Bill Whittle recently recorded a fantastic video over at PJTV.com that, among other things, exposes the journalistic malpractice happening (in particular) at MSNBC.com. It turns out that many in the media take their political ideology much more seriously than their journalistic integrity. Enjoy:
screencap
This is why MSNBC’s ratings are in the tank: they (admittidly) are not journalists.
*update*
Victor Davis Hanson sums it up so nicely: “In short, we live now in the Age of Post-Journalism. All that was before is now over, as this generation of journalists voluntarily destroyed the hallowed notion of objectivity and they will have no idea quite how to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.”
Here they are … in no particular order:
1. He supported Scholarships for ILLEGAL immigrants (link)
2. He supported drivers’ licenses, government benefits and in-state tuition rates for illegals (link)
3. He opposed a bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote. (link)
4. He established a partially taxpayer-financed Mexican consulate office in Little Rock, a scheme involving the lease of building space to the Mexican government for $1 a year. Why is the media not hounding him for this? (link)
5. His dangerous views on terrorism and his inability to understand their motives and purpose (link).
“We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts – which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope. The United States’ strategic interests as the world’s most powerful country coincide with its moral obligations as the richest.”
As Selwyn Duke at the American Thinker put it… “does Huck know that Osama bin Laden is worth about $300 million? I’ll also note that there is no moral obligation to use other people’s money for your government-run charities.“
4. He says he would favor a national smoking ban (and I’m not even a smoker. This kind of activity is just not the role the FEDERAL government should be playing. It’s unconstitutional and reeks of an anti-freedom mentality) (link).
5. He is pro Taxes and Big Government (link)
5a. Spending increased 65% from 1996 to 2004 in Arkansas while he was in office there. (link)
6. He has expressed an ability to be easily bought with campaign contributions (link)
In Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee was investigated by the state ethics committee at least 14 times. Most of the complaints centered on what appears to be a serial disregard for government rules about gifts and outside financial compensation. He reported $112,000 worth of gifts in one year alone, nearly double his $67,000 salary… Five of the 14 investigations resulted in admonishments: Two for failing to report gifts (one was later overturned), the other three for some $80,000 that Mr. Huckabee and his wife received but failed to initially report. One of these admonishments involved a $23,500 payment to Mr. Huckabee from an opaque organization called Action America that he helped found in 1994 while lieutenant governor, and that was designed to coordinate his speeches and supplement his income.
8. The mainstream media likes Huckabee… this is reason enough for any conservative to think twice about supporting him. (link)
Since the beginning of 2007, the Democratic National Committee has released 102 direct attacks on Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani has warranted 78; John McCain 68; Fred Thompson 21. Mike Huckabee? Four. The most recent of these landed back in March. GOP voters may not have examined Mr. Huckabee’s record, but the left has–and they love what they see.
I’ve got some readers that support Huckabee… and I respect their opinions… but seriously, i think we can do better… even McCain (who I dislike) would be a more reliable candidate with a better record.
Unfortunately I am a bit behind on current events–law school exams have been known to have such an affect–but even though this is a few days late, I still think an analysis of the NIE report is in order.
As you no doubt know, the report has concluded “with high confidence”… I might add, that “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program… We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.”
Now, this report can be either believed (although doing so… how does one say… requires a willing suspension of disbelief) or be attacked for a number of valid reasons. Allow me to address both alternatives in order.
First, if we believe the report, how is it that our intelligence is 4 years behind the curve in finding such information out? Is it not entirely possible under this logic that Iran might have started it’s program back up in 2005–giving them a 4 year head start until our policy changes again in ’09? Hardly re-assuring.
Secondly, if we choose to disbelieve the report, there are a variety of good reasons for doing so. To begin, it is unclear whether the new intelligence responsible for the 180 degree about-face based on reliable sources. It is quite possible Iran may be leaking information to try to mislead western intelligence officials. One only needs to look at the the statements of Iranian officials on a weekly basis to figure out they are a peace-loving nation. The pursuit of nuclear weapons quite simply fits the mold.
Secondly, the International Atomic Energy Agency does not share the same degree of confidence in the U.S. assessment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.” (WSJ).
Third, the three authors of the report are all admittedly opposed to Bush’s current Iranian policy. This isn’t to say that Bush’s interpretation of the intelligence isn’t equally tainted by ideology, but at least Bush’s position until now was based on intelligence documents that re-enforced his position. Given the astonishing new findings, one can’t but wonder if the report was designed in part to undermine the Bush strategy.
What is perhaps the most unfortunate result of the release of the report is how quickly it’s findings were put to partisan political purposes. Democrats quickly ran to the microphones–unquestionably accepting the intelligence report as inherent truth (which I found a bit odd given their qualms about previous WMD intelligence)–claiming Bush’s policy was incorrect and re-articulating the need for a diplomatic solution.
The mainstream media has responded no better. The New York Times immediately published an article titled “The Good and Bad News About Iran“. In relevant part:
The good news:
Tehran, we are now told, halted its secret nuclear weapons program in 2003, which means that President Bush has absolutely no excuse for going to war against Iran. We are also relieved that the intelligence community is now willing to question its own assumptions and challenge the White House fevered rhetoric….And the bad news:
But there’s also a lot of worrisome news in there that must not be overlooked… Tehran’s scientists are working to master the skills to make nuclear fuel — the hardest part of building a weapon. Anyone who wants to give the Iranians the full benefit of the doubt should read the last four years of reports from United Nations’ nuclear inspectors about Iran’s 18-year history of hiding and dissembling. Or last month’s report, which criticized Tehran for providing “diminishing” information and access to its current program.
As James Toranto (one of my favorite cynics) concluded… “In other words, the bad news, per the Times, is that a lunatic theocracy may soon become a lunatic theocracy armed with nuclear weapons. The good news is that that there’s nothing President Bush can do to stop it.” I haven’t come to expect much support for bush from the Times; therefore, this article didn’t come as a surprise. You can imagine my shock then at the Time’s op-ed article the following day which seems to conclude the very opposite:
…[T]he report contains the same sorts of flaws that we have learned to expect from our intelligence agency offerings. It, like the report in 2002 that set up the invasion of Iraq, is both misleading and dangerous.
Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran’s, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors — all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?
We should be suspicious of any document that suddenly gives the Bush administration a pass on a big national security problem it won’t solve during its remaining year in office. Is the administration just washing its hands of the intractable Iranian nuclear issue by saying, “If we can’t fix it, it ain’t broke”?
I happen to think the second article has it right; Iran has no need for nuclear fuel with their massive oil reserves; we cannot just blindly accept Teran’s “peaceful uses” explanation given their hard-water facilities. However, what is maddening about these two articles is that within the space of 24 hours, the Times went from bashing Bush’s “fevered rhetoric” to lamenting that the report removes Bush from the responsibilities his “fevered rhetoric” would otherwise require! Can it be said any differently then the times wants it both ways!? They praise Bush’s political defeat yet demand he be held accountable for their preferred “diplomatic” policy should it fail! If read together, the Times has essentially praised the use of dangerous and misleading intelligence. I really do not know how to react to such an evasive set of policy positions.
What many fail to realize is that in the end, the danger with Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology was with the pursuit itself… not necessarily the weapons that may still be decades away. It is really a question of responsibility; the Iranian regime has proven time and time again that it is not responsible enough to be entrusted with such potential power.
I believe the Bush administration has taken the proper approach to Iran–bringing countries together on issues like sanctions and increased diplomatic pressure. Unfortunately, the NIE report has wasted much of the political capital the Bush administration — including Condalesa Rice, John Bolton, and others — have worked hard to earn over the past few years.
It seems the drafters of the NIE have in both advocated a policy and have yet managed undermined that very policy within the pages of a single document. If this is not bad drafting… then I don’t know what is.
I have been wanting to write a piece on Russia for months now… and the recent arrest of Garry Kasparov has provided a good opportunity to do so.
Russia, under Vladmir Putin’s leadership, has been slowly deteriorating to say the least. A country that showed promise less than a decade ago is slowly acquiescing back to it’s historical ‘status-quo’ consisting of oppressive, top-down leadership. The most recent example of this is Putin’s attempt to stay in power beyond his constitutionally-imposed term limits. He is using the power of his office to legitimize his illegal behavior through coersive election tactics. In part, the “United Russia” party is suggesting that government employees will loose their jobs if they do not vote for Putin, or refrain from voting at all..
Many Russians say they are being pressured to vote at work under the watchful eyes of their bosses or risk losing their jobs…
A teacher in St. Petersburg said, “They didn’t tell us necessarily to vote for United Russia, but you can read between the lines,“
Similar accounts have been given by teachers, doctors, factory workers and others around the country. Some have said they were warned they would lose their jobs if they did not comply.
“It is unbelievable. The use of bureaucracy is on an unprecedented scale,” said Marina Dashenkova of Golos, an election-monitoring group. “People are complaining that their bosses are forcing them to take absentee ballots and vote for whom they say.”
“It’s pure pressure. They are saying, ‘We are not forcing you, we are asking you, but if not, you will show your disloyalty to your company,’” said the woman, Anna, who declined to disclose her last name out of fear of being fired.
There are those who are fighting back; the most predominate figure being Garry Kasparov, former chess champion and perhaps the only person who can beat “deep blue“… (although his record against the computer has been the subject of contentious debate). Kasparov left the world of chess to take on Putin and fight for democracy in Russia in 2005, and has been actively involved with “The Other Russia“, a pro-democratic political group.
Kasparov’s arrest this past week for a peaceful protest march in Mosco is telling of the Kremlin’s tolerance (or lack thereof) of dissidents — especially those who disagree with the current leadership. These tactics are neither new nor should surprise anyone; this dictatorial use of government power is only the latest in a series of attacks on Russians who speak out against Putin’s leadership.
Many may remember Alexander Litvinko who recently died after he was “infected” with polonium, a highly radioactive substance. Anita Politikovskaya, a Russian journalist, was also subject to a failed poisoning and was eventually gunned down just outside her apartment in 2006. She also was vocally critical of the Russian Government.
Regardless of whether or not Putin is actually responsible for the deaths of these two journalists, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Putin is testing the West’s commitment to freedom and their willingness to capitulate on principles. Putin has continually shown his indifference to Western interests whether it be in his hostility towards budding democracy in the Ukraine, or the installation of a missile shield in Poland, or the sale of arms to Iran… and these are but a few examples. He seems to show no concern for anything other than his own political interests as his recent arrests make obvious. As Anne Applebaum in Slate lamented, Putin beats up on his political opponents for perhaps no other reason than “because he can“.
I greatly admire Kasparov for his efforts to promote a free Russian society but lament the circumstances against which he fights–circumstances that perhaps could have been avoid and which at many times seem insurmountable. Despite his brilliant mind and sharp tongue, he must fight against brute power and force… two obstacles his gifts are not particularly well-suited for. Even so, perhaps the pen will yet again be proven mightier than the sword; only time will tell.
If you want more information on Kasparov’s efforts and information regarding his current imprisonment, I suggest theotherrussia.org. In addition, please consider making a small donation to support his cause, if you have the resources to do so…
Also, for some great Kasparov entertainment, watch him debate Bill Maher here.
If you haven’t gathered by now… my blog posts usually have a high correlation to quotes from things I read or people I hear… and this post is no different. If you didn’t already know, Democratic Senator George Biden said recently about fellow Senator Barak Obama,
‘I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy’ (emphasis added)
One can only imagine Biden said this because Obama impressed this upon him–and, one could also conclude that such an opinion was impressed because of the uniqueness (in Biden’s mind) of the quality in question… namely Obama’s cleanliness.
Now, Biden is getting SOME slack for this comment, but I think it would be helpful to remember the comparative slack given to another Senator who said the following words.
“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either,”
Trent Lott, former Senate majority leader, was forced to resign his post because of those words. Not only do they not even mention blacks in any way, but they were said in the context of wishing a very old and feeble man a happy birthday… and yet Lott was crucified for their utterance–by Democrats, by the media, by blacks across the country.
I wonder though, and perhaps you could answer the questions yourself:
These questions bring to mind another interesting quote. During the Lott fiasco, many Democrats thought that Lott should be “censured” for such a comment. The eerie silence of Democrats in this case isn’t surprising. They quickly forgive racism if its one of their own, but exalt their own moral superiority when it is convenient to do so (one needs go no farther than their tolerance of Robert Byrd). They protect and forgive for overt acts of racism but call for blood when race isn’t even uttered. The media is no better.
But all things being equal, I doubt Biden actually meant anything racist by his comments… and Lott probably didn’t either. Were it not for a troubling double standard applied to Republicans, this post might have been much different. Is “clean” really a racially charged word? Is calling someone “ghetto” or “white trash” any better? Do we not all hear those vernacular regularly without even a second thought to their racial overtones? This media episode points out the sensitivity, insecurity, and fealty to the gospel of political correctness everyone in Washington seems to suffer from–and it kinda makes mes sick!