The Chicken Whisperer

Uh..........

I'm speechless.

I used to respect Max Cleland, but...

First we have Cleland openly parading himself as the token cripple for the Kerry campaign. But, now we have this.

Max Cleland, who made a staged appearance at the Bush ranch Wednesday, was appointed by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank in 2003. The same Max Cleland who is spending nearly all of his time attacking President Bush is, amazingly enough, a Bush political appointee.

According to a bank spokesman, Cleland makes $136,000 a year off this very cushy job. A couple of questions come to mind here: If Cleland had any decency, wouldn't he resign? Why would he accept a political appointment from a man he so loathes and thinks represents the very worst in American politics? Max Cleland's extremely partisan activities are being subsidized by the American taxpayer.

So, Cleland is out campaigning using some extremely harsh language regarding his boss, the man who appointed him. Why hasn't Bush FIRED him yet? (what is it with Bush's inability to fire people who deserve to be fired?) What's worse, is this might not be the most scandalous part of this. Apparently, you can make $136,000 a year for a job you merely have to call in ONCE A WEEK for board meetings. And I thought professional athletes were overpaid.

Board members are subject to the provisions of the Hatch Act that restricts the activities of federal employees. But since they are presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed, the restrictions on them are much lighter, and Cleland's political activities are presumably legal. That doesn't make it any more seemly. The bank spokesman says that there are no time requirements on board members. "Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate are considered to be always on the job," he says. "They don't have 9-5 assignments. They don't have to work eight-hour days. While they are a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate, they are always a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate." Even when they are attacking the president?

What a country.

What He Said II

Jonah Goldberg takes on this idea that you can't judge the politics of war unless you served in the military (and apparently, unless you served right there on John Kerry's boat).

As for the president, the only area in which he beats John Kerry decisively in the polls is, broadly, in his capacity as commander-in-chief. The American people — as well as a majority of veterans and (I presume) those serving in the military — generally think Bush is a better war president than Kerry would be. And yet the Kerry campaign insists that Kerry's stint in Vietnam makes him more qualified to be a war president because George W. Bush's four-year term as a war president cannot outweigh the fact that John Kerry spent four months in Vietnam. Meanwhile a bunch of guys who served alongside Kerry under similar circumstances all say that Kerry's full of it, and the Democrats say they have no right to talk at all. Indeed, they want the book pulled from bookstores. Follow all of that?

But, he points out that bigger problem with this (a viewpoint he notes is not totally unique to liberals, depending on the election year) is that it disqualifies everyone who hasn't been a war zone from being qualified to run for high office. That's absurd, of course, but it's the logical endpoint to this. The irony, of course, is that Starship Troopers (which takes these concepts to the extreme) is considered to be a facists, i.e. right-wing, book:

We do not live in the world of Starship Troopers where only veterans are allowed to vote.

In a democracy, arguments and reason must count for something, if not necessarily everything. During the lead-up to the war, opponents of the war (including hundreds of nasty folks in my e-mail box) declared that the White House had no right to send troops into combat because they hadn't seen it themselves. Or, I remember Chris Matthews trying to bully Rich Lowry into silence during the lead-up to the war. Matthews shrieked at Rich something to the effect of "Have you ever been to the Middle East!?" And when Rich said no, Matthews responded something like "Well, then you have no right to talk."

This is the path to madness. If reading books and articles, talking to experts — including veterans — and making arguments built on facts and logic is always insufficient compared to the experience of being shot at — or taking a walking tour of a Middle Eastern city — then we must have compulsory military conscription for everybody — men, women, Quakers, Amish, gays, and invalids included (and then find ways to rotate them through combat). That's the only way to ensure that everyone maintains their rights.

Of course, that's not what anyone has in mind

Go read the whole thing. The logic is simple and straightforward and it reminds us that we have definately entered the silly season of this election.

Why I Harp on Media Bias

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, puts it all together and notes why the Kerry Christmas in Cambodia story should be a bigger deal than the media is making it out to be. He notes that Kerry exaggerating his war record wouldn't be THAT important if, you know, Kerry had anything else to show for his public service. But, more importantly, it's what this story (among others) says about most of the American media. I was trying to express these frustrations the other day. But, Mr. Reynolds has a great summation, complete with a lot of useful links. A teaser:

Just as who controlled the Senate in 2002 wasn't the most important thing in the world, who wins the White House in 2004 isn't either, except perhaps to those involved. But if the institutional press is, as Evan Thomas suggested, capable of delivering a 15% margin to its preferred candidate, enough to decide almost any election, and if they're willing to go to almost any lengths in delivering that margin, well, then, we've got a serious problem. (And we don't, really, have a democracy.) To me (and to others) that's a bigger deal than Bush v. Kerry, but it's certainly illustrated by the Kerry issues of the last few months.

Now, go read the whole thing (and check out the photo of Kerry's "band of brothers").

Bob Dole knows media bias

Bob Dole doing what Bob Dole does best, telling it like it is. On MSNBC even.

What hath William Shatner Wrought

There's no way I could say anything to match the sheer unintentional comedy of this (via Lileks).

Pop Music Mostly Sucks, Example #932

This news article is a microcosm of why pop music is mostly bankrupt from a creative standpoint. When pop "artists" don't write their own songs, you may accidentally end up with 2 divas trying to record the same song written by some producer. Kind of funny actually.

On a related note, Paris Hilton's pop album is going to be called Paris is Burning. I'm sure she thinks that's a cute and original title. Unfortunately, the last name is a city that is burning thing has already been done.

And while I'm as much of a pig as the next guy, could someone explain to me the appeal of Paris Hilton? I just don't get it. She's not really pretty and the Farah Fawcett late 70's hair-do just ain't working.

"Freedom of the Press" Means Free to Steal an Election

That heading is harsh is it not? But, can you believe that CNN's lead story today is that Edwards is calling for Bush to put a stop to the swift boat ads? This headline is not:

1. about the swift boat vets accusations being true or false?
2. about the fact that one accusation of the Swift Vets has actually been proven to be true (Kerry's false claims of being in Cambodia on Christmas eve, 1968)
2. about Kerry's attempt to squelch free speech by asking the FEC to ban the commercials and asking the publisher of their book to withdraw the book. I'm pretty damn sure if Bush did anything remotely similar he would be slammed for it.
3. about the fact that the ratio of people who served with John Kerry is like 8-1 against John Kerry as president
4. about the simple explanation that the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act does not allow IRS desginated 527's, which are private special interest groups, to cordinate with official campaigns and that Bush "putting a stop" to these ads, as Edwards put it, would constitute coordination.
5. about how campaign finance "reform" has lead to the this very nature of highly negative, "unaffiliated" campaigning by private interests groups.

The swift boat vets book has been out there for 3 weeks and the mainstream media did not bother to mention it (even though they spent weeks giving front page headlines to Bush's National Guard record last year). John Kerry has made his Vietnam service a centerpiece of his campaign. The swift boat vets raise serious questions about the history of that Vietnam service. There used to be a time when the mainstream media would try to cut through the spin and figure out who is lying. But, no, the mainstream media is basically a subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee, and is doing the spinning for the DNC. It is plain as day to anyone with an internet connection that is paying attention . But, unless you watch Fox News (and even they aren't willing to call out their competition), you won't hear any of this.

It's brilliant. John Kerry, with the help of the New York Times and Washington Post, have managed to turn very serious accusations about his Vietnam service (a record mind you, that Kerry wants to be at the forefront of the campaign) into a conventional wisdom that their ads shouldn't even be allowed to air and why isn't Bush putting a stop to it. NEVER have they been asked whether or not the any of that book is actually fucking true.

A free society needs a relevant media as a filter of the facts in our news. And believe me, everyone of those journalists at the New York Times will tell you their job is to protect our democracy and give the truth to the people. Then DO YOUR FUCKING JOB. Stop carrying water for one candidate. Ask some simple questions. The New York Times and Washington Post used the Freedom of Information Act to find out the backgrounds of these swift boat vets. That's fine. That's their job. But, why the hell won't they do that for John Kerry? Why don't they flash across their headlines with the news "John Kerry refueses to release military records."

Of course, we know why. They want Kerry to win. And they are willing to throw the concept of objective journalism down the toilet to get him elected. And in doing so, they are doing severe damage to our democracy which all those J-School graduates were taught to serve. There use to be something called investigative journalism. Now, it's just taking press releases of groups they sympathize with and rehashing those as "news articles." Hell, the Christmas In Cambodia story was proven wrong by merely searching through microfilm at public libraries. Can't Journalists even do that? Apparently not.

Thanks to the internet, I and thousands, hopefully millions, of others get to see the true face of modern journalism. But, we have relatively little power. When you think of all the people who are going to vote in November who depend on getting their news from the network news and the overwhelmingly liberal local newspaper and you realize that those people will not even be aware of some very important details regarding John Kerry, should he win, does that constitute stealing an election? Of course not. Because, as we know, only Republicans steal elections. Because the New York Times told us so.

Sorry for the histerical nature of thise post, it's been building for a while. I always knew there was a mixture of liberal bias and journalistic laziness in the mainstream media. I figured I could filter that out and get the facts I need to make up my own mind. What bothers me and what has hit me like a ton of bricks the last couple of years, is the "free" presses open disregard for facts (see any number of things about the Iraq war that were reported as "facts" and many actual facts that were not reported). I never really appreciated that many in the media really do want to "spin" the news and they are willing to lie, deceive, and distort news that makes their political enemies look bad. They are willing to completely IGNORE news that makes their political opponents look good or their political allies look bad. The journalists at CNN, the NYT, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, NPR are NOT objective. Neither are the folks at Fox News for that matter. All I simply ask is that they admit it. They let us in on their little secret that they are political activists with an agenda. I know, this is nothing new. But the extent of the distortion, of the propagandist nature of modern journalism is sad thing to behold. I hope and pray that the majority of the American public (particularly the VOTING public) are fully aware of this and are seeking out the truth. A truth that is available somewhere. Just not where we've always expected it to be.

Hitting a little close to home it appears

Kerry is asking the FCC to put a stop to the airings of the Swift Vets for Truth ads. Anyone want to make a bet that if Bush asked to have MoveOn.org ads stopped, that there would be cries of censorship? Just asking.

Welcome Back to the World, Europe

I don't link to Victor Davis Hanson nearly enough. He's one of the best writers of our time. He's able to break things down to the nitty gritty, all the while recognizing living history. His latest addresses the end of Europe's free ride on military defense.

Europe, as the perpetual adolescent, took potshots at its doting parent, always with the assumption that Dad would still hand over the keys, ignore the cheap sass, and "be there for me" if the car ended up in the ditch.

And he reminds us, and the Europeans of their good fortune:

...for all the leftist slurs about unilateralism, never in the history of civilization has such a powerful country as the United States sought advice and cooperation from weaker friends about the wisdom, efficacy, and consequences of using its vast military.

There's a lot more of that; go check it out.