Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

‘NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED!’

Pun on mindless liberal mantra: “Bush lied, people died!” Sic ‘em, Ann Coulter!

When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey’s nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.

When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones’ accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff’s then-employer The Washington Post — which owns Newsweek — decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

So apparently it’s possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers’ highly credible account of Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?

Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter’s scoops. Who’s deciding which of Isikoff’s stories to run and which to hold? I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more accurate — and interesting! — than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek should start running everything past Matt Drudge.

Somehow Newsweek missed the story a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia arresting 40 Christians for “trying to spread their poisonous religious beliefs.” But give the American media a story about American interrogators defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there’s no time for fact-checking — before they dash off to see the latest exhibition of “Piss Christ.”

Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas justified Newsweek’s decision to run the incendiary anti-U.S. story about the Quran, saying that “similar reports from released detainees” had already run in the foreign press — “and in the Arab news agency al-Jazeera.”

Is there an adult on the editorial board of Newsweek? Al-Jazeera also broadcast a TV miniseries last year based on the “Protocols of the Elders Of Zion.” (I didn’t see it, but I hear James Brolin was great!) Al-Jazeera has run programs on the intriguing question, “Is Zionism worse than Nazism?” (Take a wild guess where the consensus was on this one.) It runs viewer comments about Jews being descended from pigs and apes. How about that for a Newsweek cover story, Evan? You’re covered — al-Jazeera has already run similar reports!

Ironically, among the reasons Newsweek gave for killing Isikoff’s Lewinsky bombshell was that Evan Thomas was worried someone might get hurt. It seems that Lewinsky could be heard on tape saying that if the story came out, “I’ll (expletive) kill myself.”

But Newsweek couldn’t wait a moment to run a story that predictably ginned up Islamic savages into murderous riots in Afghanistan, leaving hundreds injured and 16 dead. Who could have seen that coming? These are people who stone rape victims to death because the family “honor” has been violated and who fly planes into American skyscrapers because — wait, why did they do that again?

Come to think of it, I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to hold Newsweek responsible for inciting violence among people who view ancient Buddhist statues as outrageous provocation — though I was really looking forward to finally agreeing with Islamic loonies about something. (Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don’t kill people, Muslims do.) But then I wouldn’t have sat on the story of the decade because of the empty threats of a drama queen gas-bagging with her friend on the telephone between spoonfuls of Haagen-Dazs.

No matter how I look at it, I can’t grasp the editorial judgment that kills Isikoff’s stories about a sitting president molesting the help and obstructing justice, while running Isikoff’s not particularly newsworthy (or well-sourced) story about Americans desecrating a Quran at Guantanamo.

Even if it were true, why not sit on it? There are a lot of reasons the media withhold even true facts from readers. These include:

  • A drama queen nitwit exclaimed she’d kill herself. (Evan Thomas’ reason for holding the Lewinsky story.)
  • The need for “more independent reporting.” (Newsweek President Richard Smith explaining why Newsweek sat on the Lewinsky story even though the magazine had Lewinsky on tape describing the affair.)
  • “We were in Havana.” (ABC president David Westin explaining why “Nightline” held the Lewinsky story.)
  • Unavailable for comment. (Michael Oreskes, New York Times Washington bureau chief, in response to why, the day The Washington Post ran the Lewinsky story, the Times ran a staged photo of Clinton meeting with the Israeli president on its front page.)
  • Protecting the privacy of an alleged rape victim even when the accusation turns out to be false.
  • Protecting an accused rapist even when the accusation turns out to be true if the perp is a Democratic president most journalists voted for.
  • Protecting a reporter’s source.

    • How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: “Protecting the national interest”? If journalists don’t like the ring of that, how about this one: “Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories.”

    No one told me that Mary Mapes went to work for Newsweek!

    Advertisement

    May 18, 2005 - Posted by | Uncategorized

    11 Comments »

    1. Define “Liberal”.

      Comment by Steve Bremner | May 18, 2005

    2. Steve,

      Thanks for stopping by. I’m not sure that I have the time to fully delve into what a liberal is, since a book would be needed to fully explore that topic. Therefore, I will keep my definition somewhat limited.

      First of all, I read your bio at your blog. I want to thank you for your military service, regardless of your ideology.

      That leads me to my first point. Liberals detest the military, which makes your career move curious. You are what your lefty brethren detest. Except when it suits liberals’ goals, such as running for president in 2004, the military and its personnel are generally loathed by the left. That’s one turd that you can’t polish.

      Liberals do not believe in good and evil, right and wrong. When they do seem to indicate they might believe in good and evil, they believe in the inherent evil of the US and the inherent good of those who are the anti-US: Europeans, the UN, the EU, etc. Liberals’ sense of good and evil (again, when they acknowledge such) is demonstrably perverted: support for death row criminals but not their victims being just one example. It is this lack of acknowledging evil that ferments their distaste for the military: there is no evil, therefore no military is needed to crush evil.

      Liberals are anti-individual, demonstrated by Hillary’s “cult of the individual” and Ted Kennedy’s “stare down individualism” comments…among others. Liberals tend to see people’s needs as groups-based. Libs believe that if America is to be good and just, it will be so because of government, not because of people.

      Liberals are often anti-capitalism. Those limousine liberals who have benefitted greatly from capitalism get so far removed from reality that they forget how they got to where they are: good choices, hard work, some luck, and a free market. Other liberals never get that successful, and thus curse capitalism in order to justify their own failures. These people believe in Marx’s idea that the achievers in society should fully subsidize the non-achievers and under-achievers. These people believe that income is not to be earned, but distributed. They have a complete lack of knowledge about basic economics, presumably because high schools are too busy teaching about sex education, multiculturalism, and getting in touch with feelings.

      Liberals are usually anti-God. I don’t mean prayer in school or things like that. I mean simply anti-God. I’d guess half or more of all liberals don’t believe in God, and thus they look down their pointy noses on those of us in normal America who do.

      Which leads me to my last (for now) point: arrogance. I read your bio, and you describe yourself as an effete and elitist liberal who looks down on certain people. While it may have been tongue-in-cheek or serious, it doesn’t erase the fact that the overwhelming majority of liberals are indeed effete and elitist, condescending and arrogant. That’s why they lose elections en masse: no one likes to be condescended to. Libs’ messages, while already grossly unpopular, are ignored even more so because their delivery, shall we say, leaves a lot to be desired. It is this failure at the ballot box that leads liberals to push hard for liberal judicial activists: the judiciary is the last frontier for liberals to foist their unwanted political ideas and way of life on an electorate that consistently rejects them.

      There’s much more to being a liberal than what I just mentioned. However, I need to get to work (another liberal anethma) to support some welfare queen in Detroit. Hope this helps.

      Comment by Jonathan | May 19, 2005

    3. Just as I thought. Your definition of liberal is a puerile echo of the Limbaughs and Coulters and the Hannity’s.

      Liberals hate the military? Wrong. I have spent 23 years in the military and I love it and I love my country. I consider myself a liberal.

      Liberals are anti-capitalism? Wrong again. The unadulterated “free market” leads us to polluted air (which we all share and a have a right to breath), destroyed rivers through mining wastes, and mountain top removal (take a look at Appalachia these days), and robber baron capitalism (Enron, MCI Worldcom, etc). Liberals want accountablity for corporate destruction of the environment.

      Liberals are anti-god? Do you think Christ would align himself as a liberal or do you think he would be a conservative. Think about it. I don’t know whether to be offended by your comment or incredulous.

      And yes. My blog bio is most sincerely “tongue-in-cheek”. I don’t accept the simplistic charicature of “liberal” by the rabid right. Take a moment to examine your assumptions. That would be a start.

      Regards,
      Steve

      Comment by Steve Bremner | May 21, 2005

    4. I don’t allow Limbaugh or Coulter to define liberal for me. I base it on my own experiences. When you have unstable mouthpieces like Al Franken, Randi “I shot the president (but I did not shoot the V. P.)” Rhodes, Howard Scream, Janene “The Truth About Pussies and Bitches” Garofalo, Barbara “Conspiracy Theory” Boxer, Rosie “You can’t own a gun but my bodyguard can” O’Donnell, etc., I think I’ve got a pretty good idea what a liberal is.

      Like I said to you before, I salute your military service. You may not hate the military, but your brethren do. All I do is look at the voting record of the party going back to Vietnam and ever since. Always voting to gut the military, or to use it in some hair-brained “Meals on Wheels” expedition, or to use it in Bosnia (though we had no compelling interest there…yet we hear about Iraq?)? Bill Clinton absolutely decimated the military under his watch (granted, with the scaredy-cat acquiescence of a limp-spined GOP Congress), and morale was at a real low (yes, I know this to be true. I am a USMC brat, and my wife served in Clinton’s Navy). Al Gore’s fight to preclude military ballots in FL 2000, all while piously claiming “count every vote”, was proof of the left’s distaste of the military. As was Ted Rall’s cartoon desecrating the memory of Pat Tillman, who as you know, died while fighting in Afghanistan.

      Your diatribe against capitalism destroys your “Liberals are anti-capitalism? Wrong again.” statements. Nuff said.

      I don’t think Christ would align himself with conservatives or liberals. That said, you shouldn’t be offended by my assertion that liberals are anti-God, because it’s irrefutable. I could drown you in proof, if you need any examples. But you need look no further than recent elections returns in the South. Southerners are very religious, and perhaps even too much so at times. But liberals never embrace their values, especially religious ones…they belittle them.

      I’ve seen enough with my own two eyes to come to my own conclusions about liberals. And while I readily concede that my conclusions cover the vast majority of liberals, I also readily concede that it cannot cover ALL liberals. For example, I’ve seen Alan Colmes shower the troops with praise, and denounce Rall (to Rall’s face) for spitting on the grave of Tillman. So I know that counterexamples do exist, and I applaud them when they occur. However, I believe that such counterexamples are the exception, not the norm.

      Comment by Jonathan | May 23, 2005

    5. Hypocritical would better define the so-called “very religious southerners”. And I would ask you what you mean by “anti-God”. Do you mean anti your particular definition of God? I think that is what you indeed are maintaining. I subscribe to the Buddhist philosophy. Is that “anti-God” in your view? What if I were Animist? Is this also “anti-God”? I would submit to you that what you are is much more important than what you believe. It’s all too easy to twist any religion into your own warped viewpoint of the world and justify/rationalize hatred/prejudice/murder to whatever ends you may have in mind. If this is “Liberal” then I would rather have this as my stamp than to be a hypocrit professing myself as a Christian, but hating or condemning those who don’t believe in the God to whom I subscribe to hell. I look at the actions of your southern “believers” and what I see does not reflect the genorosity of Jesus nor of a compassionate God.

      Now. I once styled myself as a conservative. I participated in the Republican caucuses in 1980 supporting G.H.W. Bush for president. I cheered Reagan when he won the nomination and voted for him in his two terms as president. By the time 1988 came around I was disgusted by both major parties and gave my vote to the Libertarian candidate for President, Ron Paul. In 1992 I voted for Ross Perot, but by 1996 I finally came to vote for a Democrat, Bill Clinton. I hated him in 1992, but I truly believe now that he was a great president.

      When I asked you in my first message to “define Liberal” my intent was to show you that you cannot put your opposition into a box. Indeed you yourself probably have opinions that fall to the liberal side, as you have moderate viewpoints, alongside starkly conservative viewpoints. As do I. I would ask that you closely analyze each and every position on its individual merits and make your judgement independently. When you divorce yourself from the “talking points” of either party you free your mind.

      Thanks for the dialogue.

      Steve

      Comment by Steve Bremner | May 23, 2005

    6. Steve,

      Thanks to you, too, for the dialog. Like the blog profile says, all points of view are welcome, so long as they are civil. Spirited, yes, but civil. You have been spirited in your disagreement, but you’ve also been civil. I can respect that.

      Yes, I am liberal on certain views, which is why I consider myself Libertarian and not conservative.

      I believe the drug war is a failure, not to mention none of the federal government’s business. If I get coked up and kill someone, prosecute me for the murder, not for getting coked up. I believe that while gay civil unions (not to mention their sexual acts) are an abomination to God, it is not the federal government’s duty to get involved with them…personal and private decisions, naturally. I supported the Supreme Court’s decision that banned the TX state sodomy law.

      I’m not 100% Libertarian. True Libertarians believe we should not have gone to Afghanistan OR Iraq, while I supported both operations. So yes, I will grant you your point that one cannot paint EVERYONE into a labeled corner. Some of my friends on this blog disagreed with me on the Terri Schiavo ordeal, and they are definitely right-of-center.

      However, I still maintain that my definition of “liberal” is mostly valid. Sure, you can find pro-military liberals (you, Alan Colmes), anti-abortion liberals (Harry Reid), and pro-Christian Democrats (most Southern Democrats). But by and large (and I do maintain that this is true more often than not), my perceptions of liberals are true because they are based on my own experiences.

      One last thing about the God and anti-God argument. Ignoring the fact that this is overwhelmingly a Christian nation, this country has more religious diversity AND tolerance than any other. The “Southern believers” you denigrate are, for the most part, kind and generous souls. I’ve lived in the South my whole life, so I know this to be true. Yes, they can unfortunately be fervent enough to ignore Christ’s teachings (judge not, lest ye be judged; etc.). They’re quick to forgive adulterers, thieves, and even murderers before they’d be compassionate to gay people. (Sidebar: the Bible is clear on homosexuality…but it is EQUALLY clear on adultery, theft, loving thy neighbor (even the gay ones), etc.) Christ was perfect, but his followers (including me) are far from it.

      I saw some recent study (forgive the lack of a link to it) that showed Mississippi as the most generous state in the country in terms of giving to charities (not just churches)…despite being the poorest. The other top four were red states (mostly Southern). While I don’t think that means these states’ citizens love God any more than those in blue states, it does reflect the generosity of Southerners…a generosity and compassion that you refuse to acknowledge could exist here.

      Thanks again, Steve…for the dialog, and your service to our country.

      Comment by Jonathan | May 24, 2005

    7. BTW, going back to the original message from your post: Scott McClellan is now backing away from his statements that the Newsweek Periscope item cost Afghan lives:

      “NEW YORK At a White House press briefing Monday, Press Secretary Scott McClellan, pressed by reporters and with Afghan President Karzai in disagreement, retreated on claims that Newsweek’s retracted story on Koran abuse cost lives in Afghanistan.

      He also claimed that he had never said it did, even though a check of transcripts disputes that. On May 16, for example, he said, “people have lost their lives.” On May 17, he said, “People did lose their lives,” and, “People lost their lives” due to the Newsweek report.”

      http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000930917

      Comment by Steve Bremner | May 24, 2005

    8. I know he said it…and he’s 100% right. The fact that he’s retreating from his own words is something I’d expect from John F’ing Kerry, not Scott McClellan. Damned shame.

      Comment by Jonathan | May 24, 2005

    9. Do you mean 100% wrong before and admitting his mistake now? If so then he is now in line and in agreement with Gen Myers and the president of Afghanistan. Just more media intimidation and obfuscation of the reality of the fiasco and quagmire of the war. Anyone who still thinks we are winning the war is either in the bubble with the prez or smoking drugs. If you think otherwise then please put YOUR life on the line and please volunteer to go to Iraq.

      Comment by Steve Bremner | May 25, 2005

    10. Are you still talking?

      I’ve already addressed the “put life on the line” comment. That’s what YOU get paid to do. I get paid to develop software, while you get paid to defend the country you slander.

      And yeah, we’re losing the war…sure…whatever. Tell pro-Saddam propagandist and pedophile Scott Ritter that I said “Hi” (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=5347).

      I guess the election in Iraq didn’t happen. Tell that to the millions of purple fingers there. I know, Sunnis boycotted…what I wouldn’t GIVE for Democrats here to do the same!

      Comment by Jonathan | May 26, 2005

    11. Don’t ever accuse me of slandering my country!! I resent that very much. I love my country and will defend it. I will also defend my right to free speech.

      Scott Ritter was right about WMDs. The administration was wrong. The pedophile charge is a right-wing slander/smear. They are famous for that. Was he charged? No.

      The election happened. Has the violence slackened? No. Has it increased exponentially? Yes. Is there an end in sight? No. I rest my case.

      Comment by Steve Bremner | May 26, 2005


    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    Gravatar
    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

    Cancel

    Connecting to %s

    « Previous | Next »

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 25 other followers