Liberals Loving Murderous Dictators--A Short History

With the long overdue death of Fidel Castro, we finally get a chance to peek inside the minds of liberals and see how they tick. Generally, what we are seeing is well hidden and dressed up to look like what it is not, lipstick on a pig essentially. But when an event of this magnitude occurs, they really can't control themselves.

The latest version seems shocking because it's been a long time since we saw the behavior. It started when Canadian PM Justin Trudeau eulogized Castro thusly:

“It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President. 

“Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation. 

“While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”. 

“I know my father was very proud to call him a friend and I had the opportunity to meet Fidel when my father passed away. It was also a real honour to meet his three sons and his brother President Raúl Castro during my recent visit to Cuba. 

“On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro. We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader.”

That is what you call instant revisionist history. There is nothing in that press release that is remotely true except that he was larger than life and a good orator. But note the line about education and healthcare. That will be a recurring theme. 

It continues on with Obama, Kerry, Carter and the head of the UN Ban ki-moon.

It's embarrassing actually but the left always loved Castro for several reasons, which I'll get into in a second. 

Let's go back and look at the history of liberals supporting communist dictators. We can start with the overthrow of the Russian Czar and the first really true experiment where communism was instilled on a massive scale. From the beginning liberals trumpeted the successes of Soviet communism. From Lenin through Stalin and finally with Gorbachev, they would do anything they had to do to put a pretty face on the ideology. 

The most famous example was NY Times writer Walter Duranty. He was the Times' man in Moscow and he was an unabashed communist. Stalin didn't need to sell propaganda, all he had to do was direct Duranty and a few days later glowing reports would show up in the Times. Meanwhile, Stalin was exiling normal Russians to the gulags in Siberia or allowing millions to starve in Ukraine. Wrote Mark Herring:

After these stories, Duranty got an interview with Lucifer incarnate, Stalin himself. In the interview, Duranty praised Stalin's progressive ideals, his firm control of a wild country, and his brilliant political instincts. Stalin came out of the subsequent story a world figure on the order of Roosevelt or Churchill. 

Duranty had accomplished the impossible: he had taken a mere thug whose bloodshed was unparalleled in Europe at the time, and unsurpassed until Mao, and lifted him to the status of world leader, superpower. What Duranty had done for Stalin did not begin to compare with what Stalin did for Duranty. Once the story appeared, Duranty went from well-known reporter to world-class celebrity. 

For the record, Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting that the Times to this day has refused to return. He was just the most notable of what Lenin allegedly called the "useful idiots"--westerners who would parrot his talking points and defend communism.

It continued and in 1959 a revolution was going on 90 miles from the shores of the US. A vile despot named Batista was overthrown by young communist revolutionary who enlisted the help of a murderous doctor named Che Guevara. The media fawned over the new Cuban leader and then they started hiding his atrocities. This continued through the early sixties when several ill-fated attempts by the US to take him out eventually led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

Throughout the 1970's, Castro continued his iron grip and Cubans continued to float to the US. Liberal writers wrote loving stories of how cute it is that Cubans all drive 1950's cars and have excellent healthcare and education. They reported on the nightlife in Havana and exulted Castro while ignoring his atrocities and the overall drab existence and utter despair of the people the system was supposed to protect. 

Meanwhile, communism was destroying nations and killing millions of people. From Vietnam to Cambodia, from North Korea to South America the hateful ideology brought only death and misery. But the liberal media didn't cover it that way. Not until the real terror of the Cambodian killing fields were exposed were they forced to report the truth and then they blamed the man--Pol Pot--but defended the ideology. 

Which brings us to the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. 

While the world rejoiced when the Berlin Wall came down and Poland was freed, liberals were upset.  They blamed Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. They said that Soviet Communism didn't prove the failure of the ideology but indeed proved that it was put into practice wrong. It would work if implemented correctly they argued then and still do. 

So here we are today, we have liberals and the media (but I'm redundant) already revising the the dictatorship of a murderous thug who raped, killed and destroyed. You will start seeing more and more of these stories eventually leading to t-shirts with an iconic picture of Castro being worn by uneducated college kids. 

A Sunday Trip Through the Inquirer's Biased Opinion Pages

Another Sunday, another dose of the Inqy's pro-Obama bias with ones coffee. people ask me why do I still subscribe to the lefty rag; my reply is that it has a great sports section and to be honest, i hold out hope that one day they'll get it. Through all the management changes you would expect them to finally understand that while the city of Philly is liberal, the Jersey suburbs and some counties directly outside the city are center right.

Anyway, let's start with our old buddy Dick Polman. You can always count on Dick to give you a huge dose of Obama/Democrat talking points and today is no exception. He writes of the reemergence of Slick Willy and as you would expect, he gives Bill a journalistic Lewinsky:

But memories fade quickly in this amnesiac nation. Today, he's venerated for his postpresidential charity work, his '90s tenure seems in retrospect to have been a peace-and-prosperity paradise, and there isn't a politician in the land who can match his ability to frame complex issues in everyday human terms. As they used to say in Arkansas, he can still talk a dog off a meat truck.

You just may need a smoke after that paragraph, Dick. Were you wearing a blue dress?

The editorial board is no better. When the Delaware River Port Authority was in the hands of Jon Corzine and Ed Rendell, they wasted what was considered huge amounts of money pre-Obama on boondoggle projects and the Inqy said nothing of consequence. Now that the leaders are two Republicans, and one being Chris Christie, we have editorials slamming them. I'm still waiting for that editorial asking what Corzine did with all that money from MF.

Of course, they couldn't go without slamming Romney. We have this piece that about off-shoring jobs and since the Obama regime has hit Romney on this, the Inqy plays the good soldier and hammers it home.

And don't forget the mandatory essay bemoaning the hard-right turn of the GOP and the bad influences of the Tea Party. You know the basics, Tea Partier beats supposed moderate, GOP is no longer accepting of centrists BS we saw when John Huntsman was running.

The one semi-unbiased article this week is about Chick-Fil-A in which the writer talks about the other issues facing Philly of greater concern than banning the chicken restaurant.

All in all, six essays from the left and one from the middle. The Inquirer is probably still wondering why it's sales are tanking. This will be one business pursuit in which Democratic power boss George Norcross will tank severely. I've met him, he's a smart business guy, perhaps he'll be the one to finally see the light.

Romney, Obama and the Wimp Factor

Newsweek magazine (the magazine that was sold for a whopping $1) stayed true to their liberal form and released this cover:

This would be renowned failure Tina Brown's idea of how to get people to buy this irrelevant rag and generate some buzz. And buzz it did generate but it may not be the kind that Ms. Brown and her liberal friends anticipated. 

When one compares Romney to Obama and the comparison is on who is wimpier, the needle definitely points way more toward BHO than Mitt. Some cases in point:

Does a non-wimp sell out all his friends like Obama did to Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright or his own grandmother? Doe a real man allow a former president to take over a press conference and steal the show? Does a real man blame everyone else for their own failures and take no responsibility for anything? Does a real man allow a non-elected friend with zero national experience make all the important decisions for him? Should I continue? 

The man the $1 mag calls a "wimp" built a business, put on a world class event, amassed millions in a cut-throat business and has been through two hard fought primaries. 

Why I even acknowledge Newsweek I'll never know since they get roughly the traffic af this blog and are worth slightly less. 

Treach has more.

The MSM Playbook For Covering a Terror Attack

I think they teach this in the Columbia, NYU and Cal Berkley journalism departments.

Some background: A Muslim man named Mohammed rides up on a bike, shoots an eight-year old Jewish girl outside a Hebrew school while smiling and videotaping it and then proceeds to kill her brothers, her Rabbi father and military personnel. He then holes himself up and, after a siege, goes out in a blaze of jihadist glory with guns blazing.

To any sane person, this was a cut and dried case of terrorism specifically aimed at Jews and the military. The Jewish aspect alone makes it what liberals like to call a "hate crime". But wait, the sadistic, religion-inspired actions of this pig make it even more horrifying:

The Muslim fanatic who killed seven people in France was so proud of his unspeakably evil work that he uploaded sickening video to the Internet showing him executing a helpless, terrified 8-year-old girl, officials said.

Mohammed Merah is seen yanking Myriam Monsenego by her hair — then firing a bullet into her head while he holds her.

Officials believe Merah strapped on a camera before each murder and posted the videos on jihadi Web sites, where he believed they would inspire other al Qaeda wannabes.

Myriam was slain outside a Jewish school in Toulouse, where Merah also killed a rabbi and the rabbi’s two young sons.

This was Myriam:

Now think about this: you have a piece of shit all jacked up on Islam, doing what his religious leaders tell him to do--kill infidels, especially Jews--actually holding up a child and shooting her in the head while taping it and then continuing on his killing spree and posting the carnage to inspire other jihadi's. Is there any more clear example that this is religion-based terrorism?

With all that being said, how does the media opt to cover it? Mark Steyn walks us through it:

Stage One: The strange compulsion to assure us that the killer is a “right wing conservative extremist,”...

So on to Stage Two: Okay, he may be called Mohammed but he’s a “lone wolf.” Sure, he says he was trained by al-Qaeda, but what does he know? Don’t worry, folks, he’s just a lone wolf like Major Hasan and Faisal Shahzad and all the other card-carrying members of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves. All jihad is local.

On to Stage Three: Okay, even if there are enough lone wolves around to form their own Radio City Rockette line, it’s still nothing to do with Islam. I’m sad to see the usually perceptive Ed West of the London Telegraph planting his flag on this wobbling blancmange.

And then, of course, Stage Four: The backlash that never happens. Because apparently the really bad thing about actual dead Jews is that it might lead to dead non-Jews: “French Muslims Fear Backlash After Shooting.” Likewise, after Major Hasan’s mountain of dead infidels, “Shooting Raises Fears For Muslims In US Army.” Likewise, after the London Tube slaughter, “British Muslims Fear Repercussions After Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.” Oh, no, wait, that’s a parody, though it’s hard to tell.

Exactly. Read the whole thing and click the links as it's well worth your time.

Let me say this once again: the 8-year old girl pictures above was grabbed by her hair, lifted up and shot through the head (while the scumbag taped it). The media is trying to white wash this because it makes Muslim's look bad. The former is horrifying, the latter is unconscionable. If this had been a Jew or a Baptist snuffing the life of Muslim in such a sadistic way, there would be worldwide riots and it would be on the front page of every major newspaper in America.

More here and here.

Politicizing the Hunger Games

I have to admit that the Suzanne Collin's penned Hunger Games is among one of my favorite books. It was written for teens but is not on a level that is seen in that genre. It's a brutal book but one that makes no real judgments and leaves politics alone forcing one to make their own decisions and observations. The third in the series was indeed more political but not overtly so.

While reading the book, one doesn't have to be political, only to cheer one conflicted girl as she battles to the death in a morbid reality show in the future.

The book is set in the future in a post-apocalyptic America renamed Penam. The different areas of the country are broken down into districts numbering 12 with each supplying raw materials to the Capitol--the ruling city. District 13 is supposedly the district where nuclear fallout still exists and no one is to enter. Katniss Everdeen, her mother and sister Prim live in District 12, which encompasses modern day West Virginia and possibly Kentucky and Ohio as well. They are the coal mining district.

Every year, an even occurs called The Reaping where one boy and one girl from each district aged 12-18 are selected to fight in a kill or be killed televised battle. Prim is selected, Katniss takes her place. That's a brief synopsis and if you haven't read the book, I highly recommend it.

Anyway, I knew upon reading the book that it would be a huge hit and also wondered how the media would spin it. Well, we have our first glimpse thanks to the hopelessly liberal Inquirer. Here's the headline and story by Steven Rea:

'The Hunger Games': A fantasy film reflecting reality

And what reality would that be? You guessed it:

Yes, it's kid-lit about the 1 percent vs. the 99, about the weird spectacle of reality TV, about kids killing kids.

Weird, Suzanne Collins was thinking of the occupiers back in 2008 when this book was published? Most of the occupiers were living in their parents basement back then or getting a degree in Advanced LGBT Studies or something. This is such a ridiculous tie-in that I just chuckled until I saw where Mr. Rea was going with this following the same tack liberals always take when writing.

You see, in Rea's eyes, the 1% are living in the big leading city while the 99% are out in the hinterlands supplying all the rich. That sounds exactly like America in 2012, doesn't it? The connection is such a stretch that Rea not only has be clowned himself but also shows that he never really understood the book in the first place. Sad that a feature writer in a large daily had trouble getting the gist of a teen book, but I digress.

If one wants to go down that road, let's take it to it's conclusion then. Let's see; numerous districts, a massive police state, execution or other punishment for those who don't obey, the rich living in luxury in the central city and a massive disinformation campaign about the nation's enemies. Not to mention constant oppression to keep the people in line and stop rebellion. Now what does that sound like to you Mr. Rea? Perhaps a political system that was dumped in the dustbin of history in the early 1990's hopefully never to be resurrected?

Our heroine was anything but a modern day liberal as seen in the occupy movement, she abhorred the government and wanted nothing more than to be left alone. She hated the state and blamed it for the death of her father. Instead of toeing the line and giving herself to the government, she fought them in her own ways. She hunted illegally and mastered a weapon, she believed in free thought and the the strength of her family. She sought to survive by her wits and not rely on the oppressive regime to take care of her. She believed in freedom and fought to bring down the leadership that ruled by force and death.

Does that sound like a liberal to you Mr. Rea? It sounds more like a libertarian-conservative to me. Reliant on yourself and not the government: check. Learning to use weapons to survive and defend yourself when threatened: check. Wishing only to be left to make ones way in the world without government interference: check. I could go on and on and none of what Katniss represents can be described as liberal.

It's funny, Rea only mentions the 1% in the headline and in a passing sentence but being biased, he needed to get something in there proving his lefty bona fides. Unfortunately for him and is so often the case, what Mr. Rea thinks liberals are versus the reality of the situation is as wide as the difference between a truck driver and Alec Baldwin or the 99% and the 1%.

NPR: Sorry, That Story Slamming Apple Was Based on a Monologue By a Loser & Is Retracted

So, NPR--your tax-dollar-sponsored liberal regurgitation station-- ran a story about horrid conditions in China at the plant where they make Apple products.

You see, if this were a left-leaning corporation we'd not hear anything bad but this is a hugely profitable American company that was built from the ground up by a guy who never bowed to the liberal establishment so we have stories like this on the air.

Anyway, some lame show on NPR entitled This American Life ran the story in January and it was reportedly solely sourced by the words of one man--some ass-clown named Mike Daisey. They apparently didn't do any more real investigating and just went with the story. you know why? Because in the liberal mind, anything anti-American business is plausible. The worst that you can imagine is what they really think American businesses are capable of. The story didn't require any more investigation because it just had to be true in their wretched little craniums. You can try the link above but Drudge crashed the site.

A reporter who just didn't feel the story was correct did what NPR didn't and interviewed Daisey's interpreter:

Take one example from his monologue—it takes place at a meeting he had with an illegal workers union. He meets a group of workers who’ve been poisoned by the neurotoxin N-Hexane while working on the iPhone assembly line: “…and all these people have been exposed,” he says. “Their hands shake uncontrollably. Most of them…can't even pick up a glass.”

Cathy Lee, Daisey’s translator in Shenzhen, was with Daisey at this meeting in Shenzhen. I met her in the exact place she took Daisey—the gates of Foxconn. So I asked her: “Did you meet people who fit this description?”

“No,” she said.

“So there was nobody who said they were poisoned by hexane?” I continued.

Lee’s answer was the same: “No. Nobody mentioned the Hexane.”

I pressed Cathy to confirm other key details that Daisey reported. Did the guards have guns when you came here with Mike Daisey? With each question I got the same answer from Lee. “No,” or “This is not true.”

Daisey claims he met underage workers at Foxconn. He says he talked to a man whose hand was twisted into a claw from making iPads. He describes visiting factory dorm rooms with beds stacked to the ceiling. But Cathy says none of this happened.

He eventually came clean in a one-on-one interview and said he did not see anything that he described. In other words, he flat out lied and NPR went with it without even checking the basics.

This idiot Daisey is a hard core liberal and has said things that may have resulted in millions of losses for Apple. He's set NPR up for a ferocious lawsuit and the American public will get stuck paying for this douchebag's egregious rantings.

It's the old "fake but accurate" canard "progressives" broke out during Rathergate and I was not even remotely surprised to find the weaselly Ezra Klein playing that angle as he always does when a liberal liar is unearthed.

Act of Valor Celebrates Those of Us Who Served & Gives Critics the Finger

We've all seen you basic war movie of the last twenty years. I'll use Platoon as an example. Soldiers go to war, the majority are either illiterate morons, blood thirsty killers or the one star who is conflicted about his countries participation or the actions the fighting force is taking. There's always the underlying theme that America is bad. The only two movies that even remotely got away from that are Battle: Los Angeles and the Hurt Locker. Think of every war movie you've seen since the 80's--Apocalypse Now, Jarhead, Three Kings, the horrific Navy SEALs fiasco and on and on. The military is painted in a bad light and the combatants are cast as unwilling dupes.

Not Act of Valor. This movie stars the real men who have seen death and lived to tell about through training, smarts and camaraderie. These men, like most who enlist or accept a commission believe in America and believe they owe this nation something. I joined for that reason and so did my brother and my Dad. I have a friend I've known since childhood who was a SEAL and still works protecting our country.

Watch the trailer and tell me it's not worth seeing just to give the libs in Hollywood bad case of acid reflux.

The story is fiction based on fact. Real missions of the the Navy SEALs--the most elite special warfare group in the world--as acted by the men who actually planned, executed and survived them. This is not Charlie Sheen playing someone whose ass he couldn't wipe in real life. This isn't Tom Cruise putting on a flight suit and riding his cycle down a runway. No, this is a story of guys--some immigrants--who see America as a beacon for the world. They wear the uniform with pride and will do anything for the man beside them in battle. They are the tip of the spear for US military operations and that spear many times gets thrust into a raging hornets nest but they go anyway because the mission is greater then themselves.

These men are family men, not the beer-swilling idiots they are often portrayed to be in your typical Hollywood production. They care about family, their brothers in arms and country. These believes are so alien to liberals as a whole and Hollywood in particular that they can't comprehend what they are seeing and can't understand why this movie led in box office receipts at a small amount of theaters. They will never grasp the fact that five minutes after the movie was over, the entire audience sat stunned and didn't speak, cheer or clap but just admired what these men do on a regular basis.

This movie was what you would expect from the trailer, a portrayal of men finely trained doing what they do best played by men who do it. Liberal critics have panned it and they have a right to their opinion because that's another thing us in the vets or active duty military joined to protect--their right to write or think whatever they want. This is real, these men will take out an enemy without a second thought because they are the bad guys--a concept that liberals can never understand. They will pop a dude in the head from 400-yards because the mission calls for it--no equivocation.

Besides, those very people who heap disdain on the military or this movie will be happy when men like the SEALs in the movie are called upon to rescue them or someone they love. Most vets don't want your praise and really don't care about the scorn they receive from guys whose greatest fear is not getting a table at the new hip restaurant or whose most dangerous moment was when they had to give their masters oral exam. No, they couldn't care less about those people. They care about the idea of America and those who make us great. They care even more about those who wish Americans harm and will give their lives to ensure that it doesn't happen.

Go see this movie and tell me I'm wrong.

Here's to hoping they make an entire series of these with active duty Delta guys, Rangers, submariners, pilots and tank jockeys. And to our special forces who have been more active since 9/11 then damn near anyone, I wish to say thank you for your service.

I'll be called simple-minded and unable to see the nuance in every situation and that is fine. I can live without being thought of as smart and intellectual by people who live in ivory towers and piss on those of us who gave up long periods of time being with our loved ones and in some cases our lives. I see no issue in exterminating those who want to kill millions and will never blame those who have the balls and ability to do it. They are the ones who protect the American dream and allow some hyper-educated, yet moronic writer to condemn them. They and I really don't give a damn what you think but have put our lives on the line (and some lost theirs) for your right to say it.

For Inquirer, Being Asian or Black and Gay is Not Good Enough

With the exception of the NY Times, the Philly Inquirer is probably the most liberal slanted newspaper in the country. You can see other instances of their biased editorial board and wild inaccuracies here.

Remember, this is the paper that ran a 21-day endorsement of John Kerry right before he was beaten by George W. Bush.

Today we have the Inqy running this ridiculously liberal piece:

It's good to see Gov. Christie consider diversity in making his nominations to the New Jersey Supreme Court. But that hardly makes up for the way he treated John E. Wallace, an esteemed jurist and the court's only black justice, who deserved another term.

Christie made a historic and bold move with two nominations this week - Bruce Harris, an openly gay African American, and Phillip Kwon, who would become a Korean American on the court if confirmed (and if he wasn't confirmed he be a what?--but I digress--ed).

So Christie picks a Korean-American and a gay, black man to be justices and the Inquirer still scolds him? Of course, but had, say, John Corzine selected them, they'd be the greatest thing in creation. Instead, they slam Christie because he refused to reaffirm a black judge whom he deemed ill-qualified.

Now check out this nice bit of pretzel logic:

Neither nominee has prior experience as a judge, but neither did most of the current justices on the state's highest court, which has become a tradition for New Jersey.

...Under pressure from Democrats to consider diversity in making his nominations, Christie is now demanding swift confirmation hearings.

But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Nicholas Scutari says he won't move too hastily, which is good. Too little is known about Harris and Kwon. The governor has a right to choose nominees who adhere to his judicial philosophy, but rigorous hearings are needed to determine their character and temperament.

Okay, so it's historically been the way to select people based on abilities and not by whether or not they served on the bench but in this case, it's prudent to wait and torture them with "rigorous hearings"? Why is the Inquirer so damn racist? Why do they hate Asians and black gays so much?

I Googled "Inquirer and Elena Kagan" and did not see any objections from the editorial board about her judicial philosophy, character or temperament. She never served as a judge and now sits on the highest court in the land. She was essentially a Democratic shill having worked for Clinton and Dukakis but I guess in the eyes of the Inqy, it's who nominates you and your political slant that makes all the difference.

This is classic Inquirer bias; two men who represent three minority groups are selected by a Republican governor and the hacks on the board still can't applaud.

Unfortunately for Harris and Kwon, they will always be unacceptable to the Inqy op/ed page because, like Clarence Thomas, Conservatives just don't carry the proper minority street cred for the elitists ensconced on North Broad Street.

Alan Colmes Gives A Preview of Media in 2012

Alan Colmes has always been your typical beta male liberal. He was second fiddle behind Hannity on their show before Fox management realized that Colmes was just dragging the show down. He has a radio show, which can't be found anywhere on the dial and is still on Fox due to some feeling they owe him something or some other garbage reason. The dude is a great example of what happens when a guy gets picked on in school, has no chance at getting laid until he's 21 and has enough money to pay a hooker or get lucky with the ugly chick who's drunk at 2 AM grows older.

That said, the guy is a great bell weather for what we will see as liberal media lines of attack. He's linked in to whatever passes for the Journolist circle jerk club now where lib media folks decide what and what they will not discuss when it come to a particular topic.

However, it seems like Colmes jumped the shark today and went after Rick Santorum from an angle I expected but just not this soon:



Anyone who knows the story knows that Santorum did what he felt was right in a tough situation. His 2-hour old child died and he was devastated. He discussed what he should do with neonatal medical staff and decided to bring the dead child home so that his other children could have some time to bond and remember their sibling. Think about the state you would be in had your child died regardless of how long into the pregnancy.

In the view of most sane folks, you give someone a pass for their actions in that situation and you sure as hell don't use it as political ammo...unless you're a liberal scumbag like Holmes. I expected to see numerous stories about Santorum in the next week and I expected the issue of his dead child to be included but down in the story like the MSM always does when they want to get a particular touchy issue about Republicans out but not look blatant.

But not Holmes. He went right after it within the first minute of discussing Santorum. Rich Lowry rightly embarrassed him and Holmes did apologize but only because he was worried about losing his sweet gig on the number one news channel, not because he felt any remorse. I guess playing second fiddle to Keith Olbermann on a Al Gore's channel that's watched by no one was a horrifying thought.

More here and here.


No wonder Chris Christie bailed on this race. He knew the media would be even more nasty defending Obama since they sure as hell don't have any successful results to point to.

Pinch Sulzberger: The Ultimate One Percenter

To be clear, us on the right enjoy the schadenfreude of the NY Times staffers suffering.

Today we have the latest example of the Times treating their employees exactly like liberals accuse people like Mitt Romney of treating his employees.

Let's start with this little tidbit:

The letter calls attention to several grievances. Last week, Times brass notified foreign citizens employed in the paper's overseas bureaus that their pensions would be frozen. In the letter, Times staffers dismayed by this decision point out to Sulzberger that some of these foreign employees, working alongside Times reporters in war zones, have "risked their lives so that we can do our jobs."

The open letter may have been prompted by this and other recent decisions, but it brought to the surface long-simmering tensions. In the past several years, staffers have faced temporary pay cuts, layoffs, and buyouts. They have worked since March without a new contract. Regarding ongoing negotiations, the letter notes that Sulzberger's "negotiators have demanded a freeze of our pension plan and an end to our independent health insurance." O'Meara said staffers did not receive a raise this year.

Hmmm, Sudden freezing of pensions, no raises, not negotiating with unions...sounds suspiciously like something the Times would write a scathing piece on if it were a corporation doing the same thing. Shall we continue?

The letter also mentions that a member of "senior management" is now leaving with "a very generous severance and retirement package, including full pension benefits." Indeed, outgoing CEO Janet Robinson -- the unnamed executive-- will reportedly take home a $15 million exit package, according to Reuters. Times staffers with stock options have seen the share price drop from over $35 at the beginning of Robinson's tenure in 2003 to less than $8 at opening on Tuesday

Wow, a woman helped run the company into the ground and still landed softly thanks to her "golden parachute" at the expense of the--dare I say it--99%? $15-million is definitely in 1% territory I'm guessing.

Yet, nothing will come of this because liberals are, well, liberals. This from the beginning of the article:

New York Times staffers unhappy with management are letting publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. know it. In recent days, more than 270 current and former Times employees have signed an open letter expressing their "profound dismay" with recent company decisions.

Bill O'Meara, president of the New York Newspaper Guild, said some staffers had considered even "more dramatic" actions.

What dramatic actions could they undertake? You know none of the staffers will sleep in a park or protest on Pinch's lawn so what options were available? They could have not made a pot of coffee after taking the last cup or not laughed at a classic Pinch joke. Or they could have followed the UN and Obama's lead and wrote another Strongly Worded Letter showing their utter disgust.

No, they almost staged a protest and stormed Pinch's office and, and, and...do nothing. Instead they almost opted to (gasp) walk out:

"There were people who wanted to storm Arthur Sulzberger's office," O'Meara told The Huffington Post. "There were people who wanted to stage a walkout."

For now, Times staffers opted for the letter, which was composed in the newsroom and posted online by the guild at saveourtimes.com. Since last week, hundreds of current staffers -- from metro reporters to foreign correspondents, arts critics to web producers -- and several Times alumni have continued adding their names.

Yeah, nothing says I'm mad as hell and not going to take it like posting a letter on an obscure website and having people add their names.

Thank God our freedom doesn't depend on these pussies.

The Difference Between "Allies" and "allies"

What is the difference between these two:

A coalition of nations team together to oust an Arab dictator whom had been in power for decades and had orchestrated an institutionalized terror campaign against his political enemies using modern weapons. The UN passed numerous resolutions over the course of more than ten years that were not heeded by the dictator and military action was initiated to get him to comply. Military strikes were ordered with the aim to destroy his infrastructure and ability to commit atrocities against civilians.

Or:

A coalition of nations team together to oust an Arab dictator whom had been in power for decades and had orchestrated an institutionalized terror campaign against his political enemies using modern weapons. The UN passed one resolution that was not heeded by the dictator and military action was initiated to get him to comply. Military strikes were ordered with the aim to destroy his infrastructure and ability to commit atrocities against civilians.

Answer? Nothing really except the former was a description of the Iraq War in 2003 and was labeled a "rush to war" by the media. It was also described continuously as a "unilateral" action which included 46-49 countries depending on the who counted.

The latter was a description of events that occurred just this week and is being described as a multinational operation that included less than 25% of those in the Iraq forces. These are described in the MSM as attacks by "allies". Here's the Philly Inquirer front page:
Also, note that there's a propaganda effect from the MSM reporting and they actually are touting the speed in which we got this action together.

Just so you understand exactly where the liberal media stand, taking your case to the UN to oust a tyrant over the course of months and laying out each individual piece of evidence and showing numerous instances of flouting previous resolutions while building a coalition of nearly 50 nations is considered a "rush to war". Cobbling together four or five nations and rushing a resolution through the Security Council then bombing within 24-hours of its passage is a thoughtful process that met all the requirements for world opinion to be considered.

Allow me to quote the vaunted NY Times in October of 2002--four months before the coalition invaded Iraq:

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ''is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes -- detailed in a recent publication, ''National Security Strategy of the United States'' -- against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.

Or this at the beginning of hostilities:

The United States cannot defeat Al Qaeda without the help of dozens of other nations. The same principle applies to Iraq. President Bush may be able to win a military victory against Saddam Hussein without broad international support, but he won't be able to rebuild Iraq, much less change the political and economic dynamics of the Islamic world, without a great deal of foreign assistance.

Note that this was with a coalition of nearly 50 nations. BTW, Where is the plan from Senator Kerry to "win the peace" before starting military actions?

One imagines there will not be a 61% discount granted to anti-war groups to protest Obama's flagrant disregard of the world community as there was when President bush was in office.

It's all farce. I support our troops and wish them all God speed but the media has once again failed the standard they supposedly live up to.

I leave you with the NY Times blatant propaganda in support of the Obama administration. In Iraq, the US led the invasion to oust that particular brutal dictator and the word "allies" never appeared. Obama voted "present" on this issue and joined only because to do so would have made America seem even more irrelevant in the eyes of the world and we have this headline:

U.S. and Allies Strike Libya

The Left Becomes More Unhinged

I didn't think it was possible after witnessing a Bush assassination wet dream put to film, the outright racist attacks on Condi Rice and the myriad other vile attacks that had they been made against a Democrat would have been on every front page in America. No my friends, the left is even more unhinged than ever before and this time they are losing, which incenses them more.

Sarah Palin has been the prime target along with Rush and Glenn Beck of late but they really have been saving their venom for the Tea Party movement. Slick Willy came out on the 15th anniversary of Timothy McVeigh's attack on the Murrah Building to urge the country to heed the anger exhibited by the tea partiers. To top that, the scummy Joe Klein said that Palin and Beck are "right up close to being seditious" for doing what they all claimed was patriotic when Bush was in office: dissenting. There will be no dissent in Obamanation and his media henchmen will ensure that they do their McCarthian best to slander anyone who does. Besides, based on the definition of sedition, wouldn't Obama's bestest buddy Bill Ayers have fit the definition to a tee?

These idiots were thinking they were clever calling Bush a nazi and painting swastikas all over posters of Bush and Cheney and now they are accusing two American citizens--not elected folks--of a crime that carries a penalty of death. For a few more examples of just how unhinged the left is, go here if you can stomach it (pic above taken from Zombie's site).

But hey, we have all of these evil "teabaggers" threatening to kill congresswomen and stuff so...er, the guy making the threat was a Democrat and the congresswoman was a Republican? That kind of goes against the paradigm. In the immortal words of Emily Litella: Never mind.

Air America Shuttering is Latest Example That Liberalism Doesn't Sell

It was only a matter of time but the the frail entity that was Air America has been euthanized and put out its (and our) misery:

It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business.

The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America’s business. This past year has seen a “perfect storm” in the media industry generally. National and local advertising revenues have fallen drastically, causing many media companies nationwide to fold or seek bankruptcy protection. From large to small, recent bankruptcies like Citadel Broadcasting and closures like that of the industry’s long-time trade publication Radio and Records have signaled that these are very difficult and rapidly changing times…

When Air America Radio launched in April, 2004 with already-known personalities like Al Franken and then-unknown future stars like Rachel Maddow, it was the only full-time progressive voice in the mainstream broadcast media world. At a critical time in our nation’s history — when dissent on issues such as the Iraq war were often denounced as “un-American” — Air America and its talented team helped millions of Americans remember the importance of compelling discussion about the most pivotal events and decisions of our generation.

Er, millions? Try tens. If they had millions listening they'd still be on the air. Add to that the fact that the discussion was not the least bit "compelling". They bashed Bush, bashed Palin and bashed conservatives in general and did it without intelligence or a sense of humor. Americans will listen to partisan talk as shown by Rush and Hannity but they will not listen to mean-spirited talk, especially if it's not funny.

Liberalism doesn't sell real well unless it's hidden such as we see on NBC, CBS and ABC. When it's overt--such as the case with MSNBC and CNN--it fails miserably. We are a center-right nation and hour after hour of listening to pro-abortion, big government talk is grating at best. You can only spew so many Palin is stupid, Bush is a chimp, Cheney is the devil rants before people say enough.

The problem is that Air America had no substance and the talk was far from intelligent. The vile drunk Randi Rhodes proved that you can go too far but going to far without actually eliciting chuckles is a death blow. Imus goes too far daily but he's funny about it.

Can we now put to rest the liberal canard that Rush is only the most-popular because he's subsidized by rich righties? Air Scamerica had large infusions of money and still resorted to ripping off kids...and hiring cheap hookers.

Adios Air America and don't let the door hit ya in the ass. I'm enjoying the schadenfreude of them being relegated to the dustbin of history.

Hat tip: Hot Air.

Redeeming the Irredeemable

Karen Heller does her best to put a shine on the tarnished ACORN image:

Who are these evil, awful ACORN people conservatives keep attacking? Grandmothers and great-grandmothers like Junette Marcano and Miriam McKnight, organizers of the West Oak Lane branch.

"I got sick after the latest attacks. We work so hard. They're trying to demoralize and disenfranchise us," says Marcano, 66, a retired nurse championing increased funding for neighborhood schools. "ACORN means a lifeline to the low- and moderate-income communities. It empowers people who don't have a voice in the community."

You see, us evil conservatives are incessantly "attacking" grandmothers and great-grandmothers because when we can't find any homeless people or illegal immigrants to beat on--our typical prey--old ladies will do just fine. We want to quash those voices in the community and have as our sole mission to keep minorities silent and in their place.

These are the local faces of ACORN: idealistic recent college grads toiling for modest pay, and African Americans, mostly women, trying to make their communities better. "Our members represent the best of their community, they care so deeply," says head organizer Neil Herrmann, 27, who works 60-hour weeks helping the poor.

With everything else going on in the world, perhaps the attacks on ACORN, the antipoverty community coalition, might have subsided.

But no.

And with everything else going on in the world Barack Obama shouldn't have gone to Copenhagen in what started as another one of his moves to get his mug in the paper and ended as another in a long line of political mishaps showing his political immaturity. But I digress.

Note that she throws in the race card in that subtle way only one with a journalism degree from one of our esteemed institutions of higher learning can do. She didn't even realize she was doing it I'll bet since injecting race is as intrinsic a part of these types of pieces as writing a headline. Conservative hate African-Americans is as fundamental to liberals like Heller as breathing.

This has been a cruel autumn for the Association for Community Organizations Now. ACORN, the target of virulent attacks during the presidential campaign, is back in the news, due to allegations of voter-registration irregularities in some states and a tawdry sting operation at multiple offices where some employees used abysmal judgment. In Philadelphia, after a couple posing as a prostitute and law student sought assistance in using underage Salvadoran sex workers, an organizer phoned the cops.

The attacks on ACORN during the campaign were warranted as they were committing voter fraud--a crime in every state...well, except Illinois. Sure, the ACORN people in Philly saw through the sting but they were also responsible for submitting 1,500 fraudulent registrations in the fall of 2008 in the midst of the election; a fact that Heller neglects to tell us.

Heller goes on to tell us of all the great things ACORN does in the city and then gets to this:

The conservative "media echo chamber" successfully "framed" ACORN coverage last year, according to the study "Manipulating the Public Agenda" by academics Peter Dreier and Christopher Martin. "Voter fraud" was mentioned in more than half of 647 stories, without the claim being verified. Fraud is rare, as opposed to registration irregularities, which are common even at the DMV. In most cases, ACORN reported irregularities, as required under law, then acted to stop improper conduct, mostly by temporary employees. At the Philadelphia office, organizers made up to three calls to verify every registration.

See how Heller makes something as important as voter fraud out to be insignificant. One of the cornerstones of our great nation is a free and open election process that is fair. ACORN did everything to subvert that.

Again, Heller doesn't find it intrinsic to the story to mention the voter fraud allegations because it would make her entire story premise collapse like a house of cards.

Why do conservatives fear ACORN? Perhaps because its organizers fought for a minimum-wage increase, angering big business, or because they were early, adamant critics of redlining and predatory lending practices, thereby incensing banks.

We don't fear ACORN at all--to the contrary. ACORN is rotten from the inside out and is the antithesis of what America stands for. They lie, cheat and stand for the things most Americans find abhorrent. It had nothing to do with business or banks but solely with the actions they've taken.

But mostly critics seem infuriated by ACORN's voter-registration efforts in economically disadvantaged communities, among Latinos and people of color, folks who tend to vote Democratic. ACORN reports registering nearly 1.7 million voters in the 2004 and 2006 elections, and 1.3 million voters last year, 144,000 in Pennsylvania, more than half in Philadelphia.

Again, it's not voter-registration, it illegal voter registration that infuriates us. They got a good many people on the voter rolls indeed...including Mickey Mouse and the Dallas Cowboys football team.

Heller continues on with this drivel for a few more paragraphs but this is the most striking paragraph of the entire essay and shows exactly why people are running away from newspapers in droves:

When angry, embittered, increasingly disenfranchised people don't like what they see, they smear opponents by questioning their legitimacy, politics, methods, and goals. ACORN has been targeted by Berman & Co., a Washington outfit known for "Astroturf lobbying," launching fake grassroots efforts through Web sites, protests, and dubious front organizations funded by corporate clients.

"Let us do what we do best, which is to give power to the poor," Marcano says. "These people who are attacking us want the rich to get richer, the poor to get poorer."

When Heller sees fit to include that in this piece, it shows exactly what her mindset is--redeem ACORN at all costs and smear conservatives in the process. Playing the class card is just as easy as playing the race card. However, you can't redeem an organization that is on camera in numerous locations showing their willingness to break the law or assist other sin doing so.

You can put a dress on a pig and it's still a pig. Heller doesn't stop with the dress but goes full-out with mascara, lipstick, a wig and earrings. It's still a pig, Karen and ACORN is still an organization corrupt to its very core.

Politics As Usual in Obamanation

You may have heard how us conservative/real Americans are acting violently and spraying swastikas on Democrat representatives signs. I for one was quite sceptical because it seems well outside the character of most conservatives I've met and read for years but seems right up the alley of liberals who--with no facts on their side--resort to tactics such as this. We now have confirmation:



I seem to recall the hours of coverage of those who held signs such as the one below in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco during the anti-AmericaWar protests in the run-up and start of the war to depose the murderous Saddam:

Man Who Did Most to Discredited Media Tries Saving It

It's been awhile since we had the opportunity to pick on Dan Rather. Oh how I've pined for those days when he was making up stories about Bush and then showing his true character by throwing his producer under the bus. You recall, don't you? He pushed faux military docs on us and when busted stuck with his story until CBS had to boot his ass out like a tumble weed across a Texas prairie.

Now Dan is trying to regain some fame as the savior of the news business:

You don't have to care about media companies or reporters to care about the state of the news, because if it's in trouble - and it surely is - this country is in trouble. That's why I recently called on President Obama to form a commission to address the perilous state of America's news media.

Perhaps The One can appoint a News Czar to go with all the other czars he's appointed. And damn, they've all been so successful too.

Some might scoff at the notion that a president and a country occupied by two wars and a recession should add the woes of the news media to a crowded plate. But the way the news is delivered, and the quality of the information the public gets about what's going on here and abroad, have and will continue to have a profound effect on these issues and the overall quality of government.

Profound indeed. July was the bloodiest month in Afghanistan since the war started in 2001 and no one in the media has had the balls to ask Obama about it. If it had been Bush, every single death would have been laid directly at his feet. But the media has had a tremendous effect on the quality of government and the current quality blows.

I am not calling for any government bailout for media companies. Nor am I encouraging any government control over them. I want the president to convene a nonpartisan, blue-ribbon commission to assess the state of the news as an institution and an industry, and to make recommendations for improving and stabilizing it.

Yeah, we know how those non-partisan, blue-ribbon commissions always seem to solve problems. They're kind of like the UN in that regard. I for one will make a suggestion for stabilizing media companies; tell them to quit being partisan hacks and kissing Obamas ass on a daily basis (or bowing in the case of Brian Williams)

Why bring the president into it? Because it's the only way I could think of to generate the sort of attention the subject deserves. Academia and think tanks generate study after study, yet their findings don't reach the people who need to be reached.

Academia is about the only portion of this country further left than the media, they should help things out magnificently.

We need a broad public discussion of the role news is meant to play in our system of government and a better public understanding of the news infrastructure's fragile condition. We need to know how things got this way and what we need to change.

Things got this way because the media decided they were going to choose sides and not report the news straight. It was Rather, Brokaw and Peter Jennings who were the main cause of the decline in respect and trust of the media. They bent over backwards portraying Reagan as a buffoon and W. as a bloodthirty redneck.

...We need news that breeds understanding, not contempt; that fosters a healthy skepticism of power, rather than a paralyzing cynicism. We need the basic information that a self-governing people requires. The old news model is crumbling, while the Internet, for all its immense promise, is not yet ready to rise in its place - and won't be until it can provide the nuts-and-bolts reporting that most people so take for granted that it escapes their notice.

"Nuts-and-bolts" reporting like that of Mary Mapes, Dan?

Perhaps Dan hasn't taken note of the good reporting happening on the Internet by people such as Gateway Pundit, Dan Riehl or the team at PJ Media. Dare I say that those organizations have...courage?

Note To Evan Thomas: Public Fellatio Will Get You Arrested in Every City But San Francisco

The media adulation of Barack Obama has reached it's, er...climax with Evan Thomas and Chris Matthews doing to Obama what even Monica Lewinsky did to Slick Willy:

Chris Matthews: ...We Americans are that rattlesnake on that first flag, ‘Don't tread on me.’ But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility. What he did was rob from the enemy, those who want to destroy us, their main case, the belief that only by extremism can the East reach equality of dignity with the West. The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world. If he can, he'll be honoring what happened on D-day 65 years ago tomorrow. He will be delivering the world once again from evil. Evan Thomas is editor at large for Newsweek magazine. Evan, you remember '84. It wasn't 100 years ago. Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?

EVAN THOMAS: Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. He’s-

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

THOMAS: He's going to bring all different sides together. It's a very different-

My Lord, there hasn't been a deep throat equivalent to that since Jim McGreevey was cruising truck stops servicing anonymous truck drivers (not sure if he ever quit that habit, though).

The old media is as dead as FDR at this point but Thomas and Matthews have finally thrown dirt on the rotting, fetid corpse. This is why people tune into alternative news, Fox and read blogs because liberals like Thomas are running what was once a respected magazine that is now way past the point of unreadable and soon to be one of those unwanted local news rags you get sent in the mail.

Video below if you can stomach it:

Reason #195 the LA Times is Bankrupt

The LA Times parent company is in bankruptcy as we speak. Of course, they've been pretty much bankrupt for years in an editorial and hypocrisy sense but we all knew that.

But today, their editorial board has outdone themselves. Follow the line of thought here:

The release of dozens of new, graphic images of detainees being abused by their American captors would almost certainly reignite international rage. It could lead to an angry backlash in the Middle East and to more jihadi recruits, as the Abu Ghraib photographs did in 2004. It could even lead to new outbursts of violence at a moment when the Obama administration was finally hoping to put the last eight ugly years behind us.

Pretty much what I've been saying up until the last half of the last sentence. Letting these photos be released would kill American service personnel. But then they go far off the rails into the fever swamps of the left:

It's terrible that the president was faced with such an unpalatable choice, but it's just one of the many awful results of the culture of torture and lawlessness put in place by the Bush administration. This country has already alienated allies and seen its moral standing crumble. Now, as we try to get to the bottom of what happened during those years, we have to acknowledge that doing so might put us in further danger.

If some photoshopper created a picture of Bush waterboarding KSM in the Oval Office, the Times would probably run it. Their hatred of Bush runs long and deep. Poor Obama, he's left a difficult decision by the evil Bush junta and has opted wrong. Perhaps if the Times actually vetted Obama, they'd have noted that he's not the best decision maker having voted present most times when he even bothered to vote at all.

Anyway, it gets better:

Photographs are part of the historical record. Think of these images: black men hanging from trees in the American South; emaciated concentration camp survivors; prisoners shackled into cramped "tiger cages" in South Vietnam. Would this be a better world without those photos?

Got that? Waterboarding is akin to lynching blacks, Hitlers concentration camps and the treatment of POW's in Vietnam by the Times' reckoning. Let's see, Jews were systematically exterminated while Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded. They sound exactly the same to me. In the mind of the Times editorial board, they are. Bush was Hitler and Cheney was Robert Byrd or some other KKK'er in their minds. I guess the fact that waterboarding isn't torture and even if it were never was designed to kill or liquidate civilians is beyond their capacity of understanding.

Trying to cover up atrocities because someone might be angry isn't right and won't work. Instead, the Pentagon should release the photos while making it clear that the U.S. repudiates such barbaric behavior and is committed to dismantling the culture that allowed it to occur.

Hasn't Obama spent the last three months apologizing to the world about everything we've done over the last eight years? The Times joins in with the rest of the netroots because these pictures are like porn to them. They get off on America portrayed as evil and that's why they want them released.

I would guess that views like this will ensure the continued slide into irrelevance and eventual dissolving of the paper. Good riddance.

Another Conservative Woman gets Trashed by Media

She was asked a question by a mutant, gay radical about same-sex marriage during a beauty contest and answered truthfully that marriage should be between a man and a woman. She lost because of that answer and has endured the wrath of the gay marriage gestapo in concert with their media toadies. The pageant organizers threw her under the bus as well.

The National Organization for Women has rallied to her defense with all the zeal and gusto they defended Sarah Palin...which is to say none.

Now, Miss Prejean is being slammed for pictures that may have been considered risque' in the fifties but are incredibly tame by today's standard. NBC says it's too blue to show when they are the network that has had far steamier live action on shows like ER and...er, the peacock is so bad I can't name another show on the network.

So here's the picture that the homosexual Nazi brigade is bandying about as proof that Prejean has no moral compass, isn't a Christian and whose opinion should be not only squashed but gutted, burned and the ashes scattered all over San Francisco:

Hot? Damn straight she is. Hot enough to make a gay man straight...er, except for that ingrate Perez Hilton. Immoral? Not even close. If she were a liberal this would be a resume enhancer. Hell, even as a conservative it's a resume enhancer.

From Hot Air's comments linked above:

When do the Janine Garafalo nude photo get released to try and destroy her….sorry I couldn’t finish I just threw up.

portlandon on May 5, 2009 at 4:13 PM

And on that note, I think I'll skip dinner.

Selena Roberts is Smearing A-Rod

Now I'm no Yankee fan--in fact, where I grew up most kids first words were "mama" or "dada", mine were "Giants suck". I hate NY sports teams with a passion that may be borderline insane. You have to live here to understand it.

That said, I still must stand up for A-Rod as he's facing the worst smear job of his career. Yes, he shamed the game by using steroids but the latest allegations are a different story and the person making those allegations is the same one who tried and convicted the Duke lacrosse players before they even were able to speak before a judge. Once they were exonerated, she never once wrote a word retracting her slurs or apologizing to the players. She ruined the lives of three young men because they were rich, white and, well, men.

That person is former NY Times reporter Selena Roberts. She's the first to write anything bad involving a male athlete because she's a typical hypocritical women's libber.

Here's a great quote from the excellent piece by Jason Whitlock in the Kansas City Star:

Instead, she moved on to Sports Illustrated, a seat on ESPN’s “The Sports Reporters” and a new target, baseball slugger Alex Rodriguez.

Last week, the New York Daily News and The New York Times acquired “leaked” copies of Roberts’ soon-to-be-released biography, “A-Rod.” In it, according to the two New York newspapers, Roberts paints a highly unflattering picture of Rodriguez as a human being and, among other things, speculates that Rodriguez used steroids in high school.

Roberts’ speculative opinions are deemed as so credible by ESPN and others that the Worldwide Leader ran all-day updates stating that Selena Roberts believes that it’s “irrefutable” that Rodriguez used performance-enhancing drugs while a teenager.

At no point did ESPN’s TV anchors or radio broadcasters mention that Roberts was the same person who led the media charge against the Duke lacrosse players. I listened to Roberts’ interview on Dan Patrick’s radio show. Patrick never asked her about Duke lacrosse or why we should trust her reporting.

In its news story about her book, The New York Times failed to allude to her position on the Duke lacrosse case:

“Some of the accusations in the book are based on anonymous sources, and others are simply presented as knowledge the author has without an explanation of how the information was obtained.”

And that is essentially the Times M.O. for all stories critical of men, the Masters, Republicans and anyone else that is not a terrorist, abortionist or Democrat.

I think I hate Selena Roberts more now than ever because she made me defend a scumbag like A-Rod. Plus, she seems a bit creepy and bizarre.