Journalists/JournOlists

My contempt and outright loathing is no secret.

This satire of the media template by the Onion stands alone and should be shown to every 101 class in the supposed once and former craft of "reporting" now called "journalism".

I have posted on the change from reporter to journalist and "man on the street" to "vox populi".

Did I mention I hate journalists?

May I again?

I hate journalists, those folks at the NYTimes and Newsweek and Time and CNN and CBS and on and on...

They should show this to everyone who passes through the damn SALT institute, they fall into similar B.S. patterns. It's so real it's past funny and into we all deserve it for not isolating and humiliating the media class by now stage.

Anyone have an invite to a gathering with a journalist for me?

At any rate, here is the rubric for a story regarding anything which journalists put out in their sleep and expect us to fall at their glamorous feet, the prick pieces of fecal matter:

Media Having Trouble

finding proper angle.

Here is a nice Onion piece on how the JourOlists are propagandizing for Obama. I'm copying and pasting a significant portion for you to read and laugh and then tear your hair out and cry before vowing to tar and feather editors around the nation:

WASHINGTON—More than a week after President Barack Obama's cold-blooded killing of a local couple, members of the American news media admitted Tuesday that they were still trying to find the best angle for covering the gruesome crime.

"I know there's a story in there somewhere," said Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, referring to Obama's home invasion and execution-style slaying of Jeff and Sue Finowicz on Apr. 8. "Right now though, it's probably best to just sit back and wait for more information to come in. After all, the only thing we know for sure is that our president senselessly murdered two unsuspecting Americans without emotion or hesitation."

Added Meacham, "It's not so cut and dried."

Enlarge Image

Associated Press reporters investigate any possible gym training regimens the president might have used to get into peak physical condition for the murders.

Since the killings took place, reporters across the country have struggled to come up with an appropriate take on the ruthless crime, with some wondering whether it warrants front-page coverage, and others questioning its relevance in a fast-changing media landscape.

"What exactly is the news hook here?" asked Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the CBS Evening News. "Is this an upbeat human-interest story about a 'day in the life' of a bloodthirsty president who likes to kill people? Or is it more of an examination of how Obama's unusual upbringing in Hawaii helped to shape the way he would one day viciously butcher two helpless citizens in their own home?"

"Or maybe the story is just that murder is cool now," Kaplan continued. "I don't know. There are a million different angles on this one."

So far, the president's double-homicide has not been covered by any major news outlets. The only two mentions of the heinous tragedy have been a 100-word blurb on the Associated Press wire and an obituary on page E7 of this week's edition of the Lake County Examiner.

While Obama has expressed no remorse for the grisly murders—point-blank shootings with an unregistered .38-caliber revolver—many journalists said it would be irresponsible for the press to sensationalize the story.

"There's been some debate around the office about whether we should report on this at all," Washington Post senior reporter Bill Tracy said while on assignment at a local dog show. "It's enough of a tragedy without the press jumping in and pointing fingers or, worse, exploiting the violence. Plus, we need to be sensitive to the victims' families at this time. Their loved ones were brutally, brutally murdered, after all."

Nevertheless, a small contingent of independent journalists has begun to express its disapproval and growing shock over the president's actions.

"I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but we are in the midst of an economic crisis here," political pundit Marcus Reid said. "Why was our president ritualistically dismembering the corpses of his prey when he should have been working on a new tax proposal for small businesses? I, for one, am outraged."

The New York Times newsroom is reportedly still undecided on whether or not to print a recent letter received from Obama, in which the president threatens to kill another helpless citizen every Tuesday and "fill [his] heavenly palace with slaves for the afterlife" unless the police "stop the darkness from screaming."

"President Obama's letter presents us with a classic journalistic quandary," executive editor Bill Keller said. "If we print it, then we're giving him control over the kinds of stories we choose to run. It would be an acknowledgment that we somehow give the nation's commander in chief special treatment."

Added Keller, "And that's just not how the press in this country works."

"Being cool...

can really help a new president."--Michael Beschloss

No sense, no shame.

This is reeeaally going to be hard to hide from for years yet.

Peggy too: "Part of the mystery of Mr. Obama is that he is cool..."

Wow what crap.

Then those in the media have the hubris to look down on us?

Murdoch was really understating matters:

"And the data support this unpleasant truth. Studies show we’re in an odd position: we’re more trusted by the people who aren’t reading us. And when you ask journalists what they think about their readers, the picture grows darker. According to one recent study, the percentage of national journalists who have a great deal of confidence in the ability of the American public to make good decisions has declined by more than 20 points since 1999. Perhaps this reflects their personal politics and personal prejudices more than anything else, but it is disturbing.

This is a polite way of saying that reporters and editors think their readers are stupid. In any business, such an attitude toward one’s customers would not be healthy. But in the newspaper business, where we rely on people to come back to us each day, it will be disastrous if not addressed...

newspapers whose employees look down on their readers can have no hope of ever succeeding as a business..."

As I have said there won't be hope until some editors have been humiliated in public and are afraid to admit to new people they meet that they intentionally stifled inquiry into the life and outlook of a man they wanted to be president because they are his groupies. After which they are replaced.

Blumenthal

He was never the captain of Harvard's varsity swim team, despite his assertions, according to this here.

He is under scrutiny, liberal scrutiny, something must be up.

I must go back and look at all of the Blumenthal that acid reflux can stand.

How many links will the terms "Blumenthal Tobacco Settlement" return?

"Our agreement will revolutionize the way the industry does business, punish it for past misconduct, and improve the health of all Americans," Blumenthal said in Washington, D.C., as he and the other negotiators announced the agreement. "This agreement will do more for the public health of our nation than all of the states' lawsuits combined -- even if we had won all of our individual suits. If enacted by Congress, it will save more lives than any public health initiative."

"Just a short time ago, a settlement of this magnitude was unimaginable," Blumenthal said. "Now, Joe Camel is as familiar to young children as Mickey Mouse. But with this settlement Joe Camel will be history and the next generation of children won't even know who he is. This is a great win for Connecticut and for Connecticut's children. We have taken the tobacco giants to task for their legacy of death, lies, and addiction."

"This agreement sets forth unparalleled public health policy to aggressively regulate the tobacco industry, force it to fund programs to reduce the number of children who begin smoking, and help smokers kick the nicotine habit," Blumenthal said.

I want Peter Schiff for our Senator.

I will spend some time thinking of Blumenthal and his need for attention and trying to recall his nanny fueled notions.

What a field day this would be for the press if only...only...oh, what could that one thing be? Hmmmmmm....What would make it different for that hard working fourth estate?

Keep notes on the politicians but heat up the tar and fluff up the feathers for the media. They deserve to luxuriate in an exfoliating catharsis immediately. Then they can use their legendary communication skills to ask, for once, difficult questions and follow ups of the political class for we, the people, to glean pertinent and useful information.

Big Journalism quotes NPR: "An extensive search of the news database Nexis conducted by NPR shows several Connecticut newspapers repeatedly mischaracterized Blumenthal’s service, especially the Connecticut Post."

I am saddened that no daring journo-aspiree would dare get their hands dirty looking into matters.

They would rather relax and print PR releases as their own material.

"JOURNALISTS TODAY PRODUCE three times more copy but less original reportage than they did 20 years ago, according to a Cardiff University study.

The Quality and Independence of British Journalism: Tracking the changes over 20 years has found a reporter now files an average of 4.5 stories a day — up from the one or two earlier.

The result is that journalists rely heavily on ‘pre-packaged’ news — PR material or wire services — rather than produce independent copy.

And worse, this trend is set to continue."

I would suggest that applies to the Anglosphere and Western culture as well as locally, especially as long as the liberal east coast machine is churning.

As long as these deluded jerks, the fourth estate, consider Carlos Slim's New York Times the neutral spigot of high end information this civilization is doomed down the porcelain vortex.

UGH

Islamic Intolerance

at the nation-state level. A very good thing, at that!!

So from anything I have read over the years more than 80 percent of the funding of mosques, those redoubts and pillboxes of intolerance and misogyny, have, in the U.S. been funded by wahhabi's Saudi money. (I continue to go back and lower case any term dealing with islam. Cult's don't get the treatment of a respectable religion)

So grim. Such an ugly spectacle with so little potential for sunlight and open discourse which is necessary for an alteration of our heading. We have no viable "fourth estate" to address any enemies of enlightenment. Only a Dhimmi fifth column. God Damn our journalistic class to hell. God Damn them for pissing away my vote and stifling the expression of my thoughts and very voice as an American who believes in freedom and the right to liberal expression. P.C. kills. It kills freedom.

They oppose liberty with every effort to conceal the darkness of Islam's exports from muslim nations West.

Via Gates of Vienna we have a fantastic and refreshing response at a significant level to this clear effort at soft conquest and a blessedly bold refusal to submit.

'Norway refuses to allow mosque-building millions from Saudi Arabia

Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre [also known as “bin Gahr Støre” since he caved in and hung a newspaper’s editor-in-chief out to dry and ran around apologizing during the Mohammed cartoon crisis — translator] has made a surprising about-face today.

The Saudi government and a rich private person want to build mosques for tens of millions in Norway. They have the full right to do so, according to Norwegian law. However, there is a clause in the law that the Norwegian government has to approve the financial support.

The Foreign Ministry does not just refuse to accept the mosque-building contributions. In an answer to Tawfiiq Islamic Center, the Ministry writes: “It would be a paradox and unnatural to accept funding from sources in a country where there is no religious freedom”.

“We could just have said no, by principle the Foreign ministry doesn’t approve such a thing. But when we were asked, we used the opportunity to add that an acceptance would be a paradox while its punishable in Saudi Arabia to establish a Christian congregation,” says Jonas Gahr Støre to VG.'

Infidels are not allowed in Mecca or Medina. The very mention of those cities should send a chill up the spine of a westerner. One period in the life of the big "Mo" held the potential for a more relaxed, more tolerant cult leader. It would have changed history and spared blood on an unimaginable scale. The other period assured the current insanity.

I admit that I know very little of the enormity which is islam, but I seem to know more than most "journalists".

If you are a "journalist" please accept any apologies genuinely due, and please leave a comment with a manner in which I may take you to lunch and ask you questions for this blog.

Otherwise--for journalists--PISS OFF!!! You libtard jackape DHIMMI twats!!

NOTICE: this stand which their government is taking is only possible before the representative democracy is overwhelmed by the demographics of a sharia demanding immigrant class.

There is a man whose initials are M.C.--not myself--who, in front of a couple of other folks, asked me if I was afraid of losing my vote during a discussion of illegal immigration. I was, but in the early nineties I was uncomfortable saying so. I did not have the fortitude to make a stand. I hesitated and faltered before saying that at some point I would be uncertain as to the strength of my vote. I still regret not being more firm and certain in my answer, and damn the liberals for whatever they felt about me.

Parts of Europe are overwhelmed and such a stance is no longer possible for them.

I have friends who are Turk and Serb and, just as my legal Uruguayan and Brazilian and Portuguese friends are the most vociferous in their importuning, they think...well...what does anyone with half a brain assume they think?

Journalists

I have mentioned Crichton and his Gell-Mann Amnesia effect before.

Hayek agrees:

CHITESTER: Do you find journalism generally to be superficial?

HAYEK: It’s always dangerous to generalize because there are some exceedingly good men among them to whom it does not apply. But in terms of numbers, yes.

CHITESTER: And the basic corrupting element is, as you said, the desire to appeal, to try to second-guess what’s going to be accepted or not.

HAYEK: And it’s a necessity to pretend to be competent on every subject, some of which they really do not understand. They are under that necessity, I regret; I’m sorry for them. But to pretend to understand all the things you write about, and habitually to write about things you do not understand, is a very corrupting thing.

Journalists are full of crap and arrogant and have nauseatingly high tolerances for sloughing off and rationalizing away and discounting shame. That is essential to enable them to navigate and succeed in the social environs they have created. They are proud of those qualities.

Link via The Corner

Journalists

have their priorities as we all know, from the FAS Secrecy blog:

"Leaks Led to Imprisonment of Source, CIA Says

Unauthorized disclosures of classified information in the press led to the imprisonment of a CIA source and other damaging consequences, said Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden in a speech last week.

"Some say there is no evidence that leaks of classified information have harmed national security. As CIA Director, I'm telling you there is, and they have," Hayden told the Council on Foreign Relations.

"Let me give you just two examples: In one case, leaks provided ammunition for a government to prosecute and imprison one of our sources, whose family was also endangered. The revelations had an immediate, chilling effect on our ability to collect against a top-priority target."

"In another, a spate of media reports cost us several promising counterterrorism and counterproliferation assets. Sources not even involved in the exposed operation lost confidence that their relationship with us could be kept secret, and they stopped reporting."

"More than one foreign service has told us that, because of public disclosures, they had to withhold intelligence that they otherwise would have shared with us. That gap in information puts Americans at risk."

"Those who are entrusted with America's secrets and break that trust by divulging those secrets are guilty of a crime. But those who seek such information and then choose to publish it are not without responsibilities."

In his comments on unauthorized disclosures, Director Hayden did not address wrongful withholding of information, and did not acknowledge any reasons why American might be skeptical of CIA disclosure policies. "CIA acts within a strong framework of law and oversight," he said.

The text of his September 7, 2007 speech is here.

While leaks have been a perennial problem from the government's point of view, it does not follow that new legislation to combat them is a fitting solution.

"I am not aware of a single case involving the unauthorized disclosure of classified information that would have been prosecuted but could not be because of the lack of statutory coverage," said Attorney General John Ashcroft in testimony (pdf) prepared for the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2001.

The Ashcroft testimony, dated September 5, 2001, represents a missing link between the testimony of Janet Reno on the same subject on June 14, 2000, and a subsequent report to Congress on leaks that was submitted by Mr. Ashcroft in October 2002.

The testimony was approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget, according to a handwritten notation on the document, but the scheduled Intelligence Committee hearing was cancelled and the Ashcroft testimony was never delivered.

A copy of the text was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Michael Ravnitzky."

Ortiz

Update: Screw Ortiz. Adam sends this link with this info, although it's from journalists so you can't trust it:

Ortiz downplayed the moment at Fenway Park, going so far as to deny becoming a citizen when asked about the ceremony before the game.

Manager Terry Francona was among those kept in the dark.

"Is that why he had a sport coat on?" Francona said. "I didn't know."

I don't doubt the veracity. He must have done it for taxation and convenience reasons. Like I said, screw him. I will quote Obama and say that the man is "typical".

Now back to the original post:

Takes the oath and is now an American.

Also at Powerline this fantastic Sowell quote:

"Perhaps even more important, do the media even care whether Senator Obama knows what he is talking about? Or is the symbolism of "the first black President" paramount, even if that means a President with cocky ignorance at a time of national danger?"

"An Unlikely Weapon"

Eddie Adams/Associated Press, via Morgan Cooper
Productions

A movie review over at Pinch's Dog's Breakfast.

Eddie Adams personally apologized to General Nguyen for that photo.

Oddly NPR has far higher standards of candor and complexity when speaking of this film and Eddie Adams:

But the Pulitzer Prize Adams won for this photograph left him pained and conflicted for the rest of his life.

Because of the draft, says Arnett, most journalists chronicling Vietnam had been in the military. They could relate to the troops and had a better understanding of what was going on. Adams, who had been a combat photographer with the U.S. Marine Corps in Korea, loved the Marines, and many of his best photographs are of Marine operations.

But his most famous and most disturbing photograph was shot on the streets of Cholon, the Chinese section of Saigon. The incident took place on the second day of the Tet Offensive in 1968, a watershed battle that changed public perceptions of the war. Adams saw a soldier drag a man in a checkered shirt out of a building. In the documentary An Unlikely Weapon: The Eddie Adams Story, Adams describes what happened.

"They were taking him by the hand and pulled him out in the street," he said. "Now any photographer, when you grab a prisoner, in New York or something, you just follow him, and it's a picture. You follow until he is put into a wagon and driven away."

But walking into the frame of his camera was Brig. Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan, raising a pistol. Normally, that was a method of interrogation — holding a weapon to a suspect's head and asking questions. As Buell tells it, "This man just raised the pistol and Eddie made a picture of an interrogation, but the man pulled the trigger."

One of Adams' frames was the very instant the bullet entered the man's head — the moment of death.

The picture went around the world. It was held up at demonstrations by members of the intensifying anti-war movement and became one of the two or three iconic photos that symbolized the war for many people. Ironically, there are films of that same execution. But Buell and Arnett both argue that the still photo had more of an impact.

"You can see the gun, you can see the expression on the man's face as the bullet enters his head, and you see the soldier on the left who is wincing at the thing that has happened," says Buell. "With the still picture, you have time to consider all these factors."

Arnett calls the picture a "brilliant piece of photography. He had the courage to stand a foot or two away from a murderous officer who had his pistol out and shot the man in front of him."

But Adams, who considered himself a patriot and a Marine, never came to terms with the fact that the anti-war movement saw that photograph as proof that the Vietnam War was unjustified. In fact, he believed to the end of his life that the picture only told part of the truth. The untold story was that on the day of the execution, an aid to Loan was killed by insurgents. After Loan pulled the trigger, he walked by Adams and said, "They killed many of our people and many of yours."

In An Unlikely Weapon, Adams said he found the attention given to this photo disturbing: "I still don't understand to this day why it was so important, because I have heard so many different versions of what this picture did, like it helped end the war in Vietnam."

More here:

"Except Eddie Adams wishes he never took the picture.

After the photo was seen around the world, the AP assigned Adams to hang out with General Loan. He discovered that Loan was a beloved hero in Vietnam, to his troops and the citizens. "He was fighting our war, not their war, our war, and every — all the blame is on this guy," Adams told NPR (in what may have been the most surprisingly courageous NPR interview I've ever heard). Adams learned that Loan fought for the construction of hospitals in South Vietnam and unlike the popular myths, demonstrated the fact that at least some South Vietnamese soldiers really did want to fight for their country and way of life.

Just moments before that photo had been taken, several of his men had been gunned down. One of his soldiers had been at home, along with the man's wife and children. The Vietcong had attacked during the holiday of Tet, which had been agreed upon as a time for a truce. As it turned out, many of the victims of the NC and North Vietnamese were defenseless. Some three thousand of them were discovered in a mass grave outside of Hue after the Americans reoccupied the area. The surprise invasion, turned out to be a military disaster for the Vietcong, but a huge strategic victory because of its effect on American resolve.

But at the time, all of this was irrelevant to people like Loan. It was an ugly, shocking assault. The execution of the prisoner was a reprisal. It was an ugly thing to be sure, but wars, civil wars especially, are profoundly ugly things.

Adams wrote in Time magazine, "The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?'"

The picture that Adams took, the picture that CNN thinks is such an atrocious and ignoble deed, ruined Loan's life. More to the point, it didn't expand on "our right to know." It didn't answer questions, or give us the story. It deceived. It gave no context. It confirmed the biases of the anti-war journalists, and they used it to further their agenda.

Loan fled Vietnam during the fall of Saigon for the US. He eventually moved to Burke, Virginia. He tried to open a restaurant in Northern Virginia, but when the identity of its owner became known, it closed down. Protestors circled the establishment venting their fashionable, safe, outrage.

The two men stayed in touch, and Adams tried to apologize many times.

"He was very sick, you know, he had cancer for a while," he told NPR. "And I talked to him on the phone and I wanted to try to do something, explaining everything and how the photograph destroyed his life and he just wanted to try to forget it. He said let it go. And I just didn't want him to go out this way."

General Loan died a year and a month ago. He left a wife and five kids. Most of the obituaries were, like the photograph that ruined his life, two dimensional and unforgiving. Adams sent flowers with a card that read, "I'm sorry. There are tears in my eyes."

Such a compelling and complicated story so rich in everything involving conflict, influence, power, duty, brotherhood, justice, honor...and on...and on.

The Times does not want to dwell. Compare the above with their consideration of that iconic image and it's profound entanglements:

"Directed by Susan Morgan Cooper, the movie abounds with striking pictures from Mr. Adams’s long career (he died in 2004), but it keeps coming back to the one he snapped on Feb. 1, 1968, in Saigon: a photograph of a Vietcong prisoner being executed on the street, immortalized during the split second before the bullet exited his skull. One of the most famous images of the 20th century, it was a photo that changed Mr. Adams’s life and possibly the course of the Vietnam War. The strongest material in “An Unlikely Weapon” contemplates the import of that shot, and of photojournalism itself, on the events of its time. The rest charts Mr. Adams’s subsequent career, from duck hunting with Fidel Castro to oceanfront sessions with Penthouse centerfolds, with perfunctory admiration. "

The New York Times needs to heed it's own simple narrative at all times. It needs even more for us to be unaware of any other narratives. This perfectly encapsulates their technique. Mention little, so little you encourage your very customer to continue onward without consideration. Leave enough, however, for you to argue that the notion was in the text if confronted.

Don't trust their coverage of Mexico, nor anything connected. Not that any sane person would trust any of their coverage.

By the way, what was that weapon General Nguyen used? Was that a J frame?

"Journalists"

As I have repeatedly mentioned, until they experience fear they win. At the expense of our liberties and the future of the west. I'm speaking in terms far more important than this election alone. There is no "hope" until reasonable people have the information they need to make decisions regarding the future of their children. There is no "hope" until these jackasses "feel our pain." Nod nod, wink wink.

via the one who questions: "Will there be blood? Boogers? Crying?" ;)

Anne Wortham

I feel uncertain as to this letter's provenance...I snopsed it but it did not turn up.

Update: There is an interview of her by Bill Moyers that I wish I could view. It is mentioned in an interesting post here, and the comments are also worth reading.

(Mr. Moyers has a history of taking public funds for his work and then retaining the rights to profit from the material long afterwards. I suspect the interview probably falls into that category and his lawyers pulled it, but I don't know...

"In his dual roles as head of the $75 million Florence and John Schumann Foundation and PBS Pontificator-in-Chief, Moyers regularly interviews the people he funds (conflict of interest). He has gotten rich at "the public trough," producing shows partially financed by taxpayers and lining his pockets with the royalties (profiteering). And while he demands strict disclosure of others in the public sector, Moyers rarely tells his viewers when his interview subjects are the recipients of his foundation's grants or discloses details of his own financial relationship with public broadcasting."

This is also interesting regarding Moyers.)

I will do the ol' copy and paste with link:

"Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul’s name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America.

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival – all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America. Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn’t look like them. I would have to be wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration – political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead – and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States, the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over – and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to – Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine – what little there is left – for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

November 6, 2008

Anne Wortham [send her mail] is an individualist liberal who happens to be black and American."

Bill Whittle -- Or -- Not a Tea Party Post

This is not a post regarding the Tea Party or, more aptly, Tea Parties, as I believe there is no "Tea Party" in and of itself.

The Tea Parties have been assailed by many and, might I add, poorly, as being any number of violent or ignorant or fascist constructs. You may know an ignorant and poorly read soul by their opposition to the "Tea Party" as it takes a discussion to even understand the movement and an individuals rejection of the trend and an individuals identifying with said trend requires thought.

To reject the "Tea Party" is really to reject the Bill of Rights---I wrote and re-wrote that phrase several times but I must simply state it as I know it, and as I know each and every one whom I have ever met at a Tea Party gathering or whom I have ever met who self-identified as a Tea-Party leaning individual.

A number of years before the Tea Parties I felt a tense and resentful anger towards the MSM.
I had discussions with librarians in which they did not believe the NYTimes was liberal. Subsequently in those discussions they did not understand the objection to and lack of admiration for their "Masters of Library Science". Even when they admitted that an individual who worked for Borders for a year or two could eclipse them in their job duties they would never concede that some level of mandarinization were occurring. They would become highly animated, however, when the notion of replacing them at a lower pay scale with the individual who honed their teeth at Borders would be suggested.

Well, that was a clutz's try to remind folks of how it was before the internet. All of everywhere seemed to be NYTimes, all Newsweek, all liberal fourth estate oikephobic and parlor room trash. I thought I was about to go insane, and this went on for a long and painful era. Then I noticed things like Bill Whittle and Murdoc and Insty and Alphecca and the list grew and grew and I was heartened. It was lonely reading the NYTimes and Newsweek and Time and realizing that the folks who had subscribed to those publications 25 plus years earlier had renewed by rote, with no thought, and had not realized that the periodicals were not the same.

I wish I could go back in time and speak to those people, the journalists and my relatives alike---alas, upon thinking I feel that is a selfish longing not associated with this post.

If you see Bill Whittle's name anywhere persue i!

This man articulates our American Ideals and he seems to speak from MY HEART!!!

Beyond Words or Understanding

I don't feel politics enters into this grievous and lurid horror story regarding a doctor in Philly.

(ChicagoBoyz address here.)

It is a difficult read and you may wish to pass, it involves the notions of late term and infanticide, add insanity and filth and the notion of torture also comes to mind.

I don't believe this insane individual should affect the discussions regarding "sensible" abortion laws any more than the insane individual in AZ should affect the notions of "sensible" gun laws.

I do not intend to get into any discussion of abortion or gun laws right here, and yet---

Funny how the one will get all the attention despite the lurid and traffic driving potential of the other.

Really, if you have the stomach go read and ponder on how much media space would be granted if it weren't surrounding that coddled and untouchable media baby, late term abortion. Obama is all for it, that's a fact. (Many articles on his quiet support of the latest and worst modes of the actions depicted here. Just don't use a gun.)


Bad press however, nope, the JournoListers will not abide.

CNN, a network that had a politically adversarial driven show called "crossfire" is now stooping to new depths insisting that discussion generates insanity and crimes against humanity---when they can use it against the second amendment and anyone to their right.

Are you a journalist?

You would have a whole heck of a lot to prove to me before I would trust your ass, let alone have any regard for your skills involving observation, research or deduction.

Rot in hell journalists, is that inflammatory?

Time Magazine

Has a bit on the Top Ten Toilets.

Time and Newsweek were horrendous in the 1980s, absolutely awful. I tried to cancel my parents subscription with a letter, was complimented on my writing but the folks vetoed the cancellation. I continued to read with morbid fascination. They declined and degraded and...it's almost indescribable how awful they are now. Time and Newsweek, understand. You must actually pick up an issue, any recent will do, and show someone. They won't believe how bad they are. Let me take a moment to once again shake my head in consideration of that ass Mr. Meacham.

Anyhow, let me add one more crapper to the list--yes, Time magazine.

via Atlas Shrugs, which reminds me to go look at how bad LGF has become. Not going to hypertext to that sad lost soul, wow, he also boggles the mind.

Mohamed was a vile disgusting individual. Here is a post with a video of an actual stoning, if it were committed by any group other than muslims the media and the female advocates would be screaming from the rooftops. Do they hold their tongues because they hate the West so much, because they hate and think the muslims incapable of humanity, or because on some level they hate themselves?

Even more gruesome and heart wrenching, even more chilling is this letter from an encounter...well, brace yourself and read it all, please.

Where is the outrage on the left and in the media. Where is the relentless flight of lawyers and journalists and condemnations from jackasses like Barak...oh...never mind.

They are too busy condemning the number of ice creams available to prisoners in Gitmo and condemning the tolerant West.

God Damn the fourth estate, the left and the U.N.

Carjacking

Involving a woman, a child, and a Liberian carjacking ring. Nothing to see here. Have the woman show some feisty nature though, and I can only be sure of one thing. The journalists and p.c. idiots will not condemn the situation that led to Liberian criminal gangs assaulting women and children, they will wag their fingers at her resistance instead.

Classical Values has it.

He also has a Spitzer entry with links. Click on the '"petty and vindictive" SOB' link for a terse bit in Opinionjournal. He has been such an unmitigated ass for so long, hats off to the press for keeping it under wraps through his election.

via Boortz---Mexico and driver's licensing.

Stop the Presses!

"JOURNALISTS" KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE STORIES THEY COVER!!!!!

via Pajamasmedia

Everyone already knows that the fourth estate is worse than worthless. They should be ostracized after their tarring and feathering.

Little Red Wagon

Andrew Klavan.

(never miss City Journal)

Worth the read for his perception of the Tea Party.

Please go and read all. Do not forget that our defeat is secured when we "Shut Up":

"I’m not sure—I’m no prophet—but I think I just saw something genuinely profound, genuinely amazing, and cool that could be the tidal wave of the future.

Here’s the setup. It was Tax Day. Thousands of self-organized protesters had gathered around the nation to protest the irresponsible, incredibly rapid expansion of government under the current administration. The Democratic Party and the elite media had done everything in their power to first ignore, then discourage, ridicule, and belittle this grassroots movement. Theoretically respectable journalists were reduced to making double-entendre sexual jokes about tea bags. These are the same people who rushed en masse to cover Cindy Sheehan and a dozen or so antiwar protesters in Crawford, Texas, rechristening that sad, emotionally unpredictable woman with two of the most cherished words in the English language: Peace Mom. But what was their attitude when thousands of ordinary people gathered in defense of their rights all over the country? “Just move on, folks, nothing to see here.”

Ah well, they’re nervous, and I don’t blame them. Because despite their claims that the Tea Party movement is without ideas, it was the people at those protests who represented the beliefs of our Founding Fathers. And it’s the government and the press that have betrayed them."

Prince Harry

They must find everyone involved (British) in the leak of that information and hang them all publicly. No joking here whatsoever. Seeing any "journalists" swing would elevate the sweetness of the schadenfreude. The fact that this is not going to happen is merely example #18 billion in the list of observations of the West's suicide.

Lazy Mainstream Media

It's been noted often that the media is a pool of lazy cretins to take their marching orders from the New York Times. If you have missed it then I just said it right there.

In an example I noted this morning CBS's Sunday Morning did a very brief profile of Master Knifemaker Bob Kramer.

Last year the New Yorker did a very nice and long profile of him:

"Bob Kramer is one of a hundred and twenty-two people in the world, and the only former chef, to have been certified in the U.S. as a Master Bladesmith."

What do you bet someone at CBS read the article and went straight to him without any other research or understanding of the craft? What do you bet that that same person considers themselves far more sophisticated and knowledgeable than that scary ignorant mass that is America?

If I am wrong I will use the CBS dodge and suggest that even if my two assertions are false it's o.k., the general notion is still completely true.

Journalists are lazy scum unless they smell an opportunity to harm Western Civilization, then they get off there ass and fly to Wassilla or wherever to rummage through dumpsters and pester the locals.

Crowder

So I have had the unique, or not so unique, opportunity to have attended a tea party function with someone who has attended many, many politically hued gatherings. I will wait till the individual and I speak again before I ask for his opinion.

Perhaps less "politically hued" than popular culturally liberally anti war hued gatherings

However.

This seems to me to be the typical response to "uncool" or otherwise unwanted speech or inquiry at an ostensibly liberal venue. The seeming bitch slap is something I have not experienced as it would have really lead to trouble, likely my own, but trouble nonetheless.




I think it was racial and it clearly exposed a desire for fascist control (subconscious desire for authority with card and I.D. demanding benefits for the militaria which they play act in their febrile mind) or another bruising romp for the "liberals" who claim to clean up after themselves and believe in honest discourse.

We must all agree that if this had occurred under the tea party banner it would have been played all over --- and over --- and over--

Ugh. I really don't like ugly folks who wrongly identify with the tea party movement. Certainly it is less in number and threat than that which it opposes.

I get damned tired of seeing the insanity on the left which is ignored, or filmed in Vaseline lens to advance the degradation of the West.

As always I would love to have dinner with journalists and editors or anyone else who may disagree. Please comment to initiate a dialogue leading to better relations.

No Joke!

Once again I feel compelled to state that the Tea Party functions I have attended were compelling in the polite and welcoming nature. From everything dealing with simple etiquette involving doors to addressing those who were there to agitate with civility and accurate historical and constitutional reference.

I will take the epithet "tea bagger" and gladly choke and metsphorically gag all who wish to apply the tired and juvenile sobriquet...I am a patriot. If my enemies (Obama opened that one up) persist I will teabag the losers.

The silly litter and vile speach and taunting is always on the left. The real deal is on the behalf of the patriots, the constitutionalists, those who believe enough in liberty that they truly recognize the second amendment as an admission of inherent existential right and not some fay tip of the hat to an evolving constitution.

Oh well, a lot of sloppy material to look over. As always, "mess" is in the banner...