"Care labeled a moral issue" is a headline on a story in the Metro & Region section of the Saturday, 30 January, edition.
A so-called "medical ethicist" named Larry Churchill is subject of the story because he is scheduled to speak (barring several inches of "global warming" keeping the roads closed to him -- essentially Tennessee has been shut down by a major storm) Sunday.
His topic is "What is Really at Stake in Health Care Reform" (sic).
In the story, bylined by the notorious Emily Bregel, apparently the TFP's primary advocate of a socialized medical system, he is asked "What is the greatest barrier to health care reform in the U.S.?"
Naturally, this academic, who doesn't have to live in the real world, cites the fact that a lot of people make their living, or, as he says, "a very good living," providing medical services.
Mr. Churchill, who as a Vanderbilt University Medical Center employee, makes a very good living, makes a heck of a lot more money than, even, Emily Bregel, but he still feels superior enough to tell the rest of us we are -- and of course I'm extrapolating here -- "selfish."
He would probably say "racist," too, since that's the current buzz word, the most-used trendy word to denounce us non-elites, us proles who dare to disagree with our betters.
Still, the headline writer got it right, though unintentionally, I'm sure: It is indeed a moral issue and the elitists, who won't forgo a penny of their income (forced from the pockets of working and producing people), are not only willing but eager to coerce all us proles into complying with their version of a moral code.
It is so strange to watch those elitists throw up their hands in horror if a high school valedictorian wants to say "Thank you, God": That, they say, is imposing a religious viewpoint, and that's a no-no.
When those elitists, though, decide on a moral code, it's more than all right to impose it since, after all, it was created by those elitists, those highly educated -- actually merely schooled -- superiors who are, by definition, our betters.
At least by their definition.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Racist Stulce endorses racist Bennett
Being morally and intellectually bankrupt, today's American left is able only to resort to vicious name-calling and denunciations of any proles who dare to disagree with our betters.
In the TFP edition of Wednesday, 20 January, former would-be Democrat candidate for Congress Terry Stulce has a letter to the editor.
In it he joins the finger-pointing chorus (it's not really a mixed metaphor: a vocal chorus is a waste to people who refuse to listen, but even those intentionally deaf might see fingers).
The erstwhile candidate, despite overwhelming financial support, despite spending about 10 times as much as his opponent, despite having the support of the Times editorial and news departments, lost the primary.
Even the other Democrats, at the rank-and-file level, were uncomfortable with his near-Marxist approach. The leaders, of course, were in lock step.
His letter appeared on the one-year anniversary of the reign of the Anointed One, and the new year continues to be as ugly as the previous.
For example, Mr. Stulce, rejected even by other Democrats, writes in support of cartoonist Clay Bennett, about whom a few opposing letters have recently been published.
Mr. Stulce and Mr. Bennett, bigoted and closed-minded to the last, continue to try to foist onto the public the untruth that the Republicans and the Tea Party movement are racist.
Mr. Stulce uses the technique of equating two not-necessarily connected positions to "prove" his own basically moronic point. He says, for example, that people, including the late President Reagan, who opposed so-called affirmative action are also anti-black. Consistently, the two ignore the fact, available to any honest person, that the leading public opponent of "affirmative action" is Ward Connerly, who is (gasp!) black.
Mr. Stulce claims, without a speck of evidence, offering not any proof, there have been "racial slurs" at "Republican rallies by 'tea baggers.'
It would be easy to claim Mr. Stulce is merely a lying pile of garbage, but it is possible that he is merely crazy, or -- to be kind -- merely blind.
Glenn Beck, who is probably the only broadcaster to make the effort, has had at least two programs whereon all the participants were black conservatives and libertarians and at least one anarchist -- anarchist in this case meaning probably "anarcho-capitalist."
There have been many people including speakers at the rallies and protests and Tea Parties who were black, but of course they were ignored by the "news" media, and certainly ignored by racists such as Messrs. Stulce and Bennett.
One of the black speakers, at a rally in Pennsylvania, referred to the previous November election as one where white voters of America showed they were not racist ... and black voters showed they are.
Black columnists Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, both of whom are frequently published on the Free Press page of the TFP, are vehemently on record opposing the socialist-fascist policies of the Obama administration; how can Messrs. Stulce and Bennett ignore such prominent blacks, who are published in the same raggedy paper as Mr. Bennett's cartoons and Mr. Stulce's silly letters?
Obviously -- there is no other answer -- Messrs. Bennett and Stulce are racists. They are blind to the existence of blacks, those "invisible men" (in Ralph Ellison's words), who don't bow to the elitists, such as, by pure coincidence, Messrs. Stulce and Bennett.
In the TFP edition of Wednesday, 20 January, former would-be Democrat candidate for Congress Terry Stulce has a letter to the editor.
In it he joins the finger-pointing chorus (it's not really a mixed metaphor: a vocal chorus is a waste to people who refuse to listen, but even those intentionally deaf might see fingers).
The erstwhile candidate, despite overwhelming financial support, despite spending about 10 times as much as his opponent, despite having the support of the Times editorial and news departments, lost the primary.
Even the other Democrats, at the rank-and-file level, were uncomfortable with his near-Marxist approach. The leaders, of course, were in lock step.
His letter appeared on the one-year anniversary of the reign of the Anointed One, and the new year continues to be as ugly as the previous.
For example, Mr. Stulce, rejected even by other Democrats, writes in support of cartoonist Clay Bennett, about whom a few opposing letters have recently been published.
Mr. Stulce and Mr. Bennett, bigoted and closed-minded to the last, continue to try to foist onto the public the untruth that the Republicans and the Tea Party movement are racist.
Mr. Stulce uses the technique of equating two not-necessarily connected positions to "prove" his own basically moronic point. He says, for example, that people, including the late President Reagan, who opposed so-called affirmative action are also anti-black. Consistently, the two ignore the fact, available to any honest person, that the leading public opponent of "affirmative action" is Ward Connerly, who is (gasp!) black.
Mr. Stulce claims, without a speck of evidence, offering not any proof, there have been "racial slurs" at "Republican rallies by 'tea baggers.'
It would be easy to claim Mr. Stulce is merely a lying pile of garbage, but it is possible that he is merely crazy, or -- to be kind -- merely blind.
Glenn Beck, who is probably the only broadcaster to make the effort, has had at least two programs whereon all the participants were black conservatives and libertarians and at least one anarchist -- anarchist in this case meaning probably "anarcho-capitalist."
There have been many people including speakers at the rallies and protests and Tea Parties who were black, but of course they were ignored by the "news" media, and certainly ignored by racists such as Messrs. Stulce and Bennett.
One of the black speakers, at a rally in Pennsylvania, referred to the previous November election as one where white voters of America showed they were not racist ... and black voters showed they are.
Black columnists Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, both of whom are frequently published on the Free Press page of the TFP, are vehemently on record opposing the socialist-fascist policies of the Obama administration; how can Messrs. Stulce and Bennett ignore such prominent blacks, who are published in the same raggedy paper as Mr. Bennett's cartoons and Mr. Stulce's silly letters?
Obviously -- there is no other answer -- Messrs. Bennett and Stulce are racists. They are blind to the existence of blacks, those "invisible men" (in Ralph Ellison's words), who don't bow to the elitists, such as, by pure coincidence, Messrs. Stulce and Bennett.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Racist Bennett draws perfect picture of a leftist
Clay Bennett, who has shown himself to be a racist with his attacks on Tiger Woods (and, after all, he himself said that criticizing a black person can only be for racist reasons), has now given us an honest picture of today's "liberal," who is, these days, usually only liberal with other people's money.
In his cartoon in the Perspective section of Sunday, 17 January, he draws Sarah Palin on a TV screen, with "mute" in large letters and a caption of "Sarah Palin at her best."
Now, we could take that as meaning Women should be seen and not heard.
Or we could take as his meaning that his mind (using the term loosely) is made up and he refuses to be confused with any facts, that he refuses to listen to anything she might say, on any topic, because he has excommunicated her and that's it.
Really that typifies today's "liberal" attitude. Attack personally, but don't deal with any ideas or issues.
Mr. Bennett is a disgrace to any tradition of civil discourse, but he symbolizes both the "news" media approach and the leftist means of dealing with any other belief.
In his cartoon in the Perspective section of Sunday, 17 January, he draws Sarah Palin on a TV screen, with "mute" in large letters and a caption of "Sarah Palin at her best."
Now, we could take that as meaning Women should be seen and not heard.
Or we could take as his meaning that his mind (using the term loosely) is made up and he refuses to be confused with any facts, that he refuses to listen to anything she might say, on any topic, because he has excommunicated her and that's it.
Really that typifies today's "liberal" attitude. Attack personally, but don't deal with any ideas or issues.
Mr. Bennett is a disgrace to any tradition of civil discourse, but he symbolizes both the "news" media approach and the leftist means of dealing with any other belief.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Where stand the intellectuals?
About 2,500 years ago, an aphorism, translated from the Greek, said something to the effect "There is no idea so stupid that some philosopher won't support it."
Only a few decades ago, George Orwell said to some argumentative Communist, "You must be an intellectual. Only an intellectual could say something so stupid."
The term "intellectual," obviously used very loosely, today includes people in education, politics, and, most loosely, journalism.
It should include only people of intellect, people who deal with ideas.
Unfortunately it means, more often, people who can be and are called "elitists."
In the Sunday, 10 January, edition of the Perspective section is a perfect example of what I mean above: New York Times (and hence Chattanooga Times) columnist David Brooks pontificates that the real divide in the United States body politic is between the educated and the uneducated.
Naturally Mr. Brooks and other Times adherents are the educated (despite the poor quality of their respective papers). Those of us who oppose the various forms of involuntary servitude proposed by those intellectuals are, by definition, uneducated:
"Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.
"The educated class believes in global warming ..." despite record low temperatures, especially the last couple weeks but actually during the last three years.
Brooks, the educated, doesn't mention real weather but goes on to say "... so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise."
Yeah, us uneducated people ought not to pay attention to thermometers, shouldn't look out the window, should, instead, just listen to our betters, such as Mr. Brooks.
He goes on, mostly attempting to trash the Tea Party movement, but by serendipitous coincidence giving a nice lead-in to a column on the other side of the paper by Thomas Sowell titled "Intellectuals vs. society."
The once-again-great doctor says, "There has probably never been an era in history when intellectuals have played a larger role in society. When intellectuals who generate ideas are surrounded by a wide range of others who disseminate those ideas -- whether as journalists, teachers, staffers to legislators or clerks to judges -- the influence of intellectuals on the way a society evolved can be huge."
Intellectuals include, for example, Karl Marx, whose ideas led to the murders of hundreds of millions of people all across the world.
Non-intellectuals, as Dr. Sowell points out, include the Wright Brothers, who gave a lot more to people and the world than the Marxes and Brookses and the Mussolinis -- all of whom, interestingly, were in one way or another journalists.
Dr. Sowell also said this: "Intellectuals generate ideas and ideas matter, far beyond the small segment of society who are intellectuals. Ideas affect the fate of whole civilizations."
Then, next day, Dr. Sowell goes on, in a column titled "Good ideas vs. practical ones." In it he says, "If there is any lesson in the history of ideas, it is that good intentions tell you nothing about actual consequences."
Among the other sins of journalism is that those consequences are not reported as they should be.
We can still point out The New York Times and its adulation of Josef Stalin. That kind of miserable reporting was a good antecedent for its reporting of the most recent presidential election. The Times was just one of the "news" media slobbering (to use the very apt word of Bernard Goldberg) over Barack Obama.
Ideas most certainly do matter, and one of the problems in this modern day is that one idea, that of liberty, seems to have no place in "news" reporting or, apparently, in the minds of intellectuals generally.
Only a few decades ago, George Orwell said to some argumentative Communist, "You must be an intellectual. Only an intellectual could say something so stupid."
The term "intellectual," obviously used very loosely, today includes people in education, politics, and, most loosely, journalism.
It should include only people of intellect, people who deal with ideas.
Unfortunately it means, more often, people who can be and are called "elitists."
In the Sunday, 10 January, edition of the Perspective section is a perfect example of what I mean above: New York Times (and hence Chattanooga Times) columnist David Brooks pontificates that the real divide in the United States body politic is between the educated and the uneducated.
Naturally Mr. Brooks and other Times adherents are the educated (despite the poor quality of their respective papers). Those of us who oppose the various forms of involuntary servitude proposed by those intellectuals are, by definition, uneducated:
"Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.
"The educated class believes in global warming ..." despite record low temperatures, especially the last couple weeks but actually during the last three years.
Brooks, the educated, doesn't mention real weather but goes on to say "... so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise."
Yeah, us uneducated people ought not to pay attention to thermometers, shouldn't look out the window, should, instead, just listen to our betters, such as Mr. Brooks.
He goes on, mostly attempting to trash the Tea Party movement, but by serendipitous coincidence giving a nice lead-in to a column on the other side of the paper by Thomas Sowell titled "Intellectuals vs. society."
The once-again-great doctor says, "There has probably never been an era in history when intellectuals have played a larger role in society. When intellectuals who generate ideas are surrounded by a wide range of others who disseminate those ideas -- whether as journalists, teachers, staffers to legislators or clerks to judges -- the influence of intellectuals on the way a society evolved can be huge."
Intellectuals include, for example, Karl Marx, whose ideas led to the murders of hundreds of millions of people all across the world.
Non-intellectuals, as Dr. Sowell points out, include the Wright Brothers, who gave a lot more to people and the world than the Marxes and Brookses and the Mussolinis -- all of whom, interestingly, were in one way or another journalists.
Dr. Sowell also said this: "Intellectuals generate ideas and ideas matter, far beyond the small segment of society who are intellectuals. Ideas affect the fate of whole civilizations."
Then, next day, Dr. Sowell goes on, in a column titled "Good ideas vs. practical ones." In it he says, "If there is any lesson in the history of ideas, it is that good intentions tell you nothing about actual consequences."
Among the other sins of journalism is that those consequences are not reported as they should be.
We can still point out The New York Times and its adulation of Josef Stalin. That kind of miserable reporting was a good antecedent for its reporting of the most recent presidential election. The Times was just one of the "news" media slobbering (to use the very apt word of Bernard Goldberg) over Barack Obama.
Ideas most certainly do matter, and one of the problems in this modern day is that one idea, that of liberty, seems to have no place in "news" reporting or, apparently, in the minds of intellectuals generally.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Readership declines further
According to baseball folklore, during an early practice of the New York Mets, a fielder, trying to catch a pop fly, missed, and the ball hit him on the head.
Legendary manager Casey Stengel shook his head and prayed, "Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game?"
Surely the people who own and manage the Times Free Press must be asking themselves something similar: "Doesn't anybody here read this thing?"
I think not.
Here is one reason I thus think, a listing in the lamentable TV Times of 20 -26 December 2009:
A Story of David ** ('60,Drama) Jeff Chandler. DO NOT USE. King Saul unjustly accuses David of seeking his throne ...
Then in the next issue, in the regular feature called "tvtrivia" is this example. There are five questions, and a picture of someone named Katie Cassidy is inset with question 1: Who currently plays Ella Simms 'Melrose Place' 2009? (sic) Answer choices: (a) Katie Cassidy (b) Stephanie Jacobsen or (c) 6416? (sic, again)
Interestingly, the answer is ... Katie Cassidy.
Question 4: Why were Jerry and his pals sentenced in the series finale of 'Seinfeld'? (a) for disturbing the peace (b) a case of mistaken identity (c) or for helping out?
Honest, sic.
Here is the answer: 'Good Samaritan Law.'
Answer: No, nobody here reads this thing.
Maybe if the Obama administration does carry out the threat to shell out "stimulus" money to the "news" media, the TFP will hire at least one copy editor.
Legendary manager Casey Stengel shook his head and prayed, "Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game?"
Surely the people who own and manage the Times Free Press must be asking themselves something similar: "Doesn't anybody here read this thing?"
I think not.
Here is one reason I thus think, a listing in the lamentable TV Times of 20 -26 December 2009:
A Story of David ** ('60,Drama) Jeff Chandler. DO NOT USE. King Saul unjustly accuses David of seeking his throne ...
Then in the next issue, in the regular feature called "tvtrivia" is this example. There are five questions, and a picture of someone named Katie Cassidy is inset with question 1: Who currently plays Ella Simms 'Melrose Place' 2009? (sic) Answer choices: (a) Katie Cassidy (b) Stephanie Jacobsen or (c) 6416? (sic, again)
Interestingly, the answer is ... Katie Cassidy.
Question 4: Why were Jerry and his pals sentenced in the series finale of 'Seinfeld'? (a) for disturbing the peace (b) a case of mistaken identity (c) or for helping out?
Honest, sic.
Here is the answer: 'Good Samaritan Law.'
Answer: No, nobody here reads this thing.
Maybe if the Obama administration does carry out the threat to shell out "stimulus" money to the "news" media, the TFP will hire at least one copy editor.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Speaking of vicious ...
For some reason, the first "Perspective" section of the year shows a retrospective of work by hatemonger Clay Bennett, staff cartoonist of the Times. (Interestingly, the editors chose not to re-run his nastiest cartoon, the one in which all us opponents of the Obama administration's collectivist ambitions are portrayed as Ku Klux Klanners.)
To be honest, three or four times a year, Mr. Bennett is not a hatemonger or vicious collectivist, and once or twice is even somewhat humorous.
But he seems to prefer to be vicious. For example, when Sarah Palin's book -- which has sold in the millions, and in fact advance orders forced her publisher to re-start the presses -- a Bennett cartoon showed a couple standing in front of a store with her book on sale, saying, "Shouldn't she read a book before she writes one?"
Now the caricature leftists and hatemongers have of people like Ms. Palin is that they are ... well, if not illiterate, certainly un-read.
Naturally only the elitists, our betters, such as Mr. Bennett, are the truly literate and knowledgeable. (They refuse to believe that Ronald Reagan probably read more books than any other president, of recent times, anyway.)
Ignore that Sarah Palin, to name one, actually has a college degree in ... journalism!
Hmmmm. Come to think of it, after reading such raggedy publications as the Times Free Press, I realize perhaps they have a point. Perhaps we should recognize journalism grads are probably among the least-educated people in American society.
They obviously don't know history, are even more ignorant in economics, seem not to have even a passing acquaintance with ethics and morality, and far too often don't even know grammar, punctuation, or style.
Yet these are the people who act as filters as to what you and I are allowed to learn as "news."
I can't imagine a circumstance in which I would vote for Sarah Palin. She is, after all, a Republican. But, even so, I do wish there were some modicum of fairness, of decency in how she's treated.
Childlike, I guess, I also wish there were more than a modicum of fairness, of decency in "news" generally.
And, while I'm at it, I wish I had a pony.
To be honest, three or four times a year, Mr. Bennett is not a hatemonger or vicious collectivist, and once or twice is even somewhat humorous.
But he seems to prefer to be vicious. For example, when Sarah Palin's book -- which has sold in the millions, and in fact advance orders forced her publisher to re-start the presses -- a Bennett cartoon showed a couple standing in front of a store with her book on sale, saying, "Shouldn't she read a book before she writes one?"
Now the caricature leftists and hatemongers have of people like Ms. Palin is that they are ... well, if not illiterate, certainly un-read.
Naturally only the elitists, our betters, such as Mr. Bennett, are the truly literate and knowledgeable. (They refuse to believe that Ronald Reagan probably read more books than any other president, of recent times, anyway.)
Ignore that Sarah Palin, to name one, actually has a college degree in ... journalism!
Hmmmm. Come to think of it, after reading such raggedy publications as the Times Free Press, I realize perhaps they have a point. Perhaps we should recognize journalism grads are probably among the least-educated people in American society.
They obviously don't know history, are even more ignorant in economics, seem not to have even a passing acquaintance with ethics and morality, and far too often don't even know grammar, punctuation, or style.
Yet these are the people who act as filters as to what you and I are allowed to learn as "news."
I can't imagine a circumstance in which I would vote for Sarah Palin. She is, after all, a Republican. But, even so, I do wish there were some modicum of fairness, of decency in how she's treated.
Childlike, I guess, I also wish there were more than a modicum of fairness, of decency in "news" generally.
And, while I'm at it, I wish I had a pony.
Viciousness gets uglier
Perhaps it's because I see mostly the left-oriented "news" outlets, and fewer of the right-oriented ones, though of course "news" media are mostly left oriented, but I cannot remember seeing the viciousness, the ugliness against leftists that I see, on a daily basis, against rightists.
Attacks on Sarah Palin, as noted often, have reached the point of insanity.
I have not seen anyone say "Palin says so-and-so on this issue and she is wrong for these reasons ..."
No, it's usually the kind of garbage Times cartoonist Clay Bennett dishes out: Personal attacks, but not necessarily with any basis in reality.
The left-oriented outlets, though, don't limit their nastiness to spews from only their own staffers. Here are four examples, listed in order in the moronic "Rant" column that worsens an already miserable Sunday opinion section:
Joe Lieberman is greedy, arrogant and vindictive and has chosen loyalty to insurance companies over his commitment to the American people. That's his legacy.
Obama, get a backbone! You're giving in to Republicans. You are being bought by insurance and drug companies. This is not what I voted for.
GOP senators and the right wing media inflating them now have blood on their hands, the blood of millions of uninsured men, women and children.
Jimmy Carter apologizes to Israel, good. Now, maybe he should apologize to the American people for being such a flake!
While at the same time bewailing environmental losses, leftist editors waste the lives of innocent trees with this stuff? And, still at the same time, moan and whine that they don't have room for the important news, that, apparently, they really aren't covering anyway?
Even funnier, they don't understand why people are canceling subscriptions.
Attacks on Sarah Palin, as noted often, have reached the point of insanity.
I have not seen anyone say "Palin says so-and-so on this issue and she is wrong for these reasons ..."
No, it's usually the kind of garbage Times cartoonist Clay Bennett dishes out: Personal attacks, but not necessarily with any basis in reality.
The left-oriented outlets, though, don't limit their nastiness to spews from only their own staffers. Here are four examples, listed in order in the moronic "Rant" column that worsens an already miserable Sunday opinion section:
Joe Lieberman is greedy, arrogant and vindictive and has chosen loyalty to insurance companies over his commitment to the American people. That's his legacy.
Obama, get a backbone! You're giving in to Republicans. You are being bought by insurance and drug companies. This is not what I voted for.
GOP senators and the right wing media inflating them now have blood on their hands, the blood of millions of uninsured men, women and children.
Jimmy Carter apologizes to Israel, good. Now, maybe he should apologize to the American people for being such a flake!
While at the same time bewailing environmental losses, leftist editors waste the lives of innocent trees with this stuff? And, still at the same time, moan and whine that they don't have room for the important news, that, apparently, they really aren't covering anyway?
Even funnier, they don't understand why people are canceling subscriptions.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Afghan government corrupt? What about ours?
Surely no rational and honest person doubts corruption exists in governments around the world, especially such governments as Afghanistan. Well, I mean, since the United States "news" media and members of the United States government pretty generally proclaim it as fact, it must be true.
It's obvious why those members of the U.S. government would not want to talk about it, but why are the members of the "news" media so reluctant to point out that the U.S. government is also corrupt?
One reason there is so much corruption is illustrated by the weekly column of the TFP publisher, Tom Griscom, on 6 December.
While bragging about the splendid "news" coverage of the ongoing party primary campaigns and the upcoming primary and general elections, he makes this statement:
"In less than a year, a Republican and a Democrat will face off."
Yes, that is true, but it is only partly true: There will be others seeking those various contested governmental offices.
Since, though, the "news" media bothers to mention only the vested interests of the two old parties, the people, the voters, the citizens, the taxpayers who must foot the bills the victorious politicians run up will, as usual, be cheated of the needed knowledge and information to make proper choices.
That is, since the "news" media make mention only of the two old parties, it will always be a member of the two old parties who takes office.
And that, gentle reader, is exactly why government in the United States, and perhaps especially in Tennessee, is just as corrupt as government in almost any other place in the world, except with less murder (so far).
The corrupt and dishonest "news" media, coupled with corrupt and incompetent government schools, work together to keep us as uninformed as possible; as a result, frequently only the worst even attempt to get elected; and that means the very worst are the usual winners.
It's obvious why those members of the U.S. government would not want to talk about it, but why are the members of the "news" media so reluctant to point out that the U.S. government is also corrupt?
One reason there is so much corruption is illustrated by the weekly column of the TFP publisher, Tom Griscom, on 6 December.
While bragging about the splendid "news" coverage of the ongoing party primary campaigns and the upcoming primary and general elections, he makes this statement:
"In less than a year, a Republican and a Democrat will face off."
Yes, that is true, but it is only partly true: There will be others seeking those various contested governmental offices.
Since, though, the "news" media bothers to mention only the vested interests of the two old parties, the people, the voters, the citizens, the taxpayers who must foot the bills the victorious politicians run up will, as usual, be cheated of the needed knowledge and information to make proper choices.
That is, since the "news" media make mention only of the two old parties, it will always be a member of the two old parties who takes office.
And that, gentle reader, is exactly why government in the United States, and perhaps especially in Tennessee, is just as corrupt as government in almost any other place in the world, except with less murder (so far).
The corrupt and dishonest "news" media, coupled with corrupt and incompetent government schools, work together to keep us as uninformed as possible; as a result, frequently only the worst even attempt to get elected; and that means the very worst are the usual winners.
Clay Bennett must be a racist
Times editorial cartoonist Clay Bennett jumped on the demagogic bandwagon, joining the chorus crying "racist" for people who dared to disagree with the anointed one, Barack Obama.
Mr. Bennett even went so far as to call protesters Ku Kluxers in one especially nasty cartoon.
The "logic," or whatever lefties of his ilk use in lieu of, is that anyone who disagrees with the African-American president can't have any other basis for disagreement, so, QED, must be racist.
Well, on Sunday, 6 December, his cartoon attacks the almost equally black golfer, Tiger Woods, showing a golf cart with mud flaps sometimes found on over-the-road trailers depicting the exaggerated form of a female.
What else can we think of Mr. Bennett except he must be a racist, and probably a covert member of the KKK?
Mr. Bennett even went so far as to call protesters Ku Kluxers in one especially nasty cartoon.
The "logic," or whatever lefties of his ilk use in lieu of, is that anyone who disagrees with the African-American president can't have any other basis for disagreement, so, QED, must be racist.
Well, on Sunday, 6 December, his cartoon attacks the almost equally black golfer, Tiger Woods, showing a golf cart with mud flaps sometimes found on over-the-road trailers depicting the exaggerated form of a female.
What else can we think of Mr. Bennett except he must be a racist, and probably a covert member of the KKK?
TFP cheats readers, and others, again
With circulation dwindling (gee, I wonder why) and, thus, income and profits, publishers of "news" papers cut every corner and finagle every way they can.
One way the TFP publishers have found is to compress the funnies and slap some advertising onto the "extra" space.
Never mind that making them smaller makes them harder to read, and never mind that certain cartoonists, such as "Doonesbury" artist Garry Trudeau, even have contracts mandating a certain size, half of the front page of the Sunday funnies of 6 December is devoted to an ad for a satellite TV service (with a bargain rate of $19.99 for "over 120 channels") and the entire back page is an ad for a heater.
Never mind, too, that, as often stated here, the funnies are not only the best feature on this or any paper, often they are the only readable part, especially in this paper.
The number of strips has been cut over the years, with budget constraints and retirements ("Fox Trot" and "For Better Or Worse," for example), but this compression is really an insult.
One way the TFP publishers have found is to compress the funnies and slap some advertising onto the "extra" space.
Never mind that making them smaller makes them harder to read, and never mind that certain cartoonists, such as "Doonesbury" artist Garry Trudeau, even have contracts mandating a certain size, half of the front page of the Sunday funnies of 6 December is devoted to an ad for a satellite TV service (with a bargain rate of $19.99 for "over 120 channels") and the entire back page is an ad for a heater.
Never mind, too, that, as often stated here, the funnies are not only the best feature on this or any paper, often they are the only readable part, especially in this paper.
The number of strips has been cut over the years, with budget constraints and retirements ("Fox Trot" and "For Better Or Worse," for example), but this compression is really an insult.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Amazing: Paper does something right -- twice
As mentioned previously, John Trever is one of the most brilliant editorial cartoonists in the world -- in fact, in the history of the world.
His home base is the Albuquerque Journal, otherwise not a very distinguished paper, but located in one of the greatest places to live in the United States.
In the two-dimensional "thinking" that suffocates U.S. political discussion, Mr. Trever is usually thought of as "conservative."
In truth, he is much more intelligent than that.
As a political thinker, he is advanced far above the herd, and as an artist, he wields a pen in such manner to prove he is genuinely worthy of the term "artist."
Well, lately his work has been showing up in the TFP more often, not, unfortunately, replacing the loathsome Clay Bennett, but supplementing Bennett's work, and enlivening the otherwise deadly-dull Times editorial page -- AND appearing as the chief cartoon on the Free Press page.
Wait. What? Trever cartoons on both pages?
Yes! And, joy to behold, on Friday, 4 December, his work is on both pages -- both pages the same day!
Mark your calendar, and paint the date red. When TWO Trever cartoons get published the same day, it's almost worth buying the thing.
One site to look at: http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/trever.asp
For the Albuquerque Journal: http://www.abqjournal.com/
His home base is the Albuquerque Journal, otherwise not a very distinguished paper, but located in one of the greatest places to live in the United States.
In the two-dimensional "thinking" that suffocates U.S. political discussion, Mr. Trever is usually thought of as "conservative."
In truth, he is much more intelligent than that.
As a political thinker, he is advanced far above the herd, and as an artist, he wields a pen in such manner to prove he is genuinely worthy of the term "artist."
Well, lately his work has been showing up in the TFP more often, not, unfortunately, replacing the loathsome Clay Bennett, but supplementing Bennett's work, and enlivening the otherwise deadly-dull Times editorial page -- AND appearing as the chief cartoon on the Free Press page.
Wait. What? Trever cartoons on both pages?
Yes! And, joy to behold, on Friday, 4 December, his work is on both pages -- both pages the same day!
Mark your calendar, and paint the date red. When TWO Trever cartoons get published the same day, it's almost worth buying the thing.
One site to look at: http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/trever.asp
For the Albuquerque Journal: http://www.abqjournal.com/
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Times: More obscenely stupid daily
As mentioned, a time or two, the Times Free Press has two editorial pages. On the right, in two senses, are the more-or-less conservative views with editorials written by Lee Anderson; on the left, the editorials are apparently written, at least mostly, by Harry Austin.
As is true of newspaper editorials in my experience, the writing is usually stultifying and not intelligent.
The left side also has the work of one Clay Bennett, a vicious, unintelligent and/or dishonest cartoonist.
Sunday, he drew a bookstore with a section labeled "Self Help" and another labeled "Self Serving," stocked solely with Sarah Palin's new book.
Of course Bennett hasn't read the book; perhaps he doesn't know how to read; perhaps it's just that his mind (using the term loosely) is made up and he refuses to be confused with any facts.
Still, it's odd to see "self serving" as his pejorative of the day, this man who signs his name in fairly large letters on each cartoon.
Wednesday, still without reading the book, he makes another dig, this time with a character saying, "I heard she had a ghost whiner."
One must wonder what motivates such ugliness: Fear?
I've never heard of Sarah Palin threatening to throw, say, cartoonists into jail or fining them or even taxing them.
Then why so much fear, and of course not just from such lightweights as the loathsome Bennett. Time, formerly known as a "news" magazine, did its best to trivialize her, and the moron Joy Behar managed to make several untruthful statements in the one paragraph I heard her speak before I clicked on the channel changer.
Would I vote for Sarah Palin? Of course not. She's a Republican. But I would really like to see some sense of decency and proportionality. Even just a little.
SO WHAT IS A BETTER WORD?
In a private e-mail, a Tennessee legislator referred to President Obama as "a socialist," obviously a term seldom heard, and one that must cause trembling in such places as the editorial page office of such rags as the Times Free Press.
Mr. Austin, or whichever robot wrote the Wednesday editorial, says this: "The right-wing myth that President Obama is a socialist ..."
Perhaps Mr. Austin doesn't own a dictionary. Certainly there is much evidence no such book resides anywhere near the news and editorial rooms.
But surely any United States adult should know the word "socialist" means "an advocate of government ownership of the means of production."
How is Mr. Obama not a socialist?
My guess is the socialists, such as likely Mr. Austin, just don't want to admit to ownership of the word, don't want us to realize they are indeed socialists, and sometimes national socialists.
In an otherwise mediocre -- at best -- "news" paper, it also seems the socialists inform the rest of the paper, too.
FRONT PAGE HORROR
"Poll: Americans say rich should pay for reforms"
An Associated Press story indicates the complete failure of U.S. schools and the overwhelming success of the "news" media and academia in gulling the public.
Even though facts show otherwise, 72 percent who responded to this poll said they believe "insurance companies made too much profit."
Greed and envy are now apparently the chief motivating factors of not just the Democrat Party but an increasingly large percent of the public ... at least the ones the AP queried.
As is true of newspaper editorials in my experience, the writing is usually stultifying and not intelligent.
The left side also has the work of one Clay Bennett, a vicious, unintelligent and/or dishonest cartoonist.
Sunday, he drew a bookstore with a section labeled "Self Help" and another labeled "Self Serving," stocked solely with Sarah Palin's new book.
Of course Bennett hasn't read the book; perhaps he doesn't know how to read; perhaps it's just that his mind (using the term loosely) is made up and he refuses to be confused with any facts.
Still, it's odd to see "self serving" as his pejorative of the day, this man who signs his name in fairly large letters on each cartoon.
Wednesday, still without reading the book, he makes another dig, this time with a character saying, "I heard she had a ghost whiner."
One must wonder what motivates such ugliness: Fear?
I've never heard of Sarah Palin threatening to throw, say, cartoonists into jail or fining them or even taxing them.
Then why so much fear, and of course not just from such lightweights as the loathsome Bennett. Time, formerly known as a "news" magazine, did its best to trivialize her, and the moron Joy Behar managed to make several untruthful statements in the one paragraph I heard her speak before I clicked on the channel changer.
Would I vote for Sarah Palin? Of course not. She's a Republican. But I would really like to see some sense of decency and proportionality. Even just a little.
SO WHAT IS A BETTER WORD?
In a private e-mail, a Tennessee legislator referred to President Obama as "a socialist," obviously a term seldom heard, and one that must cause trembling in such places as the editorial page office of such rags as the Times Free Press.
Mr. Austin, or whichever robot wrote the Wednesday editorial, says this: "The right-wing myth that President Obama is a socialist ..."
Perhaps Mr. Austin doesn't own a dictionary. Certainly there is much evidence no such book resides anywhere near the news and editorial rooms.
But surely any United States adult should know the word "socialist" means "an advocate of government ownership of the means of production."
How is Mr. Obama not a socialist?
My guess is the socialists, such as likely Mr. Austin, just don't want to admit to ownership of the word, don't want us to realize they are indeed socialists, and sometimes national socialists.
In an otherwise mediocre -- at best -- "news" paper, it also seems the socialists inform the rest of the paper, too.
FRONT PAGE HORROR
"Poll: Americans say rich should pay for reforms"
An Associated Press story indicates the complete failure of U.S. schools and the overwhelming success of the "news" media and academia in gulling the public.
Even though facts show otherwise, 72 percent who responded to this poll said they believe "insurance companies made too much profit."
Greed and envy are now apparently the chief motivating factors of not just the Democrat Party but an increasingly large percent of the public ... at least the ones the AP queried.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Blind faith or superstition?
While religion, even the majority's Christian religion, gets a battering from the so-called "news" media, members of the media themselves continue to be overcome by superstition and blind faith.
This is a headline on Page 1 of the Tuesday, 3 November, edition: "Stimulus helps save jobs in Georgia, Tennessee."
The sole source of the "facts" in the story? A government Web site, recovery.gov.
Gosh, the lapdog press is so credulous.
This is a headline on Page 1 of the Tuesday, 3 November, edition: "Stimulus helps save jobs in Georgia, Tennessee."
The sole source of the "facts" in the story? A government Web site, recovery.gov.
Gosh, the lapdog press is so credulous.
Has subject addled "editors'" brains?
Cable television and Internet connection are being offered by the Electric Power Board, and most people have been looking forward to having competition to the corrupt and incompetent Comcast.
However, just recently it was discovered that EPB will be offering, among its cable choices, (gasp!) so-called "adult" TV, including the Playboy channel.
Naturally, since this is Chattanooga, ire has been raised. (Why do people forget they don't HAVE to watch television, and certainly don't HAVE to subscribe to any cable service?)
In a story Monday, 2 November, further proof is offered that perhaps "stimulus" money should be used to hire at least one capable copy editor for the TFP.
"Critics object to a government-owned utility putting out what they say is pornography. But EPB says it has a free speech mandate not to censure a diverse programming menu ..."
Obviously the word should be "censor."
"David Fowler, a former Republican state senator who now heads the Family Action Council of Tennessee, contends there is no excuse for a government identity peddling porn."
Obviously that should be "government entity."
And it is also obvious there ought to be more opposition to a government's getting into the entertainment business, but the Comcast monopoly has done such a lousy, and expensive, job of delivering cable TV that even many free enterprises have put their principles into escrow for the nonce.
However, just recently it was discovered that EPB will be offering, among its cable choices, (gasp!) so-called "adult" TV, including the Playboy channel.
Naturally, since this is Chattanooga, ire has been raised. (Why do people forget they don't HAVE to watch television, and certainly don't HAVE to subscribe to any cable service?)
In a story Monday, 2 November, further proof is offered that perhaps "stimulus" money should be used to hire at least one capable copy editor for the TFP.
"Critics object to a government-owned utility putting out what they say is pornography. But EPB says it has a free speech mandate not to censure a diverse programming menu ..."
Obviously the word should be "censor."
"David Fowler, a former Republican state senator who now heads the Family Action Council of Tennessee, contends there is no excuse for a government identity peddling porn."
Obviously that should be "government entity."
And it is also obvious there ought to be more opposition to a government's getting into the entertainment business, but the Comcast monopoly has done such a lousy, and expensive, job of delivering cable TV that even many free enterprises have put their principles into escrow for the nonce.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Consistency, thy name ain't Lee Anderson
As noted here previously, the Times Free Press has a perhaps unique policy of two editorial pages and two editorial policies ... sort of.
The Times has a left-wing fascist approach; the Free Press has a right-wing fascist approach.
Lee Anderson, long-time editorial writer for the right-hand pages, claims to be a strong supporter of the Constitution.
He is pretty consistently against further federal taxes (though he pretty consistently supports additional local taxes) and further federal encroachment ... unless his personal moral code calls for further federal encroachment.
For example, in an editorial on Sunday, 25 October, titled, "Wrong policy on marijuana," he takes to task the Obama administration for what seems to be its very first correct stand on legal matters.
Obama's attorney general Holder has decreed the feds will no longer violate the Constitution by harassing users of medical marijuana, at least in those states that have voted to legalize that particular herb.
Mr. Anderson's last paragraph reads, "Government cannot stop all illegal drug use, but its actions ought not to send the destructive, false message that drug abuse is OK."
Nowhere have I seen that Mr. Holder, or even Pres. Obama, endorses abusing marijuana -- they are too busy abusing taxpayers and citizens and Fox News.
But Mr. Anderson, handicapped by his superstitious Southern Christian background, fails miserably in being consistent, in being logical, in being rational.
To say "We won't throw you in jail because you have a different lifestyle or moral code from ours" is not the same as saying "Yeah, man, let's go wild and smoke that pot."
Forgetting for the moment that marijuana is less harmful than either tobacco or alcohol -- and obviously Mr. Anderson (who was probably there) has forgotten that alcohol once was itself illegal -- let's just carefully read the Constitution ... and we find there is not one word that allows the feds any authority to tell people they can't use marijuana, and especially is there not a word or syllable allowing the feds to override state laws on the subject.
Perhaps a foolish consistency is to be avoided, but it would be nice to find an intelligent consistency.
The Times has a left-wing fascist approach; the Free Press has a right-wing fascist approach.
Lee Anderson, long-time editorial writer for the right-hand pages, claims to be a strong supporter of the Constitution.
He is pretty consistently against further federal taxes (though he pretty consistently supports additional local taxes) and further federal encroachment ... unless his personal moral code calls for further federal encroachment.
For example, in an editorial on Sunday, 25 October, titled, "Wrong policy on marijuana," he takes to task the Obama administration for what seems to be its very first correct stand on legal matters.
Obama's attorney general Holder has decreed the feds will no longer violate the Constitution by harassing users of medical marijuana, at least in those states that have voted to legalize that particular herb.
Mr. Anderson's last paragraph reads, "Government cannot stop all illegal drug use, but its actions ought not to send the destructive, false message that drug abuse is OK."
Nowhere have I seen that Mr. Holder, or even Pres. Obama, endorses abusing marijuana -- they are too busy abusing taxpayers and citizens and Fox News.
But Mr. Anderson, handicapped by his superstitious Southern Christian background, fails miserably in being consistent, in being logical, in being rational.
To say "We won't throw you in jail because you have a different lifestyle or moral code from ours" is not the same as saying "Yeah, man, let's go wild and smoke that pot."
Forgetting for the moment that marijuana is less harmful than either tobacco or alcohol -- and obviously Mr. Anderson (who was probably there) has forgotten that alcohol once was itself illegal -- let's just carefully read the Constitution ... and we find there is not one word that allows the feds any authority to tell people they can't use marijuana, and especially is there not a word or syllable allowing the feds to override state laws on the subject.
Perhaps a foolish consistency is to be avoided, but it would be nice to find an intelligent consistency.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Doonesbury joins fray
Garry Trudeau, originator and probably still sometime writer of the "Doonesbury" cartoon strip, has jumped in to the fray with both feet in his mouth.
His strip of Sunday, 27 September, makes the claim that Hitler was the greatest evil in history.
As Al Smith might have said, let's look at the record: Most people believe Hitler killed six million people.
Actually, six million is the generally accepted figure for the number of Jews murdered.
There were at least twice that, counting other religious or ethnic victims.
Yet Stalin and Khrushchev murdered more than that just in (what was then known as the) Ukraine. I believe it was Harrison Salisbury who said the total number of Stalin victims was about 85 million.
Mao and the Chinese Communists murdered between 50 and 100 million!
Why, why, why do the American leftists seem never to admit there is evil on the left?
His strip of Sunday, 27 September, makes the claim that Hitler was the greatest evil in history.
As Al Smith might have said, let's look at the record: Most people believe Hitler killed six million people.
Actually, six million is the generally accepted figure for the number of Jews murdered.
There were at least twice that, counting other religious or ethnic victims.
Yet Stalin and Khrushchev murdered more than that just in (what was then known as the) Ukraine. I believe it was Harrison Salisbury who said the total number of Stalin victims was about 85 million.
Mao and the Chinese Communists murdered between 50 and 100 million!
Why, why, why do the American leftists seem never to admit there is evil on the left?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Terry Stulce still not sane
One-time would-be candidate for Congress Terry Stulce has popped back out of the woodwork to write a letter to the editor, 23 September.
He would have been better served keeping a lower profile.
Once again, Mr. Stulce, of whom I used to think favorably, acts as the sock puppet to his ventriloquist masters in the Demagogic Party.
He has a letter referring to "the stench of racism," a nonsensical charge even the alleged victim of any racism has pooh-poohed. (As I have said elsewhere, President Obama is standing head and shoulders above his supporters, and not taken that very low road marched down by his boot-lickers and sycophants, especially those in the "news" media.)
Face it: The Demagogues have not a leg of logic, not a toe, to stand on and they must smear their opponents with their handiest brush. (Even Republicans are starting to look better by comparison.)
As I have said elsewhere, and will say again, Samuel Johnson's "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" is way out of date. Today, the last refuge of a scoundrel is "You are a racist."
He would have been better served keeping a lower profile.
Once again, Mr. Stulce, of whom I used to think favorably, acts as the sock puppet to his ventriloquist masters in the Demagogic Party.
He has a letter referring to "the stench of racism," a nonsensical charge even the alleged victim of any racism has pooh-poohed. (As I have said elsewhere, President Obama is standing head and shoulders above his supporters, and not taken that very low road marched down by his boot-lickers and sycophants, especially those in the "news" media.)
Face it: The Demagogues have not a leg of logic, not a toe, to stand on and they must smear their opponents with their handiest brush. (Even Republicans are starting to look better by comparison.)
As I have said elsewhere, and will say again, Samuel Johnson's "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" is way out of date. Today, the last refuge of a scoundrel is "You are a racist."
Friday, September 18, 2009
Foul-minded cartoonist further oversteps
Nasty and unintelligent, or perhaps dishonest, cartoonist Clay Bennett has joined the caterwauling chorus of leftist lunacy proclaiming the protests are "racist."
He really overstepped any bounds of decency with a cartoon (and he does draw well) of a protest crowd gathered around a burning cross.
Bennett is either a -- and I hate this word and its too-frequent use -- liar, knowing what he draws is untrue, or he is really super-stupid and he actually believes that nonsense, despite the proof to the contrary.
Take a look at this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LejNkRd-3w
I'll bet Bennett won't even look.
Here's another site: http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html
He really overstepped any bounds of decency with a cartoon (and he does draw well) of a protest crowd gathered around a burning cross.
Bennett is either a -- and I hate this word and its too-frequent use -- liar, knowing what he draws is untrue, or he is really super-stupid and he actually believes that nonsense, despite the proof to the contrary.
Take a look at this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LejNkRd-3w
I'll bet Bennett won't even look.
Here's another site: http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html
Response to e-mail
Reporter Emily Bregel has answered my e-mail, very cordially, too. (See "Tempest" post below.)
She does, though, persist in her belief her reporting was not partisan and she persists in her belief that her use of "debunked" was both not partisan and accurate.
I have replied to her nice note and hope she will continue our correspondence.
If she gives her permission, I will pass on what she said.
Cautionary note: Despite her courtesy, her cordiality, her attitude and her knowledge, or lack thereof, and that of other members of the "news" media, continue to hold our nation in peril.
Their firm belief that they know best, when in fact they don't know much at all, will likely be the downfall of our republic.
She does, though, persist in her belief her reporting was not partisan and she persists in her belief that her use of "debunked" was both not partisan and accurate.
I have replied to her nice note and hope she will continue our correspondence.
If she gives her permission, I will pass on what she said.
Cautionary note: Despite her courtesy, her cordiality, her attitude and her knowledge, or lack thereof, and that of other members of the "news" media, continue to hold our nation in peril.
Their firm belief that they know best, when in fact they don't know much at all, will likely be the downfall of our republic.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Argument by intimidation
Lacking any relevant evidence to the contrary, Times editors recently responded to an intelligent question with what must be considered, among other things, a foolish non sequitur.
An intelligent, but naive, letter to the editor took the Times robots to task for continuing to publish the columns of Paul Krugman: "How many letters do you need to get before you realize this guy is not an economist, but a left-wing extremist."
The crushing rejoinder from the Times editorial page editor: "Editor's note: Princeton economist Paul Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics last year."
Wow, there is certainly no comeback for that.
Q.E.D. Proof positive that every thought of Mr. Krugman is gold.
Yessir, there, right in front of us, is just further evidence of why newspapers are fast going the way of the dodo.
Oh, the letter-writer's naivete is that he seems to believe the Times would cease publishing something just because it is wrong and full of garbage. Hah!
That's the raison-d'etre for the Times.
An intelligent, but naive, letter to the editor took the Times robots to task for continuing to publish the columns of Paul Krugman: "How many letters do you need to get before you realize this guy is not an economist, but a left-wing extremist."
The crushing rejoinder from the Times editorial page editor: "Editor's note: Princeton economist Paul Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics last year."
Wow, there is certainly no comeback for that.
Q.E.D. Proof positive that every thought of Mr. Krugman is gold.
Yessir, there, right in front of us, is just further evidence of why newspapers are fast going the way of the dodo.
Oh, the letter-writer's naivete is that he seems to believe the Times would cease publishing something just because it is wrong and full of garbage. Hah!
That's the raison-d'etre for the Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
