A compilation of information and links regarding assorted subjects: politics, religion, science, computers, health, movies, music... essentially whatever I'm reading about, working on or experiencing in life.
It's a good question. The first article explains why the shooting of Walter Scott was a crime, and the wealth of evidence that supports that assertion:
[...] When I was a cop in Baltimore and I heard of some situation that got ugly, my first reaction was usually, "Thank God I wasn't there." Because nobody knows how they'll react. For that reason, most police officers are quite reluctant to criticize others forced to make split-second life-and-death decisions. Yet every police officer I've spoken to says that Scott's death was horrible and that Slager committed a crime.
In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that police may not shoot at unarmed fleeing suspects, even felons. In line with that decision, shooting without an immediate threat is against the law in every state, and it's against department policy in every jurisdiction. It's also a violation of the most basic human right: life. Any innocent death is a tragedy, but it's worse at the hands of police. It's not too much to ask our civil servants not to murder us.
During his attempt to catch Scott, Slager fired his Taser. When that failed, Slager could have chased Scott or let him run away. But instead, Slager drew his gun and shot. This is why cops see this case so differently: The criminal was the police officer. And Slager was arrested and charged with murder. That is the way the criminal justice system is supposed to work. [...]
The article explains in detail the differences in this case, to many of the others that have been in the headlines in recent months. Of course every case has it's own facts, which is why it's so important to acknowledge them.
Contrast the above case with this next one, about a decorated an honored Boston cop shot in the face by a career felon. The felon was then killed in a shootout with other police officers. So who was the victim? You decide:
[...] According to several Boston cops at the crime scene, people began calling them pigs, shouting “Ferguson…Ferguson” and “hands up…don’t shoot.” This despite the fact—the fact!—that an outside camera from a store next to where the shootout occurred captured the image of West emerging from the driver’s side of his car to instantly shoot Moynihan, who had not even drawn his weapon.
“This is where we are now,” one of the cops said. “Everyone has their own reality. Their own facts. The truth of the situation doesn’t matter. People want to believe what they think happened. Not what really happened. That’s the recent history of almost every encounter we have lately on the street.”
Sadly, it seems as if there is no longer any real history. Just momentary reactions to events that disappear like sky-writing with items like Twitter, texts, Meerkat, Snapchat, and Instagram. And in this, our snap-of-a-finger, Chernobyl-like culture, with almost daily explosions occurring only to be eclipsed in a single news cycle, email and Facebook can resemble the National Archives.
A majority of Americans are more aware of what happened in Ferguson last summer than with what occurred on a city street in Boston on Friday night or on too many streets and neighborhoods nearly every day. Know more about the life of Robert Durst than that of a parent who is afraid to let a child play outdoors in places where guns are more accessible than text books.
We have more tools at hand, literally, to make life easier and more productive than ever. We have Google, Wikipedia, iPads, iPhones, iTunes, YouTube, Netflix, and 600 cable channels. We can shop, pay bills, order food, and get nearly everything delivered, all of it with the touch of a finger on a device in the palm of our hand.
Yet we have a criminal justice system that seems unable to deal with proven violent career criminals like Angelo West who threaten lives every day. Our jails are crowded with those doing extended time for possession of drugs while those arrested multiple times for possession of handguns are often free to walk streets like time bombs eager to explode.
We are at the point where the immediacy of the moment crowds out any thought of reflection. Everyone has a smart phone and everything is recorded. One event spills into another. Conclusions come quickly at the near total expense of consideration of what just actually happened. Reality is self defined as the mob, any mob, writes its own history, never to be contradicted by the quiet statement of truth. [...]
The facts DO matter. Instant gratification of social media be damned.
There has always been people who jump to conclusions and make shallow assessments without looking more deeply. That's nothing new. What is new is that such people have access to social media, where they can instantly amplify their misguided opinions to the world. Ironically, that same technology can also make the facts of the situation be known more quickly, for anyone who cares to bother about the facts. In our technological world of instant gratification, people are often too willing to be lazy and treat their opinions like facts. People who don't care about the facts muddy the water for everyone, and do more harm than good.
These are just excerpts, please follow the links and read the full articles for the details, the complete picture.
I'm sick of hearing people talk about their unsubstantiated opinions as if they were facts. Our Brave New World is going to have to do better than that. For all of our sakes.
[...] Clinton, a likely presidential candidate in 2016, has been embroiled in an e-mail controversy since March 2, when The New York Times reported that she exclusively used a private e-mail account at clintonemail.com to conduct government business. At a press conference on March 10, Clinton said she sent and received more than 60,000 e-mails during her time in office. At the State Department's request, Clinton turned over about half of them to the government in December. The rest were deleted because they were personal, she said.
Asked whether she would agree to allow an "independent third party to come in and examine your e-mails," Clinton replied that she should be treated no differently than federal employees who have a government e-mail account and a personal e-mail account. They can decide when they send an e-mail whether to use the government or private account.
"So, even if you have a work-related device with a work-related .gov account, you choose what goes on that," she told reporters.
That's true, of course, but the situation she describes is not entirely analogous, since Clinton had no government account. She made the choice to use only a personal e-mail account set up on a personal server.
Moreover, Clinton's office went too far when answering the same question in a Q&A it released on the day of the press conference. The Q&A detailed the Clinton team's review process and answered some common questions that have been raised since the Times story first appeared.
One of the questions in the Q&A: "Do you think a third party should be allowed to review what was turned over to the Department, as well as the remainder that was not?" Clinton's office answered, in part: "Government officials are granted the privacy of their personal, non-work related emails, including personal emails on .gov accounts. Secretary Clinton exercised her privilege to ensure the continued privacy of her personal, non-work related emails."
That characterization of the rules governing government e-mail systems is not accurate.
State Department policy — spelled out in the Foreign Affairs Manual under "Points to Remember About E-mail" — says there is "no expectation of privacy." Specifically, 5 FAM 443.5 says, in part: "Department E-mail systems are for official use only by authorized personnel" and "The information in the systems is Departmental, not personal. No expectation of privacy or confidentiality applies."
Clinton is correct that the department policy allows employees to delete e-mails that are not work-related. The 5 FAM 443.5 rule also says, "Messages that are not records may be deleted when no longer needed."
But Baron — who served 13 years as director of litigation at the National Archives, which is responsible for maintaining government records — said in an interview that Clinton's use of a private server gave her exclusive control, thus preventing the department from having full access to e-mails she sent and received while a federal employee. Government employees have no right to privacy on government computers and even personal e-mails are subject to review and perhaps release at the department's discretion.
"Setting up a private server to conduct public business inappropriately shifts control of what is accessible to the end user alone rather than allowing the institution to decide threshold questions," he told us.
We sent e-mails to Clinton's office and to the State Department asking about the privacy claim but received no response. [...]
Read the whole thing for embedded links and more.
The article goes on to say that Clinton claims that she was emailing people in the State Department with .gov email accounts, and that they have copies of the emails she sent. Sure, the one's she sent to THEM. What about the other emails she sent other people, as Secretary of State? Ironically, her statement also confirms something else. The people in the State Department that she was emailing, knew that she was not using a .gov account, and they just let her do it anyway. Why was she allowed to do this?
If this were a Republican being investigated, the press would be asking those people, "What did you know and when did you know it? Why was she allowed to break the rules her position required her to follow?" Will the press do so this time? If they don't, then WE need to.
ALL politicians, regardless of party affiliation, need to be questioned and held accountable for their actions, if we are to get better people in office. Clinton has been let off the hook so many times, she just keeps on acting as if she has privileges no one else has. Why? Because too many people let her do it. And that just encourages more of the same. It has to stop.
The media sides with the president and says it's the Republican's "playing politics". But in truth, there is plenty of politics on both sides of the Isle:
President Obama on Thursday continued his campaign on behalf of a short-term extension of the payroll tax cut, blasting House Republicans for holding up a Senate-passed bill and wondering, "Has this place become so dysfunctional that even when people agree to things we can't do it?"
"It doesn't make any sense," he told reporters in a press conference. "Enough is enough."
[...]
Mr. Obama, in his remarks, called on Republicans to get this done "sooner rather than later."
"This should not be hard," he said. "We all agree it should happen. I believe it's going to happen sooner or later. Why not make it sooner rather than later? [...]
This article just quotes Obama tut-tuting about the Republicans like an Old School Marm complaining about a naughty child. All too typical rubbishy reporting, that mostly just parrots what Obama says. Anyone would think this is happening for no-reason at all.
This next article looks a bit deeper, and at least attempts to anwswer Obama's rhetorical question, "Why not make it sooner rather than later?":
WASHINGTON (AP) — If President Barack Obama, the House and the Senate all want to extend a Social Security payroll tax cut and jobless benefits through next year, why are they fighting so bitterly over doing it?
Obama, House Democrats and lopsided majorities of both parties in the Senate want to immediately renew the tax cut and jobless benefits for the next two months, and find a way later to extend them through 2012. House Republicans want to do it for a full year right away.
That doesn't sound like an unbridgeable gap. Yet the fight has evolved into a year-end partisan grudge match with no clear resolution in sight and with huge political and economic stakes.
[...]
Q: While they work through these differences, why the fuss over whether Congress first approves a two-month or a one-year plan?
A: For one thing, many freshman and conservative House Republicans are tired of compromising with the Senate and want their leaders to take a stand. They also say a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut would create uncertainty for taxpayers and businesses and problems for employers' payroll systems.
Many House Republicans hate the idea of keeping the issue alive until March 1, when the two-month bill would expire. Democrats have damaged Republicans politically with proposals to pay for the payroll tax cut by boosting levies on the rich. GOP lawmakers solidly oppose that approach, saying it would discourage job creation, and Democrats have used that to argue that Republicans are defending the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
That's not an argument Republicans want to spend the 2012 election year having. As a result, many want to avoid additional votes on the matter next year, and they don't want to let Obama spend next month's State of the Union address discussing it. They would rather spend 2012 voting on issues they feel are on their terrain, like blocking Obama administration regulations, reducing the size of government and cutting its spending.
Q: What about Democrats?
A: They say the tax cut and unemployment coverage must be renewed to protect the millions who would be hurt Jan. 1. They also have no desire to surrender leverage by abandoning the two-month deal negotiated by the Senate's Reid and McConnell.
But they, too, have political motivations.
Democrats cite economists who say the payroll tax would pump enough money into the economy to help it grow slightly next year. Knowing that the 2012 presidential and congressional races are likely to hinge on the economy's performance, they want to take no chances with anything that might tip the economy in the wrong direction. To them, that means the payroll tax cut and extra jobless coverage must be extended. [...]
There are more Questions with Answers within the article that explain things. But for most people, this will be "sound bites" portraying the Republicans as obstructionists. The Republicans had better learn to deal with it. Quickly.
Then there was Vivian Schiller's Grand Scheme for putting local news agencies out of business so NPR could take them over, creating a government subsidized news monopoly.
Now there's the Ron Schiller debacle. Vivian throws Ron under the bus. Then NPR's board of directors throws Vivian under the bus.
Who cares? You know they are going to be replaced with left-wing dingbats who think exactly the same way as the people they are replacing. I heard NPR on the air yesterday, trying to spin this, denying they believe any of the things that they said. I simply don't believe them. I've listened to them for YEARS; it's pretty obvious what they believe. When will they start being honest about it?
NPR can say or do whatever they like. It's a free country, and I support their right to express their opinions. However, they can do it on their own dime, like everyone else. As a taxpayer, I don't wish to pay to promote ideas I don't approve of.
I've listened to NPR for decades. Some of the programing is nonpartisan, but most of it is biased towards the Left. It often offends me. I can deal with that, but I definitely don't want my tax dollars subsidizing it.
If they don't like the loss of revenue, they can run commercials like everyone else. Maybe even broaden their market share by trying to appeal to a wider audience? There's a novel idea!
They won't disappear, they will just have to adapt. And now is the time for it.
What SHOULD we be talking about in the aftermath of the horrible shooting in Tucson? We should be praying for the compete recovery of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. We should be expressing our sympathy of the families of the other victims. We should be discussing the irony of a little girl born on September 11, 2001 being killed in a senseless act of violence nine years later. There should be discussions on failures in our system that permits mentally deranged people access to weapons and political leaders. Discussion on security for our elected officials would also be appropriate. Though these items were included in the conversation over the weekend .. they all took a back seat to talk driven by the left and the ObamaMedia over the supposed role that evil right wingers, Sarah Palin and the Tea Parties in particular, played in this situation.
We all remember Rahm Emmanuel's comment at the beginning of the Obama reign: "Never let a crisis go to waste." We only need to change one word there. "Crisis" to "tragedy."
The shooting rampage in Tucson on Saturday was horrific, and by any definition a tragedy. Today we know that the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, is clearly deranged. Classmates and acquaintances alike speak of his strange behavior. Click here to see a picture of a shrine this maniac had in a tent in his back yard. This was not a political act. It was not an act of terrorism. A terrorist kills people in order to spread terror for the purpose of effecting political change. Loughner was acting on the impulses of mental illness, not a desire for political change. His first encounter with Congresswoman Giffords pre-dated the Tea Parties. This didn't matter, though, to the left. There was a tragedy to be exploited, and time was wasted. Jared Loughner just had to be pinned on the very people who, just a bit over two months ago, delivered a historical political drubbing to the left.
This is a script the left has followed before. Tragedy occurs ... and blame is immediately assigned to the right. Do you remember the assassination of John F. Kennedy? In the hours following the shooting in Dallas the blame was placed squarely on conservative groups. Republican Party offices were vandalized across the country. Later we find out that Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist sympathizer. The Times Square Bomber? That was just a few months ago. And just who did New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg blame for that attempt? Tea Partiers. Later, of course, we discover that the bomber was another follower of the peaceful and serene peace-loving religion of Islam.
The immediate reaction from our ObamaMedia is nothing short of disgusting. Without knowing any motive of the deranged shooter, the media immediately jumped to the convenient conclusion: He must be a right-winger and it is all the fault of Sarah Palin, Fox News, the Tea Party and talk radio. Here are just a few examples gathered from the coverage throughout the weekend ...
And I think it is time that we, as a country, do a little bit of soul searching. Because I think the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business ... that this has not become the nice United States of America that most of us grew up in ...
DUPNIK: Let me just say one thing, because people tend to poo-poo this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech. But it's not without consequences.
REPORTER: How do you know that that's what caused it.
DUPNIK: You don't?
But it wasn't just the Sheriff who has pinned this on the "vitriol" of talk radio. The public immediately jumped to that conclusion, and by 2pm in the afternoon a group of about 40 people had gathered in front of Giffords office holding signs that said things like "Hate Speech=Murder."
These accusations and assertions are not based on fact, but on a delusional belief that no liberal would ever be crazy enough to commit such a senseless act of murder. On the other hand, conservatives will stop at nothing - not even murder - to prove their point. Yet, from what little we know of this hideous man, Jared Lee Loughner, he doesn't exactly scream, "I'm a right-wing nut!" We've got friends and former classmates of his describing him as "left wing, quite liberal." We have a YouTube channel of his featuring videos of flag burning. He has listed his favorite books as "Mein Kampf" and "The Communist Manifesto." If the guy was a Tea Partier (as the ObamaMedia has tried to claim), advocating total government control of industry, including heathcare, doesn't exactly sound like the limited government platform of the Tea Party movement. Then we have his obsession with mind control and grammar ....... sounds more like a crazy than a political nut.
Will the ObamaMedia attempts to pin this all on conservatives stick? Probably for the dumb masses who believe everything the liberal media tells them, without bothering to do any research on their own. But the fact is that it is the Left that has a history of violence in this country, a fact that is often ignored in order to advance the agenda of liberals. I am not saying that the right-wing fringe hasn't seen its share of kooks, but I am saying that for media to act as if a liberal would never act in such a way is disingenuous and bucks the historical trends.
Two immediate names that come to mind are Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell, who was a registered Democrat and the Holocaust museum shooter, James Von Brunn, who was an "anti-Christian, 9/11 'truther' who hated the Bushes and 'the neo-cons'". Another list compiled by Townhall include:
1) The Earth Liberation Front 2) James Chester Blanning 3) The Weathermen (Weather Underground) 4) Carol Anne Burger 5) The Animal Liberation Front
Or how about union goons calling for violence or even engaging in violent tactics. For example, AFL-CIO president Ricarch Trumka calls for violence to achieve "social justice." Or when SEIU thugs beat up a black conservative at an ObamaCare townhall meeting. Also recently, union thugs harassed the 14-year-old son of a Bank of America executive in his home.
This blame Palin .. Blame the Tea Parties .. Blame talk radio tactic? Simply SOP for the left. That's Standard Operating Procedure. The left has a miserable loss record in the straightforward presentation of ideas in the media. The countryside is littered with the wreckage of failed liberal talk show hosts. Cable outlets viewed as leftwing, MSNBC and CNN come to mind, are also-rans in the ratings game. The leftist --- "progressive" if you will --- philosophy is one based on pure emotionalism. This philosophy cannot stand up to rational thought or fact-based argument. Clearly the left has decided that its best tactic is to demonize political opponents. If they could argue the facts, they would. When the facts aren't on your side, call the other side names.
Now we have a terrible tragedy that causes every American to react with great emotion. What a perfect time to strike! Politico had a story yesterday which buried a comment by a Democrat operative: "They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers." Is there one shred of evidence that this Loughner was a tea partier? Can anyone show that he ever attended a Tea Party rally? The Tea Parties were not even around when Loughner began his stalking of Gabrielle Giffords. It matters not. The Tea Parties effectively wrested control of the House away from Democrats ... so if we can use this tragedy to discredit them - to put them on the defensive - then let's get to it as soon as possible. After all ... we know the media will support us.
Blame it on the Tea Parties? Blame it on Sarah Palin? Why not blame it on BoyBlue? Oh .. so you don't know about BoyBlue? BoyBlue is a writer for the leftist website Daily Kos.
BoyBlue has had a rough life. He was a big time supporter of Gabrielle Giffords, claiming to have donated thousands of dollars to her campaign. Now there's probably no need for me to go into his being gay, and his boyfriend (spouse) left him after he was laid off ... so then BoyBlue puts a gun in his mouth and pulls the trigger, but survives. After months of physical therapy and mental rehab he's back working for Giffords .. and so forth. So .. what did BoyBlue post on Daily Kos? Well he got mighty upset when Giffords was one of 19 Democrat members of Congress who did not vote for Nancy Pelosi to be minority leader. So on January 6 BoyBlue writes "Congresswoman Giffords is DEAD to me now." Two days later she's shot in the head. Nice Touch, BoyBlue .. but oddly I don't see any liberals or media talking heads referring to your "DEAD to me now" post on a high-influential liberal website as possibly inciting violence. Find that sort of comment from a talk show host or a Tea Partier and it's all over the place ... but if you're just writing for Daily Kos ...
By the way, don't go looking for the post on Daily Kos now. They scrubbed it. You can no longer find the page. For the record ... I have NEVER scrubbed anything from my website because it aroused controversy.
BoyBlue certainly isn't alone in his violent posting. Perhaps you've heard about Jean Schmitt? Jean Schmitt is a Congresswoman representing the 2nd District of Ohio. She's a Republican. Someone left a message on her answering machine. Ready? Here you go:
"Yeah, I'm glad the president passed health care. Yeah. Funky ass, racist-ass Republicans hate that, don't you? Jean Schmitt, when you got hit by that car, you should've broke your back, b*tch. And Boehner, motherf****r that Mitch McConnell. All you racist f**king Republicans. Why don't you just change your party name to racist? Cuz if one of those f**king Tea baggers had spit on me, I'd have shot all them in the f**king face with my f**king 9 millimeter. F**k all you racist motherf****rs."
Now .. there's a nice little threat ... and a mention about shooting someone in the face! Have you heard about this one in all of the coverage of the tragedy in Tucson? Didn't think so.
What about leftist hero Bill Maher? He joked on his TV show about Sarah Palin being one of the first "useless people" to be killed. Nice.
Did you hear about someone putting a bullet through the door of Republican Congressman Eric Cantor's office in Virginia? The man was Norman Leboon. He's a registered Democrat and donated to Obama's campaign. Leboon had a manifesto on YouTube. Here's part of the script:
"My Congressman Eric Cantor, and you and your cupcake evil wife. Remember Eric, our judgment time, the final Yom Kippur has been given. You are a liar, you're a Lucifer, you're a pig, a greedy f*cking pig, you're an abomination, you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer's abominations."
Well wasn't THAT special? Odd that you haven't heard about that one ... "bullets ... placed in your heads" in all the coverage of Tucson, isn't it? Get real. It doesn't feed the leftist agenda, so it's forgotten.
And didn't liberals in this country react rather positively toward a film depicting the assassination of George W. Bush?
The end game here is to intimidate. Since the left can't win the argument ... since all of their rhetorical champions eventually go down in flames or end up looking like simple morons --- remember the tingle in Chris Matthew's leg? --- their only hope is to intimidate the right into silence. Maybe you can make the Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin afraid to speak out if you manage to tie them to the Giffords' shooting? If you shout long enough and often enough that the evil right is responsible for the mindless violence of a lunatic .. they'll tone it down and give the left a break?
Sorry ... not this talk show host.
We must all speak up and speak out. The truth always matters.
Most of the people who work in the mainstream media are Democrats, and they seem to be bending over backwards to make the Giffords assassin look like a Tea Party person. They just can't stop themselves. Never mind that the shooter, Loughner, is a Truther Pothead Creep Nihilist Psycho who has more in common with Jane Fonda than Sara Palin.
Back in the 80's, when Hinckley shot Reagan, nobody called it political. They just said Hinckley was crazy. I don't see it as any different here. Loughner sounds like a paranoid schizophrenic. Described by a friend as "confrontational and non-linear". Non-linear. How sane does that sound?
A look at the actual facts is more telling than biased media spin:
The Wall Street Journal has been kind enough to publish an article that looks at the actual facts and background the Arizona shooter, divulging details about the freak’s past, including what happened at the 2007 meeting between him and Giffords. Other details of his decline are also discussed which, weirdly enough, have absolutely nothing to do with politics or Sarah Palin. I know, shocking.
As the orgy of blaming Palin and ‘crosshairs’ and ‘inflammatory political rhetoric’ continues, the actual tipping point for the AZ shooter seems to have been a breakup with a girlfriend, drug abuse and resentment at Giffords for what he thought was a disrespectful response at a 2007 ‘Congress on Your Corner.’
In one of the rare stories that doesn’t mention or blame Sarah Palin or the Tea Party, we get a clearer look at the alleged gunman and what seems to have sent him on his rampage Saturday morning. And, surprise, it wasn’t Palin, political rhetoric, or ‘prejudice and bigotry.’
It goes on with excerpts from the Wall St. Journal article. It reveals an unhappy youth who got into illegal drug use and became increasingly anti-social and disturbed. Who raged against the US Constitution. Certainly not a Tea Party person. When will the MSM start reporting the facts, instead of "spin"? I won't hold my breath.
It's a shame that during this National tragedy, that the Left has to resort to lies and distortions to try to exploit it to their advantage. They have no shame. For them, "The ends justifies the means". Facts be damned.
Politics: Rep. Joe Barton says what everyone knows is true and his own party threatens to kick him out of his committee seat. We expected cynical political opportunism from Democrats, but not from Republican leaders.
Where are we as a society when the truth is treated as a something that can't be uttered in public?
Barton, the Texas Republican, apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward, now relieved of his duties, during Thursday's House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing for what he characterized as a "shakedown" by the White House in forcing the company to create a $20 billion victims' compensation fund.
He also declared that he was "ashamed" of the White House's tactics, and called it "a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown."
"I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is — again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown," he said.
Naturally, the Democrats went hard after Barton. And the media were happy to aid the cause. And just as naturally, other comments by Barton have not received as much attention. Without having watched the hearing or read the transcript, how many people know that Barton said:
"There is no question ... that BP made decisions that objective people think compromise safety. There is no question that BP is liable for the damages."
Or that he told Hayward "we want to hold (BP) responsible, do what we can to make the liable parties pay for the damages."
Just as every lawmaker should, Barton simply wants the government to follow our due process system, in which "we go through hearings, in some cases court cases, litigation, and determine what those damages are and when those damages should be paid." This, by the way, protects everyone's rights.
Despite these measured comments, the criticism has flowed faster than the Gulf spill. Among the critics is Vice President Joe Biden, who acted as if he were reluctant to condemn Barton before eagerly labeling the congressman's statement as "outrageous," "incredibly insensitive" and "incredibly out of touch."
The real outrage, though, should be reserved for Biden if he, as radio talk show host Neal Boortz reports, "is the one who leaned across the table during the White House meeting with BP and told them that if they didn't go along with the $20 billion fund to be administered by Obama's people, then Obama would 'do it to them.' "
Sounds like the man who should be issuing the apology is the vice president. [...]
Yes, Barton's objection to the government not following our due process system was correct. But the Uber Conservatives who are criticizing the Republicans for criticizing Barton need to get a clue. Barton may have been right, but he also needed to be correct in how he spoke the truth. Apologizing to the head of an oil company that is most likely guilty of gross criminal negligence was a foolish thing to do, especially in that venue. The rest of Barton's comments, which provided some context, will not be reported by the MSM, who as usual are biased for the Democrats. We are now instead going to see endless reports like this one, up until election time:
[...] Democrats aren't ready to let go of the issue. For five days, they have used Barton's apology -- for a White House "shakedown" that forced BP to set aside $20 billion for victims of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico -- as a bludgeon, to tar Republicans as Big Oil toadies.
With Barton retaining his high-profile post on energy policy, Democrats argue that his political sin wasn't the apology but in voicing a widely held GOP view that dismays voters.
"Joe Barton can't seem to stop apologizing – but the only apology that Barton actually owes is the one he has yet to offer," the Democratic National Committee said in a statement. "And, that's to the residents of the Gulf Coast who've suffered at the hands of the company that Barton went to great lengths to defend."
[...]
Democrats, viewing the episode as a selling point in the November elections, even called the announcement of Barton's survival an early Christmas gift – to them.
"House Republicans' decision to keep British Petroleum apologist Joe Barton on as the top Republican in charge of energy policy is consistent with their governing philosophy of choosing corporate special interests over middle class families," said Ryan Rudominer, national spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "The stakes this November could not be clearer. House Democrats stand with American taxpayers and the people of the Gulf, versus Republicans who side with British Petroleum and Big Oil special interests." [...]
We will continue to see long reports this, that make no mention of Barton's other comments, but use his apology to BP like a hammer to beat the GOP with. It's not right and it's not fair, but it's also the way it is. The rest of the GOP knows that. I'm sure Mr. Barton now knows that too, which is why the GOP has let him keep his seat on the committee. Now when are the Uber conservatives going to figure it out? With them railing against the GOP as strongly as the Leftist Democrats do, they may as well be working for the Democrats and the MSM.
As for which party is in bed with BP, here is some information you won't hear about in the MSM:
So who is the Big Oil party? The collusion between the current administration and BP should be newsworthy, but is being ignored. Instead we get one remark by Joe Barton, taken out of context, repeated again, and again, and again...
Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul is feeling what it is like to be Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice presidential candidate said Sunday, comparing the media's preoccupation with Paul's recent statements about the 1964 Civil Rights Act to her own treatment in the press.
Palin said that Paul is seeing firsthand how "gotcha" politics work after the libertarian-leaning Republican spent days on defense spelling out his support for the Civil Rights Act and the government's role in regulating how private businesses can deal with their customers.
"One thing that we can learn in this lesson that I have learned and Rand Paul is learning now is don't assume that you can engage in a hypothetical discussion about constitutional impacts with a reporter or a media personality who has an agenda, who may be prejudiced before they even get into the interview in regards to what your answer may be -- and then the opportunity that they seize to get you," Palin told "Fox News Sunday."
[...]
Palin, who endorsed Paul in his primary bid, said she is thankful that Paul has had the opportunity to clarify his comments but he's facing a double standard. Paul wrongly anticipated being able to engage in discussion "with a TV character, a media personality, who perhaps had an agenda in asking the question and then interpreting his answer the way that she did," she said.
"And I think that more of those who serve in the Senate, and Rand we anticipate will be serving in the Senate, should ask questions about the constitutionality of policies that are proposed. I think more questions should be asked as to the impacts. And Rand isn't going to be shy about asking the questions," Palin added. [...]
Yeah, but like Palin, the clarification of his comments won't be as widely disseminated in the media, as will the media's interpretation of what he said. That is the Democrat's big advantage, and they will use it without mercy to hammer anyone who disagrees with them.
And talk about double standards. President Obama hasn't had a press conference since last July! Can you imagine a Republican President avoiding questions from the press for that long, and the media putting up with it? Talk about media bias. Thank God for the internet.
When William Safire died the other day, we lost one of the Elders of journalism and the argumentative arts. We've been losing a lot of them lately: Walter Cronkite, Bob Novak, Don Hewitt, Irving Kristol. "The stars seem to be going out one by one," said Howard Stringer at Cronkite's memorial.
[...]
Who are the Elders? They set the standards. They hand down the lore. They're the oldest and wisest. By proceeding through the world each day with dignity and humanity, they show the young what it is that should be emulated. They're the tribal chieftains. This role has probably existed since caveman days, because people need guidance and encouragement, they need to be heartened by examples of endurance. They need to be inspired.
We are in a generational shift in the media, and new Elders are rising. They're running the networks and newspapers, they own the Web sites, they anchor the shows. What is their job?
It's to do what the Elders have always done, but now more than ever.
[...]
A few days ago, I was sent a link to a screed by MSNBC's left-wing anchorman Ed Schultz, in which he explained opposition to the president's health-care reform. "The Republicans lie. They want to see you dead. They'd rather make money off your dead corpse. They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don't have anything for us." Next, a link to the syndicated show of right-wing radio talker Alex Jones, on the subject of the U.S. military, whose security efforts at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh show them to be agents and lackeys of the New World Order. "They are complete enemies of America. . . . Our military's been taken over. . . . This is the end of our country." Later, "They'd love to kill 10,000 Americans," and, "The republic is falling right now."
This, increasingly, is the sound of our political conversation.
It is not new to call this kind of thing destructive, though it is. It is a daily agitating barrage that coarsens and inflames. It tears the national fabric. But it could wind up doing worse than that.
Democracy cannot healthily endure without free and unfettered debate. It's our job to watch, critique and question, and, being us, to do it in colorful terms.
But knowing where the line is, matters. Seeing clearly the lay of the land, knowing the facts of the country and your countrymen, matters.
Which gets us back to Safire and Cronkite and Novak and the rest. They knew where the line was. They were tough guys who got in big fights, but they had a sense of responsibility towards the country, and towards its culture. They, actually, were protective toward it. They made mistakes, but they were solid. [...]
It's worth reading the whole thing. We sure DO need some elders in the media.
I think the far Left, in it's desire to destroy the status quo, have coarsened and polarized political debate as part of their plan to destabilize the existing order. Some on the Right are now buying into it, and playing tit-for-tat. It's a trap set by the Left, that should be resisted.
This November 2008 interview with Peggy Noonan is also interesting:
Wall Street has showered nearly $11 million on the Senate since the beginning of the year, and more than 15 percent of it has gone to a single senator: Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York.
Schumer’s $1.65 million take from the financial services industry is nearly twice that of any other senator's — and more than five times what the industry gave to any single Republican senator.
While the industry has scaled back its political spending in the wake of last year’s economic collapse, data from the Center for Responsive Politics show that it’s still investing heavily in the Senate, where it’s likely to have its best shot at stopping — or at least shaping — the crackdown on Wall Street that President Barack Obama has proposed.
And it’s clearly looking to Democrats to it. {...]
Read on for the details... if you can stomach it.
Why isn't this front page news? Because it's Democrats?
Her "coverage" of Tax Protesters is a good example of many in the Mainstream Media who have contempt for ordinary Americans. And now there is video of what happened after that:
I hope that by now, the name Susan Roesgen is a household name. I hope it is a name that is equated with idiocy. I'm sorry, folks. There is no other way to put it. Her little tirade at the tea parties the other day was an embarrassment for CNN.
A blogger has now released footage of what happened after Susan Roesgen decided that her tea party coverage was "no longer suitable for family viewing" .... It seems as though the tea party protestors had their way with her. Gotta love it. Warning: bad words. [...]
Unfortunately, it looks like CNN has yanked the video from Youtube. But not before her little song and dance got exposed for what it was. [I'll update the video link if I find it reposted]
The Boortz article goes on to show how low CNN news is in the ratings. Gee, I wonder if it's because they do crap like this? I hope it costs them advertisers.
I don't believe that ordinary Americans have become "Fringe", although clearly reporters like Roesgen want to make them that way, by any underhanded means they can manage.
We finally watched the 20/20 interview we had recorded. I thought Sarah did pretty good, but the editing was choppy. What was cut out? From Little Green Footballs:
It won’t come as a surprise to LGF readers, but Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin was heavily edited by ABC News to make Palin appear more hawkish and less knowledgeable. Mark Levin has the complete transcript, and what ABC News tried to pull here is a textbook example of media malfeasance: Gibson Interview.
I have taken issue with the way her quotes were chopped up and taken out of context and thrown back at her as questions. Not good journalism. But for all the unfairness, I think she held up well; at least no one can accuse Gibson of giving her a "softball" interview. She has demonstrated that she can handle the grilling and defend herself.
Perhaps Gibson should try his hardball technique with Obama. This was on Nealz Nuze today:
This is an interesting look at the differences between Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin compared to his interview with Barack Obama. Take a look at the questions.
Indeed. Palin supporters aren't upset that she is being asked questions. Obviously she MUST be asked questions, and tough and relevant ones, too. What we're bothered by is the mainstream media's political bias and it's resulting inconsistency, double standards, and at times, dishonesty.
