Quote of the day

September 12, 2008

From a recent ex-Democrat on the modern Democratic Party:

Instead of telling us what sort of New Jerusalem it would have us build as our City on the Hill, the party requires that its members root about in the ghettos of the soul, to ponder the rightness or wrongness of the very babies of its opponents. Instead of waving the bright banners of America triumphant, the Party dons the rags and bones of defeatism and appeasement and moves about the country like a tarted-up Typhoid Mary, infecting all who kiss its chancred lips. As a party, it’s a poxed whore for whom no condom is thick enough. It’s a death trip.

Read the whole thing. It’s a marvel. Happy

(hat tip: Ace)

The trend is not your friend

September 12, 2008

This should make heads explode: the Prophet Barack and his minion Hairplug lead Big Mac and the ‘Cuda by three points — among likely voters in New Jersey. (PDF)

By only three points in New Jersey? NEW JERSEY?? The state that’s so hard-core Democratic that the only way a Republican wins is if the Democrat buys him the votes? THAT New Jersey? Hypnotized

And it’s not even autumn, yet.

Bear in mind that surveys of “likely voters” are often more predictive than surveys of merely registered voters because, well, they’re more likely to actually vote. So, while the Lightworker still has a slim lead, this has got to be setting off alarm bells on Olympus in Obama HQ. If states like Jersey are this close and trending Republican with almost two months to go before the election, well, Canada better get those immigration applications ready. This could make 2004’s Great Lefty Depression look like a momentary case of the blues.

(hat tip: Ace)

Whoopi Goldberg: ignorant or deceitful?

September 12, 2008


This morning on The View, Whoopi Goldberg asked John McCain the following question regarding his desire for strict constructionist judges:


Goldberg, who joined the show as moderator in 2007 replacing Rosie O’Donnell, then asked, "Did you say you wanted strict constitutionalists? Should I worry about being a slave? A return to slavery? Because there are things in the Constitution that (should have changed.)" 

Umm … Whoopi? You may not be aware of it, but there’s this little thing called the 13th amendment to the Constitution. It reads


Amendment 13 – Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.   

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.   

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This may come as a shock to you, O Mighty Talk-Show Hostess, but slavery is banned by the Constitution. The 13th amendment is part of the Constitution. No judge, no court, strict constructionist or otherwise can change that fact.         

So, which is it? Are you really this ignorant, or were you telling a cheap lie to mislead your viewers? Raised Eyebrow 

(hat tip: Weekly Standard)

LINKS: Allahpundit takes a more temperate view of this than I.




Religion of Tolerance watch

September 12, 2008

You know, there have been plenty of times when TV programs or commercials have made me mad, but I never thought I could kill the station owners over it.

How wrong I was:

Saudi Arabia’s top judiciary official has issued a religious decree saying it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV networks that broadcast immoral content.

The 79-year-old Sheik Saleh al-Lihedan said Thursday that satellite channels cause the "deviance of thousands of people."

Many of the most popular Arab satellite networks — which include channels showing music videos often denounced as obscene by Muslim conservatives — are owned by Saudi princes and well-connected Saudi businessmen. Al-Lihedan did not specify any particular channels.

Al-Lihedan is chief of the kingdom’s highest tribunal, the Supreme Judiciary Council. Saudi Arabia’s judiciary is made up of Islamic clerics whose decrees, or fatwas, on everyday issues are widely respected. Their fatwas do not have the weight of law. In the courts, cleric-judges rule according to Islamic law, but interpretations can vary.

Al-Lihedan was answering listeners’ questions during the daily "Light in the Path" radio program in which he and others make rulings on what is permissible under Islamic law.

One caller asked about Islam’s view of the owners of satellite TV channels that show "bad programs" during Ramadan.

"I want to advise the owners of these channels, who broadcast calls for such indecency and impudence … and I warn them of the consequences," he said.

"What does the owner of these networks think, when he provides seduction, obscenity and vulgarity?" he said.

"Those calling for corrupt beliefs, certainly it’s permissible to kill them," he said. "Those calling for sedition, those who are able to prevent it but don’t, it is permissible to kill them."

(Emphasis added.)

Boy, the people responsible for reality TV had better watch out…


Media bias: intentional or just ignorant?

September 12, 2008

Yesterday, ABC News aired part one of an interview between Charlie Gibson and Sarah Palin:






In addition, both the Washington Post and the Associated Press carried stories about her speech before her son’s infantry unit at a ceremony prior to its deployment to Iraq. In both instances, the ABC interview on the one hand and the articles on the other, there were gross misrepresentations of the truth that verge on journalistic malpractice. 

In the TV interview, Gibson grossly mischaracterizes Palin’s meaning in a prayer at her church: relying on a truncated quote, he tries to leave the audience with the impression that Palin thinks "God is on our side," rather than the truth, which was a paraphrase of Lincoln’s "it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side." There’s a tremendous difference between the two and, if this is an example of the mainstream media’s vigorous research and fact-checking, maybe they should hire a couple of library–school students. 

I link to this below, but I want to highlight this remarkable quote from a professor of government on Sarah Palin’s understanding of Lincoln’s quote and Gibson’s misunderstanding:


Unlike Palin and Lincoln, Gibson "doesn’t have a prayer." I second the high marks you give her performance. We have in her a leader who doesn’t merely quote from time to time an old chestnut from a Lincoln speech, but who has clearly reflected on one of the most extraordinary and moderate dispositions to divine providence ever taught by a leader in wartime, and found it worthy of adoption and emulation in her own speeches. What’s more, she is able to explain gracefully, to a man posing as a human resources executive, what she was saying in her prayer. That Gibson understood her explanation is doubtful. Perhaps he needs a lesson in the meaning of the subjunctive mood (and I have no doubt Governor Palin could give him one). More likely, he suffers from God Derangement Syndrome, the mere mention of God shutting down brain synapses.


The WaPo and AP articles both state that Palin was linking the former Hussein regime in Iraq to 9-11, something, as they put it, even the Bush Administration doesn’t do anymore. 

Trouble is, both assertions are untrue. Here’s the AP clip, from journalist Brett Blackledge:


In her speech to the troops and their families, she linked the [9-11 –ed.] terrorist attacks to the Iraq war—a claim no longer supported by the Bush administration.   

She told the troops headed to Iraq that they would "be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced from the death of thousands of Americans."   

Claims that Iraq shared responsibility for the attacks with al-Qaida were once promoted by administration officials, but have since been rejected, even by President Bush.


Two things are wrong here: 

First, the organization known as "al Qaeda in Iraq" is in Iraq and it is a part of the larger al Qaeda, which did indeed carry out the attacks of September 11th. So, what Palin said is correct – we are there fighting the same organization that killed thousands of our own people in 2001. 

Second, pace Blackledge and the Post’s Anne Kornblut, the Bush Administration never said Hussein’s government was involved in the planning or execution of the 9-11 attacks. Never. This is one of the great straw-man arguments the Left and their allies in the media use to delegitimize the war in Iraq by making it seem based on a lie or at best a mistake. 

But the argument itself is untrue. The administration has never asserted this. In fact, they have gone so far as to dismiss claims by Czech intelligence that one of the lead operatives on the 9-11 assault, Mohammad Atta, met with an Iraqi agent in Prague in 2000 or 2001. (Czech intelligence sticks to their story.) In the run-up to the Iraq war, when pressed again and again to state that Saddam’s Iraq was involved in 9-11, Vice-President Cheney would at most say "We have no evidence to indicate that."  That’s a long way from what Blackledge and Kornblut claim (and the BDS-suffering Left) claim. They seem instead to prefer a common wisdom that’s all too common and not at all wise. 

So, what’s going on here? Is it active media prejudice against Republicans, conservatives, and religious people? (God help them if they’re all three!) An a priori assumption that the invasion and liberation of Iraq just had to be a mistake? Sloppy and lazy journalism under the pressure of deadlines?                                                      

To be honest, I think all these (and maybe others, too) are in play here. Whatever the truth is, we therefore shouldn’t wonder at the declining circulation and viewership of MSM papers and networks: the bias is plain to the public and it therefore doesn’t trust the media

Whether media bias is born of malice or ignorance, they’d better do something to straighten themselves out, before they’re left talking only to each other.


LINKS: More at Just One Minute, Sister Toldjah, Power Line (and here and here, too).

THERE MAY BE HOPE YET DEPARTMENT: Liberal columnist Kirsten Powers writes a fair column assessing Palin’s interview and excoriating ABC and Gibson. (via Gateway Pundit)