Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Hi-larious Hi-jinx as the Mainstream Media Melts Down!

 
Morgan Stanley has decided to sell its entire stake of New York Times stock (via Bloomberg):

Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest shareholder in New York Times Co., sold its entire 7.3 percent stake today... sending the stock to its lowest in more than 10 years... Traders with knowledge of the transaction said Merrill Lynch & Co. brokered a $183 million block trade of 10 million New York Times shares this morning.

...New York Times shares slid 43 cents, or 2.3 percent, to $18.48 at 4:04 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, the lowest since January 1997. The stock has declined 24 percent this year.

Good news for Maureen Dowd, though, as she may qualify for SCHIP soon.

Not to be outdone, Newsweek Magazine may have just set a record for errors-per-column-inch (via Powerline):



...the correction posted online by Newsweek for the sidebar above that runs in the current issue:

Editor's Note: In our print edition, several captions for the photographs accompanying this report were inadvertantly transposed. Martin Kramer's photograph is identified as Norman Podhoretz; Daniel Pipes's photograph is identified as Kramer; Peter Berkowitz's photograph is identified as Pipes; Nile Gardiner's photograph is identified as Berkowitz's and Podhoretz's photograph is identified as Gardiner's. NEWSWEEK regrets the errors.

Daniel Pipes writes that the correction "warrants a place in Guiness World Records" and comments:

(1) There are six pictures in all on the page and five of the six captions are wrong; only that of Robert Kasten is correct. Aggregating so many errors at once takes real talent – but count on Newsweek.

(2) The inevitable implication is that, for Newsweek staff, all conservatives look alike.

(3) The accuracy of the picture captions provides an apt commentary for the rest of Newsweek's wretched coverage in this article.

(4) For another example of Newsweek's problem with quality control, see "Lorraine Ali, the Worst Political Reporter in America?" (October 15, 2007).

Pipes's co-conspirator and double Martin Kramer cites his mother concerning Newsweek's regret over its errors: "Believe me, they don't regret them as much as my mother does."

Line o' the Day: On-the-job training

 
Rudy Giuliani responds to Hillary Clinton's remark "I really think my unique experience uniquely equips me to be president at this time."

I don't know Hillary's experience. She's never run a city. She's never run a state. She's never run a business. She's never met a payroll. She's never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people. So I'm trying to figure out where the experience is here. It would seem to me that in a time of difficult problems and war, we don't want on-the-job training for an executive...

...the areas of having the responsibility of the safety and security of millions of people on your shoulders, is not something that Hillary has ever had any experience with.

Hat tip: EIB

The impact of Hillary on your taxes: Yowza!

 
Hope you're comfortable with the color red. Because that's what most folks' bank balances will be printed in if Hillary "Million Ideas" Clinton gets elected.

* She says that she will “…let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire." Most people assume that this pledge means that she will raise the top bracket (for those earning more than $200,000 a year) on income taxes from the 35 percent to which Bush cut it, to the 39.6 percent to which her husband raised it in 1993. But, in reality, it means a whole lot more.

...increasing the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent and probably to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals...

...repeal Bush's tax cut halving the tax rate on dividends and would [double it] to 30 percent.

...likely end the planned elimination of the estate tax...

...She has specifically refused to rule out a big increase in Social Security (FICA) taxes.

...Already the top 1 percent of all taxpayers earn 17 percent of the national income but pay 35 percent of all federal income taxes. And the top 10 percent make one-third of the national income but pay two-thirds of the income tax. The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent of the income ta x collections. Hillary will make this curve a lot steeper.

...she told a San Francisco audience in 2004: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good...”

I like nice, big round numbers -- but not in my tax bill.

Dick Morris

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Unintended Consequences

 
These are the switches once used to wiretap terrorists living in the Middle East who called into America.

These are the politicians that stopped international terrorist wiretaps in a play for political power.

This is the terrorist who received the call in Newark, New Jersey from a handler in Damascus.

These are the home-made explosives that were manufactured by the New Jersey terrorist cell using instructions found on a Syrian website.

This is the cell phone, wired for use as an igniter.

This is a cancer therapy machine, which uses a radioactive source called Cesium-137.

This is some of the Cesium-137 stolen from a facility that houses cancer therapy machines.

This is the van that carried the dirty bomb built using home-made explosives and Cesium-137.

This is the van parked on Wall Street several blocks away from the New York Stock Exchange.

This is the van after it detonated, scattering radioactive material over several square miles during a windy day.

This is one of the innocents killed by the explosion, who happened to be standing nearby.

This is one of the Hazmat teams, decontaminating after hours of cleanup.

These are Manhattan workers, leaving the city after being told to evacuate by emergency personnel.

This is a portion of Manhattan rendered uninhabitable for two to four years by the dirty bomb.

These are the politicians that stopped international terrorist wiretaps in a play for political power.

Peter D. Zimmerman, New York Times: Seize the Cesium

Update: Linked by Instapundit and Atlas Shrugs. Thanks!

Update II: Linked by Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, DANEgerus, Fausta's Blog, Pajamas Media, Riehl World View and Right on the Left Coast. Thanks!

Update III: Linked by Gateway Pundit. Thanks! Also linked by liberal progressive blog Sadly, No, who provides a truthfully entertaining vision of the evils of Bushitler-Halliburton-Blackwater-Corp. Who's got the battery cables so we can begin torturing the lefty bloggers? As for our progressive commenters, I think you missed the New York Times article linked at the bottom entitled "Seize the Cesium." Click and learn, my friends, click and learn.

Update IV: 24th State transformed this post into a commercial. Thanks!

Did Hillary wiretap political foes?

 
Sweetness and Light links to an article in The Hill, which documents Hillary's bizarre -- and, so they say, completely illegal -- proclivity for wiretapping political rivals.

[T]wo Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters... [suggest] Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political opponents.

In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: “Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.

“The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill,” Gerth and Van Natta wrote in reference to Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. “Bill’s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions...”

Reportedly, Clinton's campaign has not disputed any of the facts reported in the book.

Does it strike anyone else as the height of hypocrisy that Hillary would wiretap political rivals but prevent intelligence agencies from wiretapping terrorists? But maybe that's just me.

Hat tip: My Pet Jawa

Separated at Birth?

 
Anyone checked Mahmoud's genealogical tree?

Monday, October 15, 2007

The unassailable integrity of the mainstream media

 
LTG (RET) RICARDO SANCHEZ ADDRESSES THE IRAQ PRESS CORPS:

Tough reporting relies upon integrity, objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy. Unfortunately, I have issued ultimatums to some of you for unscrupulous reporting that was solely focused on supporting your agenda and preconceived notions of what our military had done.

I have refused to talk to the European Stars and Stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany for their extreme bias and single-minded focus on Abu Ghraib.

Let me review some of the descriptive phrases that have been used by some of you that have made my personal interfaces with the press corps difficult: "dictatorial and somewhat dense", "not a strategic thought", "liar", "does not get it" and "inexperienced."

In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the treatment of Secretary Brown during Katrina.

This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value system of selfless service, honor and integrity. Some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed.

Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.

The responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry.

Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America.

Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist.

When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not responded to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics.

The code of ethics for the society of professional journalists states: ...The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.... Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.

The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service-members who are at war.

My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on TV, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas.

It is astounding to me when I hear the vehement disagreement with the military's forays into information operations that seek to disseminate the truth and inform the Iraqi people in order to counter our enemy's blatant propaganda. As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled.

Finally, I will leave this subject with a question that we must ask ourselves--who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of public enlightenment?

Our nation has a crisis in leadership. While politicians espouse their rhetoric designed to preserve their political power... our soldiers die!

The Administration, Congress... must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure... there has been a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders.

Since 2003, the politics of war have been characterized by partisanship.

Clearly, mistakes have been made by the American military in its application of power, but even its greatest failure in this war can be linked to America's lack of commitment... without the sacrifices of our magnificent young men and women in uniform, Iraq would be chaotic well beyond anything experienced to date.

America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. At no time in America's history has there been more of a need for bipartisan cooperation.

Our National Security Council has been a catastrophic failure... it seems that Congress recognizes that the military cannot achieve victory alone in this war. Yet they continue to demand victory from our military. ...In my profession, these types of leaders would immediately be relieved or courtmartialed.

I remain optimistic... our military must embrace you for the sake of our democracy, but you owe them ethical journalism. Thank you for this opportunity. May God bless you and may God bless America.

NEW YORK TIMES:



Hat tips: Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, and USA Today

Today's Bill n' Hillary Posts o' the Day

 
* Mitchell Langbert's brilliant Madmen, Hillary, and the Wizard of Oz:

...the left claims that centralized economic planning (monarchy) is economically superior to markets, a lie. The left claims that government power and regulation, much like the power of kings, is more humane than limited government and private enterprise, which is a lie. The left claims that monetary expansion, which favors the wealthy over the poor, is necessary to help the poor, which is also a lie...


* NHC has scooped everyone with the postcard that Bill Clinton would just as soon as forget. Click it now. You know you want to.

* Sean sends us a link to Snowball, a "medium, sulphur crested Eleanora cockatoo" who loves to dance and sing. Okay, it's not a Billary post --- but it's one with panache!

The reasoned and rational thought processes of the left

 
I happened to notice a few referrals from His Vorpal Sword the other day. HVS is a lefty blog, which -- truth be told -- is a relatively popular site. HVS is fairly well done, albeit suffering from the predictable bouts of BDS (Bush as Alfred E. Neuman? Why, that's rip-roaringly funny and original!).


I like the heart! It's all about love at HVS.

In scanning the blog, I noticed a curt comparison of Graeme Frost -- the young accident victim who was tagged by Democrats to pitch expansion of SCHIP -- with General David Petraeus. HVS asked the question:

I wonder why it is that so many who sputtered with righteous indignation about their perception of a slight to General Petraeus’ character in the MoveOn ad… are the same people attacking a 12-year-old child over the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and saying that he’s “fair game”?

Aside from the obvious flaws in the analogy (e.g., the conservative and centrist blogs I read questioned the choices made by Mommy and Daddy Frost), I saw literally no attacks, that's none on the child. HVS would be hard-pressed to find an example of character assassination on Graeme Frost.

Wondering about the bizarre analogy, I posted the following question:

Is it fair to question why the Frosts have a $50,000 vehicle, a $40,000 vehicle, and a $30,000 vehicle?

As an aside, I believe Graeme Frost has been treated by all with sympathy.

It’s the parents’ odd choices — combined with their ownership of multiple properties and expensive vehicles — that most have questioned.

The Frosts are an odd family indeed to hold up as the examplar for SCHIP.

The respondent -- a Mr. Williams -- offered an incisive, reasoned response that demonstrates a commanding grasp of debate combined with an awesome historical perspective. Think Doris Kearns Goodwin or Will and Ariel Durant:

Mr. Williams responds: F*** you, troll.

Having lost the debate on the particulars (i.e., was the Frost family eligible for SCHIP assistance? YES. WHY do you think he was the “poster child”? Random pick? Dumbass.), Michelle Malkin, the Kewpie Doll From Hell™, proceeds to put up photos of the vehicles in question (BRAND NEW ’showroom’ pictures, which no car ever looks like new, let alone used), THEN comes up with this horse****, which you mindlessly repeat, and use to grafitti MY blog with? (I’ve removed your link, but retained the reference so that folks can find the source of your attempted propaganda disbursal.)

You have no debating point.

BTW: Who gives a f*** WHAT you “believe”? (You probably believe that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.) The idea that some brainless p**** like you is so f***ed up in the head about making an a** of himself in picking on a severly injured 12-year-old kid — and THEN is so far up his own a** that he has to travel around the ‘net repeating what Malkin gushes out of her orifices — pretty much says it all. You and your ilk made a huge mistake, and rather than admit defeat, you pretend civility and try to come up with another bulls*** “debating” point to muddy the waters.

No: You’re a brainless sadist who gets off on abusing crippled children. That’s the bottom line, and why my response isn’t couched in any “polite” terms. You deserve my boot up your a**, minimally, and no courtesy whatsoever, Monster.

You are not-very-cordially invited to view the subsequent postings — which you’ve conveniently and tellingly ignored, “Lost In A Sea Of Hate” and “The Worst Thing I Could Say” — the latter of which has a nice picture of your goddess, Malkin, that you can masturbate to.

Why didn’t I spike your little ‘turd in the punchbowl’ comment?

Because I wanted my readers to see your “How To Be A Monster And Get Away With It 101″ technique.

First, you do something monstrous: attack a 12-year old, severely injured child (without ever stating your true agenda, which was, if his parents couldn’t afford medical attention he should have DIED), rather than debating the merits of SCHIP.

THEN, when caught being a loathsome a**hole, a nazi-like monster, a crypto-Spartan “Put them on the hill to DIE” f***wit, you PRETEND to be reasonable, and suddenly civil, and EXPECT progressives to buy your line of s***.

I have to hand it to you. Some moron pulled the ‘weepy conservative’ crap on a blog I cross-post, and a resident brain-dead twit APOLOGIZED to him for his having been “censored.” Sometimes, you manage to pull this con off, which is, I suppose, why you repeat it.

But, really, F*** YOU. There has been no civility in this debate from your side for a long time, and whenever you’d like to jump the fence back into Realityland, I’ll be there with a lei to garland you with flowers. In a democracy, reasoned disagreement is a necessity. In your dream of a fascist state, whatever will “catapult the propaganda” is the point: whether monstrous, like attacking a helpless child, or “civil” in pretending that the child DESERVED to be attacked, you are the problem, not the solution.

Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

Whoa! Did I just wander into happy hour at a Tourettes convention?

Perhaps someone could interpret this response for me, but has Mr. Williams mistaken me for a "weepy conservative" who comments on blogs to which he cross-posts? No idea, but -- for the record -- my original post on SCHIP is still available un-edited. Its single reference to Graeme Frost is, "Frost was badly injured an an auto accident and, thanks to SCHIP, was able to recuperate."

Quite an attack. In truth, my post concentrates on two aspects of SCHIP: (a) why the Frost family was chosen for the Democratic address, despite their formidable personal assets and seeming ability to game the system; and (b) why the funding mechanism for expanding SCHIP is levied upon smokers, who are generally more poverty-stricken than non-smokers.

The point being: if the program can't prevent fraud and waste by treating the truly needy, why on Earth would any taxpayer advocate its expansion?

I await your thought-provoking response, Mr. Williams. Ironically, one of Mr. Williams' posts is entitled Lost in a sea of hate. Indeed, my friend. Indeed.

I recommend yoga, Mr. Williams, or breathing exercises. As for inserting a boot into my nether places, well, consider me a poster-boy for Bushitler-Halliburton-Likkud-Neocon-Blackwater, Inc., -- with all that the phrase entails.

p.s., as an aside, my real Al Gore posts include The UN's IPCC Global Warming Bunko Scam, Al Gore's 2nd Annual Carbon Offset Going-out-of-Business Sale, and Is Al Gore's Inconvenient Fiction a $250 Billion Scam?. Read the first or third one if you want the real background on Al Gore, the IPCC, and the carbon offset trading business. Read the second one if you want a snicker.