So PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will "moderate" tonight's debate between the vice presidential candidates.
Michelle Malkin notes that Ifill's book, Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, will be hitting the bookshelves on the day that she believes B. Hussein Obama will be sworn in as president of the United States:
My dictionary defines “moderator” as “the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.” On Thursday, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will serve as moderator for the first and only vice presidential debate. The stakes are high. The Commission on Presidential Debates, with the assent of the two campaigns, decided not to impose any guidelines on her duties or questions.
But there is nothing “moderate” about where Ifill stands on Barack Obama. She’s so far in the tank for the Democrat presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out.
Indeed, the liberal media strike again.
PBS, that bastion of journalism that repays taxpayers by putting a liberal spin on every story, is asking its listeners to answer a question:
Now what would be interesting is the answer to a side-by-side question, "Do you think Barack Obama is qualified to serve as the President of the United States?"
Not that I expect a reasonable answer from anyone that can stomach watching PBS "journalism". That's up to the rest of us. Go and cast your vote.
The myth that anti-Christian fanatics seem to take the most glee in is that she attempted to ban books from the town library while serving as mayor. This has been repeated often, even making a story in Time Magazine and Salon (2), and an email with a list of 90 books that Palin supposedly attempted to ban is shooting around leftist inboxes as we speak. (The list is fake, ripped off from this page.)
All this, according to the Wall Street Journal:
As it turns out, not only was the list a fake, but when the Anchorage Daily News investigated the story, it found no evidence that Palin had ever sought to remove books from the library. [City librarian] Baker (who was then named Emmons) did tell the local paper back in 1996 that Palin asked her, in the Daily News's words, "about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose." Emmons "flatly refused to consider any kind of censorship."
Kilkenny makes an appearance in the Daily News story, quoting Palin as asking Baker at a City Council meeting, " 'What would be your response if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' " Baker's response was firm and negative, according to Kilkenny, who acknowledges that Palin did not cite any specific books for removal.
The chairman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee tells the Daily News that there is no evidence in her files of any censorship at the Wasilla library. As for Baker's resignation, it appears to be unrelated to the putative censorship.
So not only is the book banning story patently false, but another piece of the "retribution queen" story takes a hit.
The center of useful idiots thinks that John McCain should "provide detailed, timely disclosure about his health."
So far, he has failed to meet this obligation to voters, even though he is now the presumed Republican nominee.
The Times claims McCain should reveal this information for two reasons. First, in this era of modern medical science and extended life spans, McCain could be the oldest man ever to become president. Second, he once had skin cancer -- even though he beat cancer and today is cancer free, as evidenced by his lack of stops at hospitals for radiation treatments during the rigorous months on the campaign trail.
The Red Rag goes further, declaring:
No presidential candidate should get to the point that he has locked up his party’s nomination without public vetting of his health.
And where was the NY Times when half the voting population was demanding Kerry's medical records from the Vietnam war? Ah, perhaps the Times thinks that sick people can't lead while character is unimportant.
What am I thinking? Of course they don't believe character is important. Did they even read Obama's book? I'm talking about his first one, in which he reveals his true self.
Today's quote of the day:
One day, their epitaph may read: Journalists lied, the media died.
Jed Babbin from Online Human Events agrees with my earlier assessment of the Politico hit piece:
The rumor that Fred Thompson will quit the Republican presidential race if he finishes poorly in Iowa is not only false: it rises to the level of a political dirty trick aimed at reducing Thompson-backers’ turnout in tonight’s Iowa caucuses. . . .
Sources told me that Thompson’s campaign was already moving elements to South Carolina where they expect to do very well. If Thompson finished at the bottom of the pack in Iowa -- which seems very unlikely -- he would have to reassess his overall chances. But that seems unlikely. And Iowa is not a determinative race for the Republicans. It is very likely to be of lesser importance than a host of others, as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani -- and Thompson -- are betting. A candidate could easily go from a defeat there to win the nomination. . . .
In every political season, there are dirty tricks like this. Some originate from opposing camps and some from the media themselves. The Politico story is of the sort that even the television networks have managed to avoid. Saying that Thompson is going to quit after Iowa on the morning of the caucuses there is like announcing the election night results in New York and the Carolinas before the polls close on the West Coast. If even CBS News wouldn’t pull a stunt like that, why would The Politico?
The influential web site Politico has tried discounting Thompson in the past (see Thompson is running low on options), but stooped to a new low with a hit piece titled Thompson may drop out, back McCain on the day that Iowan voters go to caucus.
Fred Thompson is experiencing a "late-breaking surge" in Iowa (according to Zogby) on the heels of his bold message to Iowa caucus goers in which he appealed to Republicans and conservative Democrats. The effectiveness of Thompson's message scares liberals, which is why he has been largely ignored by the MSM in favor of the myth that voters have only the Rudy-Mitt choice to make.
Politico claims that "officials close to Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign" revealed that Fred would drop out if he does poorly in Iowa. Only a fool would believe that anyone on or even "close" to the campaign would utter such a statement at this critical juncture. And to cite multiple sources is beyond understanding.
Thompson's actual campaign is denying the story, of course. Byron York posts on NRO that he had personally talked to Rich Galen, a top advisor to Thompson. Not only did Galen deny the story, but:
Galen also said that no one inside the campaign was a source for the story. "I can't put enough adjectives in front of the 'deny' to accurately describe how vehemently I'm denying the story," he said.
Galen said that "just to make sure," he checked with Thompson himself, who told him the story was not true. "We have the schedule for Saturday and Sunday in New Hampshire, and then we're going down to South Carolina," Galen told me.
Now, if the Politico's hit piece fails to stop the Fredmentum in Iowa, the question becomes: will it actually throw attention his way in New Hampshire and South Carolina?
As for me, I favor a class action suit on the part of all Thompson backers against the Politico for printing an obviously false story with the intent to kill our candidate's chances. Anyone want to take the case?
CNN has come in for quite a bit of criticism for allowing Democratic operatives and supporters to pose questions at the Republican debate. The most egregious plant was the Keith Kerr (BG, USA Ret.), an “openly gay man” (now that he has retired from service) who serves (or has served) on one of Hillary Clinton’s campaign task forces. He asked about the US Military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. He was flown to the debate by CNN and allowed to ask a follow-up question.
When a “Red-faced Anderson Cooper” was told about this oversight, he sputtered that he didn’t know and if he had known, Kerr’s affiliation would have been disclosed or the question wouldn’t have been allowed. This begs the question, “If bloggers can determine affiliation within minutes using Goggle (who owns YouTube), why can’t a large professional news organization like CNN and co-host YouTube?”
CNN and YouTube characterized their questioners as ordinary and undecided Americans. It appears that perhaps a third of the questioners actively supported different Dems. Again, why can bloggers find this out, but CNN can’t?
CNN latest spin is that they focused on the questions and not the questioners, then something derogatory about anybody who questions the questioners and not the substance of the questions. Yeah, I know. This doesn’t make sense to me either. I have two problems with this line of illogic. The first is that the questions came from “undecided voters” or “ordinary Americans”. With so many democratic supporters asking the questions, this statement may be seen as a lie.
The second, and arguably the more important point of contention, was the point made by Mara Liasson on Fox News Special Report (the Panel discussion) on Wednesday. She said that she covered both CNN/YouTube debates and questions presented to Democrats were different in tone and nature from those presented to Republicans. Democratic questions were friendly and sympathetic to the Democrats, while the Republican questions were confrontational and accusatory to the Republicans.
Additional Links:
Submitted by normally non-blogging Advised by Wolves
WaPo woefully predicts A Downturn We Don't Deserve.
Meanwhile, an AP business writer says Index Points to U.S. Economic Expansion.
Each has a 50/50 chance of being right. Who has the clearer crystal ball? And when did journalism start making use of psychic predictions?
The latest act in the global comedy that is "global warming" is provided by Chris Goodall, a "leading environmentalist", author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life and Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford West & Abingdon.
Mr. Goodall says that growing and raising food for human consumption has become so energy-intensive that a walk to the corner shop contributes to global warming:
Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance.
Goodall is apparently comparing apples to oranges, or in this case olives to oil. While he counts up the carbons emitted to grow crops and raise cattle for people power, he only counts the carbons emitted by driving the car -- not those emitted in drilling, refining and transporting gasoline and diesel.
But the UK Times refers to Goodall as "the latest serious thinker to turn popular myths about the environment on their head." That is because Goodall is fighting what the UK Times likes to think is the good fight:
Cattle farming is notorious for its perceived damage to the environment, based on what scientists politely call “methane production” from cows. The gas, released during the digestive process, is 21 times more harmful than CO2 . Organic beef is the most damaging because organic cattle emit more methane.
Simply cutting out beef, or even meat, however, would be too modest a change. The food industry is estimated to be responsible for a sixth of an individual’s carbon emissions, and Britain may be the worst culprit. ...
The ideal diet would consist of cereals and pulses.
And so the spotlight shines on a nut from Oxford West & Abingdon. This is what happens when the crackpot falls on the side of the biased media.
Professional writer and admitted lefty, Dr. John Barnes, took a look at the writings of the New Republic pseudonymous "Scott Thomas". His expertise leads him to conclude:
Based on a mix of semiotic analysis and my seat of the pants experience as a frequent reader of professional and near-professional writing by new writers, my guess is this: I think "Scott Thomas" is actually an MFA writing student, or a recent graduate of such a program, probably with some military experience – he may be serving in some non-combat specialty in Iraq – probably from one of the elite MFA programs, the twenty or so from which college creative writing faculty and small-press staff come disproportionately. I also think I know how his piece came to be published in New Republic, in outline if not in detail, and that story will also be somewhat instructive and revealing.
The entire article is a little long but surprisingly interesting as Barnes deconstructs the writing style. Then he takes a look at the editor that chose to publish the unknown author. Dr. Barnes is a straight shooter.
HT to non-blogging Advised by Wolves.
. . . have never been spoken. Kathryn Jean Lopez says severed heads beat report cards to the truth:
Nailing down a clear picture of the war in Iraq is a work in progress in Washington, D.C. Making it harder is the national media, which is misrepresenting what is happening at boot level, softening the face of the enemy.
If the public cannot get a true view of the brutality and horror the enemy is capable of, then how can it be expected to reasonably assess our involvement?
Reuters whines that more "migrants" are dying because the US border security is getting so tight that they are being forced to take more dangerous routes.
In other news, "home guests" are being viciously cut because homeowners are locking their doors, forcing them to gain entry by breaking windows.
Today's must read is penned by Leo, who asks, Michael Yon is there...where are the rest of the "journalists"?
The New York Times notes (in the Politics section, not an op-ed):
The five justices who turned the Supreme Court around last week and upheld the ban on “partial birth abortion” had much in common.
All are men. All were nominated by conservative Republican presidents. And, it was widely noted, all are Roman Catholics.
Did their religion matter? Should it even be discussed?
At which point the Times dedicates the rest of the column discussing just that.
I find it interesting that the Times thinks it's OK to suggest that the religion of Supreme Court Justices may influence them, yet Gonzales firing attorneys for being political appointees is an action too horrid to consider.
Hypocrisy, thy name is MSM.
On the day after the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech, CNN poses a question on their web site. This screen shot was taken at 12:20 today (click image for full sized pop up).
The poll was gone by 2:15, but I thought that CNN polls usually stayed up a day. Why was this one taken down so soon?
The NYTimes printed pictures and posted video of a US soldier dying in Iraq, even before the family was notified. The reporters involved have lost embed status because they violated their contract with the military.
Gateway Pundit is following the entire story.
According to a Gallup Poll, 41 percent of Americans believe that the mainstream media's reporting of Iraq is accurate. Stunning.
This is why the Fourth Estate is so successful in undermining our war effort. Again.
Today's must read is American Spectator's Keith Ellison's crowd: Allahu Akhbar. With Democracy and Christianity under attack, to is a good day to reflect on double standards in the media and the fight that lies ahead of us.
It's always fun to watch journalists try to influence public opinion in the months (now years) leading up to an election. This election season's favored son is McCain, a Republican that only a liberal could love — and the press certainly loves McCain.
Deroy Murdock addresses this topic by noting how a smattering of journalists and political analysts are saying McCain is clearly in the lead, far outpacing Giuliani. He then destroys this myth by citing a series of polls and surveys, including a Rasmussen poll that has Giuliani in a clear lead and even non-candidate Rice edges out McCain for second place.
If (and this early in an election season, it's a big "if") Giuliani ends up as the Republican candidate for president, I'm going to have a very, very hard time voting for the gun-grabbing, baby-killing RINO.
But Deroy notes:
But his numbers could hold or even rise once Republicans outside Gotham learn that, as mayor, he cut the local tax burden by 19 percent, jettisoned racial and gender preferences for contracting (during his first month as mayor, no less), hunted deadbeat dads and made them pay their child support, implemented charter schools, promoted “vouchers” (always embracing that word), and hosed down seedy, crime-infested areas such as Times Square. It now is safe, literally, for Mary Poppins — a new Disney musical that opened on 42nd Street, where pornographic films unspooled prior to Giuliani’s tenure.
In all probability another candidate (can you say "Mitt Romney"?) will end up taking the big prize.
But if it comes to pass, perhaps a vote for Giuliani will be possible, but I'll have to go home and take a shower afterwards. And hide my guns.
Ann Coulter notes that Lexus Nexus has 476 articles about Pelosi's achievement of becoming the first woman Speaker, yet when Condoleezza Rice became Secretary of State there were only 77 articles written (half in Ebony, Jet, etc.).
What liberal media?
Coulter lists notable Bush appointments:
Humorous Coulter Quote:
A New York Times profile of Rice at the time waited until the last sentence to note in passing that Rice was "only the second woman, and the first black woman, to hold the job." (In a separate column by me, it was noted that Rice was the "first competent woman" to hold the job.)
The Battle for the Battle for Iraq from Guardian WatchBlog.
Technorati tags: War on Islamofacism, Media Spin, Leftist Defeatism, Fourth Estate is the Fifth Column.
After "pondering for several months", one of the editors at the New York Times has decided to apologize for committing treason revealing the administration's secret banking-data surveillance program to track down money used by terrorists to fund the killing of innocents.
The apology is based on two reasons. First, the program isn't illegal. Isn't now, never has been, and as far as we know never will be. Second, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that anyone's private information had been misused.
Yet in the final sentence of the apology explanation for publishing the story, the Times editor says:
I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.
That's right. It's Bush's fault he did it. [I can hear echoes Flip Wilson now: "The Devil made me do it!"]
Here's a headline for you: No charges for Texas man who fatally shot immigrant.
We have to read the propaganda news article to get the facts (from the AP, of course):
A hunter who fatally shot an undocumented immigrant on a South Texas ranch when he mistook the man for a hog should not be indicted, a Maverick County grand jury has decided.
You could argue that they were trying to save space in the valuable headline space. OK, try "Illegal". That has become the short form of illegal alien -- or, as I like to call them -- "criminals illegally invading our country".
Basically, a bunch of criminals were standing in the darkness, Gonzalez (the hunter) shot at a wild hog 150 feet away and missed, striking Lopez (one of the criminals) in the abdomen.
The criminal's brother said, "I hoped there would've been more justice."
Me too. I didn't see anything in the report about the rest of the criminals going to jail.
Yet another injustice: citizen Gonzalez and ranch owner Rodriguez was sued by Lopez's widow and five children for $8,000,000:
The case was settled out of court in November for $50,000. The settlement included legal costs for Lopez's widow and $1,800 for each of his five children. The children's money was put into U.S. savings accounts under their names, according to court records.
This has got to stop. You commit criminal trespass and something that very well could be an accident befalls you, you should have to prove malevolent intent before you or yours get a penny.
WaPo takes a stick to the Democrat Party for their latest platform in a column titled Democrats Meander in a New New Direction:
It was a handsome booklet, full of homey photographs and popular proposals, but there was a problem. Democrats have had more "New Directions" recently than MapQuest.
The article lists the seven (count 'em, seven) campaign slogans that Democrats have gone through this year (and it's only September).
For those keeping score at home, Democrats arrived at "New Direction" yesterday by downgrading one of the "Six for '06" issues (health care) and upgrading three others (honesty, civility and fiscal discipline), for a total of eight items on the contents page.
Of course, this being a paper written by those in the overwhelmingly-liberal profession of journalism, they have to make the Republicans sound even worse:
By contrast, Republicans have settled on a single, unofficial slogan, which essentially says: Vote Democrat and Die. And in politics, scary and scurrilous usually trumps elaborate and earnest -- something Pelosi has experienced firsthand in recent days.
Technorati tags: Democrats and Liberals, Democrats Without an Agenda, Democrats Searching for Answers, Directionless Democrats, Party of Paper Tigers, Media Bias.
During President Bush's Katrina anniversary speech last night on CNN, 
"Live From" anchor Kyra Phillips got up to go to the bathroom. Unfortunately, her sound man must have done the same because he didn't turn off her microphone.
What resulted was Kyra's bathroom conversation with another woman, who was complaining about not being able to find a good man, broadcast live on top of Bush's speech -- and sometimes drowning it out.
Kyra raved about her husband but somehow got on the subject of her brother, saying:
I've got to be protective of him. He's married, three kids, and his wife is just a control freak.
CNN anchor Daryn Kagan broke in just as you hear the sound of a zipper, saving Kyra from further embarrassment.
Someone should send reporters to the next Phillips family reunion!
Interestingly, Kyra's profile on Wikipedia has already been updated to reflect the gaffe.
Watch the 2½ minute segment:
Technorati tags: Bush Katrina Speech, Katrina Anniversary, CNN, Kyra Phillips, Liberal Reporter Embarrassed On Air, Bathroom Conversations Women Have.
Recently declassified documents reveal that Nixon was considering using nuclear bombs to bring an end to the Vietnam war in an operation code named "Duck Hook":
But Nixon abandoned Duck Hook shortly after Oct. 2. Both his secretaries of Defense and State, Melvin Laird and William Rogers, opposed the plan. Nixon apparently also began to doubt whether he could sustain public support for the three- to six-month period the plan might require. He also concluded that his military threats against the North Vietnamese had no effect.
Threats are rarely useful. For instance, French threats of economic sanctions against Iran. Uh, OK, French threats of anything (except surrender — those are always taken seriously).
Indeed, the time and place to use nukes in Vietnam was in 1953 in a place called Dien Bien Phu. The French were trying for a decisive military victory out in the middle of nowhere. Instead, General Vo Nguyen Giap conducted a brilliant 56-day siege that ended with at least 2,200 dead Frenchmen (including many of the elite Foreign Legion) and a French surrender of 11,000 men (of which a little over 4,000 survived captivity).
If the French had accepted the two tactical nukes that Eisenhower offered, history would have turned out vastly different.
Just as an aside, fourteen years later General Giap tried to do the same thing to an American Marine base called Khe Sanh. 205 American soldiers were killed while ten to fifteen thousand Viet Min died before they gave up eleven weeks later and trickled back into the jungle. When the NVA shut down the airstrip, the French had resorted to high-altitude parachute drops resulting in a great many supplies, ammunition and even vital intelligence landing outside the base and falling into enemy hands. At Khe Sanh, the U.S. Army 109th Quartermaster Company used the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES) with great success. The seige for Khe Sanh was a great American military victory (achieved without dipping into the nuclear arsenal) that was turned into a major North Vietnamese propaganda win by our Fourth Estate.
Technorati Tags: Richard Nixon, Vietnam, Nuclear Weapons, Military History, Dien Bien Phu, Khe Sanh, History, Famous French Military Defeats, Famous American Military Victories, Fourth Estate Equals Fifth Column.
New York Times photographer Joao Silva was right there in the room as a member of Muqtada al-Sadr's "Mahdi Army" tried to kill American troops: The New York Times - New York Region - Slide Show - Slide Show: Memorable Photographs.
One of the photography editors for the NYTimes is quoted to be praising the "incredible courage" of photojournalist Silva for being right there with the enemy the Mahdi army.
What about the incredible bravery of the Americans at the other end of that sniper's rifle as they try to bring democracy and freedom to the heart of the War on Islamofacism? When was the last time anyone remembers any of the NYTimes' staff commenting on the "incredible bravery" of our soldiers? ** crickets chirping **
Truth to tell, according to their own site search the NYTimes has only used the phrase "incredible bravery" six times in the past 25 years:
But wait, there's more!
LGF follows a Michelle Malkin tip to press review of the book photographer Joao Silva is selling containing the photos he shot while on the NYTimes payroll (including the one above) that sounds like it's straight out of the publisher's press release:
In the Company of God is a photographic compilation that portrays Iraqi Shi'a Muslims in a period of occupation and transition. This photographic body of work, recorded over twelve months, richly captures the Shi'as' intense commitment to their faith and their indomitable spirit of sacrifice.The agents of the New York Times are openly, proudly making heroes out of those who are killing our sons and daughters.The pictures in this book are not displayed in a chronological order but rather in a manner that best illustrates a narrative about faith, sacrifice, war and martyrdom.
Of course, this is to be expected from Joao Silva, coauthor of The Bang Bang Club, as explained by Jessica Powers in The Bang Bang Club and Journalism Ethics:
A couple of semesters ago, I led a discussion group made up of young 18 and 19 year old freshman students at the University at Albany. We were reading a book that portrayed alternate versions of American history. One young man was upset every time we met. "Why can't we just read facts?" he said. "Why can't the book just say, 'Here's the way it was' and leave it at that?" ...Kevin Carter, consumed by guilt and self-doubt, eventually committed suicide.Greg Marinovich and Joao Silva, South African photographers who depicted the secret war fought in South African townships during the four years between Nelson Mandela's release from prison and the first democratic elections in the country, depicted the internal struggle of presenting news -- or history -- in a biased manner in their book, "The Bang Bang Club." Though they were primarily concerned with demonstrating the personal moral struggle that occurred as they took photos of violence and death without lending a hand, they also demonstrated how snapshots, like articles and books, only show one aspect of the truth. This reality quickly caught up with one of the members of the "Bang-Bang Club," Kevin Carter.
Kevin Carter won a Pulitzer Prize in 1993 for his photo of a starving Sudanese child, stalked by a vulture a few feet away. The photo only shows the apparent imminent danger that the child is in, but fails to show how close the feeding center is or even that the vulture is not threatening the child in any way.
Joao Silva, evidently, has no such conscience. Having once skewed the truth through the emotive lens of his camera, he unashamedly continues the practice today.
Technorati Tags: Joao Silva, New York Times Treason, War on Islamofacism, Fourth Estate, Fifth Column, In the Company of God, Bang-Bang Club.
Then, to make you feel better, read a letter from an Army wife to 1LT Watada (who declined to go to Iraq). [HT to Castle Argghhh!]
He called the new Iraqi Defense Minister an "interesting cat" and Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, the deceased al-Qaeda leader, "a dangerous dude." Bush had reason, finally, to strut. The al-Zarqawi raid had netted valuable intelligence data that were enabling U.S. and Iraqi forces to roll up al-Qaeda cells-the best haul since the capture of Saddam Hussein, which made it possible for U.S. forces to disable much of the dictator's inner circle in early 2004. What's more, the first elected Iraqi government was finally fully in place. Back home, Karl Rove was officially unindicted in the cia [sic] leak case, and the Democrats were busy being Democrats-divided, defensive and confused about the war, with Bush's favorite punching bag, Senator John Kerry, leading the charge.Kerry gave an eloquent s
