Tag Archives: congress

Helicopters vs. Mustangs: A Roundup Racket? | Animal Rights Advocates Say the Methods Are Cruel

Helicopters vs. mustangs: A roundup 'racket'? Animal rights advocates say the methods are cruel, expensive and unnecessary Helicopters vs. Mustangs: Cruel, expensive and unnecessary, animal activists say More than 1,200 wild horses have been captured in the current roundup Jim Wilson/The New York Times The aim of roundups is to reduce the horse population to more sustainable levels. OUTSIDE RAVENDALE, Calif. — It is horse versus helicopter here in the high desert. On one side are nearly 40,000 horses spread over 10 states, whose presence on the range is a last vestige of the Old West. On the other is a group of crusty cowboys whose chosen method of roundup involves rotors more than wrangling, using high-tech helicopters to drive galloping mustangs into low-tech traps. “When they get in here, they know something’s going on,” said Dave Cattoor, 68, a straight-talking roundup expert who has been herding horses since he was 12. “The chips are down.” Over the last month, Mr. Cattoor and his feral quarry have been doing battle under the dry, horizon-to-horizon skies of northeastern California and a neighboring Nevada county, with humans the inevitable victor. More than 1,200 horses have been captured during the current roundup, much to the chagrin of people like Simone Netherlands, an animal rights advocate who says that the roundups — part of a nationwide push to take some 12,000 horses off public lands — are cruel, expensive and unnecessary. “They’re running at full speed for miles and miles for hours, with babies, little babies, and they don’t let up on them,” Ms. Netherlands said. “They’re stressing them out to the max.” The Bureau of Land Management, which is overseeing the roundup, disputes that, saying that the roundups are humane and that it must reduce the wild horse population to more sustainable levels, both for their health and for that of the other animals that live in this harsh terrain. “Some advocate groups would like us to leave the horses out there and let nature take its course,” said Bob Abbey, director of the bureau. “We don’t believe that’s a sound option.” Dollars and dead horses The debate over roundups dates back decades, to the passage of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, a federal law that protected what was then a faltering wild horse population and made it illegal for cowboys like Mr. Cattoor to round up horses on their own for sport or profit. “A cowboy really wasn’t a cowboy if you didn’t rope a wild horse,” Mr. Cattoor said. “But they stopped that. They stopped the maintenance, which costs nothing, and turned it into a multimillion-dollar deal. It’s crazy.” Questions about the roundups have intensified in recent years as costs have mounted, both in dollars and in dead horses. Seven horses have died in the current operation, and last winter, a roundup in Nevada resulted in over 100 horse deaths, prompting more than 50 members of Congress to ask Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to look for independent analysis of the bureau’s Wild Horse and Burro Program. Late last month, the bureau did just that, asking the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a technical review of the program. Horses that are captured are offered for adoption, but with demand for horses low and the cost of feed high, the government often ends up quartering them on large private ranches, primarily in Kansas and Oklahoma. In 2009, about 70 percent of the entire program’s $40.6 million budget was spent holding 34,500 horses and burros, a system that the Government Accountability Office has concluded will “overwhelm the program” if not controlled. “They are a symbol of the American West,” said Nathaniel Messer, a professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Missouri and a former member of the federal Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Committee. “But do we need 35,000 symbols of the American West?” 'What you call a racket' For critics like Deniz Bolbol, the pattern of roundup, removal and stockpiling is an example of the bureau’s catering to private interests on public lands, namely by favoring livestock ranchers — who pay the government for the right to graze and who can sell their animals — over wild horses, which cannot be sold for slaughter. “We remove wild horses from the public lands so private livestock can graze, and then we ship the wild horses to private ranchers in the Midwest where we stockpile them and pay private ranchers,” said Ms. Bolbol, a spokeswoman for the group In Defense of Animals, which has sued to stop the roundups. “This is what you call a racket.” And while Mr. Cattoor calls Ms. Bolbol and other protesters “fanatics,” he does not think the government’s reliance on big, periodic roundups makes much sense either, saying the bureau needs more steady maintenance of the wild herds, which can double in size every four years. Perhaps the only other thing the two sides can agree on is that the horses — whose estimated populations range from about 120 in New Mexico to more than 17,000 in Nevada — are magnificent. Art DiGrazia, the operations chief for one of the bureau’s wild horse and burro offices in California, said that some of the mustangs on the range were descended from Army cavalry horses, which were bred for size, speed and strength and left here or given to ranchers. “They have the intelligence and endurance to work out in this country,” said Mr. DiGrazia, a bearded New Jersey native who speaks in a hoarse whisper. “They’ll know before you know that there’s something out there going on.” Judas horse The method of capture is simple: horses are located from helicopters, which have been used in roundups since the mid-1970s, and pushed toward the trap site, essentially a funnel shaped by two netted walls that lead into a temporary corral. Once the herd runs into the funnel, Mr. Cattoor lets loose a so-called Judas horse, which is trained to lead the rest into the trap, where — uncombed, unshod and often stomping and biting — they slowly settle into their new lives as kept animals. All of which is more humane than the old days, said Mr. Cattoor, who recalls cowboys using rope and brawn to bring in a herd, often injuring horses and horsemen alike. “You have to really put the pound on them,” he said. “You’d have to get them sore footed and tired, and there’s a lot of problems with getting them really tired. Today, at this point, this is the best we can do.” One recent morning, Mr. Cattoor and his team conducted several successful runs — 10 horses in one, a handful in another — before a small herd of four horses, their black manes and wild tails flying, came running full-tilt across the desert. The helicopter was close on their heels, whipping up curlicues of dust in the horses’ wake. They were headed straight for the trap, when suddenly the herd broke, with three horses escaping across a field, while a single stallion — the leader — galloped in another direction. The pilot, perhaps 50 feet up, chose to follow the larger group, but horse sense had its way; the three headed into a patch of trees, where helicopters cannot pursue. The stallion, meanwhile, disappeared up a ridge and back into the wild. Mr. Cattoor watched it all, standing near his Judas horse with a resigned smile, as roundup opponents watched happily from a public viewing station several hundred feet away. “These wild horse advocates love it when the horse beats the helicopter,” Mr. Cattoor said. “And they do sometimes win.” This story, headlined ” Horse Advocates Pull for Underdog in Roundups,” first appeared in The New York Times. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39023276/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/ http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/100906_NYThorseschopper.grid… added by: EthicalVegan

Washington Post/MSNBC’s Robinson Plagiarizes Peter Jennings on Electorate’s ‘Temper Tantrum’

The late Peter Jennings, shortly after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994: “Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week.” Washington Post Associate Editor Eugene Robinson , a frequent guest analyst on MSNBC, in his Friday column on polls showing voters will throw out Democrats, again, in November: “This isn’t an ‘electoral wave,’ it’s a temper tantrum.” More Jennings from 1994: “Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.” And more from Robinson this year: “The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.” James Taranto highlighted the similarities in his Friday “Best of the Web Today ” for the Wall Street Journal’s online opinion page. Then-ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings in his daily ABC Radio commentary of November 14, 1994, the winner of the “ Sore Losers Award (for Midterm Election Reporting) ” in the MRC’s “ The Best Notable Quotables of 1994: The Seventh Annual Awards for the Year’s Worst Reporting .” Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It’s clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It’s the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week….Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old. Robinson’s September 3 column, “ The spoiled-brat American electorate ,” began: According to polls, Americans are in a mood to hold their breath until they turn blue. Voters appear to be so fed up with the Democrats that they’re ready to toss them out in favor of the Republicans — for whom, according to those same polls, the nation has even greater contempt. This isn’t an “electoral wave,” it’s a temper tantrum. Later: But there’s no mistaking the public mood, and the truth is that it makes no sense. In the punditry business, it’s considered bad form to question the essential wisdom of the American people. But at this point, it’s impossible to ignore the obvious: The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

See the original post here:
Washington Post/MSNBC’s Robinson Plagiarizes Peter Jennings on Electorate’s ‘Temper Tantrum’

ENDA is about men showering with women

Barney Frank: ENDA is about men showering with women Date: 8/27/2010 9:53:29 AM By Bryan Fischer “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27, emphasis mine). According to both Scripture and biology, there are just two genders, two and only two, male and female. Period. Pro-family advocates have from the beginning opposed the normalizing of transgenderism because it does gross violence to any rational view of human sexuality, and, even worse, will force women to share shower, bathroom and locker-room facilities with biological males. Nonsense, we’ve been told by the deviancy cabal. All hype, fear, and exaggeration. Nothing to fear here except homophobia, move along. It’s all just fear-mongering, nothing like that will ever happen. Your daughter will never run into a disrobed male in the locker room of your local public pool. This is an ongoing battle in our day, at the state level as well as the congressional level. This spring, Maine very nearly enacted a policy that would require ENDA-type regulations in every school in the state, including private Christian schools. It was narrowly turned back. A major goal of the Democrats in the current Congress is to get a transvestite-friendly ENDA bill passed this year. No worries, they say. Pro-family opponents are just trying to scare you with all this bathroom and locker room talk. And then along comes Rep. Barney Frank, the homosexual congressman from Massachusetts, to inadvertently save the day. Democrats tried to pass ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) in 1999, and were under extreme pressure to include transgenders under its umbrella. Transgenders are people who are so psychologically and mentally confused they think they are trapped in a body of the wrong sex. So we are talking here about biological males – males in every single cell of their bodies, with every strand of DNA male to the core, males according to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” – who are convinced that they are women trapped in male bodies. Consequently, they want to act as women, dress as women, and use the same facilities women use, including bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms. The pro-family community has spoken with one voice. No, no, a thousand times no. We do not want our wives and daughters exposed to such perversion. We insist on a decent protection for the privacy of the females in our families, and do not believe that males have any moral, ethical or legal right to share shower facilities with them. In a long-buried piece from the homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows, dated June 10, 1999, Mr. Frank lets the proverbial cat out of the cathouse. In fending off transgendered activists, Frank told the paper it would be impossible to pass an ENDA bill which included special protections for such sexually abnormal individuals. Here’s what he had to say: “I’ve talked with transgender activists and what they want—and what we will be forced to defend—is for people with penis’ who identify as women to be able to shower with other women. There are no votes for that. And if that is the price for this bill, it is wrong.” (Emphasis mine) Read that again: ENDA, as currently fashioned, is about “people with penis’ who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.” Rep. Frank said since that’s what this bill is about, we’d have to defend that. They didn’t have the votes to do it in 1999. But they’re back, trying to break down the door to your daughter’s locker room in 2010. So if you want your daughter to share a shower at your school, or at the local YMCA, with “people with penis’,” then Barney Frank and his ruling class colleagues are the kind of congressmen you want. But if you want any kind of sane public policy on human sexuality, then they’re not. For my money, this is the ENDA the discussion about whether the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is good public policy. Let’s protect our wives and daughters and drive this misbegotten piece of legislation into oblivion. http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147497842 added by: ReverandG

Lauer to Laura Bush: Is It ‘Painful’ to Be in New Orleans, Since So Much Blame Is Laid At Your Husband’s Feet?

Today co-anchor Matt Lauer traveled to New Orleans, on Friday, to mark the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and interviewed the likes of former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, former FEMA Director Mike Brown, current Democratic Mayor Mitch Landrieu and Louisiana  Governor Bobby Jindal, but saved any sort of direct shots at George W. Bush for his interview with Laura Bush. At the very end of his August 27 interview about her charitable work in the region, Lauer laid the following guilt trip on the former First Lady: [ audio available here ] MATT LAUER: There’s no easy way to ask this question, I’m just gonna ask it. Is it ever painful for you to come back to this region, because in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it seems so much of the blame for what happened or didn’t happen here was laid at the feet of your husband? LAURA BUSH: No, not really. I mean I feel very close to the people on the Gulf Coast and always have. And, and I know what the circumstances were. And of course the President takes the blame in any situation, as we can see now with the new president. But I also knew what George really thought and how he felt about the, the Gulf Coast. We gave unprecedented support. The United States Congress passed large bills. I think $180 billion that George signed and has come to the Gulf Coast. And what we’ve seen really is so inspirational. The people here, the school people are the ones that I’ve been with the most. And they came back, when they were in FEMA trailers or living with relatives and did everything they could to rebuild their schools so kids could come back. LAUER: I know the people of the region are thankful for the work you and your foundation are doing here. Mrs. Bush thanks for joining us this morning. I appreciate it.

Read more from the original source:
Lauer to Laura Bush: Is It ‘Painful’ to Be in New Orleans, Since So Much Blame Is Laid At Your Husband’s Feet?

CBO’s Rosy Stimulus Numbers Have Little Basis in Reality, But Media Again Report Them as Fact

In the media’s continued effort to sell the stimulus to the American public, reality is simply a nuisance. It’s much easier to use rosy economic projections with little to no grounding in the real world, and to refrain from informing readers just how disconnected from reality those models are. That is exactly what many in the media have done since the Congressional Budget Office released numbers yesterday ( pdf ) claiming that the stimulus has, in the words of ABCNews.com reporter Andy Sullivan, “put millions of people to work and boosted national output by hundreds of billions of dollars in the second quarter.” The only problem with this reasoning: it has no basis in reality. Those employment and economic growth numbers exist only on paper. The models may tell economists and policymakers that a certain number of jobs have been created, but that number has literally no connection to the actual unemployment situation. Of course that hasn’t stopped the media from reporting CBO’s numbers as fact before. And once again, they’ve demonstrated their own disconnect from reality. There are two essential problems with CBO’s findings: first, they assumes what they purport to demonstrate. CBO accepts as given that each dollar in stimulus spent will create X number of jobs and Y points of economic growth. The logic looks like this: the stimulus creates jobs, therefore the stimulus created jobs. Second, the CBO’s analysis, by its own admission, did not take into account what could have happened without the stimulus. So it is entirely possible that the economy could have created more jobs and economic growth without the legislation. The latter point is simple economic logic, but it is also reinforced by scholarship. A recent study at Harvard Business School found that the more money federal legislators sent back to their home states or districts, the more private businesses in those areas retrenched. Private sector economic activity actually decreased as more pork left Washington. Ed Morrissey wrote of the study’s findings: If this seems counterintuitive, it might be from marinating too long in Beltway conventional wisdom. When private entities (citizens or businesses) retain capital, it gets used in a more rational manner, mainly because the entity has competitive incentives to use capital wisely and efficiently. The private entity also has his own interests in mind, and can act quickly to use the capital to its best application. Private entities innovate and look to create and expand markets, creating more growth. Since the stimulus is just a massive pork barrel project, it stands to reason that it could adversely affect economic activity even where it is most heavily targeted. Could that actually be the case? Well, according to the CBO report released yesterday, Although CBO has examined data on output and employment during the period since ARRA’s enactment, those data are not as helpful in determining ARRA’s economic effects as might be supposed because isolating the effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law. In other words, the report did not examine what the economy might have looked like absent the stimulus package. Considering the media’s fondness for touting jobs saved – a completely hypothetical claim – one would imagine they would at least ponder the possibility of a stimulus-less economy. Of course even CBO’s measurements concerning stimulus spending were a tired exercise in theoretical economics. It was the same methodology the CBO has been using since the stimulus passed, and – surprise! – it produced nearly identical results. Reason’s Peter Suderman reported in March: …In response to a question at a speech earlier this month, CBO director Doug Elmendorf laid out the CBO’s methodology pretty clearly, describing the his office’s frequent, legally-required stimulus reports as “repeating the same exercises we [aleady] did rather than an independent check on it.” CBO tweaks its models on the input side, he says-adjusting, for example, how much money the government has spent. But the results the CBO reports-like the job creation figures-are simply a function of the inputs it records, not real-world counts. Following up, the questioner asks for clarification: “If the stimulus bill did not do what it was originally forecast to do, then that would not have been detected by the subsequent analysis, right?” Elmendorf’s response? “That’s right. That’s right.” Even if it were acceptable to use models to gauge economic growth without actually examining the economy, we now know that the stimulus was a failure even by the most basic standards of federal spending aimed at promoting economic growth. Former White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey claims he was cited as a supporter of a generic stimulus package before the measure was actually passed. But even Lindsey, who supported the idea of a stimulus package in the abstract, wrote earlier this month that “the bill that was actually passed into law was both so expensive and so badly flawed that it gives the whole concept of macroeconomic stimulus a bad name.” Since the projections in CBO’s models are based on previous experience with economic stimulus packages – as is, presumably, Lindsey’s support for a theoretical stimulus – assuming that those models apply neatly to today’s economic situation is misguided at best. Despite all of these facts, many in the media have trumpeted the CBO’s findings as irrefutable signs that the stimulus saved the American economy from even greater catastrophe. The Washington Post , the Associated Press , Bloomberg , and ABC News are four outlets that reported CBO’s findings without mentioning that its numbers were based on economic models that were not derived from actual economic conditions, and do not take into account the failures of the actual bill to do what its supporters claimed it would. The CBO was forced to do something similar during the health care debate, when Democratic congressional leaders were scrambling to keep the bill’s price tag below a trillion dollars. Even if CBO knows its forecasts or predictions are beyond the pale of reality, they must score what Congress gives them. The CBO does not presume to know what would have happened had the stimulus package not been passed at all. Research suggests that the economy could even have been better with no federal spending at all. This possibility also escaped mention by these reporters. It’s getting continually more difficult to tout the successes of the stimulus by using real-world examples. The media, apparently, have devised a solution: ignore reality.

Read this article:
CBO’s Rosy Stimulus Numbers Have Little Basis in Reality, But Media Again Report Them as Fact

The Specter of a Lame Duck Congress

I have no idea what is going to happen in the November congressional elections, but it seems the polls — for what they’re worth — predict a huge Republican win. It may or may not happen, I just don’t know, but if it does and the aisles of Congress are littered with Democrats who will be kicked out in the New Year, will they feel they don’t have anything to lose and try to pass the remainder of their socialistic agenda before they’re forced to leave. And if lame duck Democrats try to do this will the Republicans and remaining Democrats who will return have the guts and the honor to block them? Will they let cap and trade, card check and all the other catastrophic crap they have proposed be passed? America has not even begun to feel the lash of Obama’s whip from the legislation his sycophants have already passed. The cost of health care insurance is already going up in anticipation of the restrictions Obamacare will put on insurance companies. The federal unemployment numbers continue to hover right around 10% and there’s no telling what the actual numbers are. The economy is headed for the pits and you could run out of ink trying to add all the zeros to the national debt. How much more can this nation take? We may well find out with a lame duck Congress, a room full of ticked off losers who want to show the country that they’ll still have their way although the very programs they would be passing into law are what got them kicked out of office to start with. But let’s just get something straight; just because somebody has an “R” after their name doesn’t mean they are the kind of conservatives it will take to undo some of the damage Obama and the Democrats have done. Remember some of them were bitter disappointments voting for bills they knew their constituents were against and some of them sold out for favors only them and Obama’s operatives know about. I don’t claim to know what it will take to bring America out this morass we’re in but there are a few common sense factors that are tried and true. The old Democrat mantra, “tax cuts for the rich” is misleading it’s not the rich they’re hurting when they raise taxes. The rich people are going to get along just fine. They’ll just hang on to their money instead of investing it in businesses to create more jobs. The card check proposal is nothing short of ridiculous. What business is it of anybody’s how somebody casts their vote for union leadership or anything else for that matter? This just opens someone up for intimidation and ostracizing and subverts the very heart of the Democratic process. Nobody even knows how the health care fiasco will play out, even those in Congress who sold out the people who voted them in to pass it. But there’s something I can guarantee you; the cost of health care will go up instead of going down as Obama said it would. In fact it’s going way up. If nothing else, the new bureaucracies it will take to administer and enforce it will see to that. Obama is insincere in really wanting to do something to bring down the cost of health care as no meaningful bill could possible leave out tort reform. If we’re not going to let our troops win the war in Afghanistan, we should just write off that part of the world and bring them home. Why keep dribbling American lives down the drain in a country where most of the people don’t want us there to start with. The only way we’ll ever destroy the Taliban is to accept tremendous collateral damage to the civilian population and evidently we’re never going to do that so why stay? A year or so after we pull the troops out of Iraq that country will go right back to what it was except this time the mullahs in Iran will be calling the shots. The most dangerous and powerful enemy in that part of the world is Iran; they export terrorism and arm our enemies. Until something meaningful is done about them our efforts in that part of the world are meaningless and any victory is temporary. Playing politics with the energy production in this country is going to play out to be a stupid and horribly costly mistake because one day. Sooner than later, the oil from the Persian Gulf will suddenly stop coming to this country. We should be drilling in ANWR, and the shale deposits in our western states and bring these sources on line before this catastrophe happens. I agree that we should be pursuing alternative energy sources for all we’re worth, but let’s face it… We’ve been pursuing them for years and are not anywhere near the point that we can depend on them. Let’s go for it, make an all out effort to harness wind and water, create fuel cells, build nuclear plants, discover non-food supply sources of ethanol. But in the meantime, we’re going to need petroleum and we’re not going to get it by the feeble and superficial gestures the federal government is making. You want alternative energy? Make it profitable for the private sector. Get out of their way and it will happen. A government that sues a state for keeping the law and turns a blind eye to sanctuary cities for breaking it is seriously out of balance and needs to have its priorities adjusted. Let’s hope that will happen in November.

See more here:
The Specter of a Lame Duck Congress

Eight Years of Bias: The Liberal Media vs. the War in Iraq

The peaceful departure of the last U.S. combat forces from Iraq this week was another milestone towards the successful end of a war that many liberal journalists declared lost four years ago. Since early 2009, the war in Iraq has been a relatively low priority for the national press, which has focused on decrying the war in Afghanistan and cheerleading the Obama administration’s aggressive domestic agenda. But over the last eight years — since journalists began decrying what they termed the Bush administration’s “rush to war” in August 2002, a full seven months before the first bombs fell — the Media Research Center has analyzed TV coverage of the Iraq conflict. The bottom line: reporters were obvious skeptics from the very beginning, and did all they could to push withdrawal and defeat before George W. Bush’s surge strategy saved the day. A quick review of the media’s approach over the past eight years, with many links to the additional information that can be found at www.MRC.org: ■ Pre-War Opponents. Contrary to prevailing liberal mythology , all three networks (especially ABC) tilted their pre-war news in favor of Bush administration opponents. Covering the congressional debate over using force, for example, the networks gave a majority of soundbites (59%) to the losing anti-war side , or roughly double the percentage of Senators and Representatives who actually voted against using force (29%). Despite the claim that the media never “asked tough questions,” an MRC study of all Iraq stories on ABC’s World News Tonight during September 2002 discovered that ABC reporters were nearly four times more likely to voice doubt about the truthfulness of statements by U.S. officials than Iraqi claims.  Reporters also sanitized the “peace” movement , masking the radical affiliations of left-wing organizers while showcasing more sympathetic “middle class” demonstrators. ■ Combat Coverage. When the U.S. and its coalition partners began carefully targeted bombing of government buildings Baghdad on March 21, 2003, then-MSNBC anchor Brian Williams compared it to notorious attacks during World War II that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians: “That vista on the lower-left looks like Dresden, it looks like some of the firebombing of Japanese cities during World War II.” Writing in the New York Times the next morning, reporter David Chen compared it to the terrorist attack on New York City : “For some, the bombing brought back particularly visceral and chilling memories. They could not help thinking about Sept. 11, and how New York, too, was once under assault from the skies.” But worst of all was NBC/MSNBC correspondent Peter Arnett , who reported lies about U.S. use of “cluster bombs” against Iraqi civilians. Arnett was later fired for denouncing the U.S. in a Saddam propaganda video just days before the regime toppled: “Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces….Now America is re-appraising the battlefield, delaying the war, maybe a week, and re-writing the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance; now they are trying to write another war plan.” ■ Capture of Saddam Hussein: When the former Iraqi dictator was captured in December 2003, ABC anchor Peter Jennings sniffed that “there’s not a good deal for Iraqis to be happy about at the moment. Life is still very chaotic, beset by violence in many cases, huge shortages. In some respects, Iraqis keep telling us life is not as stable for them as it was when Saddam Hussein was in power.” For a despot who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, the coverage was surprisingly sympathetic. “The tyrant has fallen. But for some, he’s a fallen hero ,” CBS’s Kimberly Dozer relayed. “Saddam Hussein also gave Iraqis dignity and pride. He became a symbol of defiance across the Arab world, never backing down from a fight….Those who loved him and those who hated him still can’t separate the man from the country in their minds. For many, his humiliation is their own.” ■ Waves of Bad News. In 2005, Iraq was a mixed bag — historic democratic elections, but continued violence. But an MRC study that year showed the network coverage emphasized the bad news. Out of 1,712 evening news stories, the lion’s share (848, or 61%) focused on U.S. casualties, bombings, kidnappings or political setbacks, compared to just 245 (14%) that reported positive developments. (The remainder were mixed or neutral.) An MRC study of cable news coverage in 2006 found that all three networks emphasized bad news, although the Fox News Channel aired nearly as many stories about coalition success in Iraq (81) as CNN (41) and MSNBC (47) combined. The media’s inordinately negative tone was both frustrating and perplexing to those with first-hand knowledge of the situation. On November 22, 2005, for example, the Washington Times ran a lengthy op-ed from an anonymous Marine in Iraq: “Morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them….They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see s*** like ‘Are we losing in Iraq?’ on television.” ■ Hyping Misdeeds, Hiding Heroes. In 2006, the networks jumped on unproved charges of a Marine “massacre” at Haditha, with more than 200 minutes of coverage in three weeks. Referring to the killing of hundreds of Vietnamese civilians back in 1968, ABC’s Terry Moran wondered “Will Haditha be the My Lai of the Middle East?” But allegations of a heinous war crime have so far been unfounded: Of the eight Marines originally charged, one has been found not guilty and charges against six others have been dismissed. The trial of the last Marine, Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich , begins next month. While the networks were excited by charges of wrongdoing against U.S. servicemen, an MRC study of coverage from 2001 through 2006 found those news organizations gave just 52 minutes to the stories of America’s highest-decorated soldiers in the war on terror. Fourteen of the top 20 medal recipients up to that time had gone completely unmentioned by the broadcast networks. ■ Battling Bush’s Surge: The Bush administration’s attempt to salvage the situation in Iraq met with a blizzard of hostile coverage in January 2007. Ex-NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw scoffed that sending more troops to Iraq would “seem to most people…like a folly.” NBC’s White House reporter David Gregory suggested even White House insiders have lost faith: “As the President prepares to start a new phase of the war in Iraq, the White House is fending off charges that key figures in the administration have concluded the war is lost.” Over on CBS, correspondent Lara Logan counseled that an earlier experiment adding 12,000 troops into Baghdad “made absolutely no difference….In fact, security here in Baghdad got even worse.” The networks remained openly skeptical eight months later as General David Petraeus gave Congress his first status report on the operation. “Insurgent attacks are down,” ABC’s Terry McCarthy noted on the September 9, 2007 World News Sunday, the day before Petraeus testified before Congress. But “Iraq remains a very violent place….Life in central Iraq is still deadly dangerous.” CBS’s David Martin contended: “Victory is not at hand, not even in sight.” ■ Little Time for Good News. By late 2007, however, the surge strategy denigrated by network correspondents had borne obvious fruit. But the reaction of the broadcast evening newscasts was to begin walking away from the Iraq story. Network coverage dropped from 178 stories/month in September 2007 to just 68 stories/month in November 2007. By February 2008, coverage had dropped to barely 40 stories/month . The end of combat operations is really a postscript to what should have been the big headline, the success of the U.S. surge strategy in smashing the al-Qaeda fueled insurgency that was plaguing Iraq in 2006.

Continue reading here:
Eight Years of Bias: The Liberal Media vs. the War in Iraq

Open Thread: The True Meaning of Charity

Is charitable giving distorting Americans’ view of the public good? Kimberly Dennis thinks it might be.  Bill Gates and Warren Buffett announced this month that 40 of America’s richest people have agreed to sign a “Giving Pledge” to donate at least half of their wealth to charity. With a collective net worth said to total $230 billion, that promise translates to at least $115 billion. It’s an impressive number. Yet some-including Messrs. Gates and Buffett-say it isn’t enough. Perhaps it’s actually too much: the wealthy may help humanity more as businessmen and women than as philanthropists. What are the chances, after all, that the two forces behind the Giving Pledge will contribute anywhere near as much to the betterment of society through their charity as they have through their business pursuits? In building Microsoft, Bill Gates changed the way the world creates and shares knowledge. Warren Buffett’s investments have birthed and grown innumerable profitable enterprises, making capital markets work more efficiently and enriching many in the process. Do we have a distorted view of charity and the public good, or should the wealthiest Americans feel obligated to “give back”? 

More:
Open Thread: The True Meaning of Charity

WaPo’s Eugene Robinson: Obama Is On A ‘Winning Streak’

What kind of shameless shill do you have to be to claim the President is on a winning streak as his poll numbers plummet, the economy teeters on a double-dip recession, and his Party is facing historic losses in both chambers of Congress? A Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and former managing editor of the Washington Post, that’s who. Consider that just days after numerous polls were released showing America’s confidence in Barack Obama at an all-time low, and stallwart supporters such as CNN and the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd claimed that even George W. Bush was better at delivering a coherent message to the American people, Eugene Robinson wrote the following Friday: This is a radical break from journalistic convention, I realize, but today I’d like to give credit where it’s due — specifically, to President Obama. Quiet as it’s kept, he’s on a genuine winning streak. Robinson then listed the following items by way of recent headlines: “Last U.S. combat troops leave Iraq” “General Motors to launch stock offering” “Gulf oil spill contained” But here was the best one. In fact, it’s so good it requires a serious warning to remove all fluids, combustibles, and sharp objects from proximity to your computer: And finally, “President wades into mosque controversy”: Yes, I’m serious. Supporting the mosque in Lower Manhattan didn’t score any political points. But Obama saw his duty to uphold the values of our Constitution and make clear that our fight is against the terrorists, not against Islam itself. Instead of doing what was popular, he did what was right. He still hasn’t walked on water, though. What’s wrong with the man? Yep. Robinson is so captivated by this President that he even believes Obama has handled the Ground Zero mosque situation well. Now THAT’S some impressive shilling, wouldn’t you agree? This is sooooo good it requires what Hillary Clinton would call a willing suspension of disbelief. For instance, here are some recent headlines one would have to ignore to come to the conclusion Obama is on a winning streak: Jobless claims hit 500K, a nine-month high New jobs numbers: Bad for economy, worse for Democrats US unemployment figures increase fears of double-dip recession Critics say Obama’s message becoming ‘ incoherent ‘ If polls are any indication, GOP can expect big gains in the fall Even the Poor Are Abandoning Obama , According to Gallup Poll Data ‎ Obama Sees New Lows in Job Approval Obama Receives Low Marks in Economic Poll ‎ Poll: Majority now disapprove of Obama’s job performance 1 in 5 Americans Thinks Obama Is Muslim If this is what Robinson thinks is a winning streak, I can’t imagine what losing looks like to him.

View post:
WaPo’s Eugene Robinson: Obama Is On A ‘Winning Streak’

Al Gore calls for climate protest, and we must answer

http://blog.algore.com/2010/08/the_movement_we_need.html In a post on his blog yesterday, Al Gore called for climate protests in America in response to the betrayal by our Congress in doing its moral duty to address the climate crisis. This is no small news, (though it will be treated as such in our media) this is a clarion call to begin a social movement to reclaim our soul as a nation and our moral conscience as a species make no mistake about that. Yet already the naysayers are attacking his words saying it is impossible, insane, and won't happen, especially in a bad recession. Funny how these same people don't seem to be complaining about unnecessary wars on two fronts causing trillions in deficits during a bad recession. But I digress. But allow me to answer their claims. Firstly, this will be an arduous task. That is a given especially here in America where on the whole people do not yet equate climate justice with jobs. We need to change that. People in America on the whole also do not yet equate something happening across the world with the potential to affect their lives. We need to explain that it indeed does and show them how it is affecting them now. People due to the already overabundance of partisan political spin also think this is solely a political issue. We definitely need to debunk that. In other words, this movement must not only be about protest, but accountability, education, enlightenment, moral conscience and solutions. Though as arduous a task as that may be it is definitely not impossible. It is no more impossible than the Civil Rights Movement or the Women's Suffrage Movement which dealt with many more obstacles regarding apparatus and getting the word out. In this technological age there should be little problem in organizing such a sustained movement. All we need is the will to do it, and we must. Secondly, I truly do question those who would call standing up for our only home insane. I personally believe it is insanity to continue to plunder and destroy the biodiversity of this planet. And that is exactly what we are doing. Our species, our oceans, plantlife, crops, all suffering from the overabundance of pollutants and toxins in our water and atmosphere and the effects of a warming world. Crops worldwide ruined by floods, droughts, and wildlfires which bring soil degradation, erosion to beaches causing sea level rise, and hunger from lack of food as well as a decline in potable water sources. Glaciers worldwide melting at a rapacious pace due to warming temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, burning of carbon sinks, wasteful land management practices, black carbon(soot)and political impasse. The cost of such catastrophes if we remain on the road we are on will far exceed any such accountability placed on those causing this devastation. And the cost will not only be monetary, but it has been and will be in lives and in the quality of life. Therefore, standing up for our planet to reverse these destructive behaviors is the least insane thing we could do now as a species as we see our world hurtling towards the abyss. And lastly, it won't happen. This sounds more like wishful thinking for some than an actual fact to me, because even though there are many who fall in the above categories there are also millions in this country who do see the threat this crisis places on our ability to sustain our species in years to come. Only, they have been silent, or silenced. Silenced by big oil and coal lobbies. Silenced by a complicit media pumping out talking points and misinformation 24/7 in a desperate attempt to stay awash in profits. Silenced by a political system stained by oil and fear of change. And that is exactly why a nationwide climate justice movement is so desperately needed now. Strength in numbers, in purpose, in focus. I have lived my life from the time I was a very young girl of 12 always cognizant of my actions and how they would affect the present and the future. Always cognizant of the world I wanted my child to live in. A world of peace, prosperity, equality, and with an environment that reflected the true beauty and balance of humans. I'm not about to give up on that now. So I applaud Mr. Gore's throwing down the gauntlet and hope to see it and will participate in it. Because as arduous a task as it may be fraught with intimidation and even fears, there are some things more important than fear and this is one of them. Looking into the future taking into account the present world we live in and the world we will make if we do this as opposed to not doing it, there is no choice. And contrary to what some are saying, it wouldn't be a movement to call just for a carbon tax. This is about having a social movement that defines what we are as a species. This is about working to preserve this planet for future generations because as it stands now we are failing miserably on that score. This is about calling on politicians of all parties to do what is morally right. This is about us standing up with our collective conscience to a threat to our survival. This is about seeing the big picture. I have no illusions regarding the road ahead. However, it is a moment in history that will be shaped by what we choose to do and the future will judge us on it. I choose to stand on the side of truth and on the side of moral conscience. We cannot desert our Earth now for to do so would be a grave offense as well to those we love. This isn't just about carbon taxes or dividends; or solar panels; or green jobs; this is about who you see when you look in the mirror, and who looks up to you. Thank you Mr. Gore. I surely hope we are up to this generational challenge. added by: JanforGore