Liberal Newspapers, They Admit!

One of the kerfuffles I have had on other Blogs involbes the question: Are the NY Times and Washington Post, “liveral?”

First let me admit that it is a question of perspective. To a person dfriving a tiny “City Car” a Toyota Corolla is large, and the person from whom I had this question of liberality comes from The Nation Magazine, and Euro-Centric perspactive.

But the newspapers themselves admit they are “liberal”

Washington Post Ombudsman:

“But some of the conservatives’ complaints about a liberal tilt are valid. Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world. I’ll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don’t even want to be quoted by name in a memo. 

“Are there ways to tackle this? More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two. The first is not easy: Editors hire not on the basis of beliefs but on talent in reporting, photography and editing, and hiring is at a standstill because of the economy. But newspapers have hired more minorities and women, so it can be done.

Rosenstiel said, “There should be more intellectual diversity among journalists. More conservatives in newsrooms will bring about better journalism. We need to be more vigilant and conscious in looking for bias. Our aims are pure, but our execution sometimes is not.”

Washington Post Ombudsman, Nov. 14, 2008: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403057.html

 The Ombudsman of the NY Times (called the Public Editor at the Times) wrote a great article that starts:

“Is the Times a liberal newspaper?

Of course it is.”

He then goes into detail to prove just that, but if I published just a 10^th of the great quotes I would be chastised by the Blog editors for impinging upon the NY Times copyright.

I urge everyone to read it – left and right, partly because it is uncommonly well written and partly because it is convincing.

 

Yes, the NY Times is liberal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html?pagewanted=1

Government-Run Healthcare

The GOVERNMENT-appointed healthcare panel came up with a bad recommendation, but that has no impact in law. Women who find themselves in disagreement with the bean-counters on this panel need to review their support for any bill that codifies into law the bureaucrats power to decide female (and male) medical care.

Under all current Democratic Party Bills, that SAME panel would have decision-making authority, according to the Wall Street Journal:

“More important for the future, every Democratic version of ObamaCare makes this task force an arbiter of the benefits that private insurers will be required to cover as they are converted into government contractors. What are now merely recommendations will become de facto rules, and under national health care these kinds of cost analyses will inevitably become more common as government decides where finite tax dollars are allowed to go.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704204304574543721253688720.html

A New Writ of Mandamus?

There are three major areas of Democratic Party debate – public option, abortion funding, and the related and combined areas of reform/funding.

Any of these have the potential to end this circus, after which the Congress will have wasted months! (Hurrah!)

Compromise?

“Absolutely not,” says Senator Brown, uber-liberal from Ohio

“We’ve compromised four times now.”

“Four members of the Senate aren’t going to tell the other 55 what to do on these issues,” he said.

(Bet?)

The conference committee, House and Senate will try to find a way to square those three circles simultaneously – but in the end, someone will be stabbed in the back, much as Reagan approved tax increases with an understanding of Congressional reforms that never happened.

There will be road kill at the margins of this coming debate, and only through the lens of ideology can we currently predict. The obvious candidates are Democratic  Senators Landrieu, Nelson and Lincoln because they face more vigorous voter revolt from their constituents.

Liberals, should their measures fail, would face a less vigorous voter base simply because their support for government options, abortion funding and reform/funding has ALWAYS failed and the base usually issue the losers cry, “Wait till next year.”

And that is why there will be no abortion, no government option, and there will be reforms promised but not fulfilled.

What this nation desperately needs is an expanded legal Writ of Mandamus so we can bring suit to force Congress/Presidents to do what they have said they would do.

“Hacking Pentagon, Good; Hacking Scientists, Bad”

Most major news sources are carrying stories about purloined e-mails that may point to a cover-up in the Global Warming data.

Scientists are not uniformly venal, and certainly not stupid.

If there is going to be a hoax, it has to be done with seminal data – data that all other scientists use for their continued research in their specific area. Then their severally collected data should confirm the validity of the seminal data.

There is always conflicting data, particularly if it is collected widely, using various methods and depending varyingly on humans.

It is certainly possible that a few scientists are perpetrating a hoax, but I find it hard to believe and it will take more than just the e-mails – it will take analysis of those “tricks” with the tricked data re-evaluated.

Yes, scientists perpetrate hoaxes – the Piltdown Man was a scientific hoax that lasted for decades as I recall – but the question of a hoax in currently collected scientific data may have political overtones IF it is true.

I have long been more concerned by those riding the issue for “global governance” (their term) than I am about global warming per se, which has been going on since the last ice age 10,000 years ago for our great benefit.

But IF the e-mails are proven good – I am skeptical – it will certainly change the debate! Meanwhile I am more concerned about the political issue, including the fact that last night the NYTimes, WP, and 289 other news organizations had articles on the e-mails…but not a word in the LA Times. (I have not checked this morning.)

But the LA Times didn’t report on the kerfuffle of White House Advisor Van Jones UNTIL THE DAY HE WAS FIRED!

The Sky Is Falling! (Act 4,765)

Headline: “Climate change pushes poor women to prostitution, dangerous work”

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/177346/climate-change-pushes-poor-women-to-prostitution-dangerous-work

This appears to be a Philippine TV New report – but it adds to the “Worldwide Scare” that  blames Global Warming for everything including ingrown toenails. Whatever the problem that exists, GW seems to have sufficiently wide shoulders to carry the load.

Finally! An Honest Politician!

Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana is an honest politician – when she is bought, she stays bought!

In a Roll Call article, she says of the reported $100 million provision in the Healthcare Bill that will funnel funds to her state: ““I will correct something. It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it,”

Of course for $300 million, anyone can afford to stay bought.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/40864-1.html?type=printer_friendly

 

Another Union “Victory”

Unions destroyed more than Government Motors and Chrysler – they destroyed Detroit.

 

I reported earlier on homes that were selling at auction for $15,000, and others not selling at ANY price, but here is a headline from the Detroit news.

Silverdome sale price disappoints

Pontiac officials wanted more than $583K for stadium

Mike Martindale / The Detroit News

Pontiac — Nearly 35 years after taxpayers spent $55.7 million building the Pontiac Silverdome and a year after a $20 million sale fell through, city officials have sold the arena once called the most desirable property in Oakland County.

The price: $583,000.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20091117/METRO/911170327/1411/METRO02/Silverdome-sale-price-disappoints

Propaganda?

The Gallup poll numbers are driven I am told, by propaganda from the Right.

Who has the bully pulpits of the Presidency, the Senate Leader, the Speaker of the House – and has as house organs, the NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, The LA Times, SF Chronicle, Chicago Trib. ….(fill in the blanks with Main Stream Media)?

Who are the majority of Senators, Princes in their States, and House members — at least Barons in their Districts?

Who has the budget of the entire United States at their disposal – for example to bribe a Senator from Louisiana with $100 million – and the ability to issue decrees, Executive Orders, Rendition instructions and I suppose Fatwa’s?

Against this we have Blogs, radio (I thought that was dead) and a couple of cable – not broadcast – guys (O’reilly, Hannity and Beck.)

(None of whom could get elected as the Mayor of their own hometown!)

That is the powerful vs. the powerless. The powerless have little propaganda chance, so if they are being successful it must be that they have truth on their side.

Could that be the case, because there is no chance that all of the powerless combined could have the yearly face-time that the President ALONE gets in a week? (Perhaps a day.)

You are kidding, right?

The Numbers are Interesting

Then there is this:

Greater Optimism About U.S. Health System Coverage, Costs

November 19, 2009

Substantially more Americans rate healthcare coverage in the country as excellent or good this year (38%) than did so a year ago (26%). Similarly, more Americans now say they are satisfied with the total cost of U.S. healthcare (26%) than said this a year ago (19%).

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

 

“…What the Definition of ‘is’ is”

I tire of people saying that Jimmy Carter served under Rickover. Some even say he was the Commanding Officer of a nuclear submarine.

He never even served on an operational nuclear submarine!

As to “served under Rickover,” that depends upon what the definition of “is” is. (It is not easy explaining Navy to a non-Navy type…indeed a non-military type at all)

“Served under” means different things to different people.

Everyone in the US Navy ‘serves under’” the President as an example, but may never have seen him. Similarly, everyone “serves under” the CNO, and in this geographic area and submarines, CinCPacFlt, and Commander Pacific Submarine Force (ComSubPac) – and a Division Commander, and finally a Commanding Officer. But in common Navy vernacular, one ‘serves under” someone as their Commanding Officer.

Jimmy Carter was a submariner, selected by Hyman G. to attend a school in the Nuclear Navy which was several levels under Hyman G. It had its own CO. Jimmy was assigned to a nuclear submarine to which he was to be ordered after his graduation. He never reported aboard his first nuclear submarine as an operational submarine.

“From 1 March to 8 October, Carter was preparing to become the engineering officer for the nuclear power plant to be placed in USS Seawolf (SSN 575), one of the first submarines to operate on atomic power. He assisted in setting up training for the enlisted men who would serve on Seawolf. During this time his father became very sick and died in July 1953.”

Notice that he was “preparing to become the engineering officer”.

“During this time his father became very sick and died in July 1953. After his father’s death in 1953, Carter resigned from the Navy to return to Georgia to manage the family interests.”

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-14.htm

So, could one say that he “served under” Hyman G?

Only in the sense that he served under the President, the CNO, CincLantFlt, etc, etc, etc.and somewhere way above him, his Prospective Commanding Officer (who had never taken the Seawolf to sea), the Division Commander, stood Hyman G – an absolutely brilliant man who through his personality alone drove the nuclear submarine force through the Navy, civilian and political bureaucrats.

If Jimmy had gone to sea for just one day on the Seawolf, I would concede that Jimmy “served under” Hyman G. – not directly, of course, that would be his Commanding Officer, but nevertheless “served under.” (Remotely.)

Except as a trainee, JC never held his first job on an active nuclear submarine.