfully self-decieved, and to deny that self-deception.

You'll note how well that excuse worked for Adolph Eichmann ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on December 20, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

yet I clearly remember Gerry Ford's WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons....

But you don't remember double digit inflation, interest rates and unemployment under Ford.

You DO remmeber Reagonomics because we still live under it much to the chagrin of our French and German 'allies'. Allow me to draw you a picture. They're standing on the docks sadly waving at the Luxury Liner pulling away knowing they've missed the boat. The US economy is the 8th wonder of the world and all they can do is choke.

Speaking of the WSJ you saw their editorial yesterday recapping the release of UN data on emissions. It seems under GWB the rate of emissions is less than 1/3 the level in the EU. They are not only increasing emissions at a far higher rate the trend is upward. The USA has been cutting emissions and continus to trend down.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

We'll treat Mohammad the same as Sean or George or Georgio or Georgiana.

I insist you download and liosten to this weeks installment of This American Life if you actually believe this.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

But the trick is, people who have evidence to support the idea
that they might be being misled tend to suppress that evidence.

What are you babbling about? This is a moronic statement.

You knew Kerry was a fraud. You knew he lied thru his teeth regarding Xmas in Cambodia. You knew he had been lying for 30 years about it and when caught in the lie just kept on lying not knowing what else to do.

You chose to ignore it deciding to weigh other factors as more important. You didn't mislead yourself. Denial isn't deception. You still knew exactly what you had in kerry.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

What, you think there was no opposition to Hitler? He was ridiculed
as a thuggish buffoon for years,

There's opposition to every public leader. Clinton never got a majority and was constantly ridiculed. To be in public life in any form is to be ridiculed by someone.

Now Clinton may have mislead us in promising tax cuts in 1992 but it does not follow we were willingly mislead. There wasn't a single person in America unaware on the moniker "Slick Willie".

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: "We're all supply-siders now."

LOL.... Poor rdw; just as delusional as ever. Alas, I don't have time to play with him today, but I just wanted to highlight this bit of drivel. He never has been able to figure out that supply-side economics has been largely discredited by the utter failure of "Reaganomics." Even the Wall Street Journal finally had to admit that the debate was over and that supply-side economics had lost.

Poor little rdw has also never been able to wrap his mind around the fact that St. Reagan passed the largest tax increase in history, that tax revenues as a percentage of GDP dropped during the Reagan years and after, and that it was the years of tax increases from Reagan, Bush, and Clinton that finally brought the budget back into balance, not the "supply-side" fantasies of rdw and his ilk.

Dear little rdw has also never been able to figure out just where we are on the business cycle and that running massive deficits at a time when you're at or near the peak is not really a good idea because when the pendulum swings in the other direction, those massive deficits have only one way to go.

Ah, well.... He's so delusional that he basically discredits himself without needing any assistance from us. I'll come back to play with you some other day, rdw. Today, I'll just leave you with this:

Despite improvement in both the fiscal year 2006 reported net operating cost and the cash-based budget deficit, the U.S. government’s total reported liabilities, net social insurance commitments, and other fiscal exposures continue to grow and now total approximately $50 trillion, representing approximately four times the Nation’s total output (GDP) in fiscal year 2006, up from about $20 trillion, or two times GDP in fiscal year 2000.
As this long-term fiscal imbalance continues to grow, the retirement of the “baby boom” generation is closer to becoming a reality with the first wave of boomers eligible for early retirement under Social Security in 2008.
Given these and other factors, it seems clear that the nation’s current fiscal path is unsustainable and that tough choices by the President and the Congress are necessary in order to address the nation’s large and growing long-term fiscal imbalance

Source? Oh, just the U.S. Treasury in a report released last week.

Posted by: PaulB on December 20, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

You'll note how well that excuse worked for Adolph Eichmann

Eichman didn't claim he was deceived. Like most of his peers he claimed he was following orders.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: A great many muslims are moderates. A great many are not.

A great many Americans are moderates. A great many are not.

A great many Westerners are moderates. A great many are not.

A great many Chistians are moderates. A great many are not.

As usual, you write much and say nothing.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

This comic strip is a good reply to Stanley Kurtz:

http://accordionguy.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/11/29/1427048.html

Posted by: JJ on December 20, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

insist you download and listen to this weeks installment of This American Life if you actually believe this.

I had to do a search on This American Life having never heard of it. That's because it's on NPR. NPR is to the left of the BBC. This thread started with my repeating that David Brooks made a more important point than what Kevin was making. It isn't just that I don't trust NPR. I never listen to NPR. IN 2006 we have dozens of alternatives.

Brooks wrote a column pointing our Americans do not get their news from the same sources. Liberals listen to NPR and ABC and read the NYTs. Conservatives listen to talk radio, Fox and read the WSJ. You believe in Kyoto. I think it's pitiful. You'll never see the tragic flaws in Kyoto. That's all I see.

Sorry, but Kevin missed the point being made by Kurtz and Brooks. Regarding Kurtz. I don't believe a single thing on NPR. Are their 'facts' correct? Yes. Have they been selected to satisfy a far left agenda? aAbsolutely! Does this data mining often if not usually distort the reality? Absolutely!

Regarding Brooks, because I don't trust NPR I don't listen to NPR. I have absolutely no idea what NPR has to say nor do I care. Brooks point is NPR speaks to a selected and increasingly narrow segment as more alternatives become available. NPR is a vastly different reality than we get from talk radio.

Liberals detest this fact. I love it. Few people can ridicule Kyoto, Kofi Annan or Jacques Chirac as well as I can.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

A great many Americans are moderates. A great many are not.

The Americans who are not moderate do not chop off heads, put on suicide belts and hunt for little girls in baby carriages to blow up or fly planes into buidings.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

No, but our homegrown terrorists have no qualms about blowing up Federal buildings with day care centers, gunning down physicians in their kitchens as they get a glass of juice, exploding bombs at the Olympics or blowing up family planning clinics.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

but our homegrown terrorists have no qualms about blowing up Federal buildings with day care centers, gunning down physicians in their kitchens as they get a glass of juice, exploding bombs at the Olympics or blowing up family planning clinics.

Let me see, how's that math, 3 terrorists over 15 years in the USA versus 30 a day in the middle east.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Newt is perhaps onto something: If you are a white male, under 40, have served in the military and your parents are fervently religious; it is incumbent upon you to prove that you are not a terrorist and you must immediately be arrested and held indeffinitely without charge. After all, you fit a known terrorist profile.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't name Shelly Shannon, and I didn't name the murder of Dr. Peter Gunn. There are more than three, Schmendrick. There are more than five. But continue to look through that big end of the telescope and focus on the small picture.

You're an infuriating waste of bandwidth.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider: "Questioning" the veracity of a piece of information that has only ONE source is good journalism. Having information spoon-fed to the media without checking it in other sources--very bad practice.

Glad to see you agree with me, rather than cmdicely, Tyro et. al., that the quotes were meant to question the veracity of the piece.

Thanks from raising the point that the media should question info from one source. This story is from an official US military spokesperson, which is a bit different from one source. OTOH the media has printed over 50 separate inflammatory stories, each unfavorable to the US, all from one supposed source, "Iraq Police Captain Jamail Hussein" -- someone who may not even exist. Hussein's stories were all printed without scare quotes or other indication that they were of questionable accuracy.

There's your media bias in a nutshell. An official US spokesman is questionable; a fake source reporting anti US fake news is reported as gospel.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 20, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives listen to talk radio, Fox and read the WSJ.

No wonder conservatives are so ill informed; they think Rush Limpballs is a newsman. Pathetic, but hardly surprising.

Posted by: Cranes on December 20, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider can take care of himself - just ask Stockburn.

But, "ex-liberal", when you and rdw, the Witless Woot, come within striking distance of 10 percent of the brain power of cm dicely, let us all know.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 20, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Well, Wooten, I just read you bloviating about how you never listen to NPR, that NPR is completely irrelevant to you. Okay, fair enough. By that very same token, guess what -- I was totally unware of the so-called Christmas in Cambodia controversy before the election. Flat-out unaware. And had I known about it, it would have still been meaningless to me. That era is over. I don't get my news from Fox, and I'd rather roast in hell than listen to talk radio or read conservative blogs. In fact, the only reason I know of Christmas in Cambodia at *all*, is because you never cease to bring it up on this blog.

So don't you dare tell me that I somehow knew Kerry was a phony about it. You just pulled that out of your ass. Believe me, as a Dean supporter I had plenty of reasons to be annoyed at John Kerry -- and they had to do mostly with his equivocations on his AUMF vote and support for the troops ("I actually voted for that before I voted against it.") But in a race against the Liar-in-Chief, of course it was no contest. Kerry's not a flat-out liar like Bush -- he's a rationalizer. There's a small but still significant difference.

Now on Eichmann, you're correct but you miss the point. Why do you think "I was only following orders" didn't work as a defense? It didn't work because people answer to a higher moral authority -- just as the UCMJ not only allows but insists that soldiers disobey what they know to be unlawful orders. For Eichmann to think he could even get away with "I was only following orders" shows that he was in deep denial about the morality of administering a bureacracy dedicated to extermining a race of people. Eichmann thought of himself as a "good German" just doing his duty. And that's precisely why Hannah Arendt called the utter monstrosity of that the banality of evil.

I don't think you're a bad guy, Wooten. But in your own little way, you with your daughters and your unionized son-in-law scamming on his tax paperwork, your endless cheerleading for a regime that rapes the Constitution and commits mass murder, your inability to empathize with the people in this country who are truly hurting, your insistence that we live in the best of all possible worlds -- in your own little way, Wooten, you represent the banality of evil as well.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on December 20, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

extermining = exterminating

Posted by: rmck1 on December 20, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: do you watch Fox?


"All of them are trying to copy FOX News now to be honest. There's only so much of that trailer trash pie to go around." - Cal Thomas FOX News Watch 6/17/06

Posted by: mr. irony on December 20, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Corporate tax collections have been surging up 15% in 2005 and running up 12% in 2006 so far. Corporate taxes are now at multi-decade highs in terms of percent of total tax receipts.

you like fox right?


"Income tax receipts are still less than they were in 2000." - Ben Stein on Fox 6/17/06

Posted by: mr. irony on December 20, 2006 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hansen: Media bias is a real problem in this country.


"Don't believe the right-wing ideologues when they tell you the left still controls the media agenda. It does not any longer. It's a fact." Bill O'Reilly 7/26/05

"We have the media now" - Ann Coulter 7/25/05

go figure...

Posted by: mr. irony on December 20, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK


rdw: You knew Kerry was a fraud. You knew he lied thru his teeth regarding Xmas in Cambodia.


"I continued flying with my unit for the next several years." - Page 54 of George W. Bush's "A Charge to Keep"

wouldn't he have had to take that physical he didn't take...for that to be true?


Posted by: mr. irony on December 20, 2006 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't name Shelly Shannon, and I didn't name the murder of Dr. Peter Gunn. There are more than three, Schmendrick. There are more than five. But continue to look through that big end of the telescope and focus on the small picture.

You're an infuriating waste of bandwidth.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Regarding rdw's creepy non-sequiturs (and ignorance) when he answered my post about The Financial Times, I have to suspect he's a fake rdw. At the same time, would a fake rdw really put that much time and effort to making himself look so foolish?

And ex-liberal, it strikes me that you're being hyper-sensitive. "Terrorist leader" was a direct quote from the mouth of the military spokesman. Do you look for the boogeyman under your bed every night, too?

Posted by: Tyro on December 20, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

Glad to see you agree with me, rather than cmdicely, Tyro et. al., that the quotes were meant to question the veracity of the piece.

No, but since you're delusional, what good what it do to explain reality to you? There was only one source in that story. The use of quotes does not mean what you want it to mean. You want it to mean some sort of bias when, in fact, the article shows no bias at all. For there to have been bias, the story would have outright claimed in the lede that the US military is not to be trusted and the information is instantly suspect--obviously, actually saying that and you inferring it because the reporter used quotation marks around a term are two different things. Hence, your inability to understand reality.

Thanks from raising the point that the media should question info from one source. This story is from an official US military spokesperson, which is a bit different from one source.

No, it's not. It's one source. Just because it is from the US government doesn't mean the information or the source of the information are unimpeachable.

Used to be, conservatives refused to trust the government. Remember those times? Remember when Ronald Wilson Reagan stood up and said Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. I think what he might have been hinting at is radically different from what you're hinting at. I think he would have popped you in the nose if you had told him that a good conservative accepts what the government tells people and doesn't question it. I realize you wingnuts are at a point where you desperately need to clamp down on dissent, but the USA is not going to roll over and just let you do that. Hence, Bush at 33% and going nowhere fast.

OTOH the media has printed over 50 separate inflammatory stories, each unfavorable to the US, all from one supposed source, "Iraq Police Captain Jamail Hussein" -- someone who may not even exist. Hussein's stories were all printed without scare quotes or other indication that they were of questionable accuracy.

So says who? Powerline? Little Green Goofballs? Please--citing wingnut bullshit doesn't exactly give you any standing or credibility. And I will tell you straight out--there are no Iraqis who can be trusted anymore and I don't trust anyone named "Jamil Hussein" as a source of information just because you're throwing it out there. Any journalist who is printing those stories without clearly stating that the information could not be independently confirmed is wrong and you know it.

There's your media bias in a nutshell. An official US spokesman is questionable; a fake source reporting anti US fake news is reported as gospel.

Neither is gospel, dumbass. All sources must be checked and verified. No one source is completely unimpeachable without independent verification. That's Journalism 101 and just because you think you've got the issue sorted out, you don't. You're completely ignorant of what constitutes actual journalism and you've been sold a bill of good by people who have paid commentators to write favorable things about the administration.

See, an administration that has to pay people to write things that are positive just doesn't have much credibility. Conversely, no one in the certifiably corrupt Iraqi security forces is to be trusted either.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

America reproduces and assimilates. Muslims come to America to be Americans. Muslims moving to France will never be French. We'll treat Mohammad the same as Sean or George or Georgio or Georgiana.

wow. that's delusional.

Posted by: cleek on December 20, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

he media has printed over 50 separate inflammatory stories, each unfavorable to the US, all from one supposed source, "Iraq Police Captain Jamail Hussein" -- someone who may not even exist.

Os, sweet Jesus, "ex-liberal" isn't even pretending to be anything but a liar anymore. Even Malkin had to admit she was wrong about this yet-another right-wing bullshit myth, but here's "ex-liberal", trotting it out as if it -- and he -- have any credibility at all. Shame on you.

Posted by: Gregory on December 20, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

Having been shoveled lies about Iraq from right-wing media, conservatives are going to turn away from those guys, too?

Posted by: Boronx on December 20, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

By the way - has anyone heard or seen much of all these prominent "war bloggers" who were going to revolutionize blogging and give the American people access to the truth in Iraq and were going to counter the mythical liberal bias?

Anyone heard from any of those asshats lately? Last time I checked, a lot of them were getting money from Pajamas Media and were getting special "access" provided by the DoD. Wonder how that turned out, since so many of them are sitting on the ash heap of history along with whatever credibility InstantPudding might have once had when it comes to the Iraq War.

Here's Bill Roggio, who has recently been embedded with units in Iraq:

While waiting to manifest on the flight to Fallujah, CNN played a news segment of President Bush announcing there would be no “graceful exit” from Iraq, and that we'd stay until the mission was complete. Two sergeants in the room cheered. Loudly. They then scoffed at the reports from Baghdad, and jeered the balcony reporting.

"Balcony Reporting" is a codeword for the reporters who stay in the Green Zone. Funny how they rarely mention that Iraq is not a country where people can just go around independent of their military escort and the protection that it affords. Balcony Reporting is meant to denigrate anyone who reports anything negative.

In nearly every conversation, the soldiers, Marines and contractors expressed they were upset with the coverage of the war in Iraq in general, and the public perception of the daily situation on the ground. They felt the media was there to sensationalize the news, and several stated some reporters were only interested in “blood and guts.” They freely admitted the obstacles in front of them in Iraq. Most recognized that while we are winning the war on the battlefield, albeit with difficulties in some areas, we are losing the information war. They felt the media had abandoned them.

Except that the media hasn't abandoned them; Rumsfeld and Bush and Cheney abandoned them. Did the media send them there with no plan, no exit strategy, the wrong gear, substandard body armor and in too few numbers? The perfect antidote to this thinking is to view the excellent powerpoint presenation left by Captain Patriquin here. and then you realize what the argument is really about. It's not about the media--it's about the people who have kept the military from learning and implementing the lessons found in the presentation. The media didn't create the Coalition Provisional Authority--the Bush Administration did and they stocked it with 25 year-old wingnuts and incompetents and that is why we are where we are at right now.

During each conversation, I was left in the awkward situation of having to explain that while, yes, I am wearing a press badge, I'm not 'one of them.' I used descriptions like 'independent journalist' or 'blogger' in an attempt to separate myself from the pack.

Funny how quickly Roggio has to distance himself from that which he has become. He's a "journalist" but he's not "one of them." He's all the "good" things but none of the "bad" things. [a very good example of stated bias right there--how does he know he's not, in fact, one of "them?"]

What a terrible situation to be in, having to defend yourself because of your profession. I've always said that the hardest thing about embedding (besides leaving my family) is wearing the badge that says 'PRESS.' That hasn't changed. I hide the badge whenever I can get away with it.

Profession? Hardest thing is wearing a press badge? If that's not a contradiction and a baldfaced example of hypocrisy, I don't know what is. Roggio is so quick to say that journalism is his "profession" but he loathes and despises it all at once. This is to give him "credibility?"

This isn't the first time I encountered this sentiment from the troops. I experienced this attitude from the Marines while I was in western Iraq last year, and the soldiers in the Canadian Army in Afghanistan also expressed frustration with the media's presentation of the war.

Of course, he never once met anyone who had anything good to say about the media. How do we know? Because he's a professional journalist, he despises his profession, and he says so. Wait a minute--how are we supposed to believe a man who says he's a journalist, despises his profession, and who...hmmm.

Perhaps this tension between the media and the military is nothing new. But it appalls me none the less.

Yeah, just a hint to you Bill--Ernie Pyle and Joe Galloway? I highly doubt you'll ever rise to their level, but try reading a little of their work and you might understand that what should really appall you is someone who wears their bias on their sleeve and doesn't give people the real story. We know the truth about many good and bad things done by our military because someone didn't act as a stenographer and write what they were told; we know the truth because someone wrote it down as best they could and wrote what they did without waiting for the military to approve it. If there's a tension between the media and the military, then that's a good thing. What we need more of are people who "honor" their profession and tell us the real story. All of our soldiers, sailors and Marines are not perfect heroes who all speak with one voice and have one single opinion--there are good and bad and a million shades of gray and there is no solitary point of view that encapsulates an absolute and unbiased point of view that is without any bias.

Truthfully--does anyone think this guy has NEVER met anyone who thought the media was covering the Iraq war accurately?

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider,

Hey, Preacher - Do I have to call you out again?

Oh, but it is You - That can't be - Why down at Mono Lake.................Never mind.

Posted by: Stockburn on December 20, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

In what world would Kurtz and other like-minded wingers listen to/trust anything the "liberal" media had to say about anything?

Is he saying that they were RELYING on liberal media for "facts"?

Does that mean he will believe/trust the "liberal" media in the future because they are in fact trustworthy?

It's a wonder his head doesn't explode trying to rationalize his own belief system!

Posted by: mezon on December 20, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK
"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth." --Margueritte Higgins
Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider: Neither is gospel, dumbass. All sources must be checked and verified. No one source is completely unimpeachable without independent verification.

Pale Rider, you're my biggest supporter on this thread, even if you don't realize it. Yes, sources ought to be checked and verified, just as you described. But the AP didn't check and verify "Jamail Hussein." They printed all his reports as factual, even though there was seldom, if ever, a second source. And, most of the rest of the media repeated what the AP wrote.

The willingness of the media to print poorly sourced anti-American articles shows their bias, particularly when they're extra-careful when they're given pro-American stories from official US spokespersons.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 20, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

Who the hell is Stanley Kurtz and why should anyone care what he thinks?

Posted by: Russell Aboard M/V Sunshine on December 20, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: The Americans who are not moderate do not chop off heads, put on suicide belts and hunt for little girls in baby carriages to blow up or fly planes into buidings.

No, conservative Americans are much more civilized; they pay other people to do those things, people like Saddam, Noriega, Rios Montt, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, and on and on and on.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: The willingness of the media to print poorly sourced anti-American articles shows their bias, particularly when they're extra-careful when they're given pro-American stories from official US spokespersons.

Can't hold a candle to your willingness to lie about the media's bias.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Let me see, how's that math, 3 terrorists over 15 years in the USA versus 30 a day in the middle east.

The FBI's anti-terrorism division says you are a liar.

They're right.

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider, you're my biggest supporter on this thread, even if you don't realize it.

Sure, dude. I mean, everything I've posted, in concert with everything that everyone else has posted, has relentlessly blown you out of the water and left you quivering and confused and uncertain as to which direction to throw up in.

Yes, sources ought to be checked and verified, just as you described. But the AP didn't check and verify "Jamail Hussein." They printed all his reports as factual, even though there was seldom, if ever, a second source. And, most of the rest of the media repeated what the AP wrote.

Repeating wingnut lies and bullshit? Hey, let's let Eric Boehlert have the last word on this non-issue:

In a November 24 dispatch, the global news giant, quoting Iraqi police Capt. Jamil Hussein, reported that Shiite militiamen had "grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene." Warbloggers were skeptical of the chilling report, in part because no other news organizations could confirm the horrific event. The U.S. Central Command's communications machine then jumped in, issuing a statement that it could not corroborate the killings and that Hussein was not a Baghdad police captain, and even if he were, somebody of his rank was not authorized to speak to the press. Central Command then filed an official complaint with the AP and demanded a retraction.

The AP stood by its story, though, calling CENTCOM's allegations "ludicrous" and noting that Hussein had been providing AP reporters with reliable information for months. The AP also didn't think much of CENTCOM's suggestion that reporters only quote people found on the government's approved list of sources.

For the record, along with Hussein, the AP based its Burned Alive reporting on an account from Imad al-Hashimi, a Sunni elder who told Al-Arabiya television about the killings. (He later recanted his story after being visited by a representative of the defense minister.) The AP also spoke to three independent eyewitnesses (two shopkeepers and a physician) and confirmed the story with hospital and morgue workers. Nonetheless, CENTCOM raised doubts about Hussein, so warbloggers, hearing a reassuring narrative they loved, pronounced the AP guilty of manufacturing news and quickly referred to Hussein as a "fake policeman" and to the Burned Alive story as a "fairy tale."

By inflating the disputed incident into a monumentally important press story, warbloggers, who have excitedly pounded the story for weeks, convinced themselves that blame for the United States' emerging defeat in Iraq lay squarely at the feet of the press. Specifically, warbloggers claim that American journalists, too cowardly to go get the news themselves, are relying on local Iraqi news stringers who have obvious sympathies for terrorists and who purposefully push propaganda into the news stream -- the way Hussein did with the Burned Alive story -- to create the illusion of turmoil. Warbloggers, who have virtually no serious journalism experience among them, announced that what's coming out of Iraq today is not news at all, but simply terrorist press releases -- "a pack of lies" -- regurgitated by reporters (or "traitors") who want to see the insurgents succeed.

"[M]any in the American media ... have a vested interest in exaggerating the violence as much as possible," announced warblogger Michelle Malkin, whose reassuring analysis was echoed by warbloggers such as the Anchoress, Power Line, Little Green Footballs, Flopping Aces, Instapundit, Redstate, The Belmont Club, Wizbang, and Pajamas Media, among others. Fox News, the New York Post, The Examiner of the Washington, D.C., area, and National Review Online also gave the story attention.

Should the AP be held responsible for its reporting, and should the global news agency be diligent about whom it hires inside Iraq? Of course. And there should be hell to pay if it's proven any news events were manufactured. But warbloggers aren't interested in an honest, factual debate about a single instance of journalistic accountability. And they're not really interested in the specifics of the Burned Alive story. They're interested in wide-ranging conspiracy theories and silencing skeptical voices.

As American Prospect blogger Greg Sargent noted, "Malkin and her compadres are trying to accomplish one thing, and one thing only: They want to staunch the flow of images back to America of President Bush's disastrous war in Iraq." Indeed, censorship via intimidation -- not authentic media criticism -- has always been atop the warbloggers' agenda. (Their main beef with the press is that it exists.)

It should be noted that Malkin's breathless excitement over the AP story nearly matches the enthusiasm she used to spread online smears about the press in the spring of 2005 during the Terri Schiavo right-to-die controversy. That's when Malkin backed the novel conspiracy theory that press reports about how congressional Republicans had drafted a talking-points memo in order to properly spin the Schiavo story were all wrong. In fact, according to Malkin's fact-free analysis, an unknown Democratic operative had concocted the phony GOP talking-points memo and duped the media in order to make Republicans look bad.

My take on this is simple--I don't care who it is or what the source is--you cannot publish a story with only one source and not expect that there might be a problem with the veracity or the accuracy of the story. Again, it's journalism 101 and what the AP did, as far as using only one source for the story, was wrong if they didn't clarify that fact and admit to it up front. What part of that don't you understand?

The willingness of the media to print poorly sourced anti-American articles shows their bias, particularly when they're extra-careful when they're given pro-American stories from official US spokespersons.

No, the media should not publish single-sourced stories without first clarifying that they are, in fact, stories with only one source. It has nothing to do with pro- or anti- Americanism. That's a complete non-starter.

For a conservative, you sure seem ready to swallow what the government tells you. Are you sure you're an "ex" liberal? You sure don't sound like any conservative I've dealt with.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

Once again, I have to quote that old Herman--Stanley, your test results are in; you're an idiot and there is no cure.

Posted by: buck on December 20, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

So don't you dare tell me that I somehow knew Kerry was a phony about it. You just pulled that out of your ass.

You knew because I told you. It was discussed on this blog quite often mostly because of the Swift Boat Vets. You tried to paint them as liars and Kerry as the honest guy. But thanks to Xmas in Cambodia we had absolute ironclad proof Kerry is a liar. Worse, he's a rather stipid liar. You remember of course he said, repeatedly I might add, he was listening to Pres Dick Nixon on xmas eve while he was in Cambodia on a secret mission. He remembers of course because he could not forgot. To use his words, "the memory, is seared, seared in me? I'm not sure what's the most comical part of the story. That he kept repeating it or that the syncophants at the Boston Globe were too stipud to figure out Dick Nixons wasn't President Xmas Eve '68.

Bob, you knew all about this. Every detail in fact. You were furious the SBV were having such a significant effect. It was I who explained to you Kerry started out with credibility problems due primarily to Xams in Cambodia and the fact he gamed the purple heart program to get out early.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: You tried to paint them as liars . . .

They were. And now they've been fined for campaign violations.

Oops.

. . . the fact he gamed the purple heart program to get out early.

A "fact" the military itself dismissed and disproved.

Once again, you're a proven liar.

But we knew that already.

How are those predictions about a continued GOP majority in both houses working out?

Posted by: Google_This on December 20, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

wouldn't he have had to take that physical he didn't take...for that to be true?

You're a day late and a dollar short. Danny boy blew that story out of the water with the all-time dumbest fraud in the history of frauds. His 'evidence' might as well have been written in crayon.

It'd funny kevin only referred to the Koran flushing incident. I think Dan Rather is much better as is Xmas in Cambodia.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

I was only following orders" shows that he was in deep denial about the morality of administering a bureacracy dedicated to extermining a race of people. Eichmann thought of himself as a "good German" just doing his duty

It didn't work because they were all liars. They all hated jews and enjoyed killing them. It was hardly limited to Jews either. They were equal opportunity haters. The following orders was mere desperation to save their necks.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

But in your own little way, you with your daughters and your unionized son-in-law scamming on his tax paperwork, your endless cheerleading for a regime that rapes the Constitution and commits mass murder, your inability to empathize with the people in this country who are truly hurting, your insistence that we live in the best of all possible worlds -- in your own little way, Wooten, you represent the banality of evil as well.

I am none of that. This is nothing more than a little mind at work. You can't debate on the facts so you resort to personal attacks.

Your brand of liberalism is dying a slow but certain death and you can't handle it. I can celebrate and take real pleasure out of being part of the greatest nation in the history of civilization. You can only wince. What's worst of all for you is you know I am right when I point out we're getting wealthier at a faster rate while Western Europe prepares to disappear. You'v spent your entire life wanting to be like them and now you are starting to realize how wrong you've been and how much time you've wasted.

You know I am correct and you just can't bear to fact it. Nothing is more comical than this freak show reacting to good news I print about the USA. They want to scream, "You're wrong. We suck!" How pitiful is that?

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

It was discussed on this blog quite often mostly because of the Swift Boat Vets. You tried to paint them as liars and Kerry as the honest guy.

Huh!?!

The Federal Election Commission hit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with a $299,500 fine today for playing too fast with election rules. The Swift Boat Vets were a "527" organization, which has no limits on contributions, but were acting like federal political committees, the FEC charged. 527s are allowed to work for or against certain candidates, but if they have no other "major purpose," according to FEC spokesman Bob Biersack, then they should register as a committee.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

We live in a world of immutable laws - for every winner there has to be a loser. So how is the loser to be treated? Conservatives appear to want to kill the loser, eviscerate the corpse, smear the blood on their faces and dance around the fire before they toss it in; while we would rather just give them some parting gifts and call it good. Since capitalism requires an underclass that will not benefit from the system no matter what (those troublesome immutables again) how these people are treated by the other 96 or 97% of us is telling, and the tale it's telling is not a happy one.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

I don't get my news from Fox, and I'd rather roast in hell than listen to talk radio or read conservative blogs.


Well Bob, it seems you agree with Brooks. It used to be a majority of Americans got their news from the same few sources. That's clearly not the case today. We live in a vastly different world. The old model is still practiced in Western Europe explaining why they can't even buy a clue. They don't know how dead their world is.

Think about it Bob. Kyoto is their religion. Here it's mocked. 95 - 0 in the Senate Bob. Not a single friggin vote Bob. Not a one. Love the UN Bob? So does ABC. The American people know better. Want higher taxes Bob? So does ABC? Want to be like France Bob? So does ABC. Think Nancy will be proposing higher taxes Bob? Not on your life!

Bob, the separate reality matters. NPR wants Euro-everything. We're not getting Euro-anything. Nada, zilch, zero. We're out of Europe Bob. We did a fair trade. We removed all of our troops, almost all of our bases and we are never going back. But we gave them Gweneth and Madonna. Ya still gotta love the Brits!

It's going to be cool in 2009 after GWB retires and the libs on both sides of the pond set to 'normalize' relations back to what they were. No friggin chance. Our business interests are dramatically larger everywhere else on the globe where economies actually grow. Our diplomatic interests are in Asia and the Middle East. Western Europe doesn't have a role in either place. Western Europe has zero military value. There's nothing to normalize. The worlds changed and we are more likely to be competitors rather than allies.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

I am deeply troubled by your apparent pathological, almost pornographic glee at the problems Europe is facing.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK
You know I am correct and you just can't bear to fact it...rightist dim wit at 11:12 PM |
You are pathetic. Your lies, your desperation, your ignorance, Your inability to win elections without resorting to the most despicable of tactics: Racism, fear mongering, lies. Every event that your little swift boats claimed that could be independently verified were proven to be false. The facts about Dubya's service were an embarrassment and every claim made about it was undenied by the administration. Kerry was closer to Cambodia then Bush was ever to combat. Bush ran like a scared rabbit on 9-11, Kerry charged and killed a man firing at him. Bush is a coward; Kerry braver than Bush and you. Posted by: Mike on December 20, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

Since capitalism requires an underclass that will not benefit from the system no matter what

Where do you come up with this garbage? This is braindead. It's total nonsense and obviously nonsense.

What good is an underclass to a capitalist? How can a capitalist sell a product or service to a person without the funds to buy it?

What possible good is an underclass if they cannot add to the business cycle.

This is just as dumb as the notion rich people get rich by stealing from the poor. How stupid is that? If they're poor there's no money to steal!!!!

You are brain dead! You have no clue about capitalism.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

NPR wants Euro-everything. RDW @ 11:34 pm

Ummm...How do you know? Didn't you go on ad nauseum just a couple of hours ago about how NPR is irrelevent and you make it a point of honor to know nothing about their programming or coverage?

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider - Eric Bohlert's version of Jamail Hussein has been refuted here and here.

Gregory, there was a point when Malkin temporarily withdrew her claim, because one of her sources expressed some doubt. Now that the subject has been explored more fully, she's more certain than ever that "Jamail Hussein" is a fake. Her recitation of the overwhelming evidence is here.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 20, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK
... Our business interests are dramatically larger everywhere else on the globe where economies actually grow... rightist dim wit 11:34 PM |
All you have is debt debt debt: You owe China billions, Japan billions, the Middle East billions. Your entire economy is propped by central banks who are gradually dumping dollars so you see it declining. Europe in trouble? No way, their economy is strong, their societies are stronger with less debt, increasing exports and a thriving Euro. You can spout your delusional propaganda, but in your heart, you know you're a liar. Posted by: Mike on December 20, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

Econ 101. Enroll in it at any community college.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

The Federal Election Commission hit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with a $299,500 fine today for playing too fast with election rules.

And what does this have to do with Kerry or the SBV telling the truth about Vietnam?

We know for a fact Kerry lied about Xmas in Cambodia. There is absolutely not question he lied. He lied repeatedly. He told the same braindead story several times. The Boston Globe reported it several times. Not one simple bastard thought about doing a simple logic test to question if Kerry was being honest. Looking back it's comical how inept a liar Kerry was and what dimwitted lemmings the Boston Globe employs as reporters and editors.

It's a fact jack. Dick Nixon was NOT President Xams Eve 1968.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

And what does this have to do with Kerry or the SBV telling the truth about Vietnam?

Was Kerry fined $299,500 because he lied about anything?

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

Europe in trouble? No way, their economy is strong, their societies are stronger with less debt, increasing exports and a thriving Euro

Say good bye to Western Europe my friend. Demographics is destiny and they ain't got no destiny. Their economy has been trailing global growth for 2 decades which is why USA per capita GDP is 40% higher and growing rapidly and we have LESS debt.

I will say the Germans are beginning to get a shadow of a clue. their entire system of welfare benefits depends on a growing pool of workers. Except they just ain't makin Germans like they used to. The US population is increaing quite nicely. The German population is just starting to shrinks and for each of the next 35 years will shrink at a faster rate. They know this for a fact. They have birth data. There's no avoiding it.

It ain't a good time to be 20 in Western Europe.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

Was Kerry fined $299,500 because he lied about anything?

Who was fined for lying?

Kerry lied repeatedly about Xmas in Cambodia and it mattered.

Posted by: rdw on December 20, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

GC,

Witless has a hatred of Europe caused by all of those times he had to wash his face in bidets in France - Boy got soooo seasick crossing the ocean blue with those stacks of Jolly Green Giant cans

He has raised stupidity to an art form. He does prefer the Elaine Bennis puntuation method!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So emphatic - At least something rises in front of him.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 20, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK
The WSJ Editorial board has a far better reputation rightist dim wit at 4:51 PM |
The WSJ editorial board is a laughing stock. No serious person reads that crap. They never attempt to try to make factual sense. It's funny that you mock ABC after the propaganda film for Bush that they broadcast without giving those award of the facts to speak out.
There's your media bias in a nutshell. .... ex-liberal at 7:24 PM
Yup, any story any event that doesn't concur with your prejudice and partinship is "media bias."
You are brain dead! You have no clue about capitalism. rightist dim wit at 11:41 PM
You didn't know that capitalism is about greed? How dumb is that? Your capitalism died in 1929. Your supply side economics is a farce that only leads to deficits, higher interest and slower growth. Even a clueless git has to know that growth under Clinton topped Reagan, Bush and Bush. Posted by: Mike on December 20, 2006 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK
Kerry lied repeatedly about Xmas in Cambodia rightist dim wit at 11:57 PM
No, check the link previous quoted. You silly moonbats repeat your lies and think that repetition will make them true. How delusional is that? Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

GC,

Did you see the WSJ editorial about GW Today? It seems the UN just released a lot of emissions data and don't you know the USA is doing a much, much better job under GWB than Clinton/Gore and GWB is doing a much better job than the EU.

Rather impressive no?

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

Who was fined for lying?

Shorter rdw:

"It's not true if I don't believe it!"

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 21, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

Let me explain your beloved capitalism to you, since you obviously don't get it. Econ 101 was 25 years ago, but I remember the basics.

The only way the rich get richer is if the poor get poorer. This is not due to a fixed amount of ambient income, but because of what, in economic ters is called a Frontier.

A frontier is basically a check-kiting scheme on a national scale. The collective value of all goods plus the profits that the capitalist economy requires to operate must be greater than the value of what can be paid for those goods. (surplus). Profit is financed by debt. Next years profits pay this years operating expenses. Stop to tote the board and the whole house of cards collapses.

In personal finance, once wealth overtakes the desire for stuff, the only way to keep advancing is by contrast. The chasm between rich and poor has to grow. One year you are grateful to not be poor, the next year you are grateful to not be poor and disabled.
*************
And I stopped there and concentrated on science, where I can get verifiable results.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter rdw...cambodia, kyoto, kerry, europe, rinse, repeat. What an obsessed loser. Suburbia does that to aging bitter boomers.

Posted by: rocky on December 21, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

I read their news. Their editorials are laughable.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

No serious person reads that crap

Only 2M or 2x's as many as read the NYTs. The WSJ was actually quite good in covering the details of Xmas in Cambodia and the SBVs. Actually their coverage of the MSMs coverage of these two stories was even better.

The NYTs actually carried a defense of Kerry against the SBV without ever covering the SBVs. how wacky was that. They were trashing the SBVs without ever telling their readers who they were.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

I suppose that when one calls so many elections wrong on November 7, then one must concentrate on some minute point from the 04 election - It matters not one iota to me whether Kerry misspoke about a time or date. What matters to me is that we took back the House - We took back the Senate - We took back legislatures across the land - We reelected Democratic Governors across America - Clowns such as Lynn Swann were stopped - We helped force out Rumdumb - These are the important matters of the day.

So, woot the Witless, keep swimming in the brackish waters of the past. It is sooooo passe. Now, go back and spritz your face in your bidet.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 21, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

They were trashing the SBVs without ever telling their readers who they were.

I think the FEC sorta trashed them, too.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 21, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK
...the USA is doing a much, much better job under GWB t...rightist dim wit at 12:02 AM
Except that American greenhouse gas emissions are increasing Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

Suburbia does that to aging bitter boomers

I love suburbia. Clean air, trees, lawns, farms, privacy, 5 bedroom homes, amazing shopping, great schools etc.

There's a reason so many Americans live in suburbia. It's great.

When you are a Reagan conservative there is nothing bitter about aging. I get to watch America get better every day. I get to watch my slice of the world get a little cleaner every day. I know when I take my grandkids fishing in a few years the fishing will be even better. I know living in America every day is better than the day before.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK
Suburbia does that to aging bitter boomers. rocky at 12:05 AM
I assumed he was commenting from him mom's basement because he's so immature. Are you sure he's a loser boomer? Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

The only way the rich get richer is if the poor get poorer.

This is absolutely brain dead. It is as dumb as anything you've ever come up with. Your next paragraph is incoherent babbling. It is pure garabge you could never get past a 5-yr old. One has to have been taught by a liberal intellectual to buy into this nonsense.

Oprah did not become rich making poor people poorer. George Clooney did not become wealthy making poor people poorer. Al Gore and Bill Clinton dod not become wealthy making poor people poorer.

Your brain is toast.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK
...I know living in America every day is better than the day before. rightist dim wit at 12:13 AM
It was under Clinton after years of deterioration under Reagan and Bush. Now new Americans are born with a crushing debt in addition to suffering more illnesses from increased pollution and corporate malfeasence thanks to George W. Bush and his lickspittle allies. Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

I think the FEC sorta trashed them, too.

They set out to defeat John Kerry. Mission accomplished.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

It matters not one iota to me whether Kerry misspoke about a time or date

It matters to Lurch. It's matters to all those people expecting jobs in his cabinet. it matters to John roberts and Sam alito.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

Are you sure he's a loser boomer?

Yeah, he's not one of ours...those of us under 40 cant do stupid like that.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 21, 2006 at 12:25 AM | PERMALINK

Are you sure he's a loser boomer? Yeah, he's not one of ours...those of us under 40 cant do stupid like that.

Please make that 45 - I just turned 44...

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK
This is absolutely brain dead....rightist dim wit at 12:19 AM
High poverty and increasing inequality in America. Maybe you should you know, read a book. Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

For once the Dimwit of Drexel Hill is right - America did get a lot better on November 7 - Breath of fresh air across the land.

Except there is that smell of rotting fish called the Reagan Conservatives and the Publican Party of thieves. Once that fish rots through to the bone, America will be the richer.

November 7, witless, November 7, doofus, November 7 - Not Xmas 68 - November 7 is what matters.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 21, 2006 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK
They set out to defeat John Kerry. Mission accomplished. rightist dim wit at 12:22 AM
As previously pointed out, that is the Rove-Atwater Republican way of winning: smear, lie, racism, voter fraud, voter intimidation, and, if all else fails, ballot counting fraud. It takes a real un-American to be proud of that record. Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

I read their news. Their editorials are laughable

They championed tax cuts and got them. They proved Kyoto was braindead and got a 95-0 vote.

With 2M readers this long time champion of supply-side econ is the most successful and influencial newspaper in the world.

They were the leader in exposing the food for palace scandal and several other UN scandals and more than any other media outlet are the reason support for the UN, France and Germany is in the toilet in the USA.

They have a deep pool of talent available at the various think tanks which specialize in supply-side economics, global freedom of the press, trade issues, foreign policy, etc. They are why we have low tax rates and low regulation and are nothing like Western Europe.

One cannot read the WSJ and not have contempt for the UN, France and Germany.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

This is absolutely brain dead. It is as dumb as anything you've ever come up with. Your next paragraph is incoherent babbling. It is pure garabge you could never get past a 5-yr old. One has to have been taught by a liberal intellectual to buy into this nonsense.

Well rdw, I certainly know nothing about economics, but I didn't have any trouble matching up terms GC used with economics via Google searches, so perhaps the incoherent babbling is in the eye of the beholder:

    There are many combinations of consumer utility, production mixes, and factor input combinations consistent with efficiency. In fact, there are an infinity of consumer and production equilibria that yield Pareto optimal results. There are as many optima as there are points on the aggregate production possibilities frontier.
Posted by: cyntax on December 21, 2006 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK
They championed tax cuts and got them. They proved Kyoto was braindead and got a 95-0 vote....rightist dim wit at 12:33 AM
You got tax cuts and huge deficits as far as the eye can see. The national debt is increasing 550,000,000,000 every year. Kyoto was defeated in the US and pollution is increasing as is the incidence of childhood asthma, autism and other deceases caused by mercury lead and other pollutants in the atmosphere. You got yours and the price is paid by America's children. That makes you are real man, a big Republican. Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

Mike,

I am reading America Alone by Mark Steyn. It's a NYTs best seller and #1 in Canada.

I've just started it and I can say there's no one better at satire and sarcasm than Mark Steyn. No matter how bad I make things seem in Europe he proves it's actually worse.

You have no idea just how screwed these people are and how quickly it's going to happen.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, Pale Rider,

You run the young pup, "ex-lib", off?

Boy has no chance - I mean, you took me and my Regulators out - Not to mention, what you did down at Mono. Keep a'firin, Preacher.

Posted by: Stockburn on December 21, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

Here. This explains it better than I can. I have exactly three credit hours of econ, and as I said that was 25 years ago. Capitalism for Dummies.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

shorter rdw again

kyoto, europe, supply side, reagan, kerry, cambodia,i got mine pal,kyoto, europe, supply side, reagan, kerry, cambodia,i got mine pal,kyoto, europe, supply side, reagan, kerry, cambodia,i got mine pal,kyoto, europe, supply side, reagan, kerry, cambodia,i got mine pal,kyoto, europe, supply side, reagan, kerry, cambodia,i got mine pal

Oh, rd, one thing the WSJ was so fucking far off it isn't even funny...Iraq. From the lead up, to the we're turning a corner, to today they couldn't have been more off target.

Funny you didn't bring that up.

Posted by: Rocky on December 21, 2006 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK
...There's no one better at satire and sarcasm than Mark Steyn. rightist dim wit at 12:38 AM
Puleeze, Steyn is a rightist hack who is a paid propagandist. He's as reliable and sensible as Ann Coulter. No wonder you wallow in ignorance. Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

cyntax,

You are as ignorant as GC.

She was trying to explain that as Oprah, George Clooney the Clintons and Gores get richer the poor get poorer.

Want to explain that?


BTW: You have no idea what that paragraph you pullout out is saying. If you did you would never have posted it moron.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not the one so ignorant as to confuse macro and micro economics. I attemped, admittedly feebly as I'm not an economist, to explain capitalist economy and you refute me using two rich people as an example? Non Sequiter, or literally it does not follow.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

GC,

You can't possibly have read the link you posted. Here's the last sentence:

So---in my humble opinion---the possibility of earning a profit is the best engine for social progress that ever existed---and is in no way a matter of "exploitation" as many Leftists want us to believe.

Is that what you were saying?

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 12:47 AM | PERMALINK
...Oprah, George Clooney the Clintons and Gores get richer the poor get poorer... rightist dim wit at 12:43 AM
It's interesting that he lists not one single CEO growing richer by the day while his workers wages are stagnant but only mentions those hated Hollywood and Democratic folks. Do you think he's showing "media bias?" Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

you are close to reaching my limit of tolerance for abuse

Posted by: . on December 21, 2006 at 12:49 AM | PERMALINK

you refute me using two rich people as an example? Non Sequiter, or literally it does not follow.

Actually it follows perfectly. What did any of these people do to make poor people poorer? All are fabulously wealthy.

Capitalism isn't remotely complicated. The notion
that people become rich exploiting poor people is abolutely and obviously braindead stupid. No 5 year old would fall for it. You cannot get wealthy on the backs of poor people for the same reason you can't get blood from a stone.

You are burnt out! It's the simpliest form of logic. It's pure common sense. You have been blinded by lefty ideology.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

cyntax,
You are as ignorant as GC.

Well as long as I'm not so ignorant as to admire Steyn, then I don't think I'll worry about it.

But to clarify, I was simply pointing out that your dismissal didn't actually address anything that was written. But really I can't expect you to engage in substantive debate.

Posted by: cyntax on December 21, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

s interesting that he lists not one single CEO growing richer

Oprah is wealthier than 99% of CEO. Basketball Players make more than 99% of CEOs. If George Clooney makes one movie a year he makes more than 99% of CEOs. If he makes two he makes more than 99.9% of CEOs.

If rich people getting rich makes poor people poorer it s/b very easy to explain using people we all know.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

First of all, I never denied ignorance of economics. I do believe I stated that up front and repeatedly, so calling me ignorant of the topic is not the insult you intend.

Second, where did I equate capitalism with evil? I said when I entered this discussion that how we treat the 3-4% who don't benefit no matter what, the chronically unemployable, etc - is a sad commentary.

So stop trying to ascribe me motives or claim that you know what motivates me, what I think or what I find important, worrisome or thrilling, because you have no fucking idea what motivates me, Schmendrick.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

But really I can't expect you to engage in substantive debate.


You posted something you have no clue about and had nothing to do with what GC was attempting to prove. There was no chance for substantive debate since neither of you have the slighest clue about the subject. GC has a least admitted it.

Let's try this again. Rich people getting richer make the poorer even poorer. How exactly does
Oprah do this?

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

Again, you are conflating macro and micro economics. There is no debate the way you are attempting to frame it. This is what makes you so infurriating.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK
If rich people getting rich makes poor people poorer it s/b very easy to explain using people we all know. rightist dim wit at 12:57 AM
It's easy to explain by looking at corporate capitalists as well, and it is clear that a few overpaid people suck up the amount of capital available that could have been spread more equitably among other actors and players. Still, why not include someone like Rudy Guilani who has made over $10,000 in speaking fees for every one killed on 9-11? Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

also, Reuters has led the blogosphere to invent the term "fauxtography", and AP has been publishing historical fiction, 61 stories which they attribute to the unidentified "Jamil Hussein", which you can read about at Hotair and other places that she links.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on December 21, 2006 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK
Again, you are conflating macro and micro economics...Global Citizen on at 1:04 AM
In addition to limiting his examples to none corporate people who actually do exploit the working and middle class. When you frame your examples, it's easier to hide bias, and rightist dim wit is nothing but a bag of bias. Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

You posted something you have no clue about and had nothing to do with what GC was attempting to prove. There was no chance for substantive debate since neither of you have the slighest clue about the subject. GC has a least admitted it.

Go back and reread what I wrote, I also said I know nothing about it and I wasn't posting what I did because it proved GC's point, but because you were dismissing what she wrote out-of-hand. If you were right to dismiss her points without addressing them, then it seems I should not have been able to find as easily as I did articles that used the same terms she did in relation to economics.

I'm not going to learn economics just to debate you, but even I could see, knowing nothing about economics that you weren't engaging her on the merits of her arguement. But I don't think I've ever seen you do that so why start now?

Posted by: cyntax on December 21, 2006 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

Again, you are conflating macro and micro economics.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I do know economics.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Just keep ignoring them - maybe they'll go away then. Ann Coulter, Stanley Kurtz, Cici Connelly, Brian Williams, Chris Matthews. Just keep ignoring them while they savage Dems. Look how well that has worked in the past.

How about challenging their shit more than once every blue fucking moon?

Posted by: Dude on December 21, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK
... they attribute to the unidentified "Jamil Hussein"... MatthewRMarler at 1:08 AM
You're a tad behind times, fella. Didn't you hear that your fellow conservative guy from Pajamas Media, Armed Liberal, discovered Jamail Hussein at the same police station where he was supposed to be? AP and ABC are corporate tools for the RNC and it's funnier than all get out to read rightists thrash their media allies. Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

but because you were dismissing what she wrote out-of-hand.

She dismissed what she wrote!

If you were right to dismiss her points without addressing them, then it seems I should not have been able to find as easily as I did articles that used the same terms she did in relation to economics.

You didn't find anything. You think because the word 'frontier' was in that gobblygook it applied?
You printed nonsense that was totally unrelated to her nonsense.

There's no rocket science here. It's common sense 101. NO ONE can get rich exploiting poor people. It's against all know laws of the universe. They have no money. There's nothing to exploit.

I'll agree CEOs often make disgusting amounts of money. So does Oprah, George Clooney, Tiger Woods, Michael Moore, Stephen Speilberg, Mick, Madonna, etc.

None of them make poor people poorer. ALL of them would make MORE money if those poor people were middle class.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK
...I do know economics. rightist dim wit at 1:13 AM
That is a truly laughable assertion.
...How about challenging their shit ...Dude at 1:15 AM
Yo, dude, I do that every day. I have a list of over 500 media whores and hacks in my address list and I scour the internet to find their factual errors which I promptly point out to them. Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

Desperately Seeking Jamil Hussein

The saga of Associated Press source Jamil Hussein continues. Hussein has been cited in no fewer than 61 AP stories, most or all relating to violent incidents in pretty much all quarters of Baghdad. The AP has consistently identified Hussein as a "police captain," and has named two police stations with which he allegedly has been associated.

The controversy began when the AP used Hussein as its chief source for a sensational story about six Sunnis being dragged from a mosque and burned alive by a Shia militia. Doubts were expressed by the Iraqi government, as well as the U.S. Army, about whether the incident occurred, and official Iraqi sources stated further that there is no "police captain Jamil Hussein" in Baghdad.

Michelle Malkin sums up the current state of the search for the elusive Captain Hussein. Suffice it to say that it appears increasingly improbable that such a person exists. Given that he has ostensibly been in frequent contact with AP reporters--frequent enough to be cited as a source at least 61 times--it is hard to understand why the AP is apparently unable to produce him. Also, to the best of my knowledge Captain Hussein has not been used as a source by the AP since the controversy became public. Why not? Will he ever appear as a source again? If not, what inferences can we draw?

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

mike - no offense, but i was talking to kevin, who has a much bigger voice than you. it was kevin and his cohort who remained silent while gore was savaged, and who remain either silent or willfully ignorant today, while the right and the MSM prepare to savage whatever dem is up for savaging in '08

Posted by: dude on December 21, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK
...NO ONE can get rich exploiting poor people.... rightist dim wit at 1:22 AM |
There is another laughable assertion. You know as little about economics as you do about everything. The exploitation is via underpaid labor and overpriced rents, food, gas, and other necessities. That's the reason they have no money. Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

No problem, dude.

Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

You didn't find anything. You think because the word 'frontier' was in that gobblygook it applied?
You printed nonsense that was totally unrelated to her nonsense.

No, I never said it applied. I don't think it applies any better than your original dismissal did. That's the point.

Posted by: cyntax on December 21, 2006 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

No, I never said it applied

So why post it?

My point was GC was spitting out liberal nonsense. We both agree it was nonsense. So you posted more nonsense and that makes a point? What are you smoking?

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK
Michelle Malkin sums up the current state of the search for the elusive Captain Hussein. ...rightist dim wit at 1:25 AM
Malkin, the racist nutjob must also behind in her reading. You could have saved yourself the trouble by clicking the link. Quoting that looney is no better than quoting Steyn, Coulter, Hannity or any of the hundreds of rightwing moonbats infesting America's political discourse. Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

Well, it has been entertaining having The Three Stooges, Curly, Moe and Larry, er rdw, "ex-lib" and the Mauler the Matt with us tonight.

If woot "learned" econ at Drexel University, that school's econ department should be placed on permanent suspension. Sounds more like he learned to get money out of pay phones when he worked for Verizon.

Oh, yeah, as Mark Styn says, The Mormons and the Mexicans will inherit America - Sounds like a bad joke in Salt Lake City about having a months supply of stolen groceries in the basement.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 21, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

My point was GC was spitting out liberal nonsense. We both agree it was nonsense. So you posted more nonsense and that makes a point?

Who agreed with you again?

No, I posted something that had as much merit as your dismissal.

Posted by: cyntax on December 21, 2006 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

There is a gulf between admitting to limited knowledge of a topic and dismissing ones own opinion as nonsense and i did no such thing, and I really wish one of the regulars with more social sciences knowlege would come to this thread. Now if I thought you knew any more than I did about the topic...

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

I remember Reaganomics well.

Tax cuts for the rich the first year, then having to raise taxes on the middle class the next four consecutive years, to make up for the lost tax revenue.

Posted by: AkaDad on December 21, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK
... raise taxes on the middle class the next four consecutive years...AkaDad on December 21, 2006 at 1:44 AM
I remember the biggest recession since the great depression, the biggest deficits in history (up till now), the biggest tax increase in history (adjusted for inflation), the higher Social Security taxes, Iran-Contra, the death of 240 Marines in Lebanon, and on and on. What a loser and that is the fool that is the Hero of Republicans. At least he tried to make up the revenue. Republicans don't give a damn about their country and its problems anymore. They just want theirs and to hell with everyone else and the future. Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2006 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for your help Mike, Cyntax, et al. I know better than to try to debate one who insists at looking through a microscope at the big picture, but it isn't about converting him.

It is about not letting the bullshit go unchallenged because political blogging is not about the fifty or so of us who comment regularly; it is about the thousands of lurkers who never comment but who none the less form their opinions in part by reading ours.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

Roger that GC.

:)

Posted by: cyntax on December 21, 2006 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks to Pale Rider, Global Citizen, cyntax, Mike and
thethirdPaul for smacking the dummy silly on the Swift Boat Vets.

rdw:

One last time. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK about Christmas in Cambodia.
It's like saying that Clinton visited Moscow as a Rhodes scholar,
as if that somehow throws his patriotism into question. If the
guy misremembered something that long ago and arrogantly overstated
how well he thought he remembered it -- it's far less relevant than
the overall thrust of his comments on the Vietnam war. And guess
what, Wooten? History has proven him RIGHT. Had we withdrew in '68,
we would have saved about 20k American lives, countless Vietnamese
lives -- and their Communist society would have evolved to the point
that they'd be our trading partner today, regardless. IOW, neither
we nor Vietnam got ANYTHING out of escalating that conflict.

JOHN KERRY WAS RIGHT ABOUT VIETNAM. CHOKE ON IT !!!

>> "I was only following orders" shows that he was in deep denial
>> about the morality of administering a bureacracy dedicated to
>> exterminatining a race of people. Eichmann thought of himself
>> as a "good German" just doing his duty

> It didn't work because they were all liars. They all hated
> jews and enjoyed killing them. It was hardly limited to Jews
> either. They were equal opportunity haters. The following
> orders was mere desperation to save their necks.

Well, you obviously haven't read Hannah Arendt's classic account of
the Nuremburg trials. By imputing motives to Adolph Eichmann, all
you're doing is pulling stuff straight out of your butt, the way you
impute motives to me, or to Global Citizen, or to cyntax or to anyone
you debate. You're quite fond of telling people what they think.

You obviously know less than any military veteran should be forgiven
for about the Final Solution. Hey Wooten, did you know that there
were no death camps in Nazi Germany? There were concentration camps,
POW camps and work camps, but the extermination camps were in Poland,
Ukraine and Croatia. The German people didn't know about the Final
Solution, which was plotted out in the Wannasee Conference and kept
secret. In fact, this is one of the roots of Holocaust denial.

Adolf Eichmann was neither a brownshirt nor a member of the Waffen
SS. He was an upper-middle-class product of the German university
system, a civilian technocrat. "I was only following orders" wasn't
something he just blurted out at the trial -- he documented it. He
was a member of no anti-semitic societies, published no anti-semitic
rants and his personal behavior was quite ordinary. This is, again,
what Arendt -- who witnessed the entire trial -- means by the banality
of evil. Eichmann was an ordinary, conventional churchgoing German
with no special malice towards Jews. I don't even think he was a
member of the Nazi Party -- or certainly not an early member.

>> But in your own little way, you with your daughters and your
>> unionized son-in-law scamming on his tax paperwork, your endless
>> cheerleading for a regime that rapes the Constitution and commits
>> mass murder, your inability to empathize with the people in this
>> country who are truly hurting, your insistence that we live in
>> the best of all possible worlds -- in your own little way,
>> Wooten, you represent the banality of evil as well.

> I am none of that. This is nothing more than a little mind at work.
> You can't debate on the facts so you resort to personal attacks.

Wooten, that *wasn't* a personal attack. In fact, in order for you
to make it *look* like a personal attack, you had to delete the first
sentence of that paragraph, effectively quoting me out of context.

That's rhetorically dishonest, Wooten. Quote a sentence if you
like, even a phrase -- but otherwse quote a whole paragraph intact.

The first line you cut out was "I don't think you're a bad guy,
Wooten." And you know what -- I don't. I'd probably enjoy having a
Yuengling or two with you at a Philly bar. I could tell you some of
my dad's hysterical stories about West Catholic High. But nonetheless,
you are blindsided by ideology. You support an immoral, destructive,
unnecessary war and a discredited economic ideology which has saddled
your grandchildren with massive debt -- and you spend literally all
your time on this blog trying to justify and rationalize these things.

[...]

> You know I am correct and you just can't bear to fact it.
> Nothing is more comical than this freak show reacting to
> good news I print about the USA. They want to scream,
> "You're wrong. We suck!" How pitiful is that?

Wooten, what we who argue with you are doing is taking the deepest
and most important values of the country we treasure -- values
embedded in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the
Federalist Papers and in the best moments of our history -- and
applying them to the current situation. Because we're gravely
disappointed, Wooten, doesn't mean we hate this country any more
than a parent hates his child because the child misbehaved.

Even most of your right-wing confreres have stopped trying to
justify an unjustifiable war -- not to mention the dishonest way
our president led us into it, or the incompetent way the war was
prosecuted. Even many of the culturalist intellectuals you like
to read find it uncomfortable to cozy up to two cultures that until
very recently practiced child slavery (China) and burning widows
alive (India), while throwing a culture under the bus with whom we
share all of our most important values (Western Europe). You do
this in the name of a heartless and soulless economic ideology
that chases ever-expanding profit above all, and creates vast
seas of inequality so a small percentage can become obscenely
wealthy. There's a philosophical name for allowing this inhuman
force drive all of human history for the aggrandisement of a few:

It's called nihilism, Wooten.

You could also call it the banality of evil.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on December 21, 2006 at 3:20 AM | PERMALINK

Bob, I'm off to bed, but I just wanted to say that that was a very good post. Perhaps one of your better. I especially liked the closing.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 3:47 AM | PERMALINK

Globe:

For you, my dear, from a mutual favorite author who has a soft spot in his heart for women scientists and mathematicians (in his new novel, the beautiful and mysterious Yashmeen Halfcourt, studying advanced math in Gottingen, is obsessed with Riemann's Zeta function).

This, however, is from the older masterpiece which you have read:

Kekule went looking among the molecules of the time for the hidden shapes he knew were there, shapes he did not like to think of as real physical structures, but as "rational formulas," showing the relationships that went on in "metamorphoses," his quaint 19th century way of saying "chemical reactions." But he could visualize. He saw the four bonds of carbon, lying in a tetrahedron -- he showed how carbon atoms could link up, one to another, into long chains ... but he was stumped when he got to benzene. He knew there were six carbon atoms with a hydrogen attatched to each one -- but he could not see the shape. Not until the dream: until he was made to see it, so that others might be seduced by its physical beauty, and begin to think of it as a blueprint, a basis for new compounds, new arrangements, so that there would be a field of aromatic chemistry to ally itself with secular power, and find new methods of synthesis, so there would be a German dye industry to become the IG ...

Kekule dreams the Great Serpent holding its own tail in its mouth, the dreaming Serpent which surrounds the World. But the meanness, the cynicism with which this dream is to be used. The Serpent that announces, "The World is a closed thing, cyclical, resonant, eternally-returning," is to be delivered into a system whose only aim is to violate the Cycle. Taking and not giving back, demanding that "productivity" and "earnings" keep on increasing with time, the System removing from the rest of the World these vast quantities of energy to keep its own tiny desperate fraction showing a profit: and not only most of humanity -- most of of the World, animal, vegetable and mineral, is laid waste in the process. The System may or may not understand that it's only buying time. And that time is an artificial resource to begin with, of no value to anyone or anything but the System, which sooner or later must crash to its death...

...when its addiction to energy has become more than the rest of the World can supply, dragging with it innocent souls all along the chain of life. Living inside the System is like riding across the country in a bus driven by a maniac bent on suicide ... though he's amiable enough, keeps cracking jokes back through the loudspeaker, "Good morning folks, this is Heidelberg here we're coming into now, you know the old refrain, 'I lost my heart in Heidelberg,' well I have a friend who lost both his ears here! Don't get me wrong, it's really a nice town, the people are warm and wonderful -- when they're not duelling. Seriously though, they treat you just fine, they don't just give you the key to the city, they give you the bung-starter!" u.s.w.

On you roll, across a countryside whose light is forever changing -- castles, heaps of rock, moons of different shapes and colors come and go. There are stops at odd hours of the mornings, for reasons that are not announced: you get out to stretch in lime-lit courtyards where the old men sit around the table under enormous eucalyptus trees you can smell in the night, shuffling the ancient decks oily and worn, throwing down swords and cups and trumps major in the tremor of light while behind them the bus is idling, waiting -- passengers will now reclaim their seats and much as you'd like to find your old age around this quiet table, it's no use: he is wating beside the door of the bus in his pressed uniform, Lord of the Night he is checking your tickets, your ID and travel papers, and it's the wands of enterprise that dominate tonight ...

As he nods you by, you catch a glimpse of his face, his insane, committed eyes, and you remember then, for a terrible few heartbeats, that of course it will end for you all in blood, in shock, without dignity -- but there is meanwhile this trip to be on ... over your own seat, where there ought to be an advertising plaque, is instead a quote from Rilke: "Once, only once ... " One of Their favorite slogans. No return, no salvation, no Cycle -- that's not what They, nor their brilliant employee Kekule, have taken the Serpent to mean. No: what the Serpent means is -- how's this -- that the six carbon atoms of benzene are in fact curled around into a closed ring, just like that snake with the tail in its mouth, GET IT?

"The aromatic Ring we know today," Pokler's old prof, Laszlo Jamf, at this point in the spiel removing from his fob a gold hexagon with the German formee cross in the center, a medal of honor from IG Farben, joking, in his lovable-old-fart manner, that he likes to think of the cross not as German so much as standing for the tetravalence of carbon -- "but who, lifting his open hands on each beat, like a bandleader, "who, sent, the Dream?" It is never clear how rhetorical any of Jamf's questions are. "Who sent this new serpent to our ruinous garden, already too fouled, too crowded, to qualify as any locus of innocence -- unless innocence be our age's neutral, our silent passing into the machineries of indifference -- something that Kekule's Serpent had come to -- not to destroy but to define to us the loss of ... we had been given certain molecules, certain combinations and not others ... we used what we found in Nature, unquestioning, shamefully perhaps -- ...

... but the Serpent whispered 'They can be changed, and new molecules assembled from the debris of the given ...' Can anyone tell me what else he whispered to us? Come -- who knows? You. Tell me, Pokler --"

--Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow" (pp. 412-13, Viking ed.)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on December 21, 2006 at 5:29 AM | PERMALINK

Non Sequiter, or literally it does not follow.
Posted by: Global Citizen

Ooops.

Bob's gonna get ya with a boldface 'u'. The crushing sarcasm of it! Made me quake with remorse, I can tell you. My bottom lip quivered.

blah blah blah BLAH

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 7:04 AM | PERMALINK

One last time. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK about Christmas in Cambodia.
It's like saying that Clinton visited Moscow as a Rhodes scholar,
as if that somehow throws his patriotism into question.

You have been especially dense on this post. My standards for libs are low buy you've managed to fall through even that floor.

No one said you care about Xmas in Cambodia or even knew about it (until I told you) and THAT was the point being made by David Brooks. With the end of the MSM monoploy ABC and the NYTs can no longer bury important stories. You didn't care but clearly a majority DID care.

What does patriotism have to do with it? Xmas in Cambidia was about moral character and intelligence as well as the fecklessness of the MSM. It proves Kerry a Liar. It proved Kerry a dumb liar. Watching the MSM 'miss' an incredibly stupid lie without a shred of curiosity confirms everything we knew about the MSM

Brooks said the libs would be totally out to lunch blissfully unaware of the pathetic nature of the story because they like their news scrubbed by ABC ad ABC likes ot scrub it. You were ignorant on the story because you chose ignorance.

A smart strategy pre 1994.

I can't imagine how Bill Clinton doing a road trip in college has any conection in any way to Xmas in Cambodia.

BTW: I thought what really killed Kerry on Xmas in Cambodia was his denial. 30 years after the fact he lacked the moral character to admit what was so obviously a lie. Weak character, very poor decision making skills.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 8:12 AM | PERMALINK

Wooten, that *wasn't* a personal attack. In fact, in order for you
to make it *look* like a personal attack,

It was a personal aattack. There is no other way to define it. I understand a look in the mirror can be unpleasant but there was no call for that. Lacking facts to argue you lost your composure.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 8:16 AM | PERMALINK

The first line you cut out was "I don't think you're a bad guy,
Wooten." And you know what -- I don't

Other than representing the banality evil I'm not bad guy. Is this more liberal logic as in the rich getting richer robbing the poor?

Bob, I can't represent evil and be a decent guy. Can't have it both ways. It just doesn't work.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

Because we're gravely
disappointed, Wooten, doesn't mean we hate this country any more
than a parent hates his child because the child misbehaved.

Now you're really being pitiful. I invoke cool facts about our amazing wealth creation because it drives liberals up the proverbial wall. How dare I say something good about this country!

You can be against the war without that. You can be against the entire tax structure without that.

It gets even better when I compare the positve trends in the USA with the negative trends in Western Europe.

Only hatred can drive such irrational behavior. Only hatred can drive the ability to drive the good and great news on progress in this country.

I am certain if your read yesterday's WSJ's editorial detailing the UN data detailing the very positive results in lowering emissions WHILE the EU is going in the opposite direction you would have been absolutely furious. Your 1st raction would be stunned disbelief and then a call for censorship of the WSJ. You, and your peers on this blog hate the WSJ.

This is the point Kurtz was making. ABC will never let thos stats see the light of day. There is no chance they would ever, ever show the USA doing well by pollution and especially not in reference to the dismal performance by the EU. And the WSJ didn't even show Canada's far more dismal performance.

ABC knows their audience. They would lose market share immediately. Thus, as sane people fund out they're little more than a propaganda outlet, especially younger sane people, they tune out the MSM entirely.

This explains the steady loss of market share which has actually been accelerating. My father has even given up on the MSM except for local news.

The other problem you have to deal with Bob is that denial of the obvious can only make you more pathetic over time. Kyoto is absolutely a total disaster. It is a monument to mismanagement and unintended consequences. China is choking die to Kyoto mandated transfers.

Europe is dying. The facts are in. There's no changing anything. You can't increase the number of births over the last 35 years. We are going to see a dramatic shrinkage. It's a fact that cannot be changed. We also know Europeans are committed multi-culturalist with their largest growing minority being the most vicious of the anti-multiculturalists.

We know for a fact the borders of Islam are bloody (see harvard prof's Samuel Huntingtons class of civilizations where it's well documented) And now those borders are in Europe.

It's not pretty Bob. You can deny it but you can't put earrings on this pig. GWB has had to make a number of very difficult decisions. Pulling away from Europe wasn't one of them. We've been bailing them out of self-inflicted disaster for 90 years. It ends now. You've been unaware of his many tacticals moves because you chose to be unaware. It happened nonetheless and there's no turning back.

Were fantastically wealthy Bob, get over it.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 8:45 AM | PERMALINK

Read Hannah Arendt.

Or William Shirer's 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich', as well as 'Berlin Diary'.

Get back to us in a couple of years.

If your head hasn't exploded.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: The facts are in.

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass and punched you in the face.

It ends now.

Somebody forgot to tell Bush and Condi.

It's a fact that cannot be changed.

Conservatives fantasize facts, turn opinion into fact, and then insist both can't be changed.

It's called faith over reality.

Clap harder, rdw, it isn't working. See, e.g., Iraq.

Conservative fact: Saddam has massive stockpiles of WMDs.

Conservative fact: Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Conservative fact: The Iraqis will welcome us with open arms and parades.

Conservative fact: Iraqi oil will pay for the war.

Conservative fact: The war will be over in six weeks.

Conservative fact: The war will cost less than $100 million.

Conservative fact: Mission Accomplished.

Conservative fact: The GOP will hold the Senate.

Conservative fact: The Democratic Party won't pick up as many seats as predicted.

Conservative fact: Katrina will haunt Democrats worse than Bush.

Conservative fact: The GOP will increase their control of the nation's governorships.

True fact: conservatives wrong on all counts.

Posted by: Google_This on December 21, 2006 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

while throwing a culture under the bus with whom we share all of our most important values (Western Europe).

We're not throwing Western Europe under a bus. Western Europe is attempting suicide for the 3rd time in a century. They're like a child we're allowing to stand as an adult, on their own two feet.

This is pure suicide. Every aspect is self-inflicted and well thought out. True their press is even more abysmal that ours however that is by choice. Western Europe is following the path of Neville Chamberlain knowing fully the consequences of their actions. That is their choice. It is our responsibility to move as far away as possible as soon as possible.

They've made a series of bad diplomatic decisions, bad military decisions (funding, staffing) horrible tax decisions, horrible regulatory decisions, etc. They designed every aspect. They planned for every aspect. They've earned their current position.

In all of that the dumbest thing they've done is show their contempt for America. Chirac is a dickhead. It would be one thing if we liked them just a little bit. It as very nice of ABC not to report on the incessant cheap shots from the EU and UN. Like that clown from Finland, Jan Egland I think his name, about the US being stingy. Huh?

Not in a million years would ABC have shown that quote if it had not been all over Cable.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: I invoke cool facts about our amazing wealth creation because it drives liberals up the proverbial wall.

Your opinions are not fact; your facts are not real; your lies are loathsome.

Now, those are some cool facts!

I am certain if your read yesterday's WSJ's editorial detailing the UN data detailing the very positive results in lowering emissions WHILE the EU is going in the opposite direction you would have been absolutely furious.

Since the WSJ routinely lies, there is nothing to be furious about.

You, and your peers on this blog hate the WSJ.

It is just and righteous to hate liars.

You, on the other hand, hate those who expose the truth.

Posted by: Google_This on December 21, 2006 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: They've made a series of bad diplomatic decisions, bad military decisions (funding, staffing) horrible tax decisions, horrible regulatory decisions, etc. They designed every aspect. They planned for every aspect. They've earned their current position.

That's a description of Bush, not Western Europe.

Posted by: Google_This on December 21, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: In all of that the dumbest thing they've done is show their contempt for America.

This is a lie, of course, as is most of what flows from rdw's keyboard.

The French showed their contempt for Bush and his administration, a well-founded contempt, not America.

Most Americans agree.

They spoke their agreement in November 2006.

You lose.

Posted by: Google_This on December 21, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: It as very nice of ABC not to report on the incessant cheap shots from the EU and UN.

Maybe the so-called "cheap shots" were inspired by a decade of actual cheap shots at Europe by American conservatives whose foreign and domestic policies have failed miserably, American conservatives who have looked everywhere else to blame in order to avoid looking in the mirror at the real culprits.

Posted by: Google_This on December 21, 2006 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: This is pure suicide.

Another description applicable to the actions of the Bush administration and the GOP.

Only, they actually succeeded!

Posted by: Google_This on December 21, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

So what do the trolls say when one of their own turns and puts the knife in their back?

When the Media’s Right
Bias at war.
By Rich Lowry

[From the rdw-approved news source, The New Republic Online...]

First Lady Laura Bush spoke for many conservatives when she excoriated the media’s coverage of Iraq the other day. She complained that “the drumbeat in the country from the media ... is discouraging,” and said “there are a lot of good things happening that aren’t covered.”

What are those things, one wonders? One can only imagine how Mrs. Bush can figure that they outweigh the horrors in Iraq. The U.N.’s High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that more than 1.6 million Iraqis have fled the country, about 7 percent of the population. But that means that an overwhelming 93 percent haven’t left. Why doesn’t the liberal media ever report that? About 120 Iraqis are killed per day, nearly 4,000 a month. But most are still living. Couldn’t one of the morning shows do a soft feature on this heartwarming fact?

[snip]

their distrust of the mainstream media, their defensiveness over President Bush and the war, and their understandable urge to buck up the nation’s will, many conservatives lost touch with reality on Iraq. They thought that they were contributing to our success, but they were only helping to forestall a cold look at conditions there and the change in strategy and tactics that would be dictated by it.

“Realism” has gotten a bad name lately from its association with James Baker’s daffy Iraq Study Group. But realism is essential in any war, and it is impossible without an ability to assimilate bad news, even bad news that comes from distasteful sources. Conservatives need to realize that something is not dubious just because it’s reported by the New York Times, and that the media ultimately will be wrong about Iraq only if — fully acknowledging how bad it is there — the Bush administration takes bold steps to reverse the tide.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 21, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

Pale, the man's got a three car garage! In the suburbs!

Therefor: All's for the best in the best of all worlds.

Until the company he retired from defaults on his pension and health insurance...

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

With the fulsomely expressed blessings of the WSJ editorial page, which will speak glowingly of the company's need to become more competitive by ridding itself of unproductive 'legacy costs' - like rdw.

His world will shatter into a million fragments.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, woot, he's so fine, he's so fine, he's so fine he blows my mind.

He is soooooooooooo Coooooooooooooooooooooool!!!!

Kudos to rcmk1 for his response to the Doofus of Drexel Hill.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 21, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

The French showed their contempt for Bush and his administration, a well-founded contempt, not America

Nope. French contempt for America has been a permanent fixture. Bad move not to realize coverage and attitudes in the USA were changing sharply.

One of the comical aspects of my age, 53, is looking back at my 1st exposure to politics was the Kennedy's. Growing up in West phila with a 95% catholic citizenship we were very supportive. I remember Jackie and the 'glamor' all too well. She spoke French don't you know? French fashions were to die for.

We've come a long way.

I look back and am embarrssed for a press that spent the entire period on it's knees. This is so not '62. France is nothing more than a pin-cushion for Jay Leno with the most common discriptor, 'Cheese eating surrender monkey's' Funny and dead on.

You people need to grasp reality. 2009 changes nothing. It's not Bush. It's business. They're not our friends and they bring nothing to the table. More often than not they work against us.

The fact is we've had 6 years of boffo economic growth led by trade and the long list of trade deals signed by Bush is only going to accelerate the trandfer of the bulk of our business interest from Western Europe to everywhere else. Intel already gets $4 of sales in Asia for every $1 from Europe and that number is on it's way to $6.

Sometimes it's not personal. It's business. This is business and personal! France just isn't part of our future.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Until the company he retired from defaults on his pension and health insurance

Took my pension with me AND the healthcare benefits are fully funded in a trust. Fret not about me! The number of telco, electric co, IBM, GE, etc., retirees take their pensions via a cash out and roll into an IRA. In any every virtually every large pension fund os full funded and after returns from 2005 are calculated they'l be over funded.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Ya'betcha, the woot is some kind of Frugtkage - And like most Frugtkage passed around office cubicles by well meaning folk, completely non-edible. "But, meine Mutte made it" - In old Bergen, we would have used it to stun the fiske -Munch merely captured the look of horror on the face of the person who had just been offered a piece of Frugtkage.

Glaedelig Jul

Posted by: Ole Olesen on December 21, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

His world will shatter into a million fragments.

My friend I have to tell you I've been blessed. I live 10 minutes from tax free shopping in Delaware and 10 minutes from horse country. My daughter goes to a brand new $62M high school set on 100 acres (more than needed but this farmer wanted to sell all or nothing and voters agreed to save the land from development.)

Life had been good. What I have is fairly common in America. Unthinkable in Europe.

BTW, my former corporation is in the best financial health of it's existance. They have very low debt, ample cash and high free cash flow. They are in fact hiring in CA because business is so good.

Verizon, like Excelon, faces hiring issues in the next 5 years are rtiress leave in large numbers while we have 4.5% unemployment.

It's great to be American.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Verizon, like Excelon, faces hiring issues in the next 5 years are rtiress leave in large numbers while we have 4.5% unemployment.

Of course, you fail to mention that the only reason why you have a pension plan and health insurance from Verizon is because of the Communications Workers of America (CWA).

Wooten will now explain how he is sitting on a gold mine with no thanks to the union that handed him the gold mine. Wooten will now say that Verizon would have given its employees even MORE benefits but that darned Union took them all away and Wooten will now explain how Unions are the reason why the French and Kyoto are sinking into oblivion...

Wanna hear something hilarious? These old, retired wingnuts invariably screech about their pensions, their health benefits and their stock options but they always conveniently forget that they wouldn't have one thin dime to their names if it hadn't been for the Union that got it for them long before Reagan started dismantling them.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 21, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

The cause of that persistent lower back pain is unquestionably the stress of walking around with your head so firmly up your own fundamental orifice.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Flashman discovers another No Appearance Guy in the Sydney Morning Herald:


Police said the driver was described as about 22 to 25 years old, 175 centimetres tall with a muscular build.

According to police:


The male driver of the blue Commodore police believe can assist with inquiries has been described as Middle Eastern/Mediterranean in appearance, about 22 to 25 years old and 175cm in height with a muscular build.


Classic MSM: They don't want to offend the islamic minorities by identifying a criminal as middle eastern. In Australia they bypass the pathetic MSM and find out. In Europe they don't. They don't have a clue. That's why Kyoto is garbage in Australia and the USA and the bible in Europe.

They really don't know what's to come.

Whatever it is they're not dragging the USA into it. After 90 years they are on their own.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Wanna hear something hilarious? These old, retired wingnuts invariably screech about their pensions, their health benefits and their stock options but they always conveniently forget that they wouldn't have one thin dime to their names if it hadn't been for the Union that got it for them long before Reagan started dismantling them.
Posted by: Pale Rider


They also fail to understand that their pensions and benefits are effectively taxation of the younger work force who will invariably face a lower standard of living as a result.

rdw does not grasp cause and effect in any remotely plausible relationship.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

will now explain how Unions are the reason why the French and Kyoto are sinking into oblivion...

Not at all. The French are liberals. so is most of Europe. They don't have conservtives. They have two parties with one representing the right and one the left but in terms of political philosophy it's really left and far left.

The US has plenty of unions but we also have supply side economics and much less regulation. The only places the unions rule they get the crap beat out of them if they get stupid. Consider Michigan. Our unions must recognize competitive pressures or die. Europe keeps them alive. So instead of the union dying Europe is dying.

I am a fan of those unions who see themselves as partly responsible for the health of the company. That's too few. While in the CWA is saw mostly anti-compettive practives that often has zero to do with job protection. Thus the CWA is about 1/3 the size it once was.

As far as telco's, the CWA is not only smaller, the top jobs were lost before the low jobs with many of ther top classes eliminated. The installation of fiber optic cable has two advantages. Capacity and maintenance. Once installed it virtually eliminates repair manpower.

The CWA made mgt the enemy. Mgt spent two decades focused on eliminating jobs. It's the reason why you rarely get to talk to a person why you call a company.

I knew many of the union diehards. They were morons. Many of them followed their fathers and uncles into the job. Few saw their kids follow them.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: It's great to be American.

Too bad you are anti-American.

Please do not equate pro-rdw with pro-American.

Posted by: Google_This on December 21, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: They were morons.

Ahhhh, the very, very black pot calling the very, very red kettle black.

Posted by: Google_This on December 21, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

They also fail to understand that their pensions and benefits are effectively taxation of the younger work force who will invariably face a lower standard of living as a result.

You are cluelss.

Federal pension laws require all guarranteed benefits be fully funded. For the individual that means by the 1st retirement eligibility date the corporation must have enough funds in the respective trusts to fund the expected lifetime expense of the pensioner.

No system is perfect but all legitimate businesses follow the law. Verizon at one point had over $40B in cash in it's pension/medical trusts. GE, IBM, HP, Merck, Etc. all have huge sums invested in trusts (which they cannot get back except in exveptional circumstances).

This is but one reason the USA is so much better off than Europe. Most Americans plan on not getting SS. Most Europeans depend largely on the state.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: No system is perfect but all legitimate businesses follow the law.

Tautalogical reasoning at its best.

More proof of rdw's inability to comprehend simple logic.

And rdw's ability to remain truly clueless (and dishonest) while accusing others of the same.

Most Americans plan on not getting SS.

Yet another of rdw's many delusions.

Posted by: Google_This on December 21, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Google_This,

You've got to increase your horizons. Allow me to suggest Steyn's book America Alone. He lays out the facts you've never seen before but he's also provided the sources to easily verify them independently.

Europeans are not reproducing. That's just the facts of the matter. And it matters much. When you see the projections showing how quickly the populations shift you will be stunned. Western Europe is going to change more starkly in the next 30 years than in has in the last 200. This is that important and they really have no idea it's coming. It's quite amazing.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Most Americans plan on not getting SS.

Yet another of rdw's many delusions.


Not at all. Most finanical advisors tell their clients for planning purposes to assume they won't be getting SS and they save and invest a lot more. In this way SS is gravy.


Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK
We know for a fact the borders of Islam are bloody

Islam is a religion found in most regions of the world. It doesn't have borders.

Claiming as a "fact" a property of a clearly non-existent entity is somewhat silly.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 21, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: Allow me to suggest Steyn's book America Alone. He lays out the facts you've never seen before but he's also provided the sources to easily verify them independently.

When your sources are liars, it doesn't really matter.

Europeans are not reproducing.

Really? Not a single baby born in Europe this year and none expected in the next year?

Amazing?

No, delusional.

Most finanical advisors tell their clients . . .

Most Americans do not employ financial advisors, even if your assumptions were correct (and they are assumptions - you haven't interviewed most financial advisors, much less most Americans).

Gee, you are even more goofy than usual, rdw.

Western Europe is going to change more starkly in the next 30 years than in has in the last 200.

Right up there with your prediction that the GOP would maintain control of the Senate and the House.

Oops.

Posted by: Google_This on December 21, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

>>Federal pension laws require all guarranteed benefits be fully funded.

Your ignorance is boundless.

There are some Delta pilots here who'd like to have a word with you...

Most private and public pensions are, due to some very lax standards as to what constitutes adequate funding of liabilities, grossly underfunded to the tunes of hundreds of billions.

The defaults, most recently seen in the airline industry and that big parts supplier in the auto industry, have pushed the Federal agency charged with insuring these pensions into a deep, deep hole.

That gaping hole, partially caused by premiums which were artificially low due to political pressure from the corporations, is going to have to be funded from tax revenues/more borrowing - take your pick.

We've seen that the unions will, to preserve the pensions and benefits of retirees and those soon to retire, agree to sacrifice the wages and benefits of younger workers in the so-called two tiered contracts. Recall the supermarket strike in CA...

That is effectively taking earnings and benefits from the younger workers to give to the older.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Mornin' Divine MsN. How's Texas this fine day?

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Irony alert!

Wooten writes: You people need to grasp reality.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

I'm in Acadiana, sweets. Texas is about two hours to the east on I-10. You may have been misled because I'm a Longhorns fan.

heh.

I was born in Texas. I've in Dallas for 9 years.

I tell people I'm the product of a mixed marriage. My Thibodeaux mother married a (gasp) Texan.

We're having our seasonal gulf inversion layer. Heavy fog and a general stickiness.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Brain fart. Texas is WEST on I-10.

I lived in Big D 70's-early 80's.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK
Most finanical advisors tell their clients for planning purposes to assume they won't be getting SS and they save and invest a lot more.

Most financial advisors do that because they have a personal financial interest in maximizing the amount of money their clients invest with them, either getting commissions on the overall total or incentives for selling particular products.

The idea that financial advisers as a class are somehow wise altruists is, well, not born out by reality.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 21, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

A financial adviser was likely part of rdw's benefits contract.

Unions used to be able to do stuff like that.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

If I were George Bush and you were Jim Webb, I would say "That's not what I asked you. I asked how Texas was this morning."

But since I don't take detours to be an asshole I will just say "Oops" and make an effort to put a pin on my mental map...

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

I'm relieved you didn't assign me the aWol part. I was raised by a Marine (2nd Raider Battalion) after all.

I'll try again and more politely.

'I don't have the faintest idea how Texas is this morning but thank you for your interest.'

How's Missouri?

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

It's a beautiful spring day on the left side of the state. The sun is shining and the birsds are singing a confused little tune (yesterday was rainy and cold) and it's 55 degrees. I have the windows and patio doors thrown open and I'm airing out the house.

It's the kind of day that I am havin' fantasies of sheets dried on the line.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, how I miss sheets dried on the line. Wonderful.

We veer back and forth between lows in the 20's to highs in upper 70's and back again. Winter one day. Spring the next.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

There is clean sheet day, and then there is Clean Sheet Day. If you've never had a clothes line, or a grandma with one, I pity you.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

It was my late grandmother of course. So desirable for sheets. Less so for towels which come off the line stiff and sandpapery.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Islam is a religion found in most regions of the world. It doesn't have borders.

Claiming as a "fact" a property of a clearly
non-existent entity is somewhat silly.

Really? So why was/is this book so popular?

The Clash of Civilizations is a controversial theory that people's cultural/religious identity will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. Popularized by Samuel P. Huntington, it was originally formulated in an article titled "The Clash of Civilizations?" published in the academic journal Foreign Affairs in 1993. The term itself was first used by Bernard Lewis in an article in the September 1990 issue of The Atlantic Monthly titled The Roots of Muslim Rage.[1] Huntington later expanded his thesis in a 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. The theory gained widespread attention after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Huntington argues that the Islamic civilization has experienced a massive population explosion which is fueling instability both on the borders of Islam and in its interior, where fundamentalist movements are becoming increasingly popular. Manifestations of what he terms the "Islamic Resurgence" include the 1979 Iranian revolution, the War on Terror, and extremely widespread Islamic opposition to the United States during both Gulf Wars. Perhaps the most controversial statement Huntington made in the Foreign Affairs article was that "Islam has bloody borders". Huntington believes this to be a real consequence of several factors, including the previously mentioned Muslim youth bulge and population growth and Islamic proximity to many civilizations including Sinic, Orthodox, Western, and African.

*********************************************

In fact this book has been one of the most talked about over the last decade and that statement the most famous in the book. The army of the politically correct were very upset as you would expect, however Samuel, unlike 90% of Ivy League professors, has a spine. When attacked he attacked back with a long list of facts. As in the map of Islam with it's very bloody borders detailed. He consistently and aggressively defends his statement which is even more accurate today. This link contains the map of Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations_and_the_Remaking_of_World_Order

The forecast for Europe is that Islam is already changing the map. As you know European society is sharply segregated especially in France with large Islamic envlaves which are effectively solely Islamic. It is within these burbs a very different set of laws are enforced. It's quite safe to be gay in the center of Paris. It's not wise at all to be gay in many of the fringe areas.

There's little doubt Europe is headed toward much larger but equally isolated Islamic enclaves. There is little doubt these enclaves will continue to demand, and enjoy, a certain amount of autonomy. There is little doubt, in another 15 - 25 years, as these enclaves double and triple in size, and the French military becomes increasingly Islamic, the Islamic community within the borders of France, Sweden, The Netherlands, etc., will become semi-autonomous on the way to eventual full autonomy.

They will simply control their space and there's little the federal governments will be able to do.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

The idea that financial advisers as a class are somehow wise altruists is, well, not born out by reality.

No one suggested finanical advisors are any more, or less, altuistic than you, or anyone else. No doubt some do like to increase their income but many do not take a percent and most who do are honest in needing their fiduciary responsibilities. It's always good to 'over' save. Any advisor able to get their clients to do so is generally doing a nice job.

A more common approach is not to assume it won't be there or to ignore it but to consider it was a safety reserve. SS is in much better shape than commonly believed.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

A financial adviser was likely part of rdw's benefits contract.

I haven't been in a union since 1978 and I've never known of any unions negotiating for financial advisors. I was in the IBEW rather than the CWA but they were essentially the same. Thy lost it in the 70's, probably before, when they decided to screw the company. The company screwed them. They've been outsourcing and downsizing ever since. They have a $14B capital investment budget much of it directed toward reducing costs. The decision to make large investments in fiber to replace copper was due partially to the maintenance savings.

The company doesn't even market inside wiring contracts because they don't want the business. Instead they charge outrageous prices forcing consumers to the after-market when they can usually find retired installers to do the work for a fraction of union prices.

I have no idea why unions decide mgt is the enemy and they don't care about the success of the corporation. But I watched it happen. Now unions are a fraction of their former size and the shrinking is far from over.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Urgency? What urgency? [Iain Murray]

When the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, we heard repeatedly that Congress was blocking urgent action on global warming and that something had to be done NOW before it was too late. Now, with people who have argued that hearings on the matter were a waste of time in charge, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change simply states:

[W]e are optimistic that enactment of mandatory US climate action is plausible by 2008 and likely by 2010.

Huh? Where are the demands for action now? What can have changed to calm them down so much? It's almost as if this is merely a political issue to leverage for further electoral gain, not the crisis they've been banging on about.

***********************************************
The folks a PEW had to get really bad feedback from Pelosi regarding immediate action. They are not stupid. They know the longer they wait the more disasterous Kyoto becomes. I've no doubt the US Congress will pass some superficial resolutions but a Kyoto type agreement with any hint of financial penalties is out of the question.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, that sure looked like a big chunk of copy/pasted material [Starting at 'The Clash of Civilizations is a controversial theory. and ending at Islamic proximity to many civilizations including Sinic, Orthodox, Western, and African.] lifted from a review of Harrington's book, which I doubt you've actually read, without attribution.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

This is from the Hillary thread but works here as well

kyoto, john kerry, cambodia, reagan, suburbs, europe, wsj, kyoto, john kerry, cambodia, reagan, suburbs, europe, wsj, kyoto, john kerry, cambodia, reagan, suburbs, europe, wsj, kyoto, john kerry, cambodia, reagan, suburbs, europe, wsj, kyoto, john kerry, cambodia, reagan, suburbs, europe, wsj
Posted by: rdw's feedback loop on December 21, 2006 at 2:33 PM

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

lifted from a review of Harrington's book, which I doubt you've actually read, without attribution.


I included a link. it's from wikipedia. I own the book and have read it. The original essay was written as a reply to Francis Fukayama's 'The end of History'. I've read both and several of Bernard Lewis's books as well.

The two large paragraphs above the asterisks are copied directly from wikipedia. The link is listed below the asterisks.

Chris was making a meaningless point. Islam is a religion but there are almost a dozen Islamic countries. They all have borders. When they border non-islamic nations they are often bloody.

It's fashionable among liberals to ignore the butchery so common in islam. Too bad for our European cousins that won't make it go away. a number of estimates show more islamic findmentalists in Berlin than Cairo. More in Paris than Berlin and more in London than Paris.

Go right ahead and pretend those bloody borders do not exist. The experiences of the security services in Paris the last few years suggest that's not wise. We will all find out in due time.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, thought someone needed a compass for Christmas for a moment.

Yes, those wonderful days of putting out the clothes line all over the yard - filling the three tubs with rinse water - running the clothes through the ringer (and having one of your arms go through with them) - pulling the very heavy overalls upward from the clinging rinse, thrusting them downward, repeating, switching to the next tub and then the next - then hauling upstairs and hanging them on the line - Dang, memories are so wonderful and yet, so easy to remember and looking at the scar on my arm, so hard to forget.

Yes, sheets air dryed do smell better - But, it reminds me of an old cartoon - Showed two Klansmen in sheets - One of them said to the other, "Don't you just love the feel of sheets right out the dryer"

And now back to some smoerbrod and frugtkage - Not of the woot type of bilge, though.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 21, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Wilson Goes Quiet
"Former ambassador Joseph Wilson asked a federal judge Wednesday not to force him to testify in the CIA leak case and accused former White House aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby of trying to harass him on the witness stand," the Associated Press reports from Washington:

"Mr. Libby should not be permitted to compel Mr. Wilson's testimony at trial either for the purpose of harassing Mr. Wilson or to gain an advantage in the civil case," Wilson's attorneys wrote.

Hmm, for a guy who burst onto the scene three years ago as the most garrulous figure since Ted Turner, and who then wrote a book called "The Politics of Truth," Wilson is awfully averse to testifying under oath.

********************************************
The above is from the WSJ. Wilson is desperate to avoid the witness stand. Given the beating he's already taken in the Washington Post and elsewhere he's finally getting a clue. Fitz is equally desperate. They shred the fool.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: So why was/is this book so popular?

Might as well try to explain why Hitler was so popular with conservatives in the 30s and 40s.

SS is in much better shape than commonly believed.

An admission that conservatives have lied about yet one more issue.

But I watched it happen.

You also watched Bush "find" WMDs.

Delusion is like that. You see things that aren't there. Looks like you've been delusional for a while. Since the beginning of your union days.

It's fashionable among liberals to ignore the butchery so common in islam.

It is fashionable among conservatives to ignore the butchery and support of butchers so common in conservatism, especially American conservatism.

Go right ahead and pretend those bloody borders do not exist. The experiences of the security services in Paris the last few years suggest that's not wise. We will all find out in due time.

So, which Islamic country borders France, rdw?


Posted by: Google_This on December 21, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Good point above about woot's talking points - He makes the same points over and over and over - He rarely comes with anything new - His points are the boiler plate of the cultist - And he is a cultist - So, I suggest he number his boiler plate talking points and, to save time and space, simply throw which ones he will be using on a particular thread - "Hi, it's me again and I think Numbers 7 through 18 are REALLY!!!!! important - Not that they are anyway near to the subject matter of this thread, but, I just feel soooo compelled to 'share' them with you."

Woot is in the cult of Mark Steyn - If you go to the Amazon reviews of Steyn's new book, you will find statements of other cultists - They are Islamophobic in nature - "Oh my God of neocons, the Islamos are coming - America will be overrun by the Mormons, Mexicans and Islamos. They are the only ones who are fucking for revenge, not pleasure".

As any cultist, they and he, the woot, are beyond any reasoned argument - You are dealing with a Zealot.

And now back to All Woot, All Crap, All Day -

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 21, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

CNN.com: U.S. supports sanctions for Iran's 'defiance'

Hmmmmmmm . . .

Scare quotes or not?

Let's have our resident "scare quote expert," ex-liberal, weigh in.

Also, question: if Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or the NRO uses a single word in quotes, are they scare quotes or not, ex-liberal, or does your rule only apply to "liberal" outlets?

Posted by: Google_This on December 21, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

So, which Islamic country borders France, rdw?

That's the problem for Europe. Islam is within Europe but not part of Europe. They are the fastest growing group within matching against a rapidly shrinking native population. It is a total disaster matching a tolerant majority dedicated to multi-culturalism versus the most intolerant of minorities.

This can't go well and it will not go well.


Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Google_This: CNN.com: U.S. supports sanctions for Iran's 'defiance'

Scare quotes or not?

Let's have our resident "scare quote expert," ex-liberal, weigh in.

Yes. Scare quotes. (I don't think CNN is doing what my mother-in-law does, which is to put quotes around words to emphasize them.) I read these quotes to mean that CNN doesn't necessarily agree America's allegation that Iran is truly defiant. CNN is being foolishly neutral between the United States and evil madman Ahmadinijad.

Also, question: if Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or the NRO uses a single word in quotes, are they scare quotes or not, ex-liberal, or does your rule only apply to "liberal" outlets?

Yes, that rule certainly applies to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, NRO, and to snarky conservatives in general. However, Limbaugh and Fox may be off the hook, because you can't use quotes when tlking on radio or TV. Well, on Fox News there is that crawl...

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 21, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

Bush Signs Nuclear Deal With India

Dec 18, 4:27 PM (ET)

By DEB RIECHMANN

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush signed legislation on Monday to let America share its nuclear know-how and fuel with India even though New Delhi refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

"By helping India expand its use of safe nuclear energy, this bill lays the foundation for a new strategic partnership between our two nations that will help ease India's demands for fossil fuels and ease pressure on global markets," Bush said in a bill-signing ceremony at the White House.

The bill carves out an exemption in U.S. law to allow civilian nuclear trade with India in exchange for Indian safeguards and inspections at its 14 civilian nuclear plants. Eight military plants, however, would remain off-limits to the inspections.

The House and Senate had overwhelmingly approved the nuclear cooperation bill, giving Bush a foreign policy victory at a time when the administration is struggling to come up with a new approach to the unpopular war in Iraq

*********************************************

Another shrewd move by GWB. India is opening up it's economy and growing at 10% providing great markets for US products. In addition this enemy of Islamic fundamentalism is working closely with the US and Israel on advanced anti-terror technology. Trade and cooperation among these three nations is surging providing a boom for each.

India also provides a safety valve for our labor shortage. I had to intall a new wireless router and got to share quality time with tech support in New Delhi. More jobs in India makes for more economic growth and more imports from America.

It's rather obvious why and how India is far more promising to America's future versus Western Europe and why we're relocating State dept personnel from Paris to New Delhi. This is one of the many dramatic changes initiated by GWB yet so poorly covered. I suspect they tone it down to keep the resistance out of the loop. It won't be long at all and Americans will realize India is a much larger trading partner than any nation in Western Europe.

Posted by: rdw on December 21, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK
...It's fashionable among liberals to ignore the butchery so common in islam.... rightist dim wit at 3:38 PM
On the contrary, it is the liberal elements of society that are against Shara Law, and other holdover elements of various Muslim societies, just like it is liberals against African female circumcision, Indian Suttee. As for other things, Muslim societies, like any, will fight back when invaded, occupied, attacked or threatened.
...Wilson is desperate to avoid the witness stand..... rightist dim wit at 3:46 PM
That is frankly stupid. Wilson has no knowledge and no information to add to the charges that Libby is facing. The defense does, however, stand to gain by cross examining Wilson because he has a civil suit against Rove, Cheney, Libby etal.
...CNN is being foolishly neutral between the United States and evil madman Ahmadinejad. ...ex-liberal at 8:06 PM
So you are not saying that the "liberal media" CNN is neutral? That is bizarre because they have always backed the US in wars, diplomacy and politics.
It's rather obvious why and how India is far more promising to America's future ... rightist dim wit at 8:29 PM
Not really. Europe will always be important to us. By rewarding India for violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Bush made another major blunder. He has lost all moral and legal authority to deal with Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and North Korea. All in all, an incredibly stupid arrangement. Posted by: Mike on December 22, 2006 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK

Snaps to Mike.

I lose all patience with the resident village idiot and his alternate reality.

“Contemporary conservatism is a walking contradiction. Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain... The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.” Alan Wolfe

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 22, 2006 at 8:34 AM | PERMALINK

When you maroon a large copy/pasted passage like that review within ***** borders you cut it off entirely from the attribution, you feeble minded nincompoop.

If indeed you own and have read the book then use the book and what you understand the argument to be instead of wholesale cribbing from a weak supossed 'authority' like wikipedia.

Although, clearly, you don't understand the argument at all.

I did read "The Clash of Civilizations" as originally published in Foreign Affairs in 1993. I have also read several other essays by Prof. Harrington more recently at their web site. Presumably that is not one of the dittohead approved sites you frequent.


"American economists are yet to face up to the fact that off-shoring high productivity, high value-added jobs that pay well and replacing them with waitresses and bartenders is a knife in the heart of the US economy." - Paul Craig Roberts: 'Artificial recovery, real job losses'

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 22, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

I did read "The Clash of Civilizations" as originally published in Foreign Affairs in 1993. I have also read several other essays by Prof. Harrington more recently at their web site. Presumably that is not one of the dittohead approved sites you frequent.

Are you sure? I must confess I am skeptical on that point. Maybe it's just me but I would expect if you've read so much of the good professor you'd have a clue as to how to spell his name. As least you got the "H" right.

So what say you about his point regarding the borders of Islam being bloody? It's my experience libs are utterly unable to even acknowledge such a politically incorrect statement let alone actually discuss it. Yet you ar of course familiar with the argument and the good Professors high energy level devoted toward defending his opinion.

You will of course do what everyone else posting here does, you will hide!

Posted by: rdw on December 22, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

As for other things, Muslim societies, like any, will fight back when invaded, occupied, attacked or threatened.

But will European societies fight back? Can they fight back? Recent evidence suggests not. Why would they? We can at least agree they are committed to multi-culturalism.

You, and they, agree all cultures are equal and as such you must respect all cultures and allow each to flourish equally. They are in fact doing this. It's no wonder you want so much to be like them.

But what happens when one of the 'new' cultures is not multi-culturalist? Not even little bit tolerant?

What happens when this culture is growing rapidly at a time when all other cultures are shrinking, and will continue to shring at a more rapid pace for the next 35 years?

Having read the good Professors works you are of course fully aware the borders of Islam are bloody.

What happens when the Islamic ghettos outside Paris hold as many muslim fundmentalists as the city center holds native Parisians? This will start to happen in the 4 largest cities in the Netherlands within a decade.

Is it fair to describe the edge of these ghetto's as borders? We all know about the regular series of riots and car-b-ques in Paris and elsewhere in France. Has it already started?

It's wasn't much of a stretch for the good Professor to prove his point about the borders of Islam. It's as obvious as the moon.

I fear my friends we are watching the beginning of the end of Western Europe as we know it. The good news is we are totally out of harms way. We haven't been this far removed from Western Europe since 1940 and every day we move a bit further away each day.

Posted by: rdw on December 22, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Europe will always be important to us. By rewarding India for violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Bush made another major blunder.

Intel is the bell weather. They get 4x's a much in sales from Asia and it will be 5x's in a few years.

Allow me to translate. Asis is 5x's more important than Western Europe.

The interesting thing here is India is at least a decade behind China in getting to and maintaining a 10% growth track but they are there. India is still deregulating and opening up. With each move opportunities for investment increase, often dramatically.

Just yesterday I had a very professional call to an 800 number to reset my mew wireless modem. Tech support was in New Delhi. India has a huge, huge English speaking middle class that is exceptionally well educated with well developed business instincts as well as a strong science and engineering background.

Geo-politically Indias two gravest threats are Islamic terror and China. The stars are aligned for very strong USA-India relations. That's why trade is exploding and it's just getting started.

What you are also unaware of, besides GWBs rapid moves toward normalization with India, is the development of a research network with India, Israel and Japan to develop anti-terror technology to meet comon threats.

Think about it. All are technical heavyweights facing the same threats. The USA needs more talent and they all have it. This is the basis for trade. We have common interests and common beliefs.

The Europeans have decided to follow Neville Chamberlain. The USA, Israel, India and Japan will not. Nations have permnent interests, not permanent friends. We've clearly reached the point whereby Western Europe is not a valuable ally and more often seems to be an enemy.

All of GWBs moves with India have been approved by Congress with little resistance. It's almost been under the radar because the MSM will not publicize a Bush success.

Imagine the surprise among the liberal rank and file when they find out how much business we do with Asia and India and how fast that trade is growing. It's not just Asia. GWB has done major trade deals with everyone but Western Europe.

Here's a little thought exercise for you. Assume we have Prsident Hillary taking office in 2009. The 1st thing she wants to do is 'make peace' with Western Europe and does her little tour to red carpet treatment. The press will be extatic. You'll be crying tears of joy.

But what next? Will she reopen bases in Europe ans restore troop levels? Of course not. It would be very expensive and a political disaster. How would she explain the need to do this?

GWB is cutting State Dept staff by at least 20% and probably 35%. They're going to India and China and other places where trade and travel is exploding. In other words, where they are needed. Remember, the Dems are now the party of fiscal discipline. She can't now cut staff in Asia. What message will that send to Asia? She can't increase staff 20% to restore Europen levels. That's very expensive and for what purpose?

Will Hillary sign Kyoto? She never talks about it and it's a disaster anyway. Cut a trade deal with Europe? No way?

Work with France on middle east peace? The jews detest and distrust France for good reason.

Even forgetting Western Europe and equially important driver here is trade with the rest of the world. It isn't just that conservtives detest Western Europe but the rest of the world is so much more attractive. US exports are surging running up a stunning 13% and all of that growth is outside Western Europe. Would Hillary even think about standing in front of this train?

This is so not about Bush. Our split is deep and permanent. Bush has done everything right. There's not no angst. No pissing contest. His 1st trip on his 2nd term was to Europe decribed by the MSM as 'fence-mending' It was nothing of the sort. It was pure show. GWB doesn't get mad. He gets even. His next trip was to India.

Posted by: rdw on December 22, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

"I fear my friends"

You have no friends here.

We do not hide - We have found that it is useless to discuss anything with you - You are a very stupid, opaque cultist. Glad to see you turn a thread into your own personal blog - It keeps you away from the more interesting threads.

Now, go back to your three car garage, swimming pool, sauna, and room for a pony locale - How is your sister-in-law, Hyacinth, getting along, Bruce? Still "curb crawling"?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 22, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

American economists are yet to face up to the fact that off-shoring high productivity, high value-added jobs that pay well and replacing them with waitresses and bartenders is a knife in the heart of the US economy."

Well that explains the 4.5% unemployment, record high wages, surging income tax collections at all levels of income and new record post-bubble stock market indexes.

The reason Intel, GE, IBM and everyone else are running to India is we're facing a severe labor shortage. You can't go in a store and miss the help wanted signs. The job market for college graduates is terrific.

The boomers just start to turn 60. We're going to get a rapid increase in retirements and a need for even more workers. The USA simply does not have them.

You have no idea how important India is to our future and we are to theirs. They need jobs. We need smart, well educated people. They have them.

India has 1.1B people and is growing. The entire EU has about 450M and is shrinking. But Eastern Europe is on very solid economic ground. It's Western Europe we're isolating from. There are more English speaking middle class Indians than middle class Western Europeans and the Indians are far more innovative and capitalistic.

India is our future. Western Europe is our past.

Paul Craig has been a pessimist for a very long time. He's been wrong the entire time. We are fabulously wealthy and grow moreso every day. You can't stop Anglo-Saxon capitalism.

Paul apparently didn't see the last jobs report adding 132,000 jobs with 43,000 in professional services. The fact is the great paying jobs in the medical and financial services fields are exploding while the trades (carpenter, plumber, car mechanic) are doing just as well.

There's never been a better place to live than America and there's never been a better time to live here.

Posted by: rdw on December 22, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

You have no friends here.

I am like Reagan, an incurable optimist. Everyone is my friend, even the morons.

BTW: did the see the WSJ piece today detailing some of the horrors done by your idol Che?

It's still rather amazing our European cousins idolize Che and Fdel. Of course they're nothing more than meglomaniacal serial killers as History will show.

It seems one of the discount chains was selling an item with Che's picture on it. I think it was Target but I'm not sure. Someone called their offices and asked why they were promoting a butcher. This man has butchered little kids. He was a sick, sick puppy.

Target promised to look into it, did, and immediately pulled the merchandise. It all happened within 24 hours.

What the WSJ and conservative press is able to do it get the truth out over the MSM. It's only taken about 2 decades but not even the NYTs will defend these two turds.

So what you see in America with the destruction of the MSM monopoly is the spread of truth. Americans know they're lower than turds. Europeans have no idea. They live a fantasy of their own creation.

I've always loved reading some twit in the NYTs or other rag brag they, 'write the 1st draft of history'. As you can see with Che and Fidel they merely make morons of themselves. They NYTs has almost 5 decades of supporting Fidel and much of it is online. They're too easy to mock.

Posted by: rdw on December 22, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

We do not hide

Chris Dicely gave his typical PC response regarding the bloody borders of Islam and rather than deal with the facrs or respond to the additional data he just disappeared. Not unexpected of course.

You do hide. The borders of Islam are obviously bloody. Only a fool could deny it. My service to you is to tell you these facts because you have no other way of knowing. Not in a million years would ABC allow that fact to get online. I Tell you about the radical shift in trade over the last 15 - 20 that has recently accelerated so you are not shocked when in 2009 nothing changes regarding Europe.

Thanks to me you know the Western European record under Kyoto will be abysmal. Their native populations will be smaller. Their economies will be weaker. They will be even more inept militarily. You now know the Trans-Atlantic alliance that has dominated our foreign policy for over 100 years is now dead.

But best of all, after all of this, you know the USA is the better for it.

Posted by: rdw on December 22, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly