Journalistic Excellence, Not if The Public Can Help It!

On somewhat of a tangent, deep into this crapstain of a political season, it appears to be time to look at one of the quivering lipped "messengers of truth" ™ . I know this is already a day or two old, and as such might be considered old news, but I can't pass it up.

Roy Peter Clark has a column up over at Poynter, where he takes a long heartfelt look at a recent Sacred Heart University poll: "Americans Slam News Media on Believability." along with the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" flung at the media by (*gasp*!!) us, the public at large. Have a tissue or two handy, after reading it you may need it. I was all misty eyed myself. Oh, us heartless uncaring, unknowing, heathens! We are (collectively), the most ungrateful a bunch of bastards as ever there were. Why, after all the media has tried to do to for us!!

Over at NRO, Kevin D. Williamson responds and does better then I. At least he is able to pick out what he considers to be the "killer paragraph". After re-reading Clark's bit of offal, in hopes of finding something on which to point and laugh at opine, I threw up my hands in despair. It reads even worse the second (or third or fourth!!) time. It is as damning a bit of evidence, in that maybe, maybe, the pollsters over at Sacred Heart University, as well as the public at large, are spot on in their perceptions of the media. If nothing else, it shows us (the ungrateful biased media critics that we are) how thin skinned (at least some of) the media is, or how poor their research skills are. Specifically, in the case of Clark's piece, if not poorly researched, then intentionally lacking in readily available evidence as to what might constitute our perception of "media bias". (Ok, I'll drop a clue, how about the "evil solder stories" willingly endorsed by The New Republic, as a recent example of not only bias, but piss poor fact checking, for starters, Clark?? ... And this is going with the Williamson line of thought about sticking to just the print media ...damn, this is too easy!)

But in the end, all this inquiring mind wants to know is whither or not Clark is able to get his sippy cup filled (on tearful demand), and has a ready supply of teething biscuits.

The Maverick from Arizona

Senator John McCain. First, let me get this out of the way, Senator McCain was a POW, and served Honorably in the United States Navy. His service to his country is not now nor has ever been in question by me. And I flat refuse to go there. . The man is as dangerous to this country as any Democrat, and as disingenuous towards the Constitution as Mike Huckabee would be...

Taken from "State of the Union and Primary Pleasantries"

I have posted about McCain and his less then stellar actions in the past. And on my opinion(s) of the man. Being he is in the running (and currently tied for the lead in the Florida Primary) for the Republican nod for President, perhaps a look at a couple or three posts from the past would be in order. This man is not to be trusted! His only saving grace, and it is questionable as to whither or not he will stay the course, is his supposed stand on the War on Terror.

With all the war of words about the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and their ad depicting Kerry in a less than favorable light (Truth hurts don't it Kerry). Aside from the whining and pseudo legal garbage put out by the DNC (and others for the Kerry Konvoy), one voice spoke out, which judging by his past actions isn't too surprising at first look. Yes, I am talking about Arizona's own Senator John McCain.

There has been talk over the years about his checkered political past (Keating Five ring a bell?), including the election ads cure-all (that didn't)which bitch-slaps ignores that pesky first amendment, the CFR. But, his statements concerning the ad placed by the Swifties, is not really about his being a "maverick", or even being an independent thinker.....it goes deeper.

As most folks know Senator McCain was a POW during Viet Nam. There have been other sites and other comments, over the years, suggesting he got the majority of his wounds by not following procedure upon ejecting from his aircraft over the middle of Hanoi. I would humbly suggest until you have done the same, you might want to pipe down about that....ejecting from an aircraft even in optimal conditions is not failsafe....and though I have concerns about the Senator, that isn't one of them.

He landed in the middle of " the Western Lake" and was removed from it by one Vietnamese. Thus started his 5 1/2 year stint as a prisoner of war.
And, on his fourth day of captivity and believing he was going to die, McCain chose instead to deal with his captors. I said, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."**. Even this almost failed to work, until the Vietnamese realized he was the son of a senior Naval Officer. Now, only those who have been in that part of hell experienced by POW's of Viet Nam, would have any honest insight to what McCain was exposed to....the rest of us can imagine...based on what we have read or heard from other POW's. Is he a turncoat to his fellows based on his own admissions in so far as he claims to have freely violated the Code of Conduct all service members are bound to? I don't want to address that concern...indeed it is not as important as another question I do have.

Was Senator McCain broken so hard that he can never exorcise the demons his actions past and present would indicate he still faces? If he were just a small town mayor, or a little bureaucrat in a dimly lit office, that may not be much of a concern...certainly others have matters of self worth and conscience they must face constantly...But how many are US Senators....and past (and possible future) contenders for the highest office in the land?

Fact: McCain actively sought to dismiss and marginalize attempts of finding out whether there were American POWs/MIAs still alive in Viet Nam and possibly neighboring countries

Fact: After keeping his distance from Massachusetts Senator John Kerry for a number of years, obstinately due to Kerry's well documented anti-war stance, He has been alleged to have "Made his peace" with Kerry while on a trip to Kuwait.

Fact: The very enemy which caused him physical and mental damage, became the beneficiary of his actions in bringing about more open trade as one of a number of US Senators seeking to help open relations with Viet Nam.

Fact: When fellow vets attempt to present their side of the ongoing saga that is the Kerry attempt to rewrite (Kerry's) history of the Viet Nam war, he summarily dismisses them and calls upon the Bush administration to do the same.

The bottom line is there is more to Senator McCain then meets the eye. Based on what has appeared in print (US News and World Report, Congressional Record[s], McCain's own statements, "The Nightingale", etc) he is a man who seeks to put Viet Nam well behind him....even if the costs are far greater than just the personal well being and mental health of one Senator John McCain.

It is one thing to allow Kerry to dodge and weave as he puts on his "Visions of Viet Nam Heroics Pornshow ™" and attack those without credentials or affidavit's to back up their accusations. But the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are NOT in that group Senator McCain. They have the poof, they have been there, been wounded, and seen their comrades in arms die there.

You have talked about courage. You have talked about falling short of what you would consider to be honorable conduct. You have the chance here to do what would be considered to be the honorable thing, in really listening to what the Swift Boat vets have to say. And, in doing all of what is in your power to ensure the current Commander in Chief is returned to office for another four years. We are at war Senator, and though he is not perfect, President Bush has the clarity of vision to recognize the evil we are fighting for what it is. Perhaps, in finding the courage within yourself to drop the blinders and see the truth, you will be able to eliminate some of the demons who dine on your soul daily.

"John McCain, Haunted by Demons?" August 12th, 2004 - Snugg Harbor

This was followed by this(which referred to the blockquote above):

I received more than a few comments about this post when it appeared a number of months ago. The major piece of legislation co-authored by the good Senator has been in the news and making major waves throughout the blogsphere over the past few weeks. Perhaps it is as good a time as any to take a walk down memory lane...The main point of my post still stands. Senator McCain in all good conscience needs to step down from his senate seat and retire. I have the greatest respect for the senators Naval service, and for his time spent as a POW. But, I posit his time in hell, has at the very least affected his powers of reasoning. It's not his fault, and it may not be fair (as things in life often are) but his actions as a Senator, and the legislation he has backed or sponsored, as well as his actions as a member of the Senate fact finding committee on the issue of POWs/MIAs are questionable at best.

"Revisiting Senator McCain"- March 3rd, 2005 Snugg Harbor

And finally, there is this:

I have been following, with interest, not only the hub-bub about the BCRA and the FEC as it relates specifically to blogging and bloggers at large, but about the exploits of it's more notable author, Senator John McCain.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has been on this item and the Senator like a good hunting dog...ferreting out bits and pieces of the truth along with giving us larger swatches about one of the main players in this madness.

But I am noticing something else here.

Yes there was the Keating Five scandal, and though he came out of it with little more than a slap on the hand (and a hope that the voting public has short memories), McCain did admit he was wrong. This major incident was spun over the years as his main personal reason for the BCRA. That, there exists a possibility legislators could become corrupted by the large amounts of money out their in corporate coffers and PAC land. The average voter across the nation (assuming McCain's ambition for power and the presidency are as strong as they ever were) could, if spun right, believe McCain has learned his lesson.

But wait you say, what about information currently being brought to light about his ties with Cablevision and their contributions to the Reform Institute. In fact looking at the cronyism prevalent at the Reform Institute, and McCain's ties to same, if this is the actions of an active "reformer", one might wonder when wolves became just another subspecies of chicken.

Okay, lets not look at the above. After all it's been many years since Keating...and one can't fault a fella from back sliding. Oops, it seems Mark R. Levin, dug up a bit more about McCain getting monies from outside sources at different times from 1989 through 2002.

So, what is the big deal here? To me it is simple, and Mr. Levin brings it to light in this fashion:

"Of course, I don't believe the mere receipt of campaign contributions is corrupting. In fact, it's evidence of representative government at work. The public has every right to try to influence the direction of their government. But McCain believes this activity to be corrupt, yet he took the money anyway."

And that appears to be McCain in a nutshell....the man is a hypocrite.

This brings me back to McCain's recent statements about the FEC and the BCRA not effecting, or having any effect on, individual bloggers. Judging on how the man is able to apparently talk reform out of one side of his mouth while feathering his campaign coffers or providing "capital" shelter for his cronies. You have got to wonder not only about John McCain's ability to prevent the erosion of YOUR first amendment rights, but his willingness to do so as well.

March 10th, 2005 -Snugg Harbor

Is this the man you want to see as Commander-in-Chief ? He is nothing more then a liberal in GOP clothing on every issue other then (perhaps) the War on Terror. At least with Obama, you know what you are getting. Senator Obama is upfront about what he is and what he stands for. (Though I can't see myself voting for him either. Not even close to my political stance.) But with McCain ... only John and God know what is going on in that muddled mind of his. If he gets the nomination, be afraid, be very afraid.

** original link no longer exists...updated with a more current item from Newsmax.com archives-Harbor Master

The State of the Union and Primary Pleasantries

Tonight President Bush gives his last "State of the Union Address", as he heads towards his last eleven months in the Oval Office. It will be interesting to see what his framework for his twilight tour will be. One expects it will contain much verbiage regarding the current fiscal crisis, and what the "Feds" are ramping up to do about it. It would not be a surprise at all to find more information put forward on past success with the War On Terror, as well as what the President hopes to accomplish towards the (ongoing) reconstruction of Iraq, and its version of democracy. Then there is Iran, and it's treat of becoming the regional nuclear power. All in all I suspect it will be more of a farewell address than a major litany of potential administration accomplishments.

And though there has been much President Bush has done which has caused my fists to clench and vision to turn red, in the end, regarding the singular most important event of our time, he has for the most part stayed the course. For that, I thank you Mr. President. Now begins his final chapter.
-------------------------
Which brings us to the real point of this post. (What? Your posts have points??!!!) The season of silliness, otherwise known as "The Primaries" ™ , is well upon us. The Democrats have seen fit to narrow down their "offerings" to three (No, not Larry, Moe, and Curly, but close!) In no particular order we have Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton, who along with her husband, Bill, represent the Machiavelli branch of the party.

Then there is John Edwards, the "Hair today gone tomorrow candidate". Although early on many thought he would have a chance to grab the nomination away from Mz Clinton, or at worst be in second place, his lackluster showings, especially in what was considered to be "his turf", South Carolina, may have sealed his fate as a future vice president to who ever gets the Democratic nod. It could also be argued, his lack of tractions might be due to Hillary and Obama sucking up almost all the oxygen from the Democrat side of the process.

Last, but not least, is Barack Obama, junior Senator from Illinois. Young, charismatic, who more or less has been "officially" anointed as the second coming of JFK, by no less then Caroline Kennedy and Uncle Teddy. (One could be tempted to note, the Clinton camp might be more then willing to advance the Kennedy analogy with Sen Obama, to the same horrific conclusion as the original, but that would be crass and unfeeling. The Clintons are far, far above that kind of reproach...as spotless as Teddy Kennedy's ....err driving record.) It will be a very interesting season over on the Democratic side of things.

But they are not alone.

Get Offa My Lawn

Tired of your political party ignoring you fella?
You say it's like being told by the girl you're most fond of ... "I love you ... like you were my brother!"
What's that you're saying? That the candidates of either party could barely qualify for hall monitor? Let alone leader of the most powerful country in the free world???
That the other "also ran parties" offer either pie-in-the-sky platitudes, or are only thinly connected to reality?

WELL CHEER UP BUNKY!!!

Now there is an alternative!
Yes, the "Get Offa My Lawn" Party is just the "ticket". Get thee over to McGee's home on the web for more info...including how to become a deligate.

Off Come The Gloves

Although Fred did not do as well as one would have hoped, I will stand by him until he elects to end his campaign. I feel there may be an outside chance at the GOP Primary, assuming he is still in it at that point. However, I am not blind to reality in that this is, at this point, looking more and more like a long shot. That having been said, there is always the chance the Democrats will self destruct in spectacular fashion.

The gloves seem to be finally coming off for the Democrats, as Clinton and Obama do their version of "Rock'em Sock'em Robots" ™ .

As Obama tried to defend his recent comments about Republican ideas and Ronald Reagan, Clinton interrupted and said she has never criticized his remarks on Reagan.

"Your husband did," said Obama, who has accused the former president of misrepresenting his record.

"I'm here. He's not," she snapped.

Obama persisted, suggesting the Clintons were both practicing the kind of political tactics that had alienated voters.

"There was a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton as well as her husband that are not factually accurate," Obama said. "I think that part of what people are looking for right now is someone who is going to solve problems and not resort to the same typical politics that we've seen in Washington."

Clinton countered: "I believe your record and what you say should matter."

Sheesh, although I don't agree with Obama on damn near anything, I have to give him points for trying to bitchslap Her Thighness and her (one wonders for how long) husband, the one time Philanderer-in-Chief, Bill. As for her last comment above, in bold ... if that were really the case, you would have been either laughed out of office or in jail, or both quite some time ago ... don't you think?

John Edwards, who badly trails his two rivals, tried to stay above the fray while pleading for equal time.

"Are there three people in this debate, not two?" he asked.

One can imagine him thinking (?) "And if they don't let ME talk, I am gonna hold my breath and turn blue until they do!!" What a tool!

The bitter exchange underscored the closeness of the race for the party nod. Obama captured the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, Clinton bounced back with a win in New Hampshire and the two shared the spoils in Nevada. The first-in-the-South primary on Saturday in South Carolina is expected to produce a strong turnout from black voters, who could make up more than 50 percent of the Democratic electorate.

Hmmmm, are we "oh fearless and intrepid reporter", trying to say the all important black vote ™ which the Dems have been pandering for all these years might actually go toward a real black? Instead of the wife of the nations "First Black President" ™ © ? Why the mind boggles! That the voters might actually do something akin to thinking for themselves vice follow the established party line like so many lemmings. (Granted, both candidates are liberal to the extreme, but at least there is a choice.)

The article, cross posted at Drudge, continues on with Edwards joining Clinton (Ok, sis I will stand by you, against the mean black man! ... If you promise to give me the VP nod when you get nominated.) in trying to "bash" Obama. The whole thing is a wonder to behold, and I think is just the tip of the ice berg as the race for the Democratic nod really starts to heat up. Bring you popcorn and beer kids....this is gonna get interesting!!!

Are You Ready To Make A Choice?

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Second Amendment-United States Constitution

We all have choices to make. Some are simple, daily, repetitive ... what to wear to work, what's for dinner tonight, is there anything worth watching on the boob tube.

At other times we face decisions of a bit more complex nature. Is this really the right car for me and my family. Who "is" the best person for the job. Should I stand (and maybe "die"), metaphorically, on this hill, or concede to the wishes of my wife.

Then there are the occasional really tough choices. Like; Should I risk losing the best friend I ever had by telling them what they really need to hear, or just agree with them and keep their friendship (assuming they are in some sort of self destructive state/situation).

Then there are the real life or death kinds of choices. And not just in a physical sense. The ones that can spiritually wound or even kill (or lead to the death of your soul)

We all make choices.

I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The Oath of enlistment/re-enlistment of the Armed Forces

Some of us feel that this oath, once taken, is taken for life. That our sacred oath demands we are duty bound to the oath even after enlistments and office holdings have expired. That one is honor bound to it ... for life. That there are ideals and beliefs which once realized, are worth the total investment of self. Even to the point of "that last full measure of devotion".

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Oath of Office

Some of us don't. They take political gambles with your first amendment rights, and lose. They allow for the further encroachment of our property rights. Seek to obliterate our borders, sovrenty, and national security. And now, an out and out attack on the linchpin of the Constitution, the Second Amendment..

And Some of us plan on supporting the Constitution as it was originally intended, especially if elected to higher office.

In one respect, the cave dweller over in Afghanistan has it correct. We are comfortable here in the west, especially in America. We have been blessed with a prosperity and abundance of riches, and standard of living, no other nation on earth as realized. And (the collective) we have come to expect our government to take appropriate action when needed. That the government will take care of what ever needs to be taken care of. It can mass an army large enough to meet our defense. It can through sanctions, diplomatic meetings, behind the scenes arm twisting, bend the rest of the world to our ends (or come up with a mutually agreeable compromise). But what this has done, over the course of the past 60-70 years, is to accelerate, in a negative way, a shift in personal responsibility.

It's easier to let someone else do it. To defend you. To pay a larger burden of the expense of running the government which is providing you with welfare (tax the rich make em bleed...I don't have enough...they have too much). To let the police take care of all vestiges of crime. (We don't NEED guns....that's what the cops are for anyhow.)

No it isn't! With perhaps one exception. It is quite possible that in the process of defending you ...your son/daughter/husband/wife will pay for your comfort. This would be perhaps the only legitimate extension to the federal government. But as to the others. Living off the dole, due to the (successful) efforts of others? Granting the police more and more power to battle crime when the moral code(s) used to define just what constitutes *a crime* become more and more nebulous, to the point where even ones thoughts are suspect? All the while, you are asked (cajoled, scared, lied to) to give up (some, and only for a short time if possible) personal freedoms to achieve these ends.

I guess it is at least partially due to human nature things are as they are. But ask yourself this ... at what price freedom?

At what point do I ... must I ... make a choice to let things continue in the direction they are going. At which personal line in the sand, after many such lines have been drawn, and crossed, do I say "that's it, that's enough. You have gone too far into what is MINE by divine right (or natural law if you prefer). I don't know what the answer is for you. Never the less, the time is fast approaching when a choice (or choices) will have to be made.

Are you ready? Will you be ready? To Make A Choice? Or will you let others make it for you?

Update changed the link to "the Second Amendment" above and moved other link to end of post. -Harbor Master.
Update2Seems someone in Congress also gets it. Head on over and add your two cents... A choice in the right direction

Don't Smoke em' If You (Still) Got em'

"We lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience."

-- Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the state of Virginia, 1782)

Hi, My name is Guy, and I am a smoker. I have been dancing with darling nicotine since 1971. Should I stop? Perhaps. For a fact it would allow my lungs to operate in a (much) more efficient fashion. It would allow for a sharp drop in my over all chances of succumbing to either lung cancer and or a heart attack in what ever alloted time is left me on this earth. My clothes (and I) would generally smell a whole lot better. The actions taken by my state (and 23 others ... if one believes the propaganda) would not directly effect me as I would no longer feel the need for a smoke while having an adult beverage at a bar or after a meal (or cup of coffee) dining out.

Everything stated in the above paragraph is true ... except for the last sentence.

The actions taken by the Peoples Republic of Illinois does effect you wheither or not you smoke or have never seen tobacco in its processed state in your life.

Some religions in their doctrine condemn/forbid/strongly admonish the use of intoxicants (of which, tobacco is one). That is their belief/choice. If I belong to any one of those, I have the choice to either follow said doctrine or not, and suffer the consequences for doing so.

For reasons of safety, smoking is prohibited in certain businesses/areas. If you deal with oxygen, for example, it is not a bright idea to be smoking in the general area. In the military you do not smoke while on watch (that lit butt makes a great target).

Courtesy/civility/rules of decorum dictate, if one has any social etiquette/manners at all, that you refrain from smoking during a number of social gatherings/occasions. As a rule, one does not smoke in church (at the very least during services/mass). At formal gatherings of civic/fraternal organizations you will not be allowed to puff. It is polite to ask (or it was, when you could still smoke in restaurants) the patrons next to you, if they mind if you smoke. It was not required, but was the civil thing to do.

In short, the almighty state has decided for you, what is not only in your best interest, and by implication, that it knows better then you do what is best/socially acceptable/morally-ethically correct. That you do not have a choice as an individual to manage your affairs be they physical/social/mental/moral/business related/leisure related.

No, smoking in and of itself, may not be the best thing one can do. But it IS a legal substance (for adults). The state is hypocritical enough to realize this and tax the substance accordingly ... to make a tidy profit off the sale of same.

I am more concerned about the precedence set here. (And a strong argument could be made this was already started with the helmet/seatbelt laws of years past.) We all are, as fully functioning adults allowed to make choices. Some may not be the best (no seatbelt for example) but the bottom line is we as citizens of a supposed free society are supposed to be able to make these choices... and then live with whatever consequences are the result of these actions. This is not, nor has it ever been, the responsibility of the state to make these choices for us. Or why even establish a legal majority (the age of 18 or 21 depending on location) if the state seeks to be the final abater in all matters.

For the sake of this post we will stick to smoking. If I am an owner of a bar and I decide to restrict smoking on my premises, then I should be able to do so and financially live or die with that choice. My patrons will dictate as to wither or not it was a smart business move. Conversely, if I elect to allow smoking the same should apply. If enough people are going to frequent my establishment to drink and smoke, then I will make money. If not, then perhaps I need to back up and regroup... re-think my business plan ... and go from there. But (assuming it isn't illegal) it is not any of the states business to tell me how to run my business. And this goes for all laws which dictate (short of those dealing with safety issues ... fire codes/food prep/storage and the like) same.

The more we allow for the state to intrude into our personal affairs, in the long run, the less freedom we will have. The less freedom of choice. The less we will be able to be adults. We will become wards of the state. Bowing to their will.

The first of this year the bar was lowered, yet again, regarding personal freedom. Another of your choices as to how you desired to live (enjoy?) your life was taken from you. It may have been for all the best intentions. But the next time the state cares to intrude (and rest assured there WILL be a "next time") it has become that much easier for the state to do so.

Need an example:
"I am sorry Mrs. Smith, I would love to sell you the super size fries with your order, but your body fat card says you don't qualify for them." No, the state would never go after over weight people ... would they????