Maureen Dowd vs. South Carolina

Over the past few days I have been more than a little disturbed at the number of people who are accusing Republicans of racism. According to such intellectual giants as Maureen Dowd, President Jimmy Carter, or Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson, if you disagree with the President, you are a racist. These are the same people who told us it was Patriotic to question President George Bush. President Carter has had his own problems with race in his past and should probably focus on cleaning those up before he attacks others. These attacks are from the same party that has given us Klu Klux Klan member Robert Byrd, Democrat Senator from West Virginia. One of Byrd's claims to fame is to be the only sitting member of the Senate who was once an admitted Klan member. The President's Attorney General accused Americans of being cowards when it comes to race. Maybe he was referring to his own party…

I thought I would start my research for this column by reading Maureen Dowd's column for myself. Maybe she had been widely misquoted in the press. Surely no one would accuse another person of racism based on something Ms. Dowd imagined. She points out that,"…fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!" That's right. Maureen Dowd says Joe Wilson is a racist not because of what he said, but because of what she imagined. In a sane world, Ms. Dowd would be laughed at as she was run out of town.

While this has been heavily covered, what I hadn't realized was that Ms. Dowd goes on a rant against the entire state of South Carolina. She slanders Mr. Wilson's involvement in the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, while not mentioning any problem with Byrd's involvement with the actual KKK. She draws on the history of South Carolina to accuse Joe Wilson of racism. Why is Joe Wilson a racist? Because South Carolina fired the first shot in the Civil War. Because Jim DeMint wanted conservatives to "break" the President (Democrats were the model of civility and bipartisanship under President Bush). Because Mark Sanford refused stimulus funds when he felt the state couldn't afford the price tag that came with the stimulus bribes.

In perhaps the most bizarre section, she quotes a Democrat from South Carolina who attacked Bill Clinton in the Palmetto State for alleged racial attacks against then candidate Obama (again, Democrat racial attacks). Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said that a resolution must be passed against Joe Wilson because:

"In South Carolina politics, I learned that the olive branch works very seldom," he said. "You have to come at these things from a position of strength. My father used to say, 'Son, always remember that silence gives consent.' {emphasis mine}

Keeping in mind that the Congressional Research Service says that HR 3200 would allow legal and illegal immigrants to buy health insurance, and that Joe Wilson knew these aspects of HR 3200, does the Democrat from South Carolina really believe Wilson should have kept quiet and given his "consent" to a falsehood?

Perhaps the next time Ms. Dowd wants to accuse a state of being populated by racist, she should do a little homework.

Ms. Dowd, just because you included a racist statement in your mind doesn't mean the rest of us did too. If you want to throw heinous terms around based on what you imagined, listen to the late Michael Jackson, and start with the Man in the Mirror.

The 5 Stories You Missed While Watching Jackson

On June 25^th, Michael Jackson died. We may never know the exact causes. Michael Jackson was at one point in his career a very impressive entertainer. He also had a number of very odd things going on in his private life. Over the last two weeks, the media has covered Michael Jackson's life, death, and funeral as he had been the head of a very powerful country. There were a few important news stories that I thought should be covered. Here they are, in no particular order:

1. Minnesota makes 60. Al Franken finally won his challenge in court and is now a U.S. Senator. As I covered in my last post, the Democrats now have control of the Presidency, a filibuster proof Senate, and the House. They now have the ability to pass any legislation without a single Republican vote. It will be interesting to see what legislation they will try to pass.

2. Thomas v. Gibbs. A few reporters got upset with the White House for only allowing prescreened questions and prescreened individuals at the last town hall meeting. Press member Helen Thomas complained that this isn't what "openness and transparency" is all about. The Press appears to be a little testy that President Obama's town hall meetings are all staged.

3. Stimulus Part Two. By any standard of measure the stimulus plan didn't work. As President Obama begins to argue for a new stimulus bill, we should keep in mind his words from the first one. We were warned that if we didn't pass the stimulus bill, and didn't pass it immediately, unemployment could go as high as 9%. With unemployment now at 9.5% and climbing, President Obama wants a new stimulus bill, maybe even one focused solely on bridges and roads. But I thought that was what we heard with the first one…

4. Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor are starting this week. While the world mourned MJ, the Supreme Court overturned Sotomayor's decision against the Connecticut firefighters. The U. S. Supreme Court found that discriminating on the base of race (even if the victims are white) is illegal. Judge Sotomayor may have to answer questions about this and her comments that a "…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…" this week. I have seen articles saying Sotomayor's supporters are going to try to attack the character of the firefighters. This might be a good story to keep an eye on over the next few weeks.

5. As Global Warming falls apart, the House acts. The evidence is really starting to look grim for global warming supporters. The tale-tale fingerprint of unusual upper atmosphere warming that the U.N. said would prove global warming hasn't materialized. The global temperature has been declining for the last 9 to 10 years. Things are getting bad enough that global warming supporters are now trying to get everyone to call it "catastrophic climate change". That way, it can explain highs AND lows. Into all this, the House of Representatives voted to enact cap and trade legislation just as New Zealand ditched their version of cap and trade. Cap and Trade will do two things. First, it will raise your energy prices. Everyone agrees on this, it's only the dollar figure that people dispute. Democrats claim your energy bill will only go up be a few measly hundred dollars each year. The Heritage Foundation and others have crunched the numbers and they believe it could be closer to $3,000 a year. Either way, you have a new energy tax coming your way. The second thing this did was violate a campaign promise of President Obama. This tax will be on everyone, not just those earning $250,000 a year or more.

Is $100 Million more or less than $8 Billion?

While trying to catch up on politics today, I came across this exchange on the Real Clear Video site (video provided by Sevenload)

Link:

The transcript can be found here. I have to give credit where credit is due. I am often critical of the AP and ABC News both for what I feel is a lack of unbaised coverage. However, both of these reporters brought up excellent questions. After watching the video, I don't think Mr. Gibbs answered the original question. President Obama is trying to show sympathy with the public by cutting $100 Million out of the $3.7 Trillion budget over the next 90 days. Why is that a big deal? The $100 Million won't touch the budget and won't even be a whisper when compared to the deficit. Why should voters be excited about $100 Million? And why did Mr. Gibbs describe $8 Billion as miniscule and now ask for accolades for attempting to cut $100 Million? If Mr. Gibbs can't find the money to cut, why not look for programs like the $7 Billion in the stimulus package to improve broadband coverage nationwide. Surely that isn't important in a down economy.

Book Review: A Slobbering Love Affair

A new book by Bernard Goldberg is worth bringing back the book review feature of this site. Mr. Goldberg's book, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, is a very critical look at the way the media covered the 2008 Presidential campaign. Mr. Goldberg does not blame the media for McCain's loss, nor does he attack President Obama. He does ask a few critical questions of Barack Obama, but this book is more a critique of the media, and not any one person. A sentence from the inside book flap really sums up the major theme of this book. Talking about the media's coverage of the 2008 presidential race, "…the media crossed an important line…moving from their usual unthinking liberal bias to crass partisanship of the crudest kind, practically acting as spin doctors for the presidential campaign of Barack Obama." Mr. Goldberg argues that some of it was intentional, but worse, some of it was done with the best of intentions. Many in the media honestly believed (and probably still believe) Barack Obama was a better candidate that McCain, and that by electing Obama, the United States would be brought into a new golden age. I have no problem with that belief. However, the media crossed the line by acting on it. By not reporting on stories that were critical of Obama or Biden, while digging through dumpsters in Alaska looking for any controversy regarding Sarah Palin, the media ditched their role as observer and instead became an active participant.

A Slobbering Love Affair does point out some concerns the author had for candidate Obama. The author provides a list of interview questions he would have asked the candidate that no one in the press thought of. For example, Mr. Goldberg would have asked:

1. "How willing are you to disappoint liberals?"

2. "Name two or three conservative ideas you find useful and would be central to your 'post-partisan' political philosophy."

3. "Some people believe that the reason so many young black people are behind the eight-ball in this country is not because of old-fashioned racism, but because of dysfunctional behavior: fifteen-year old girls having babies, teenagers dropping out of high school for example. You spoke forcefully and eloquently on Father's Day about this kind of behavior. But then you dropped the subject. As someone who enjoys tremendous support in the black community, you might have had some positive impact on the lives of these kids if you made it a recurring theme of your campaign. Why didn't you?" {emphasis in the original}

These questions appear in Chapter Eighteen, Ten Questions for Barack Obama. I would have liked to have heard the answers to these questions, but there were few in the media willing to ask them. Mr. Goldberg points out that the media is protected by the First Amendment because, "…the press has constitutional protections for one main reason: to keep watch over a powerful government." When that press becomes active players in one campaign or another, their credibility is lowered, or destroyed. Want to know why Democratic Senators are trying to bail out newspapers? Because the American public no longer trusts print media.

A Slobbering Love Affair is a very quick read. I would encourage everyone to read it regardless of your political leanings. If you believe the mainstream media is fair and unbiased, Mr. Goldberg has done some homework for you that just might open your eyes.

Man Kills Daughter, Wants Son : Women's Rights Groups Silent

If you have been reading this site for a while, you probably know I am not a fan of the Women’s rights movement here in the United States. I target specifically the movement here because it seems like the National Organization for Women and other similar groups have lost their way. Don’t get me wrong: I support women having the same rights as men. However, I think NOW tends to forget why they are around in the first place. I found a good example of this today. Check out the following article from Fox News:

WINTER HAVEN, Fla. — A Polk County man is facing a first-degree murder charge in the death of his baby daughter.

According to a Polk County Sheriff's Office report, Marcos Gomez-Romero told investigators he beat Ariana Rodriguez Romero to death because he wanted a son, not a daughter.

Investigators say he told them the beatings had gone on for months.

Romero is charged with first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse. His daughter died Christmas morning.

I saw this and was outraged. This article was on the Fox News front page. At the same time, I made a bet with myself that this article wasn’t even on the radar for the women’s rights groups. So, I did a quick google search and found myself on the NOW website. Here is a quick rundown of articles on NOW listed as “Hot Topics” as of the writing of this post:

The first is a notice that the National NOW Family Law Advisory Committee has been compiling information for women that face divorce or child custody suits. Important, but really a hot topic?

Next is an article entitled “Engaging Women Project Effectively Makes Connections between Voter Participation and Policy Change”. Um, you think?

The third “hot topic” from NOW: Hilary Clinton is the first women to win the New Hampshire Primary.

I have a wife and a daughter I love very much. Because of that, I am very frustrated when I see these supposed women’s rights groups sound more like political action committees and less like real Women’s rights groups. If I can get outraged and appalled by this article, an organization claiming to want equal rights for women should recognize that a man killing his daughter because he wants a son is a problem. And if they can't, then I can recognize a problem with the women's rights movement.

Senate Reaches New Low

The actions by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, and other Democratic Senators over the last 24 hours have reached a new low point for American politics. These 40 Democratic Senators, who suddenly develop outrage whenever their patriotism is questioned, have attacked Rush Limbaughs “unpatriotic and indefensible comments”. On the Senate floor, they disparaged Rush, and impugned his reputation. Remember, Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen. He is not an elected official. Rush would not be able to say the same thing about these Senators in Senate chambers as they said about him.

Agree with Rush Limbaugh or disagree with him, if you don’t like what he says, don’t listen. I disagree with the New York Times for running the Moveon.org ad. Therefore, I have no intention of buying the New York Times. Rush is a citizen of the United States. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment number One, which most liberals claim to cherish, guarantees Rush the ability to say whatever he wants on his own radio station. People can choose to listen to what he says or not.

As I said in a previous post, no one who objectively listens to the segment that Rush has been miss-quoted from can possibly come away with the impression that he was talking about soldiers who served in Iraq. There were stories about phony soldiers in other news outlets leading up to Rush’s comments. Senator Reid, Senator Clinton, and the other signatories of the letter to Mark Mays of Clear Channel or either not doing their homework, or are intentionally misleading the public. Either way, they have now publically embarrassed themselves and the U.S. Senate.

If we wish to be charitable and grant they haven’t done their homework, then all 40 members who signed this letter should resign from office in disgrace. To think that a U.S. Senator would ask a media agency to, “…publicly repudiate these comments…,” without doing his or her homework is beyond belief. This action comes very close to censoring a media outlet. Surely a Senator would do his homework before embarking on such a course. If he or she hasn’t, the Senator should be asked to leave office.

If, as is more likely, these 40 Democratic Senators are intentionally misleading the public, we should still demand they resign. A U.S. Senator is a public servant. Many Senators (both Republican and Democratic) have forgotten that. If they are going to go to the floor of the U.S. Senate and intentionally lie as a matter of cheap theatrics, we don’t need them in office. Surely intelligent adults from both sides of the political spectrum can agree that this debate was a colossal waste of time and public money. Do the Democrats who control the Senate believe this is the most pressing issue of the day?

Either these 40 Senators are too lazy to seek the truth in this matter, or they prefer to intentionally mislead the public with regards to Rush. These Senators owe Rush a formal apology from the floor of the Senate. Of course, that would require these Senators have some sort of honor. I seriously question that after seeing this letter.

Not so "Fairness Doctrine"

There has been a lot of discussion in the media lately regarding a resurgence of the “Fairness Doctrine”. I thought it might be interesting to look at the history behind the Fairness Doctrine. It was once policy by the FCC, why is it not still enforced? The historical information for this post is taken largely from an article on the doctrine by Val E. Limburg on www.museum.tv.

In the words of Limburg, the “Fairness Doctrine” was, “...an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair.” The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the FCC, and was not actual law. In 1949, the FCC believed that since there were a limited number of frequencies available, the broadcasters had a responsibility to report all sides of a particular issue. Editorials on assorted issues were permitted, so long as opposing views were also allowed. Journalists considered the doctrine a violation of First Amendment rights. They felt the FCC shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing “fairness”.

The doctrine also began to have the opposite effect of what was originally intended. Limburg points out, “ [i]n order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues.” Instead of many sides being presented, no sides were presented on controversial issues. This became known as the “Chilling Effect” and was the exact opposite of the intention of the FCC.

In 1985, the Fairness Report was issued by the FCC and argued against continuing to use the fairness doctrine. The FCC noted the chilling effect the policy was having and expressed its concern that the doctrine might be in direct violation of the First Amendment. In 1987, the courts ruled that the doctrine was not congressional law and the FCC could choose whether to enforce it or not. The FCC decided to dissolve the doctrine. Congress has tried to pass the fairness doctrine as law since that time, but each President has vetoed it. Congress has yet to muster the votes to override a veto.

Limburg closes out his article with the exact reason a fairness doctrine is not needed: “The public relies on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage on an issue.” With the number of cable, satellite TV, satellite radio, radio, and even internet sources, there is always someone covering an issue you are interested in. Think Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are too one sided? Tune in to CNN or NPR.

In case any reader may think I am simply repeating the conservative talking points, Newsweek recently ran an article detailing the problems with a new fairness doctrine. Regardless of your political belief system, liberal, conservative, or other, the fairness doctrine has no place in today’s society. The Fairness Doctrine represents an attempt to restrict freedom of speech and calling it anything else is simply not telling the truth.

TIME's "Most Influential" 100

Time released their “Top 100 Most Influential People” list today. In the Time’s own words, this is their, “…list of the 100 men and women whose power, talent, or moral example is transforming the world.” Remember, the editors of Time magazine chose these rules. There are many characters and figures on the list. One prominent figure not on the list is the President of the United States.

The list is an interesting one. There are two members of the Communist Chinese government on the list as well as at least three dictators, Ayatullah Khamenei, and Osama bin Laden. Popular Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama are also listed as the most influential people in the world. Pope Benedict XVI, Queen Elizabeth II, Condoleezza Rice, Chief Justice John Roberts, and General David Petraeus also make the list. I shouldn’t forget Raul Castro as well.

I can’t fathom how the Time’s believe some of these people (like Raul Castro or Barack Obama) are more influential on the world wide stage than the most powerful man in the free world. Not even ex President Bill Clinton was able to get into the list and he is certainly more influential than some of the others on the list. He is arguably even more influential than his wife. I find it interesting to see so many terrorist and dictators on a list that includes “moral example” as one of the qualifiers for the top 100. The man responsible for much of the death and bloodshed in Dafur, Omar Hassan al-Bashir actually makes a very early appearance on the list.

Time magazine can’t possibly believe that Raul Castro has more influence on the international stage than President Bush. Whether you like his politics or not, Bush is the President of the United States. That title carries a tremendous amount of authority, power, and influence. Time magazine should have done a little more homework. Of the 21 political figures in their list (Rosie doesn’t count), 3 are in their jobs because Bush put them there (Rice, Roberts, and Petraeus). In discussing the 21 “Leaders and Revolutionaries”, President Bush is mentioned a total of 9 times in five different profiles. For someone to be discussed so much in the other “most influential”, how could he not be on the list?

The lone redeeming point to this story is the number of people who have posted complaints on the Time website for not including President Bush. Many of the complaints point out that as President, Bush should have been an easy pick for the list. Some argue he is more influential than the actors and sports figures on the list because of the power the President’s office wields. Is there really anyone willing to take up the banner and argue that Raul Castro is more influential than President Bush?

I think Time has finally revealed itself as the entertainment magazine it is. What was once considered a source of news should now be considered with the same credibility as the National Enquirer.