In his April 27 Journal-World column entitled “Talk radio promotes anger,” KU Law School professor Mike Hoeflich writes about his recent encounter with talk radio.
Hoeflich concludes that the talk radio he has heard is “dangerous,” and that talk show hosts are “very angry people who seem to use their shows as a form of public therapy.” (Translation: “These hosts are conservatives—they must be crazy.”)
Hoeflich goes on to write that the hosts frequently make false or misleading statements. “I have just been shocked by the number of times I have heard talk show hosts make incorrect statements of fact,” Hoeflich writes. “Sometimes I think that they simply make things up as they go along. I suppose that the explanation for this may well be that no one can know everything and since people often telephone with obscure questions, one cannot expect the host's show to know all the answers. But must they give incorrect answers?”
Oddly, nowhere in his 600-word column does Hoeflich cite an example of a false or misleading statement. One would expect an attorney to provide evidence to back up a charge.
Hoeflich then takes a stab at determining the make up of the talk radio audience. “My sense is that the listeners tend to be people in cars and trucks, elderly folks sitting at home, and those who, for one reason or another, have little better to do,” he writes.
This may come as a surprise to Hoeflich, but there are many people who are capable of listening to talk radio at the same time they are doing other things. In fact, many of those people in cars and trucks are actually driving while listening. As far as being elderly (ageism, anyone?), a Talkers Magazine survey in 2004 found that just 7 percent of the talk radio audience is 65 or older. Eighty-four percent of the audience is between 25 and 64, i.e., the years during which most people are in the workforce. Seventy-two percent voted in the 2000 election, 70 percent have at least some college, and 68 percent have annual household incomes over $50,000. It appears as if the talk radio audience includes many in the productive middle class, not folks with nothing better to do.
Hoeflich concludes his column as such: “Isn't it time to get rid of the ‘shock jocks,’ the angry, bitter, outrageous talk show hosts, and the ignorant masters of nothing and begin to offer radio programs that entertain and educate rather than reinforce prejudice, intolerance, and hatred? I hope so.”
If it is “dangerous,” liberals naturally want to get rid of it. Handguns kill people, get rid of them. Alar poisons children, get rid of it. Abortion kills babies, get … well, there are exceptions.
After reading Hoeflich’s columns for several years, I believe his 600-word column could have been reduced to three sentences: “I recently discovered talk radio. It is overwhelmingly conservative. Therefore, we need to get rid of it.”
I suppose I should cut Hoeflich a little slack. The day after his column appeared in the Journal-World, the New York Post reported that the Secret Service was investigating the all liberal Air America for “shooting” President Bush on-air. Of course, I don’t believe you can pick up Air America on an AM radio in Lawrence, Kansas. In any case, I doubt Hoeflich heard anything as “dangerous” as that from conservative talk show hosts. And if we’re going to get rid of “outrageous” talk radio hosts, perhaps those who advocate the assassination of a president should be gotten rid of first. However, it’s my sense that Hoeflich will give Air America a pass.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Schenk's Fonda Jane
A day after a disabled veteran spit tobacco juice in Jane Fonda's face in Kansas City, KMBZ morning host Ellen Schenk told listeners that Fonda "recently said she regretted visiting Vietnam" during the war.
First, there were two Vietnams at the time Fonda went overseas. Numerous celebrities visited SOUTH Vietnam during the war with USO tours. Fonda visited NORTH Vietnam. That's a major difference.
Second, Fonda has never said she regretted going to North Vietnam. When she spoke before the National Press Club last Thursday, she stated that she had no regrets about participating in the anti-war or going to Hanoi. However, she reiterated her statement, first made in 1988, that she regretted having her picture taken while she was on the anti-aircraft gun. This was the only thing Fonda apologized for when she appeared on 60 Minutes in April to promote her new book.
First, there were two Vietnams at the time Fonda went overseas. Numerous celebrities visited SOUTH Vietnam during the war with USO tours. Fonda visited NORTH Vietnam. That's a major difference.
Second, Fonda has never said she regretted going to North Vietnam. When she spoke before the National Press Club last Thursday, she stated that she had no regrets about participating in the anti-war or going to Hanoi. However, she reiterated her statement, first made in 1988, that she regretted having her picture taken while she was on the anti-aircraft gun. This was the only thing Fonda apologized for when she appeared on 60 Minutes in April to promote her new book.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Scheer dishonesty
During the week leading up to the Pope John Paul II's funeral, you couldn't tune into CBS, ABC, CNN, or any other media outlet and hear that the Pope opposed to the war in Iraq. Of course, that didn't stop The Los Angeles Times' Robert Scheer from making the following claim in a column: "OK, I get it, the pope was a really important guy. So why, during weeks of fawning coverage of his humanity and the elaborate Vatican funeral rituals, did American journalists and politicians ignore the pontiff's passionate opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq?"
If you're not familiar with Scheer, he is largely responsible for the lie that the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43 million prior to 9/11. Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix dealt with Scheer's lie shortly after 9/11, after talking heads on the left and right started repeating the lie. The $43 million did not go to the Taliban, as Scheer claims. In fact, Secretary of State Colin Powell explicitly noted that the humanitarian aid would bypass the Taliban. Scheer also failed to note that the humanitarian aid to Afghanistan was a continuation of a Clinton administration policy. That administration sent $114 million to Afghanistan during 2000.
Scheer's column appeared in the Lawrence Journal-World on April 15. Newspapers should publish views from those on the far left. However, there are enough honest liberals in the world that the Journal-World shouldn't allow a dishonest one like Scheer a platform for his lies.
If you're not familiar with Scheer, he is largely responsible for the lie that the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43 million prior to 9/11. Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix dealt with Scheer's lie shortly after 9/11, after talking heads on the left and right started repeating the lie. The $43 million did not go to the Taliban, as Scheer claims. In fact, Secretary of State Colin Powell explicitly noted that the humanitarian aid would bypass the Taliban. Scheer also failed to note that the humanitarian aid to Afghanistan was a continuation of a Clinton administration policy. That administration sent $114 million to Afghanistan during 2000.
Scheer's column appeared in the Lawrence Journal-World on April 15. Newspapers should publish views from those on the far left. However, there are enough honest liberals in the world that the Journal-World shouldn't allow a dishonest one like Scheer a platform for his lies.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Precious privilege becomes a right
In her March 18 column entitled "Narrow-minded Majority," the Kansas City Star's Barbara Shelly writes, "Conservatives were outmaneuvered in Topeka last session and missed the chance to send Kansans to the polls to defend the sanctity of marriage, preserve the Judeo-Christian tradition and spare the state from the homosexual agenda and activist judges."
"Whose day-to-day lives are actually worse off if committed gays and lesbians enter into formal lifelong partnerships?," Shelly asks. " I haven't yet heard a good answer to that one. Who gets hurt by these public votes to deny a precious privilege to a minority group?"
Speaking for myself, my day-to-day life wouldn't be worse off. However, I also don't believe my day-to-day life would suffer if some guy in Olathe were married to five women. The point is we as a society have placed limits on the "precious privilege" known as marriage. Shelly and other liberals would unlikely expand the privilege to one man and one tree or to one man and five women, so the difference between the "narrow-minded majority" and the "enlightened" liberals is at what point do we place the limits. A majority believes the point should be where it has always been in Kansas and this country, i.e., marriage is between one man and one woman.
Further into her column, Shelly changes the "precious privilege" of marriage into a "right" t0 marry: "You can't affirm a person as an equal and then deny him or her access to the same legal and human rights that you take for granted."
Given that all rights are individual rights, the belief that there is a right to marry is where those activist judges come in. The late Balint Vazonyi explained the misinterpretation of rights in America's 30 Years War (1998): "What do we make of the assertion by a highly placed member of the judiciary that 'rights not listed in the Constitution are cherished, if anything, more than the ones that are'? What is the source of such rights? Who guarantees them? Judge Reinhardt's first example is the right to marry. But since marriage will occur only with the consent of two people, no individual can assert a right to it. Government cannot require the consent of either party, thus government cannot deliver a guarantee for it."
"Whose day-to-day lives are actually worse off if committed gays and lesbians enter into formal lifelong partnerships?," Shelly asks. " I haven't yet heard a good answer to that one. Who gets hurt by these public votes to deny a precious privilege to a minority group?"
Speaking for myself, my day-to-day life wouldn't be worse off. However, I also don't believe my day-to-day life would suffer if some guy in Olathe were married to five women. The point is we as a society have placed limits on the "precious privilege" known as marriage. Shelly and other liberals would unlikely expand the privilege to one man and one tree or to one man and five women, so the difference between the "narrow-minded majority" and the "enlightened" liberals is at what point do we place the limits. A majority believes the point should be where it has always been in Kansas and this country, i.e., marriage is between one man and one woman.
Further into her column, Shelly changes the "precious privilege" of marriage into a "right" t0 marry: "You can't affirm a person as an equal and then deny him or her access to the same legal and human rights that you take for granted."
Given that all rights are individual rights, the belief that there is a right to marry is where those activist judges come in. The late Balint Vazonyi explained the misinterpretation of rights in America's 30 Years War (1998): "What do we make of the assertion by a highly placed member of the judiciary that 'rights not listed in the Constitution are cherished, if anything, more than the ones that are'? What is the source of such rights? Who guarantees them? Judge Reinhardt's first example is the right to marry. But since marriage will occur only with the consent of two people, no individual can assert a right to it. Government cannot require the consent of either party, thus government cannot deliver a guarantee for it."
Friday, April 08, 2005
Now outside money is bad
In his March 30 column in the Lawrence Journal-World, KU law professor Mike Hoeflich laments the fact that money from outside of Kansas was being used in the campaigns for the "gay marriage amendment" (sic) and the proposed taxpayers' bill of rights.
"In the past, outside money has flooded into Kansas for election campaigns," Hoeflich writes. "Given the very close contests for control of the U.S. House and Senate in recent years, the national political parties have had very good reasons for wanting to support their candidates' campaigns."
Hoeflich continues: "But recently, money has been coming into Kansas campaigns that have no direct bearing on national politics." Further, "Whatever is decided on April 5 or in future votes on policy issues should reflect the considered votes of Kansans, free from outside influence. I would hope that our Legislature would consider the very real dangers of outside campaign funding and find ways, if not to stop it, to at least regulate it better."
Of course, this isn't the first time that money from out of state has funded campaigns that have no bearing on national politics. In fact, out-of-state money was used to fund the living-wage campaign right here in Lawrence.
In the spring of 2000, the Lawrence Coalition for Peace and Justice (LCPJ) applied for and received a $5,500 New Initiatives Fund (NIF) grant from the Central Regional office of the American Friends Service Committee (LCPJ was founded by members of the Oread Meeting of the Society of Friends in the late 1970s). The grant was used to launch the Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance (KVLWA) and to hire a part-time coordinator. AFSC's Central Regional office, which is based in Des Moines, Iowa, has also given grants to the Flinthills Living Wage Campaign in Manhattan, Kan., and The Kansas Action Network "for support of a statewide Living Wage Conference designed to strengthen KAN's member organizations and build their capacity to act locally and statewide to achieve fair wage victories."
KVLWA in 2002 received $3,000 from the Unitarian Universalist Association's Fund For A Just Society. The UUA, which is based in Boston, Mass., gave KVLWA another $3,200 in 2004 for "a campaign to ensure implementation of the new living wage law and to build a social justice coalition."
Incidentally, UUA operates "Freedom to Marry" campaigns in support of same-sex marriage in several states. It does not appear that any UUA money was sent to Kansas to oppose the anti-same-sex-marriage amendment (Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Manhattan, contributed $157.60 to the Flint Hills Human Rights Project), but the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign (HRC) contributed $5,000 to Kansans for Fairness, which opposed the same-sex marriage ban. (Interestingly, Kansans for Fairness' list of founding organizations includes ProKanDo, the political action committee founded by Wichita abortionist George Tiller. ProKanDo's receipts and expenditures reports show numerous out-of-state contributions, money that was funneled to pro-abortion candidates in Kansas. Would Hoeflich have Kansas ban such contributions and outside influence?)
Hoeflich was writing his column for the Journal-World during the entire living-wage campaign, yet never complained about the "outside influence" then. He also failed to take HRC to task for the "very real dangers" of its "outside campaign funding."
Could it be that Hoeflich is only against out-of-state contributions when those contributions are given to campaigns with which he disagrees?
"In the past, outside money has flooded into Kansas for election campaigns," Hoeflich writes. "Given the very close contests for control of the U.S. House and Senate in recent years, the national political parties have had very good reasons for wanting to support their candidates' campaigns."
Hoeflich continues: "But recently, money has been coming into Kansas campaigns that have no direct bearing on national politics." Further, "Whatever is decided on April 5 or in future votes on policy issues should reflect the considered votes of Kansans, free from outside influence. I would hope that our Legislature would consider the very real dangers of outside campaign funding and find ways, if not to stop it, to at least regulate it better."
Of course, this isn't the first time that money from out of state has funded campaigns that have no bearing on national politics. In fact, out-of-state money was used to fund the living-wage campaign right here in Lawrence.
In the spring of 2000, the Lawrence Coalition for Peace and Justice (LCPJ) applied for and received a $5,500 New Initiatives Fund (NIF) grant from the Central Regional office of the American Friends Service Committee (LCPJ was founded by members of the Oread Meeting of the Society of Friends in the late 1970s). The grant was used to launch the Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance (KVLWA) and to hire a part-time coordinator. AFSC's Central Regional office, which is based in Des Moines, Iowa, has also given grants to the Flinthills Living Wage Campaign in Manhattan, Kan., and The Kansas Action Network "for support of a statewide Living Wage Conference designed to strengthen KAN's member organizations and build their capacity to act locally and statewide to achieve fair wage victories."
KVLWA in 2002 received $3,000 from the Unitarian Universalist Association's Fund For A Just Society. The UUA, which is based in Boston, Mass., gave KVLWA another $3,200 in 2004 for "a campaign to ensure implementation of the new living wage law and to build a social justice coalition."
Incidentally, UUA operates "Freedom to Marry" campaigns in support of same-sex marriage in several states. It does not appear that any UUA money was sent to Kansas to oppose the anti-same-sex-marriage amendment (Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Manhattan, contributed $157.60 to the Flint Hills Human Rights Project), but the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign (HRC) contributed $5,000 to Kansans for Fairness, which opposed the same-sex marriage ban. (Interestingly, Kansans for Fairness' list of founding organizations includes ProKanDo, the political action committee founded by Wichita abortionist George Tiller. ProKanDo's receipts and expenditures reports show numerous out-of-state contributions, money that was funneled to pro-abortion candidates in Kansas. Would Hoeflich have Kansas ban such contributions and outside influence?)
Hoeflich was writing his column for the Journal-World during the entire living-wage campaign, yet never complained about the "outside influence" then. He also failed to take HRC to task for the "very real dangers" of its "outside campaign funding."
Could it be that Hoeflich is only against out-of-state contributions when those contributions are given to campaigns with which he disagrees?
DeLay chastised, Reid ignored
Taking its lead from Democrat Party talking points, the Kansas City Star today attacked House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for allegedly funneling half a million dollars to his wife and daughter. The money came from DeLay's political action and campaign committees, not from taxpayers.
The Star also noted that members of the House need "to review similar though smaller payments to relatives of other lawmakers in both parties."
If The Star is truly concerned about the relatives of politicians benefiting finacially from such relationships, why stop with a Republican and why stop with the House?
It has been known for some time that the four sons and son-in-law of Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, have benefited financially from their relationship with the senator. A chart produced by The Los Angeles Times in 2003 shows that the boys' firms received far more than one million dollars.
Kansas Media Watch has invited The Star to write an editorial on Sen. Reid's ethical lapses. We received this mesage from Mirriam Pepper, The Star's editorial page editor:
"Thanks for the tip to the LAT piece. I'm sure you noticed that we mentioned Democratic ethical breaches and specifically used Jim Wright in the editorial. But you should also recall that we've got a long history of vigorously criticizing powerful Democrats in Washington -- Wright, Dan Rostenkowski and many others. We criticized Reid's predecessor, Tom Daschle. The page blasted the Clinton administration for its ethics problems, and printed loads of editorial cartoons against Clinton as well. So please be assured that there is a willingness to go after top Democrats when they deserve it, and we always appreciate good tips. It's important to remember that Democrats aren't in power right now, so they inevitably get less attention -- just as the Republicans did, back when Democrats ran Washington."
Of course, Jim Wright left Congress in 1989 and Dan Rostenkowski's scandal occurred more than a decade ago. A search of the words "editorial, Tom, Daschle, ethics" in The Star's archive's results in just one entry, and that 1994 editorial claims that "the Democrats have made wise choices in their top leadership races."
Many people would consider Sen. Reid's actions vis-a-vis his sons and son-in-law far less ethical than Rep. DeLay paying his wife and daughter from his own committee funds. If Reid's sins "inevitably get less attention" because his party is currently in the minority, will we have to wait for The Star to finally give them attention if and when Reid's party becomes the majority?
The Star also noted that members of the House need "to review similar though smaller payments to relatives of other lawmakers in both parties."
If The Star is truly concerned about the relatives of politicians benefiting finacially from such relationships, why stop with a Republican and why stop with the House?
It has been known for some time that the four sons and son-in-law of Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, have benefited financially from their relationship with the senator. A chart produced by The Los Angeles Times in 2003 shows that the boys' firms received far more than one million dollars.
Kansas Media Watch has invited The Star to write an editorial on Sen. Reid's ethical lapses. We received this mesage from Mirriam Pepper, The Star's editorial page editor:
"Thanks for the tip to the LAT piece. I'm sure you noticed that we mentioned Democratic ethical breaches and specifically used Jim Wright in the editorial. But you should also recall that we've got a long history of vigorously criticizing powerful Democrats in Washington -- Wright, Dan Rostenkowski and many others. We criticized Reid's predecessor, Tom Daschle. The page blasted the Clinton administration for its ethics problems, and printed loads of editorial cartoons against Clinton as well. So please be assured that there is a willingness to go after top Democrats when they deserve it, and we always appreciate good tips. It's important to remember that Democrats aren't in power right now, so they inevitably get less attention -- just as the Republicans did, back when Democrats ran Washington."
Of course, Jim Wright left Congress in 1989 and Dan Rostenkowski's scandal occurred more than a decade ago. A search of the words "editorial, Tom, Daschle, ethics" in The Star's archive's results in just one entry, and that 1994 editorial claims that "the Democrats have made wise choices in their top leadership races."
Many people would consider Sen. Reid's actions vis-a-vis his sons and son-in-law far less ethical than Rep. DeLay paying his wife and daughter from his own committee funds. If Reid's sins "inevitably get less attention" because his party is currently in the minority, will we have to wait for The Star to finally give them attention if and when Reid's party becomes the majority?
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Wichita Eagle supports starvation of innocent Americans
More than a week after Terri Schiavo was starved to death, The Wichita Eagle weighed in with its opinion on the case: "Apparently tone-deaf to public unease with Congress' clumsy intervention in the Schiavo case -- polls showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapproved -- these conservatives are playing to their political base by pushing ahead with efforts to intimidate the judiciary for not handing down the 'right' decisions."
The Eagle is apparently referring to a misleading ABC News poll that had implied that Schiavo was on life support. A Zogby International poll with fair and accurate questions found that 79% of those polled answered "should not" to the following question: ""If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?
Zogby also noted that its poll "lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts."
The headline for The Eagle's editorial is "Schiavo judges just doing their jobs." Didn't we hear that same excuse many times during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials?
The Eagle is apparently referring to a misleading ABC News poll that had implied that Schiavo was on life support. A Zogby International poll with fair and accurate questions found that 79% of those polled answered "should not" to the following question: ""If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?
Zogby also noted that its poll "lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts."
The headline for The Eagle's editorial is "Schiavo judges just doing their jobs." Didn't we hear that same excuse many times during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials?
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Kansas newspapers mischaracterize same-sex vote
The Kansas City Star, the Lawrence Journal-World, The Wichita Eagle, and the Topeka Capital-Journal today all inaccurately referred to the constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage as a "gay-marriage ban."
As noted last week, Wikipedia says, "Same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as gay marriage, but the legal implications extend beyond the lesbian and gay population. In a few U.S. states, bans on same-sex marriage have voided marriages of otherwise-heterosexual couples because genetically they were of the same gender either as the result of intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery of one of the spouses."
It should also be noted that a heterosexual man would also be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual man.
One of the reporters who used the term "gay marriage" in his article today admitted to me last week that "same-sex marriage" was the more accurate term. Use of the less accurate term suggests the newspapers have a political agenda.
As noted last week, Wikipedia says, "Same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as gay marriage, but the legal implications extend beyond the lesbian and gay population. In a few U.S. states, bans on same-sex marriage have voided marriages of otherwise-heterosexual couples because genetically they were of the same gender either as the result of intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery of one of the spouses."
It should also be noted that a heterosexual man would also be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual man.
One of the reporters who used the term "gay marriage" in his article today admitted to me last week that "same-sex marriage" was the more accurate term. Use of the less accurate term suggests the newspapers have a political agenda.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Kansas media largely ignore hate crime
(Kansas Media Watch note: The message below was sent out as an E-Flash by Senator Tim Huelskamp on April 3. Kansas Media Watch was unable to find a mention of the fire in the Kansas City Star, Topeka Capital-Journal-Journal, or Lawrence Journal-World.)
Church Nearly Torched by Anti-Marriage Activists
In an attempt to intimidate supporters of traditional marriage, a church in Wichita, Kansas was nearly torched last weekend by opponents to the proposed Kansas Marriage Amendment.
In a story reported only by KAKE News, someone viciously torched a pro-amendment yard sign and the lawn of the Trinity Baptist Church. The flames from the fire clearly came within feet of the church itself. A shaken pastor Craig Atherton reported the burning incident to the police. This the second act of intimidation against this church in the last five days – last week someone also destroyed two other signs on the property.
Violent and desperate acts like these have absolutely no place in our election system. These charred grounds are clearly an attempt to intimidate supporters of the Marriage Amendment. These actions not only violate our state laws against voter intimidation, but most assuredly they are violations of federal civil rights protections. No one should have to be fearful for taking a stand for marriage.
Outside of KAKE News, the week-old story apparently has been completely ignored by every major media outlet. While the mainstream media has issued multiple editorials attacking the Amendment and our motives, no other mention of the torching can be found anywhere on the Internet. Can anyone say MEDIA BIAS?!?
Imagine how loudly the calls for a HATE CRIME investigation would have been if the violence had not been done to a conservative, Christian church?
Let us not be intimidated. Please call or E-mail at least 10 friends between now and Tuesday morning. Kindly remind them of Tuesday’s vote and encourage them to vote YES on the Marriage Amendment!!
One may access the intimidation story at this site: Sign Burned at Church
Church Nearly Torched by Anti-Marriage Activists
In an attempt to intimidate supporters of traditional marriage, a church in Wichita, Kansas was nearly torched last weekend by opponents to the proposed Kansas Marriage Amendment.
In a story reported only by KAKE News, someone viciously torched a pro-amendment yard sign and the lawn of the Trinity Baptist Church. The flames from the fire clearly came within feet of the church itself. A shaken pastor Craig Atherton reported the burning incident to the police. This the second act of intimidation against this church in the last five days – last week someone also destroyed two other signs on the property.
Violent and desperate acts like these have absolutely no place in our election system. These charred grounds are clearly an attempt to intimidate supporters of the Marriage Amendment. These actions not only violate our state laws against voter intimidation, but most assuredly they are violations of federal civil rights protections. No one should have to be fearful for taking a stand for marriage.
Outside of KAKE News, the week-old story apparently has been completely ignored by every major media outlet. While the mainstream media has issued multiple editorials attacking the Amendment and our motives, no other mention of the torching can be found anywhere on the Internet. Can anyone say MEDIA BIAS?!?
Imagine how loudly the calls for a HATE CRIME investigation would have been if the violence had not been done to a conservative, Christian church?
Let us not be intimidated. Please call or E-mail at least 10 friends between now and Tuesday morning. Kindly remind them of Tuesday’s vote and encourage them to vote YES on the Marriage Amendment!!
One may access the intimidation story at this site: Sign Burned at Church
Friday, April 01, 2005
Beaver Island doesn't give a dam about Bush (oldie)
David Broder's August 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post had the headline "Politics on Beaver Island" and was about Mary Stewart Scholl, a Democrat on the Lake Michigan island. In 2000, Bush won Beaver Island over Al Gore, 186 to 173.
"If this election is as close as it now appears, Karl Rove may have to figure out how to land Air Force One on Beaver Island," Broder wrote. " Just to offset Mary Scholl."
A day later, the closeness of the election had shifted decidedly in Kerry's favor, at least according to this Lawrence Journal-World headline for Broder's column: "Kerry has island of support."
"If this election is as close as it now appears, Karl Rove may have to figure out how to land Air Force One on Beaver Island," Broder wrote. " Just to offset Mary Scholl."
A day later, the closeness of the election had shifted decidedly in Kerry's favor, at least according to this Lawrence Journal-World headline for Broder's column: "Kerry has island of support."
Headline switches focus from "hefty-lefty" to Bush (oldie)
Here are the opening paragraphs of a February 6, 2004 column written by the Orlando Sentinel's Peter A. Brown:
"The presidential campaign is already so nasty that the Democratic establishment is taking its cues from filmmaker Michael Moore.
"It shows, sadly, that the Democrats believe their core supporters hate Bush so much they don't care about the truth of accusations that impugn his character."
The headline for this column in the Sentinel was "Dems' military guru a lefty filmmaker?"
When the Lawrence Journal-World published Brown's column on February 10, 2004, the headline was "AWOL report still dogging Bush."
"The presidential campaign is already so nasty that the Democratic establishment is taking its cues from filmmaker Michael Moore.
"It shows, sadly, that the Democrats believe their core supporters hate Bush so much they don't care about the truth of accusations that impugn his character."
The headline for this column in the Sentinel was "Dems' military guru a lefty filmmaker?"
When the Lawrence Journal-World published Brown's column on February 10, 2004, the headline was "AWOL report still dogging Bush."
One Golden Fraud? (oldie)
In a February 21, 2004 Lawrence Journal-World editorial entitled "Deception" (which, incidentally, borrowed liberally from a Tim Rutten column entitled "Now smear this: a Web of deceit" in the February 18, 2004 issue of The Los Angeles Times), the following claim was made:
"Then there was a doctored photo showing Kerry, a decorated and thrice-wounded Vietnam Navy veteran, sitting with Jane Fonda, the controversial actress reviled by many for her wartime sentiments." Further, "the picture was circulated widely over the Internet and even made some newspapers, false as it was."
There was a doctored photo that showed Kerry seated while Fonda stood behind a podium. However, the photo of Kerry and Fonda sitting together was not doctored. It was taken by photojournalist Leif Skoogfors at a September 7, 1970 Vietnam Veterans Against the War rally in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and can be found and licensed at Corbis. The Kerry campaign has confirmed that Kerry was a speaker at the rally. The New York Times covered the rally and reported that Jane Fonda was also a speaker.
The same Journal-World editorial suggested that "the various media think they have a credibility problem." Gee, I can't imagine why that would be.
The Journal-World never published a correction concerning this editorial.
"Then there was a doctored photo showing Kerry, a decorated and thrice-wounded Vietnam Navy veteran, sitting with Jane Fonda, the controversial actress reviled by many for her wartime sentiments." Further, "the picture was circulated widely over the Internet and even made some newspapers, false as it was."
There was a doctored photo that showed Kerry seated while Fonda stood behind a podium. However, the photo of Kerry and Fonda sitting together was not doctored. It was taken by photojournalist Leif Skoogfors at a September 7, 1970 Vietnam Veterans Against the War rally in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and can be found and licensed at Corbis. The Kerry campaign has confirmed that Kerry was a speaker at the rally. The New York Times covered the rally and reported that Jane Fonda was also a speaker.
The same Journal-World editorial suggested that "the various media think they have a credibility problem." Gee, I can't imagine why that would be.
The Journal-World never published a correction concerning this editorial.
Bush works things out after pullout (oldie)
The Kansas City Star's Rhonda Chriss Lokeman on February 15, 2004 wrote, "while untold numbers of young men and women were losing their limbs and lives in Southeast Asia, Bush somehow 'worked things out.'"
By "worked things out," Lokeman was referring to George W. Bush leaving the National Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School.
Bush was last paid for Guard duty on July 30, 1973. The last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam on March 29, 1973. The official halt of combat activity in Southeast Asia occurred on August 15, 1973, when the U.S. bombing of Cambodia ended. In other words, official combat activity in Southeast Asia ended before Bush began business school.
If Lokeman were truly concerned about a future president who "worked things out," she could have written a column about Bill Clinton, who missed his draft induction date of July 28, 1969. How did he work that out, especially in a year in which nearly 10,000 U.S. servicemen were killed in action?
By "worked things out," Lokeman was referring to George W. Bush leaving the National Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School.
Bush was last paid for Guard duty on July 30, 1973. The last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam on March 29, 1973. The official halt of combat activity in Southeast Asia occurred on August 15, 1973, when the U.S. bombing of Cambodia ended. In other words, official combat activity in Southeast Asia ended before Bush began business school.
If Lokeman were truly concerned about a future president who "worked things out," she could have written a column about Bill Clinton, who missed his draft induction date of July 28, 1969. How did he work that out, especially in a year in which nearly 10,000 U.S. servicemen were killed in action?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)