Just a Reminder

Remember this?

Remember when racist and anti-semite Tariz Aziz (now a prisoner for life) refused to answer a question asked by an Israeli reporter? Remember in the first Gulf War when Iraq bombed Israel, who wasn't involved in the situation? Remember the Nazis? Remember how no one thought their hatred for the Jews was a big deal at first...until 6 million Jews were murdered?

Just another reason that we did the right thing in removing this dangerous regime...let's hope President Bush or future presidents plan on removing other dangerous regimes such as those in Syria, Iran, Libya, N. Korea, China, etc.

Speaking of Israel...watch the video taken off the dead bodies from the recent homicide bombing, and tell me you DON'T support Israel. After you tell me that, I'll tell you YOU support terrorism.

Watch the video then tell me you oppose the security fence. Try it. I dare you.

Mika

My girlfriend. Mika.

Stossel on Bias

I've always enjoyed John Stossel's reporting on ABC's 20/20. Here is part of a cyberalert from the Media Research Center where he talks about how most journalists thing that in journalism, "conservative" is the worst thing you could be called. Here is the piece, and my comments follow.
-----------------------------
> 3) During a stop on Washington to promote his new book with
a title which matches his weekly segment on 20/20. "Give Me a
Break," ABC's John Stossel asserted that "where I live in
Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the
way people say 'child molester.'" As reported Wednesday by Robert
Bluey of CNSNews.com, at the Cato Institute on Tuesday, Stossel
lamented how "leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in
and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
live in."

An excerpt from Bluey's January 28 story, which FNC's Brit
Hume highlighted in his "Grapevine" segment on Wednesday night,
"ABC's Stossel Rips Network for Hostility to Conservatives,"
posted on CNSNews.com, a division of the MRC:

ABC News correspondent John Stossel, the co-anchor of 20/20, said
most mainstream journalists, including those at his network, are
leftists who view conservatives as "selfish and cruel" for
embracing capitalism.

Stossel was in the nation's capital Tuesday to promote his new
book, "Give Me a Break," at the libertarian Cato Institute.
Although he praised ABC News for letting him present free-market
viewpoints on 20/20, he criticized his peers for their hostility
toward those ideas.

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say
conservative the way people say child molester," he said.
"[Conservative] is the worst thing for a reporter to be called.
And I'm a little puzzled why they call me a conservative."

Stossel said, for instance, that he has libertarian views when it
comes to drug use, prostitution, homosexuality and flag burning.
Regardless, liberal media watchdogs like Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting have attacked him for aligning with conservatives....

"Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the
culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media live in,"
he said. "Everybody just agrees -- more safety regulation, gun
control, higher taxes. Who could not want that? Everybody around
here wants that. Anyone who disagrees is seen as not just wrong
but selfish and cruel. If I try to discuss this with my peers, I
get blank stares."

He added, "The press is so filled with hatred for capitalism that
someone who advocates for free markets rather than government
control is a conservative and a problem."

Stossel's book details some of the challenges he has encountered
because of his free-market perspective. He told the crowd of
libertarians that one of his "worst battles" with ABC News' legal
review department happened when he did a feature on rent control.

"Everything I do has to be read by two liberal ABC lawyers and at
least two liberal ABC producers," he said. "In this case, an
economically illiterate lawyer kept blocking it. He demanded we
interview more economists that would soften the piece and put it
more in perspective because he was convinced it would be a
disaster for poor people if rent control was abolished. Turned out
he lived in a rent-controlled apartment."...

"ABC, God bless them, they don't always agree with me," he said,
"but they let me do most of the things I want to do."...

When a member of the audience later asked Stossel why he had not
joined a network with "journalistic integrity," such as Fox, the
ABC newsman defended his employer.

"I'm going to stay with ABC," he said. "ABC has 10 million viewers
typically, Fox has 1 [million], so the three networks can say,
'Fox is not doing good journalism, and the proof is that nobody's
watching. We have 30 [million]; they have 1 [million]. Those are
all right-wing nuts.'"

Stossel also used the occasion to take a swipe at The New York
Times and The Washington Post. While the newspapers reach only a
fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said
radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so
important, and they are, is because the TV and radio -- all of the
media -- copy it sycophantically," he said. "That's how bias at
the Times becomes bias in other media."...
-------------------------------------
Josh Bozeman:Now...Stossel really confuses me with his whole argument. He talks about a liberal bias in the media and then he goes on to call the people at Fox "right-wing nuts." Isn't that itself bias? It's not possible, no matter what you think, that everyone at Fox News is a right-wing nut. Not to mention, he says they get 1 million viewers, which is totally inaccurate for one...and two, you cannot say that they're not doing good journalism, and the proof is- no one is watching them. They're the highest rated cable news network on TV. Also, you can't compare network numbers to cable numbers...since many people don't have cable, and network TV always gets higher numbers! So, Stossel complains about bias, then he distorts the numbers and starts calling names...which totally kills his overall argument.

Dear Mr. Bush

This "letter" was part of a newsmax.com newsletter
---------------------------------------------------------
Bush cost me my job, my kids and my houses

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak my mind. I lost my job this past year. When Clinton was president I was secure and prosperous, but in the last year, we had to close our operations. We simply could not compete with foreign labor. This foreign labor worked for low pay under very bad conditions.

They worked very long shifts, and many even died on the job.

This competition could hardly be called "fair." I was forced out of the place where I had worked for 34 years.

Not a single government program was there to help me.

How can Bush call himself "compassionate?" Far worse, I lost two of my sons in Bush's evil war in Iraq. They gave their lives for their country, and for what? So that Bush's oil buddies can get rich. My pain of losing my sons is indescribable.

While it is trivial next to the loss of my sons, I regret to say that I also lost my home. I simply have nothing left. How can Bush call himself a Christian when he neglects people like me? I am a senior citizen with various medical problems. I'm not in a position where I can begin a new career. I was reduced to the point where I had to live in a hole in a ground, all because of President Bush.

And when the authorities found me there, did they have any compassion for my misfortune and ailments? No, I was arrested. Mr. Bush, I dare you to look me in the face and tell me you are a compassionate man! I dare you to look me in the face and tell me you are a Christian. If I had any money left, I would donate it to the Democrat Party.

If Al Gore had been elected in 2000 I would still have a job, a home, and most importantly, my dear sons!

Regards,

Saddam Hussein

Jacoby: A Just War with our Without WMD

A JUST WAR, WITH OR WITHOUT WMD
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Thursday, January 29, 2004

So George Bush and Saddam Hussein, it turns out, had something in common: Both were falsely led to believe that Iraq had stockpiles of illicit chemical and biological weapons.

Bush was misled by the CIA and the other intelligence agencies, which had been reporting for years that Saddam's regime was armed with such "weapons of mass destruction." Saddam was deceived by his own military scientists, who kept assuring him -- perhaps out of fear of losing their lives if they didn't -- that the weapons were being produced.

That, in a nutshell, is the conclusion of David Kay, who resigned this week as chief US weapons investigator in Iraq. When Kay entered the newly-liberated country last spring, he was sure it was only a matter of time before Saddam's unconventional weapons caches were located. "My suspicions are that we'll find in the chemical and biological areas -- in fact, I think there may be some surprises coming rather quickly in that area," he said in June. But now, after nearly nine months of searching, his attitude has changed. "My summary view, based on what I've seen," he said on Sunday, "is that we are very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons. I don't think they exist."

Not surprisingly, the howling Bush-is-a-liar crowd have seized on Kay's judgment as proof of the nutty claim they have been peddling for months: that the administration knew perfectly well that there was no WMD threat, but falsely claimed there was in order to justify a war that it craved for political reasons.

Thus, Howard Dean allowed as how he "wasn't entirely shocked" by Kay's statement. "They clearly tried to gin up every piece of intelligence to try to get us to go into that war," he told CNN. Robert Scheer, a Los Angeles Times columnist, went even further. "Now can we talk of impeachment?" he wrote on Tuesday, going on to declare that Kay's "admission . . . confirms the fact that the Bush administration is complicit in arguably the greatest scandal in US history."

But there's a problem with pinning such accusations on Kay's words: the rest of Kay's words. Take his exchange with NBC's Tom Brokaw on Monday. It fatally undermines the fantasy that the White House "tried to gin up" a weak case for war.

Brokaw: A lot of the president's political critics are going to say, "This is clear evidence that he lied to the American people."

Kay: Well, Tom, if we do that, I think we're really hurting ourselves. Clearly the intelligence that we went to war on was inaccurate, wrong. . . . I think if anyone was abused by the intelligence, it was the president of the United States rather than the other way around.

Brokaw: The president described Iraq as "a gathering danger." Was that an accurate description?

Kay: I think that's a very accurate description.

He added that "Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized" -- a point he has made in other interviews, too. In fact, he told NPR that based on what he saw on the ground in Iraq, "I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat."

It goes without saying -- or it should -- that the Bush administration was not alone in worrying about Saddam's WMD. Former Vice President Al Gore, for example, noted during a speech in September 2002: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Gore was and is highly critical of Bush's foreign policy, but he didn't doubt for a moment that Saddam was equipped with deadly chemical and biological agents. Neither did Bill Clinton, the United Nations, or even Jacques Chirac.

Or, for that matter, the Democrats running for president. John Kerry, who repeatedly accuses Bush of having "misled" the nation, voted to go to war against Saddam. Why? "Because I believe," he said before casting that vote, "that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies."

Even *Saddam's own military officers* believed there were stockpiles of illegal weapons. In its Page 1 story on Kay's findings, The New York Times noted that while "no Special Republican Guard units had chemical or biological weapons, . . . all of the officers believed that some other Special Republican Guard unit had chemical weapons. 'They all said they didn't have it, but they thought other units had it,' Dr. Kay said."

For those of us who never believed that the case for toppling Saddam depended primarily on his possession of unconventional weapons, the fact that in 2003 he no longer possessed them changes very little. The war was right and proper because Saddam was a homicidal dictator who ruled with staggering brutality, because he provided support to international terrorists, and because Baathist Iraq was a threat to its neighbors.

But above all because of 9/11. What that day's attacks made clear is that we will not have peace until the fascism that grips so much of the Arab Muslim world is confronted, crushed, and transformed into something more decent. Bush understands what his predecessors did not: that the United States must stay on the offensive, pushing back until the theocracy and tyranny that make the Middle East so dangerous are defeated.


(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Falwell Confidential

Date: January 29, 2004
From: Jerry Falwell

IS GOD EVER PRO-WAR

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace" (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).

Christians have struggled with the issue of war for centuries. Before Jesus arrived on the scene, all good people wrestled with war and the existence of evil. Thankfully, the Bible is not silent on the subject.

Before we examine war, though, let's look at the God of Peace.

One of God's primary attributes is peace. Isaiah said the Messiah would bear these names: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). God longs for all people to live in peace. That is how He created the universe - in total peace and harmony.

Christians are to be people of peace.

One of the most notable biblical commands to live in peace is in Romans 12:18: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."

With the Bible clear on our responsibility to live peaceably, it seems that there would be no reason to ever go to war. However, if one depends on the Bible as a guidepost for living, it is readily apparent that war is sometimes a necessary option. In fact, just as there are numerous references to peace in the Bible, there are frequent references to God-ordained war.

Many present-day pacifists hold Jesus as their example for unvarying peace. But they ignore the full revelation concerning Jesus pictured in the book of Revelation 19, where He is depicted bearing a "sharp sword" and smiting nations, ruling them with "a rod of iron."

Moreover, the Song of Victory in Exodus 15 hails God as a God of War: "... The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name." And, as the verses that open this column indicate, there is indeed a time for war.

God actually strengthened individuals for war, including Moses, Joshua and many of the Old Testament judges who demonstrated great faith demonstrated in battle. And God destroyed many armies challenging the Israelites. I Chronicles 14:15 describes God striking down the Philistines.

God even gives counsel to be wise in war. Proverbs 20:18: "Every purpose is established by counsel: and with good advice make war."

Today, America continues to face the horrible realities of our fallen world. Suicide bombings and terrorist actions are beamed live into our homes daily. This serves as a constant reminder of the frailty of our flesh.

It is apparent that our God-authored freedoms must be defended.

Throughout the book of Judges, God calls the Israelites to go to war against the Midianites and Philistines. Why? Because these nations were trying to conquer Israel, and God's people were called to defend themselves.

President Bush declared war in Iraq to defend innocent people. This is a worthy pursuit. In fact, Proverbs 21:15 tells us: "It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity."

One of the primary purposes of the church is to stop the spread of evil, even at the cost of human lives. If we do not stop the spread of evil, many innocent lives will be lost and the kingdom of God suffers.

Finally, some reading this column will surely ask, "Doesn't the sixth commandment say, 'Thou shalt not kill?'"

Actually, no; it says: "Thou shalt not commit murder."

There is a difference between killing and murdering. In fact, many times God commanded capital punishment for those who break the law.

We continue to live in violent times. The Bible tells us war will be a reality until Christ returns. And when the time is right, Jesus will indeed come again, ending all wars.

Until that time, however, Christians must live as Galatians 6:2 instructs: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."

Myths of the Middle East

GREAT article from worldnetdaily.com that I found on one of the pages I linked to in the last post. If only the mainstream media would report these facts...and if only the UN would mention these facts...and the US would confront the arabs with these facts...if all of that happened- maybe we'd make some progress.

Opposition of US Support for a Palestinian State

Again, I call for President Bush and all members of Congress to NO longer support a Palestinian state. Another bus bombing...9 innocent people killed by an islamic terrorist. Those of you who want to pretend that Islam isn't the world's greatest threat can continue to live in your fantasy world.

**(No, not all Muslims are bad people...not all of them are a threat...just like not all Christians are good people...but the religion itself is, I believe, a danger and a threat in many ways. I respect peaceful Muslims and their right to follow their religion. I believe they are wrong and highly misguided, but they have the right to believe what they choose to believe. I, however, do not respect any Muslim, or any non-Muslim for that matter, who supports murder or any form of terrorism or who tries to justify it in any shape or form.)

Hizbollah has praised the attack. Shocking thing is- Israel has agreed to a prisoner swap...they will release over 400 terrorists from prison for a trade of 3 bodies of Israeli soldiers and a kidnapped Israeli businessman. I feel for the businessman and his family, but I hope Israel scratches the deal and no longer makes any swap agreements like this. They shouldn't have to deal with terrorists.

I urge you all to contact every politicican you can...and urge them to support legislation in opposition of U.S. support for a Palestinian state. Check the polls of Palestinians...the majority of these people support terrorism, and the majority of them hate the United States. Thus, these are people that do not deserve anything from the U.S. or the international community...and they certainly do not deserve their own nation.

Need more proof that Palestinians are barbaric people with no right to any land on earth?

Palestinians celebrate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks

Palestinian terror museum (complete with fake body parts) at Al Najah University

Palestinian children at "camp" to learn how to kill Israelis

The reason behind the deaths of Palestinian children (they're constantly involved in the attacks, that's why)

Palestinian children stepping on the UN, US, and Israeli flags...taught to do so by their parents

Pictures of innocent children who have become victims of the many murders by the Palestinian people
-----------------

Here's something for all you Israel haters with your nonsense arguments and your constant attacks of Israel and the Jewish people to think about.

taken from this essay (http://www.chayas.com/israel.htm)...click over to that site for the complete essay.

Now, think about all of this...and you tell me these people deserve a state of their own. Tell me that the U.S. should support this effort. Tell me that, and I'll tell you you're wrong.

We need to condemn the Palestinian leadership and the majority of the people (who in large numbers support the terrorism), and urge the Israelis to either imprison the terrorist leader, Arafat, or actually assassinate him. Truth be told, Israel needs to keep building the security fence...but, encircle all Palestinian areas. Afterall, animals do belong in cages. Call my views extreme...then, go and look at how palestinians teach their children to hate Jews and eventually teach them how to kill Jews...how the palestinian people hate the US, the UN, the entire state of Israel, and all things that are good. How they want nothing except the total destruction of Israel. You find out the truth about the palestinian people, then you come back and tell me if my views are at all extreme.

We have to fight terrorism worldwide and never surrender to these animals. The issue of the palestinians is part of that battle...and we need to make sure that the U.S. government changes its policies and treats the palestinian issue as a terrorist issue just like we have in Afghaninstan and Iraq.

State of the Union Address 2004

I posted the State of the Union Address to the site here. In case anyone wants to read the entire thing.

State of the Union Address Jan 20, 2004

The Passion of Christ

Mel Gibson's new film The Passion of Christ is being attacked by a number of people...from what I can see of the story, it's being attacked by people unfairly...and most of the attacks are coming from people trying to further their own agenda.

I will be seeing the movie when it comes out, and I applaud Gibson for the effort in making the film and for not backing down now.

The Left Coast Report did a nice piece on the various attacks...sheds some light on the various attackers. Pretty disgusting how some of these reporters and others are acting.
------------------------
1. Genesis of a Smear Campaign

It all started in January of last year.

Mel Gibson appeared on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor."

The famed actor-producer-director let the world know that a print reporter was nosing around his family and friends trying to dig up dirt.

The reporter was freelance journalist Christopher Noxon. He wrote a hit piece that focused on Gibson's 85-year-old father. The article mischaracterized Mel's beliefs and those of his dad. It also tried to label the film as fringe propaganda.

Noxon's dirt-digging expedition might have been related to his family's interest in the same Malibu site where Mel Gibson was building a church.

The plot thickened as another group planned a full Gibson assault.

2. Unscholarly Conduct

With the help of an individual dubbed in an e-mail "our Deep Throat," a group of academics, who are part of what is known as the interfaith movement, got hold of a stolen early draft of a confidential script.

Using ideas and notes from the pilfered preliminary screenplay, the group generated a so-called confidential report that twisted the film's message.

Somehow the report landed in the hands of the news media. A number of its authors appeared delighted to have their criticisms aired in public, despite the fact that the report was based on incomplete, dated, confidential and pirated material.

In addition to theft, it seems that falsification was also part of the unscholarly game. The group tried to pawn itself off as an official body of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), but the USCCB subsequently issued a statement denying a connection with the anti-Gibson group.

Boston University's Paula Fredriksen has been a particularly high-profile player in the anti-"Passion" drama. She has referred to Scripture as "a kind of religious advertisement." She has promoted the idea that the Gospels "proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelist's position."

On Dec. 22, 2001, the Washington Post delivered a sort of un-Christmas present from Fredriksen in the form of a comment about the trustworthiness of the New Testament. The Post quoted her as saying, "I can't think of any New Testament scholar who takes [the Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth] to be historically reliable," adding that most scholars believe that Christ was not born in Bethlehem.

It appears as if Fredriksen and friends could be on a mission to deconstruct the Gospels. They prattle on about "progressive interpretation" and "historical context" when it seems that what they really want is a rewrite of the Good Book. Could it be that their real beef with Mel has to do with the fact that he based his movie on the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

"The Passion" saga continued as film-snuffing sights were set on a potential distributor.

3. Suppression of Expression

In an effort to persuade Rupert Murdoch's Twentieth Century Fox to decline distribution of Gibson's film, New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind scheduled a press conference and demonstration. The event was supposed to take place in front of News Corp.'s Manhattan headquarters.

Twentieth Century Fox usually distributes Gibson's movies, but gave a thumbs-down on "The Passion."

As the New York Daily News reported, other Hollywood studios were also less than enthusiastic about taking on the project produced by Icon Productions.

Additionally, the New York Times rubbed salt into Icon's wounds by describing the film as chronicling "in bloody detail" the last hours of Jesus' life. It also called it "potentially inflammatory" and "not commercial enough for a high-profile mainstream studio like Fox."

In typical Gibson fashion, Mel and the crew gripped the wheel, rode out the bumps and were successful in finding a distributor.

Unfortunately, more trouble lay ahead.

4. The Piracy

In November of last year, the New York Post illegally obtained a pirated videotape of the Gibson film. Although this revelation is extraordinary in its own right, it's what a major newspaper did with the tape that made ignoble cinematic history.

Months before the film's scheduled release, the Post displayed the grainy second-generation videotape to its own assembled panel of critics. Four of the five reviewers who were present slammed the film in the pages of the paper.

Oscar-winning director Sydney Pollack put feelings into words in this way. He told E! Online News, "If I had made that picture, I would have felt raped."

Evidently the shenanigans weren't just outrageous, they were also illegal. The Los Angeles Times reported that federal authorities launched a probe.

Gibson and the folks at Icon had more head and heartache to endure.

5. Virtual Hate

Also in November, Anti-Defamation League held its annual meeting in New York.

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman let loose with one of the ugliest assaults on Gibson that had occurred to date. He said, "I think he's infected - seriously infected - with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views."

These words spewed forth from the leader of an organization that purportedly stands for tolerance.

Ironically, instead of modeling a virtue, Foxman ended up demonstrating exactly what hate speech sounds like.

In January 2004, uninvited ADL officials registered for a Christian pastors' conference where Gibson's film was set to be shown. They used the fabricated name "The Church of Truth" to gain entrance to the event.

After seeing the film, ADL denounced Gibson's picture as a "painful portrayal" and a "commercial crusade to the church community."

Most recently, Foxman requested that Gibson attach a disclaimer (drafted by Foxman) to the film denouncing any bigoted interpretation of his narrative.

No similar disclaimer has yet been submitted by Foxman for the spurious and insulting remarks he made about Gibson.

At the same time Mel and his mates were dealing with ADL matters, they were also experiencing an insidious print blitz.

6. Poison Pens

It seems that New York Times arts columnist Frank Rich felt the need to gear up the sleaze machine several times over to generate innuendo.

In his Aug. 3 column, Rich got stuck in sludge-slinging overdrive. He wrote that Gibson and his organization had been "baiting Jews," Matt Drudge was a "token Jew," traditionalist Catholics were a "fringe church," Rupert Murdoch was a "conservative non-Jew," Peter J. Boyer's article "sanitizes" Mel's father, Bill O'Reilly was "being paid" to defend Gibson, and Gibson spokesman Alan Nierob "plays bizarre games with the Holocaust." (Rich evidently missed the fact that Nierob is a second-generation Holocaust survivor and a founding member of the U.S. Holocaust Museum.)

Rich even tried to take a swipe at me. He claimed to "decode" a section of my book "Tales from the Left Coast," where I supposedly have "a fetish of repeating Bob Dylan's original name."

In September, the Jayson Blair understudy heaved more rubbish in Gibson's direction. After a Vatican official (who happens to be on the short list of papal prospects) raved about the movie and dismissed concerns over bigotry, Rich evidently decided to change his focus. Instead of going after the Passion product, he'd try attacking the Passion process.

He wrote, "Intentionally or not, the contentious rollout of 'The Passion' has resembled a political campaign, from its start on 'The O'Reilly Factor.'"

Getting little traction with that one, Rich tried to jump into a story that involved a higher authority.

7. 'The Passion' and the Pope

On Dec. 17, Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal reported that Pope John Paul II had seen Gibson's movie and said, "It is as it was."

Noonan had been given a written confirmation for the quote from the pope's official spokesman via e-mail.

The same day, National Catholic Reporter's main man at the Vatican, John Allen, reported the identical quote and attributed it to the pontiff. An unnamed senior Vatican official confirmed the quote.

The following day, Reuters joined in on reporting the pope's quote and cited an unnamed Vatican source.

The Los Angeles Times received its own independent corroboration for the story on Dec. 19.

On Dec. 24, Catholic News Service's Cindy Wooden claimed to have talked to "a senior Vatican official close to the pope" who said that the pontiff never said those words.

On Jan. 9, Allen reported that he had double-checked his original source and that the pope did indeed say, "It is as it was."

Enter once again Frank Rich of the New York Times.

On Jan. 18, Rich tossed more journalistic mud pies. He accused Gibson and Steve McEveety of using the pope to make money.

The next day Catholic News Service reported that the pope's secretary said that "the Holy Father made no declaration" about the film.

Two days later, L.A. Times columnist Tim Rutten apparently signed up to be Rich's Left Coast colleague. He wrote a vile piece that began, "A good Hollywood publicity campaign does not stumble over technicalities - like the truth. Still, it takes a particular sort of chutzpah to put a phony quote in the mouth of Pope John Paul II."

Actually it takes a particular sort of chutzpah for a columnist to forget to check his own paper's records before he writes on a subject.

On Jan. 23, in a news article, the Times admitted that "last month, the ailing pontiff was quoted as having said after a private screening of the film 'it is as it was.' Asked Dec. 19 whether the quote was reliable, Vatican press secretary Joaquin Navarro-Valls told the Times 'I think you can consider that quote as accurate.'"

The truth is that, from the beginning, Icon has had written authorization to go public with the pope's statement on "The Passion of the Christ." My sources have enabled me to confirm the graphic nod with my own eyes.

After stories began to emerge that questioned whether the quote was for real, Icon's McEveety immediately e-mailed the official Vatican press secretary and offered to discourage use of the quote. Navarro-Valls responded with an e-mail, which not only reaffirmed that use of the quote was fine but advised McEveety to use the phrase "again and again and again."

Even the New York Times on Jan. 20 wrote, "One prominent Roman Catholic official close to the Vatican said today, 'I have reason to believe - and I think - that the pope probably said it.'"

So what we have here are four respected news organizations getting independent verification, and Icon Productions getting confirmation, authorization and encouragement, to use the pope's "it is as it was" statement.

The way I see it, the Icon team has held fast to the truth and suffered the stripes with amazing grace.

The Left Coast Report thinks that, because "The Passion of the Christ" and its people have managed to survive insults, stolen scripts, threats of demonstration, pirated prints and dire predictions, the continuous triumphs are no mere coincidence. The more appropriate term to use would be providential.

Love

attention everyone.

I love sarah.

attention again.

I was so kidding

More Black Racism

More black racism discussed in an article by Jeff Jacoby. Black racism isn't Jacoby's point really, but I am tired of seeing it. Most racism I see taking place in this country is black racism from whiny ass people who refuse to get rid of their victim mentality (attention all non-whites, you are not victims, GET OVER IT!) and make EVERYTHING into a racial issue. Hopefully these two racist women will be sued for making these nonsense claims, for tying up the courts, and for costing the airline and this woman (who, of course, did NOTHING wrong) time, money, and suffering.

For the kids at the school mentioned, hopefully someone will teach these young fools that african american is a nonsense term that shouldn't be used at all, and it does NOT mean "black." As I have been saying lately, not ALL blacks are from africa, and those who have relatives hundreds of years ago from Africa- most of you know nothing about Africa, you've never been to Africa, and you'll never go to Africa, so calling yourself "African" at all is just stupid and pointless. It's another racist way to try to divide people.
-------------------------------
A LITTLE LESS FREEDOM OF SPEECH
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Sunday, January 25, 2004

It doesn't take much to get slammed as a racist these days. Just ask Jennifer Cundiff.

Back in February 2001, the Southwest Airlines flight attendant was trying to coax passengers boarding a flight from Las Vegas to Kansas City to find their seats quickly so the plane could take off. "Eenie meenie minie moe," she said over the intercom, "pick a seat, we gotta go."

Cute and harmless, right? Not to two black passengers, it wasn't. Louise Sawyer and Grace Fuller, who are sisters, interpreted Cundiff's couplet as a racist insult and said they were sure it was intended to humiliate them. It was so upsetting, Fuller claimed, that it triggered a seizure and left her bedridden for days. Eventually the women sued, charging Southwest with violating their civil rights and inflicting physical and emotional distress.

If you're scratching your head in bewilderment at this point, you aren't alone. Unless you're old enough to remember flappers and speakeasies, you probably don't know that the words that originally followed "eenie, meenie, minie, moe" were "catch a nigger by the toe." Cundiff, who was 22, certainly didn't know. Like most of us, she grew up saying "catch a tiger by the toe" -- she had never heard the older, uglier version.

Ah, but innocence offers scant protection against contemporary racial victimology. Neither does common sense or the right to free speech. Any of those should have been reason enough for US District Judge Kathryn Vratil to summarily bounce the lawsuit as frivolous. Instead, she ruled that Cundiff's little rhyme "could be reasonably viewed as objectively racist and offensive," and said a jury would have to decide "whether Cundiff's remark was racist, or simply a benign and innocent attempt at humor."

The trial took place last week. A jury of eight deliberated for less than an hour before finding Cundiff and Southwest innocent of racism. Needless to say, the stewardess and the airline will not be reimbursed for the lost hours and legal fees this preposterous lawsuit has cost them. And that isn't all that they lost.

Every time a case like this occurs -- every time someone is sued or punished or forced to hire a lawyer just for expressing an opinion or making a comment that someone of a different color finds offensive -- all of us are left with a little less freedom of speech. Dismayingly, such cases seem be occurring more frequently than ever. Now and then one of these incidents draws national scorn. A few years ago, a vast wave of ridicule forced the mayor of Washington, DC, to rehire an aide who had been accused of racism and forced to resign for using the word "niggardly" -- a synonym for stingy -- in a conversation.

But most of the time, these cases end with racial correctness trumping fairness and free speech.

Consider a story out of Omaha last week. According to the Omaha World-Herald, several students at Westside High School were punished after they "plastered the school on Monday" -- Martin Luther King Day -- "with posters advocating that a white student from South Africa receive the 'Distinguished African American Student Award' next year." The posters featured a picture of junior Trevor Richards, whose family moved to Omaha from Johannesburg in 1998, smiling and giving a thumbs-up.

School officials tore the posters down, apparently in response to complaints from a few black students, and denounced them as "inappropriate and insensitive." Trevor was suspended for two days, according to his mother, and two of his friends were also penalized for helping to put the posters up. A fourth student, the World-Herald reported, "was punished for circulating a petition Tuesday morning in support of the boys. The petition criticized the practiced of recognizing only black student achievement with the award."

The students were punished, in other words, for expressing an opinion -- that it is wrong to create an award for which only black students can qualify. That is hardly an outlandish point of view. There are 1,843 students at Westside High, of whom fewer than 70 are black. Why should 96.2 percent of the student body be barred from a school honor on the basis of their race? Isn't that just the sort of offensive racial thinking that Dr. King condemned?

A message is not "inappropriate and insensitive" merely because some people complain about it -- not even if those people aren't white, and not even if the message is politically incorrect. The real outrage at Westside High last week was that four students were disciplined for exercising a freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Other students may not have liked what they had to say. That didn't entitle them to suppress their speech.

The First Amendment says nothing about a right not to be offended. The risk of finding someone else's speech offensive is the price each of us pays for our own free speech. Free people don't run to court -- or to the principle -- when they encounter a message they don't like. They answer it with one of their own.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
---------------------------------
I wanted to draw attention to one of the comments by the black lady who is so full of shit, it's coming out of her ears...(yeah, the announcement caused a seizure my ass)...this is what this idiot said after the innocent verdict (the judge should be sued for letting this go to trial):

Excuse me?!?! IF you had a jury of your peers? So, you're a racist who thinks everyone is racist against you, but you don't consider people your "peers" unless they're black?! Whites aren't your peers? Now, who's the racist here? There IS justice for blacks in America, you fool. Racism is no longer a serious issue in 2004...blacks aren't attacked by racists, blacks don't suffer from constant racism, blacks get paid the same amounts as whites, they get promotions like whites, they get the same types of jobs, they live in the same types of neighborhoods, etc. Blacks DO have justice...what you're asking for is to be treated as a victim, to be pampered and tiptoed around. What does it matter that no blacks or minorities were on the jury? What you're saying by that statement is- all whites are racist, and the jurors didn't give us a fair verdict, because they're all racist. That's nonsense, and I hope this story haunts you two fools for the rest of your lives.

(Read Michelle Malkin's story on this same trial)
(and another piece from the washinton times)

Horror Movie Megapack

I want this. I love multiple movie packs like this...well, horror movie packs. Even if they're cheesy horror movies you'd never buy if it was one movie on one disc, all the movies together in a pack like this is a good value, so you can take the bad movies.

I might order that horror pack. I've seen a couple of the movies on there, and I know some of them are decent. I bought this horror pack with like 7 movies on it...2 DVD's. Honestly, I haven't watched any of them yet. I bought it at best buy for $6 (tho I mentioned it before, and I think I said $9.) I forget which movies are on the set I have, but I might watch one tonight sometime. Maybe.

Al Franken's Unhealthy Obsession

I'm watching Book TV on C-Span 2, and Tucker Carlson, 'admitted liar' Eric Alterman, Laura Ingraham, and 'fox obsessed' Al Franken are discussing a possible liberal bias in the media. From what I have seen so far, the liberal side of Alterman and Franken have made asses of themselves...Franken has spent most of the discussion obsessing over Fox News, talking about how everyone who watches Fox News is an idiot, and going on and on and on about Fox News with every single question. This guy needs to get a life, and stop being obsessed. Stuart Smalley is going to insult millions of Americans with his lies?! This guy is clueless, and it's sad that they actually have him on this panel. Alterman isn't much better- he's a clown too, and it's disgraceful to see them on stage with Carlson and Ingraham.

Zogby Poll: Kerry Lead Widening

Interesting poll numbers, tho they don't seem to mean much if you ask me...they showed Dean ahead for so long, but he lost by a much larger margin than the polls showed.

Most of the bad stuff about Kerry hasn't gotten out to many people yet. Sean Hannity promised, in due time, his show will release everything about the man- and he says there is some very dark stuff about him.

I actually was troubled by newsmax.com's story on Kerry here-
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml
------------------
January 24, 2004

Exclusive to Zogby-NewsMax Confidential

Kerry Now Leads by 9 Points in New Hampshire

Friday Polling Shows Race May Be Tightening

Are Edwards and Lieberman Poised to Hit Double- Digits?
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry commanding lead over Howard Dean may be increasing.

The latest Zogby New Hampshire tracking poll shows Kerry at 31 % to Dean's 22% -- a 1 point increase in Kerry's lead.

Here are the latest poll results:

Kerry -- 31%
Dean -- 22%
Clark -- 14%
Edwards -- 8%
Lieberman -- 7%
Kucinich -- 2%

John Zogby's Analysis follows:

1. Kerry's lead is now 9 points over three days; however he led only by 26%-22% over Dean in Friday polling alone, while Edwards and Lieberman each hit 10%.

2. Kerry leads among most sub-groups, including double-digit leads among Independents, the oldest voters, moderates, and married voters.

3. Dean's showing on Friday may suggest that he has bottomed out and may in fact be starting to increase. Kerry's 26-point performance on Friday is factored into two previous nights of double-digit leads. Another day like this and Dean may be in striking distance again.

4. More than three-in-five (62%) of Dean's supporters say their support is 'very strong," as do 60% of Kerry's. There appears to be movement here, as there was in Iowa.

Polling results will be released daily through Tuesday, January 27th, the date of New Hampshire's Democratic primary election. Zogby International conducted telephone interviews of a random sampling of 601 likely primary voters statewide over a rolling three-day period. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from Wednesday, January 21 through Friday, January 23. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points.

The Truth (that Michael Moore will never tell you): Bush NOT a Deserter

I never really looked into the claims that Bush went AWOL in the air national guard...but, I have heard the issue mentioned numerous times lately, since the flap with Wes Clark and Michael Moore. The truth is that Bush did not go AWOL and he did not desert his post. He was granted an honorable discharge in October of 1973.

More nonsense from the left without the facts to support it. Not at all shocking.

More here

Clark: Moore has Right to Call Bush a "Deserter"

Clark keeps screwing himself...he has no chance whatsoever, but it's entertaining to see this clown keep humiliating himself.

Jan. 23, 2004

Breaking News from NewsMax.com

Clark: Moore Has Right to Call Bush 'a Deserter'

In a response that could turn out to be Gen. Wesley Clark's worst blunder yet on the campaign trail, the presidential hopeful said his supporter, firebrand-filmmaker Michael Moore, had a right to call President Bush a military "deserter.

During Thursday night's presidential debate in New Hampshire, ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings challenged Clark about Moore's outburst last weekend, calling the deserter charge "reckless" and "not supported by the facts."

The exchange went like this:

JENNINGS: At one point Mr. Moore said in front of you that he'd like to see a debate between you and President Bush, who he called a deserter.

Now that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts and I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him and whether or not you think it would have been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so?

CLARK: Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this. I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot. But to me it wasn't material. . . . And I'm delighted to have the support of Michael Moore . . . .

JENNINGS: Let me ask you something you mentioned then, because since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore were involved, you've had a chance to look at the facts. Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?

CLARK: To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that's Michael Moore's opinion. He's entitled to say that. He's not the only person who's said that. I've not followed up on those facts and, frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign.

The "Healthcare Crisis" that Doesn't Exist

I was watching the debate (for about 2 seconds), and I heard Joe Lieberman talking about what a tragedy it is that "43 million Americans" are without health insurance, so I decided I had to write a bit about the subject. Since that figure is meaningless, and I haven't seen many people point that out, I thought I should do so...

The Imaginary Healthcare Crisis

News flash- health care isn't a God-given right to all Americans, and it isn't guaranteed in the US Constitution.

I'm so tired of hearing the democratic candidates (and other candidates at certain times) complain that "43 million Americans" are without health insurance. That figure means nothing. Not one thing. Every American, no matter what their age, sex, race, you name it- has access to, not only affordable healthcare, but free healthcare if they cannot pay for it, or if paying would be a hardship. There is no healthcare crisis. There is no such as an American who goes without health care (unless they choose to go without the care themselves.) The federal government, along with state and local governments use tax money to pay for health care for every single American alive today. They have done this for decades and decades.

If you have no insurance, you can still get the proper care from a doctor in your area. You can go to a local health clinic, run by county and city governments, or you can even go to most hospitals, never pay them a dime for their services, and come back time and time again, and they won't usually turn you away. If I'm not mistaken, legally, if there is an emergency situation, they cannot refuse you treatment no matter your ability to pay. It's even possible to find charitable-run medical centers that will serve you for whatever you can pay or for nothing at all, if you cannot pay.

The fact is- every American has access to healthcare from a number of providers. There is no healthcare crisis, there has never been a healthcare crisis, and it's nonsense for the democrats to bring this up in debates. It's even more ridiculous to bring it up and blame it on the Bush administration or any other President. Since healthcare is available to all Americans, all this whining and complaining about the "uninsured" is pointless, and it goes against logic.

I don't have health insurance, but if I were to get sick, I would be treated and taken care of. Does it makes any difference that I don't have health insurance, and I could go to the doctor for any tiny little thing and demand any type of medicine I want but don't need? Where in the Constitution does it say that it's the role of the US government to take money from Americans and pay for you to go to any doctor you want, for anything you want, anytime you want? It doesn't...and do you know why it doesn't? Our founding fathers had sense enough to know that the best government is a limited government...spending obscene amounts of money, or wanting to do so to get votes wasn't part of that plan, and it shouldn't be part of the plan today.

Dean: "I'm Not Coached"

You know what struck me about these comments? If you'll remember in 2003, Dean used a line that was written for him for his appearance on the short0lived HBO series K-Street, in an actual speech he made in real life. Dean actually stole his lines from the series and used them in real life...yet, he wants you to believe he isn't "coached."

Speaking of his speeches and his many gaffes of late- he scared me to death when he started screaming out state names and went "YEAAHHHHHH" like a madman a few days ago. I know everyone and their brother has talked about this already, but I noticed it when I first saw it, and couldn't help wondering how he's loose on the streets and not locked in a small padded cell somewhere.

Also, here is another bit from a different story...if it's true, and his advisors are looking at the polls, it would seem that Dean, himself, watches the polls too, which means- he was being dishonest when he said he doesn't watch polls in the quote above. Dean lying? Who could imagine such a thing?

More later tonight on John Kerry and his constant flip flops and lies about his position on the Iraq war...and comments on a piece from Rich Lowry about Ted Kennedy's flip flops and lies.
----------------------
Various comments on Dean's scary speech after his 3rd place finish in Iowa.

David Letterman: "Did you see Howard Dean ranting and raving?" Here's a little tip, Howard: cut back on the Red Bull."

Jay Leno: "I'm not an expert in politics, but I think it's a bad sign when your speech ends with your aides shooting you with a tranquilizer gun."

Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) introduced the clip by saying,: "That whole 'Dean anger thing,' it's a bum rap. The guy has his emotions under control."

Pat Buchanan, a former Republican presidential candidate, said: "Dean's Iowa defeat was a real setback to him, but his post-game commentary was a disaster. That tape will be on every national talk show, I don't think it's survivable."

Democratic consultant James Carville, who was in New Hampshire attending campaign events, said of Dean's Iowa speech: "It hurt him."

You know you're in deep when Carville (a loony that is even scarier than Dean) says a speech hurt your campaign.

No Liberal Bias in the Media? Funny.

Some clear examples of bias in the media (almost always a liberal bias) from MRC (Media Research Center). I always enjoy reading these cyber alerts they put out. The one guy said that Bush looked terrible, but Ted (I want to steal billions for the big dig and take all your money in taxes) Kennedy (who acted like a child during the speech) looked great, like he's ready to be on Mt. Rushmore? Now THAT is scary.

I also like how the CNN anchor seemed to treat the weatherman like he was an idiot for countering the nonsense that they're pushing about the tax cuts and how it'll mean more deficits. Nice job from Chad Myers, getting his point across, even tho he was being talked down to by some anchor who has a job a monkey could do.

***Media Research Center CyberAlert***
12pm EST, Thursday January 22, 2004 (Vol. Nine; No. 11)
The 1,648th CyberAlert. Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996

> ABC: Bush's $250 Million for Job Training "Not Nearly Enough"
> CNN Features Angry Reaction from Europe and Iraq to Bush Speech
> Now and 15 Years Ago CBS's Smith Sees Only Economic Dark Side
> ABC & NBC Morning Shows Express Hostility to Extending Tax Cuts
> Unusual Source Defending How Tax Cuts Work: CNN's Meteorologist
> Tom Shales: Bush, "Scary"; Ted Kennedy Worthy of Mount Rushmore
> "Top Ten Reasons I'll Make a Good Talk Show Host"

#### Distributed to more than 14,000 subscribers by the Media
Research Center, bringing political balance to the news media
since 1987. The MRC is the leader in documenting, exposing and
neutralizing liberal media bias. Visit the MRC on the Web:
http://www.mediaresearch.org. CyberAlerts from this year are at:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/cyber/welcome.asp
For 2003: http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/cyber/archive03.asp
Subscribe/unsubscribe information, as well as a link to the
MRC's PayPal donation page, are at the end of this message.
When posted, this CyberAlert will be readable at:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040122.asp ####

1) After Peter Jennings on Wednesday night declared that "as
everybody in the country knows, the Bush administration has
struggled with its economic policy" since "eight and a half
million people are unemployed," ABC reporters complained that
Bush's job training program won't spend enough. In two stories,
ABC never allowed anyone to suggest the program is too big or
beyond the proper role of government. "The plan," ABC's Dean
Reynolds explained, "would devote $250 million to create
partnerships between community colleges and employers," but,
Reynolds stressed, "critics say the money is not nearly enough."
Terry Moran denigrated the effort: "$250 million amounts to small
change in the government's trillion-dollar budget."

2) Though Bush's State of the Union speech occurred at 3am in
Britain and 5am in Iraq, on Wolf Blitzer Reports on Wednesday
afternoon CNN correspondents had no problem finding Britons and
Iraqis angry about it. "Europeans find the President's talk about
God and good and evil very scary," sniffed Walter Rodgers before
trumpeting how "analysts here say that alienation is not going to
change until Mr. Bush leaves the White House." Rodgers insisted
that the alliance "has been badly shattered by this President, and
by the unilateralist policy." From Baghdad, Michael Holmes
relayed: "The attitude very much, we don't know what the President
said, and quite frankly, we don't care." Nonetheless, Holmes
proceeded to convey the views of three Iraqis angry at Bush. One
declared: "The President speaks of freedom in Iraq, but we are not
free, we are occupied today by another country."

3) Harry Smith's consistently hostile agenda spans 15 years. On
Wednesday's Early Show on CBS, Smith rejected any notion of a good
economy as he lectured White House Chief-of-Staff Andy Card about
how "there's a $500 billion deficit, 43 million Americans without
health insurance, 12 million American children living in poverty,
record numbers of personal bankruptcies." Fifteen years ago, a
week before President Reagan left office in January of 1989, he
told Reagan's daughter, Maureen, that her father's real legacy was
"one out of five babies born in the United States are born into
poverty. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country
now that are homeless, have no place to live."

4) The morning after President Bush's State of the Union address,
hosts on ABC and NBC expressed hostility toward Bush's wish to
make the tax cuts permanent, a move which would prevent a series
of tax hikes over the next few years. ABC's Charles Gibson
contended that such a move would be "making deficits in the
hundreds of billions of dollars permanent." NBC's Matt Lauer
recited the content of a left-wing New York Times editorial which
claimed: "His insistence on huge tax cuts for the wealthy has
robbed the country of the money it needs to address its problems
and has threatened its long term security." And he's only doing it
because "the wealthy donors helping underwrite his campaign expect
that he will."

5) A defense of tax cuts from an unusual source: A CNN
meteorologist. When CNN Daybreak anchor Carol Costello read an e-
mail from a viewer who wanted to know where the money would come
from to pay for making the tax cuts permanent, meteorologist Chad
Myers piped up and suggested it won't increase the deficit if the
economy grows.

6) Bush: "Scary," Ted Kennedy worthy of Mount Rushmore. Reviewing
President Bush's State of the Union address, nationally syndicated
Washington Post television reviewer Tom Shales complained that
"Bush had too many moments of cockiness" and fretted about how
"the fact that Bush appeared to be so happy, so elated, so giddily
primed for another political slugfest was a little bit
disheartening, and even a little bit scary." But citing Senator
Ted Kennedy's head-shaking, eye-rolling dismissive reactions to
Bush, Shales gushed: "Kennedy looked great, like he was ready to
take his place next to Jefferson on Mount Rushmore."

7) As presented by John McEnroe who will soon have a prime time
talk show on CNBC, Letterman's "Top Ten Reasons I'll Make a Good
Talk Show Host."

> 1) After Peter Jennings on Wednesday night declared that "as
everybody in the country knows, the Bush administration has
struggled with its economic policy" since "eight and a half
million people are unemployed and more than 300,000 others stopped
actively looking for work last month," ABC reporters complained
that Bush's job training program won't spend enough. In two
stories, ABC never allowed anyone to suggest the program is too
big or beyond the proper role of government.

"The plan," ABC's Dean Reynolds explained, "would devote $250
million to create partnerships between community colleges and
employers in such high-demand fields as computer engineering and
health care, but critics say the money is not nearly enough."
Terry Moran dismissed the effort, insisting that the "$250 million
amounts to small change in the government's trillion-dollar
budget."

If it were a $250 million tax cut, you can bet ABC wouldn't
mock its small size.

On the January 21 World News Tonight, Moran reported on Bush's
trip to Toledo to tout his proposed job training program. Moran
mocked the small size of Bush's spending ideas: "That $250 million
amounts to small change in the government's trillion-dollar
budget, but was the biggest ticket item in the President's speech,
which was marked by relatively minor but politically appealing
initiatives: $23 million for drug testing in schools, $135 million
for abstinence education, $300 million for post-release
assistance to ex-convicts and a call to end steroid use in pro
sports, which cost nothing."
Bush in State of the Union address: "Get rid of steroids now."
Stephen Hess, Brookings Institution: "A lot of these programs
almost sounded as if the President was going to be the nanny-in-
chief. There's not much money there, you have to propose
something, you put together a bunch of small programs."
Moran: "The White House is planning a feel good re-election
campaign this year and this trip and the scattering of small items
the President laid-out last night, are part of their emerging
strategy: Don't rock the boat. Bet on the economy to provide a lot
of job growth this year and urge voters to stay the course.
Here in hard-hit Ohio, which has lost 249,000 jobs since the
President took office, a few hundred protestors, many union
workers braved zero degree temperatures and vented frustrations at
the President's economic policies. As usual, police made sure Mr.
Bush never saw or heard them."

Jennings next introduced a closer look at the jobs program:
"Well as everybody in the country knows, the Bush administration
has struggled with its economic policy. Eight and a half million
people are unemployed and more than 300,000 others stopped
actively looking for work last month. In this election year, Mr.
Bush's proposal to finance more job training certainly seems
designed to deal with a potential area of vulnerability."

From Chicago, Dean Reynolds began with an anecdote about a
man, who is delivering pizza after spending 20 years in
telecommunications, and doesn't think he has time for job
training. Reynolds outlined the Bush plan, but featured a
complaint about how it's not big enough: "The President's 21st
century jobs proposal is an about face after years in which his
administration cut spending on training. The new plan would devote
$250 million to create partnerships between community colleges and
employers in such high-demand fields as computer engineering and
health care, but critics say the money is not nearly enough."
Professor Tom Kochan, MIT Sloan School of Management: "This is
a nice symbolic gesture, but we have a much, much bigger job to do
than this amount of money will ever achieve."

Without bothering to allow anyone to question why the
government should spend a dime on training, Reynolds moved on to a
second anecdote about a woman in Dallas in training in the health
care field, but she fretted about how employers want experience
and then Reynolds closed on the downbeat by noting how the pizza
delivery guy has few better job prospects.

This was the second time in less than two weeks that Reynolds
put anecdotes before any statistics or proof. As recounted in the
January 15 CyberAlert: Dour emotion over statistical reality. On
Saturday, January 10, the day after the Labor Department announced
that the unemployment rate had fallen by two-tenths of a percent
to 5.7 percent in December, a 14-month low, ABC devoted a story to
how, as anchor Dan Harris put it, "behind these upbeat numbers are
millions of workers who've had to downsize their paychecks and
their dreams." Reporter Dean Reynolds, without citing a single
source or statistic, other than "one analyst" who remained
unidentified, rued as he cited a couple of anecdotes: "There's
been a lot of talk on Wall Street lately about the economic
recovery, but on the streets where these workers live, there is
precious little sign of it." For details:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040115.asp#3

ABC wasn't the only network on Wednesday night to ignore the
booming GDP and rising stock market. Dan Rather opened the CBS
Evening News: "President Bush cris-crossed the country today,
campaigning for re-election. His main theme is that he's done a
good job leading the battle against terrorism, including the war
in Iraq. Behind that, his record on the economy, with soaring
deficits and nagging unemployment, may be a tougher sell."

> 2) Though Bush's State of the Union speech occurred in the
early morning hours in Britain (3am) and Iraq (5am), on Wolf
Blitzer Reports on Wednesday afternoon CNN correspondents had no
problem finding Britons and Iraqis angry about it. "Europeans find
the President's talk about God and good and evil very scary,"
sniffed Walter Rodgers from London before trumpeting how "analysts
here say that alienation is not going to change until Mr. Bush
leaves the White House." Rodgers insisted that "the old North
American alliance with Europe has been badly shattered by this
President, and by the unilateralist policy." Specifically, Rodgers
maintained, Europeans "got stiffed by President Bush last night."

From Baghdad, Michael Holmes relayed: "The attitude very much,
we don't know what the President said, and quite frankly, we don't
care." Nonetheless, Holmes then proceeded to convey the views of
three Iraqis: The first complained about how Bush bombed "our
houses and farms with missiles," the second asked, "How I can
watch the speech when I have no power at my house?" and the third
declared: "The President speaks of freedom in Iraq, but we are not
free, we are occupied today by another country."

Wolf Blitzer set up the January 21 segment: "Looking at the
state of European Union, but across the Atlantic there is plenty
of interest in the President's speech. On the other hand, while
the President focused much of his attention on Iraq, Iraqis
apparently are not necessarily reciprocating. A look now at how
some of the international reaction is unfolding beginning with our
senior international correspondent Walter Rodgers, he's joining us
in London, Walt?"
Rodgers, from inside a studio: "Hello, Wolf. There was a
collective sigh of relief in Europe after the President's State of
the Union address. Partially because this time there was no talk
of new American military action anywhere, unlike two years ago
when he scared Europeans with his talk about the axis of evil and
unlike last year when Mr. Bush was about to unleash war on Iraq.
"Still, Europeans find the President's talk about God and good
and evil very scary, so there wasn't much President Bush could say
to ingratiate himself to Europeans, that is how badly he has
alienated America's traditional allies and analysts here say that
alienation is not going to change until Mr. Bush leaves the White
House.
"Europe is also not buying into the President's claim that the
American economy is improving. One funds manager with whom we
spoke told his clients to invest in euros and British sterling.
That's a vote of no confidence in the Bush economic policy. So
generally Europe has written off the State of the Union address as
the President's bid for re-election and not much more, Wolf."

Blitzer at least challenged Rodgers a bit: "Walter, some
administration officials insisting as the Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld did earlier last year, there's a difference in Europe
between the old Europe, France let's say, and the new Europe, of
the central European, eastern European nations, the emerging
democracies, is there a change in their reaction as far as you
could tell today?"
Rodgers: "Well, Secretary Rumsfeld is correct. There is an old
Europe, and there is a new Europe, but there are still the
traditional American allies, the British, the French, the Germans,
the Italians, the Spanish and so forth. And that alliance, the old
North American alliance with Europe has been badly shattered by
this President, and by the unilateralist policy. The Europeans
were looking for some indication that Mr. Bush might return to
acting in concert with the United Nations, might consider
consulting with them, they got stiffed by President Bush last
night, Wolf."

Blitzer moved on to Iraq: "Walter Rodgers in London, mincing
no words. Thank you very much for that report. Let's go to Baghdad
right now, see how the Iraqis are reacting to the president's
State of the Union address. Here's CNN's Michael Holmes in
Baghdad."

From an outside location, Holmes confirmed: "I'm Michael
Holmes in Baghdad. Reaction to the President's speech here in Iraq
was really a non-reaction. The attitude very much, we don't know
what the President said, and quite frankly, we don't care. We went
out and about in Baghdad today, we went on the streets, we went
into cafes to gauge the reaction. Nearly everyone knew about the
State of the Union speech but there was marked disinterest.
Cynicism, too. Here's what some people told us."
Older man, through translator: "As for Bush, he brought us
freedom and democracy by bombing our houses and farms with
missiles."
Younger man, through translator: "You ask me about the speech?
How I can watch the speech when I have no power at my house?"
Holmes: "One university professor added, 'the President speaks
of freedom in Iraq, but we are not free, we are occupied today by
another country.' The speech was shown here on satellite
television, but it was 5am and few people got up to watch it. The
newspapers, well, it was too late for them, too. So no editorial
reaction so far. We expect that tomorrow. Arabic language
television did report on the speech, but in the area we were in
today, the power was off so nobody could watch it even if they
wanted. It was a tough crowd for President Bush, at least here in
Baghdad."

University professors are on the left the world over.

> 3) Harry Smith's consistently hostile agenda spans 15 years.
On Wednesday's Early Show on CBS, Smith rejected any notion of a
good economy as he lectured White House Chief-of-Staff Andy Card
about how "there's a $500 billion deficit, 43 million Americans
without health insurance, 12 million American children living in
poverty, record numbers of personal bankruptcies." Fifteen years
ago, a week before President Reagan left office in January of
1989, he told Reagan's daughter, Maureen, that her father's real
legacy was "one out of five babies born in the United States are
born into poverty. There are hundreds of thousands of people in
this country now that are homeless, have no place to live."

On the January 21 Early Show, as caught by MRC analyst Brian
Boyd, Smith challenged Card: "Let's talk about the economy because
that was a big subject last night. The President says the economy
is in recovery. Let's look at the numbers: There's a $500 billion
deficit, 43 million Americans without health insurance, 12 million
American children living in poverty, record numbers of personal
bankruptcies. Is that really an economic recovery?"

Fifteen years ago, on the January 12, 1989 CBS This Morning,
the day after Ronald Reagan's farewell address, Smith lectured the
late Maureen Reagan about her father's record: "He talked about
being proud of what's happened with the economy, about the
millions of new jobs that have been created. And as I listened to
that, I also thought one out of five babies born in the United
States are born into poverty. There are hundreds of thousands of
people in this country now that are homeless, have no place to
live. I wonder, how does your father reconcile that in his mind?
How does he reconcile those two things?"

> 4) Hostility in the morning to tax cuts. The morning after
President Bush's State of the Union address, hosts on ABC and NBC
expressed enmity toward Bush's wish to make the tax cuts
permanent, a move which would prevent a series of tax hikes over
the next few years as rates and exemptions return to their
previous levels.

On ABC's Good Morning America on January 21, Charles Gibson
contended to White House Chief-of-Staff Andy Card: "On the
domestic front, the President last night called for making the tax
cuts permanent. Is that, in a sense, making deficits in the
hundreds of billions of dollars permanent?"

Over on NBC's Today, MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens observed,
Matt Lauer recited to Card the content of a left-wing New York
Times editorial: "Let me talk about the economy. Let me ask you
about the economy. He said he wants his tax cuts made permanent.
The New York Times in an editorial responded this way, and
probably not surprising to you. 'The President's domestic policy
comes down to one disastrous fact. His insistence on huge tax cuts
for the wealthy has robbed the country of the money it needs to
address its problems and has threatened its long term security.'
It goes on to say, 'Mr. Bush, why would Mr. Bush be so determined
to do the wrong thing? Because congressional majorities mean he
probably can and because the wealthy donors helping underwrite his
campaign expect that he will.' What's your response to that?"

Lauer followed up: "The tax cuts, they come with a cost
though. Even conservatives are now saying this deficit is, is a
problem, some $500 billion. And of course Democrats are saying the
same thing. I guess, I'm curious, is the President okay with that
level of deficit?"

In his next question, Lauer at least got to the spending side:
"A caucus of conservatives in the House has urged the President to
offset the cost of any new spending with cuts in spending
elsewhere. Will he go along with that?"

> 5) A defense of tax cuts from an unusual source: A CNN
meteorologist. When CNN Daybreak anchor Carol Costello read an e-
mail from a viewer who wanted to know where the money would come
from to pay for making the tax cuts permanent, meteorologist Chad
Myers piped up and suggested it won't increase the deficit if the
economy grows.

MRC analyst Ken Shepherd caught this exchange from about
6:11am EST on January 21, the morning after President Bush's State
of the Union address:

Carol Costello: "Rich in Maryland says, 'Once again Bush talks
about a bunch of great programs, yet fails to communicate how
those programs will be funded.' I guess that was a negative one,
sorry."
Chad Myers: "Well, maybe, yeah, but you know he only had so
many minutes to talk about that. You can't put the plan, the
syllabus, and every working piece all the way down from everything
he talked about either, so-"
Costello: "Well, I think the viewer was really commenting to
the fact that he wants the tax cuts to become permanent, the
deficit is huge, so people are wondering where the money is going
to come from. It's a question-"
Myers: "Well, if we grow the-"
Costello: "-maybe that will be answered soon by the
President."
Myers: "-if we grow the economy, I mean it's the same old back
and forth."
Costello: "Oh, let's not get into a political argument!"
Myers: "If we grow the economy, we'll get more money and blah,
blah, blah, you know the story, you know the rules."
Costello: "Thank you, Chad."
Myers: "You're welcome."

For CNN's profile of Myers:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/myers.chad.html

> 6) Bush: "Scary," Ted Kennedy worthy of Mount Rushmore.
Reviewing President Bush's State of the Union address, nationally
syndicated Washington Post television reviewer Tom Shales
complained that "Bush had too many moments of cockiness" and
fretted about how "the fact that Bush appeared to be so happy, so
elated, so giddily primed for another political slugfest was a
little bit disheartening, and even a little bit scary." But citing
Senator Ted Kennedy's head-shaking, eye-rolling dismissive
reactions to Bush, Shales gushed: "Kennedy looked great, like he
was ready to take his place next to Jefferson on Mount Rushmore."

An excerpt from "State of the Union: Long on Long, Short on
Lofty," the review by Tom Shales in the January 21 Washington
Post:

We like a confident president, but we don't like a cocky
president, and George W. Bush had too many moments of cockiness
last night as he delivered his third State of the Union address to
both houses of Congress and the viewing nation. Often the words of
the speech were written to sound lofty, but Bush had such a big
Christmas-morning grin on his face that they came out sounding
like taunts -- taunts to the rest of the world or taunts to
Democrats in the hall....

The speech was pretty much so-so, and Bush's gung-ho delivery --
something approaching the forced jollity of a game show host --
lacked dignity and certainly lacked graciousness. Bush has never
been big on those things anyway.

Dan Rather of CBS News, who sometimes goes out of his way not to
upset the Bush people -- since they are all ready to pounce on him
for what they perceive (or claim to perceive) as a bias against
their exalted glorious potentate -- said afterward that Bush's was
"a strong speech, strongly delivered." It was one of the few times
Rather sounded less than astute.

Over on the Fox News Channel, Fred Barnes, sounding as if he had
walking pneumonia, allowed as how he'd heard George W. Bush
deliver many an important and eloquent speech over the years, "and
this was not one of them." It takes courage to say something like
that on the Fox News Channel, normally a Bush cheering section.
Someone noted that Bush is considered a master of the half-hour
speech and State of the Union 2004 had dragged on for twice that
length....

The best reaction shots were those of Ted Kennedy, whose stature
seems to grow right along with his nose year after year after
year. Kennedy has now reached a grand moment in the life of a
senator; he looks like Hollywood itself cast him in the role.
Seriously. With that waving mane of bright white hair, he evokes
memories of Claude Rains looking distinguished as all get-out in
Frank Capra's once- controversial, now-classic movie "Mr. Smith
Goes to Washington." Never mind that the senator played by Rains
had some shady dealings in his repertoire.

Kennedy looked great, like he was ready to take his place next to
Jefferson on Mount Rushmore. He gives off the kind of venerable
vibes that some of us got from an Everett Dirksen way back when,
or a Charles Laughton -- oh wait, Laughton was a make-believe
senator, too (in "Advise and Consent")....

One of the bigger surprises of the night was instantly evident,
even as Bush made his tedious way down an aisle before delivering
the speech. Though he's favored blue ties (sometimes baby blue)
throughout his presidency, Bush wore a red necktie last night.
Could this signify a change in terrorism alert status? Or maybe
just the fact that Bush is now in full ramming mode, not merely a
president but a politician again, up to his collar in the rigors
of an election year?

It was obviously the latter, and the fact that Bush appeared to be
so happy, so elated, so giddily primed for another political
slugfest was a little bit disheartening, and even a little bit
scary.

END of Excerpt

For the Shales review in full:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33872-2004Jan21.html

> 7) From the January 19 Late Show with David Letterman, as
presented by John McEnroe who will soon have a prime time talk
show on CNBC, the "Top Ten Reasons I'll Make a Good Talk Show
Host." Late Show home page: http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/

10. "You never know when I'll go nuts and beat a guest with a
tennis racquet"

9. "America is starving for anecdotes about 20-year-old Wimbledon
quarterfinal matches"

8. "It's on CNBC -- If they get ten viewers, they're happy"

7. "Bush is an idiot and he's President, so anything's possible"

6. "There's nothing more entertaining then watching me bully
people until they cry"

5. "Uhh, you may recall a little hit show I hosted on ABC called
"The Chair""

4. "You won't know this at home, but the studio is going to smell
like a fresh can of tennis balls"

3. "How many grand slams has Oprah won"

2. "I've gotten some great advice from my idol, Jay Leno"

1. "I'm also willing to have a baby to boost ratings"

# Reminder: Dennis Miller is scheduled to appear tonight,
Thursday, on NBC's Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Miller's new
nightly program debuts Monday on CNBC at 9pm EST/6pm PST.

-- Brent Baker

Jeff Jacoby: Quizzing the Candidates (Part 2)

QUIZZING THE CANDIDATES (CONTINUED)
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Thursday, January 22, 2004

(Second of two parts)

I asked the Democratic candidates for president to answer five fair but nonroutine queries, hoping that their answers might reveal something interesting about what makes them tick. Everyone except John Kerry replied. Sunday's column summarized the candidates' responses to the first two questions. Here's how they handled the others.

3. What is the best way to achieve the colorblind society that Martin Luther King dreamed of?

Before there were racial preferences and minority set-asides, there was Martin Luther King's stirring plea for colorblindness: "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Sadly, 35 years of affirmative action programs have left American law and culture more relentlessly race-conscious than ever. I wondered whether any of the Democrats would be bold enough to say so -- and whether any was prepared to acknowledge that the only realistic way to make King's dream come true is to act as if it already has: to scrap every law and institutional practice that treats people differently on the basis of race or color.

But there were no surprises. None of the candidates criticized racial preferences, not even indirectly. Howard Dean endorsed "diversity and affirmative action in education" and called platitudinously for "an honest, open discussion about race." Al Sharpton demanded "racial justice" over "racial harmony," and said it can be had "only by seeking true remedies to level the playing field."

Joseph Lieberman answered that "education is the biggest key to realizing the promise of racial equality," both because it is a "passport to opportunity" and helps combat prejudice.

Neither John Edwards nor Wesley Clark addressed race at all. Clark's hackneyed reply merely begged the question: "By bringing our diverse people together we will all be stronger -- and honor Martin Luther King's dream." Edwards advised taking steps "to lift up all Americans," in part by "expanding access to higher education."

Dennis Kucinich, characteristically brash, disputed the premise of the question. "King did not advise us to be blind to color," he wrote. "Affirmative action is needed . . . as long as discrimination exists, and reparations for slavery are long, long overdue."

(The candidates' complete answers to all five questions can be found online at www.boston.com/news/politics/quiz .)

4. Is there any serious problem in American society that you do *not* believe calls for some kind of government response?

The Democrats all prescribe a wide variety of government cures for the ills from which America suffers. For that matter, so does the Republican they are running to replace: George W. Bush is burning through money faster than any president since LBJ, and as his State of the Union address made clear, he's got even more ideas about involving the federal government in American life.

But what about ways to get the feds *out* of American life? Question 4 challenged the candidates to identify one national ailment for which they would not recommend federal intervention. How hard could that be?

Too hard for most Democrats, apparently. Just one of the contenders -- Lieberman -- came up with a specific answer: "Incivility." While public officials can lead by example, he said, "government cannot apply laws or adopt programs to force Americans to be kind and decent to one another. . . . This is a problem that can only be solved by the standard-setters in our society."

Sharpton, while not citing a particular social problem, wrote that "government cannot and should not legislate people's values or regulate the same." Clark and Dean went only so far as to say that "there are many problems that can't be solved by government action alone" (Dean's words, but Clark's were almost identical). Kucinich's reply was unequivocal: "No."

From Edwards I got merely a bromide: "There is no question that what is most important in our lives is not government, but our families, our communities, and our faith." Well, stop the presses.

5. In 1981, President Reagan hung Calvin Coolidge's portrait in the White House Cabinet Room. If you are elected, which president's portrait will you hang, and why?

Reagan's conspicuous decision to honor Coolidge was surprising -- and revealing. Years later, Time Magazine's Hugh Sidey recalled the buzz that went through the press corps when the Coolidge painting appeared. At first, reporters thought the White House custodian must have fetched the wrong portrait. But Reagan was sending a message: He was putting Washington on notice that his campaign platform of lower taxes and limited government -- two touchstones of the Coolidge administration -- had not been merely rhetorical.

But there wasn't much "buzz" in the Democrats' portrait selections. With some of the candidates making two choices, there were three votes for FDR, two for Truman, and two for JFK. Safe picks all. Only one candidate broke from the pack: Sharpton said he would honor LBJ "because he had the courage and vision to pass the Civil Rights Act." And alone among the Democrats, he also promised "a prominent place" for a (gasp!) Republican.

Lincoln, of course.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

Jerry Nachman

I just read in an MRC e-mail that Jerry Nachman died Monday night. I'm surprised I'm just hearing about this today. I always liked him whenever he was on MSNBC, and he seemed like a really great reporter.

Newsman Jerry Nachman Dies at 57

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Jerry Nachman, 57, the brash, rotund journalist for MSNBC who formerly was a vice president at WRC-TV in Washington and edited the New York Post, was found dead Jan. 20 at his home in Hoboken, N.J. He died sometime overnight, an MSNBC spokesman said.

Mr. Nachman had been editor in chief and vice president of MSNBC since 2002. He told the viewers of his evening interview show, "Nachman," last January that doctors had found a malignancy in his gallbladder.

In the early 1980s, he was vice president and general manager of WRC-AM radio in Washington. He won a promotion and became news director of WNBC-TV, the flagship NBC station in New York, and reportedly made the station a winner in the major evening time periods, 5, 6 and 11.

He returned to Washington in 1986 as vice president and general manager of the NBC affiliate WRC-TV (Channel 4). He quit the next year, telling The Washington Post: "I've been on the fast track at NBC for six years, with four vice-presidencies. It's been nice, but I'm 41, and I'm just not sure I want to stay on the train."

He was a New York Post columnist in 1988 and then served as the pugnacious tabloid's editor in chief from 1989 to 1992.

After leaving the Post, he settled in Santa Fe, N.M., to write books and be a consultant -- a quieter life.

In the mid-1990s, he returned to New York and worked at WCBS-TV. He was an executive producer of a program about New York City school corruption that won a Peabody Award in 1995.

The next year, when he was vice president of news, the station received the Edward R. Murrow Award for outstanding achievements in electronic journalism from the Radio-Television News Directors Association. The entry, "Flunking Lunch," investigated the city's school lunch program, which the station found was serving outdated and spoiled food to hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren.

He worked in late 2001 as a staff writer for the NBC television series "UC: Undercover" and was a staff writer and executive producer at "Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher."

Mr. Nachman's final assignment for MSNBC was reporting on the Michael Jackson case in California, the network said.

Jerome Nachman was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., and raised in Pittsburgh by his mother and stepfather after his parents divorced. He said he attended Youngstown State University "for years and years" before becoming a newspaper reporter in Ohio and Pittsburgh.

Starting in the early 1970s, he was an on-air reporter for WCBS Radio and a correspondent for WCBS-TV in New York. He was lured to NBC in 1981.

His marriage to Nancy Cook ended in divorce.

Survivors include a brother.