Category Archives: Media

Updated: The New Republic’s Vilification of Paul

Elections 2008, Federalism, Journalism, Media, Ron Paul

The less said about the New Republic’s vile write-up about Ron Paul the better.
On Pajama Media is where I first saw the exuberantly celebrated link to TNR’s hit piece. Pajama Media is a conglomeration of some of the lowliest neocons in the production of cyberspace ejaculate. Ditto “The New Republic”— warmongers all. They’ve never been right in any of their policy forecasts, and are mad as hell that Paul’s predictions usually pan out.
The stuff spewed by the author, who is fast becoming known as “Pimples” for obvious reasons, masquerades as investigative journalism, when it is no more than an ad hominem attack. The various contentions—mostly that Paul is alleged to have made offensive statements about crime and demographics—are not relevant to the campaign issues; these attacks do not address the issues Paul speaks to, but are, rather, personal attacks without proof.
Since it’s hard to hate the impish, good-natured Paul, I suspect that in Paul, his opponents have found man who has led an exemplary life—he has served his country and community, stayed married to his childhood sweetheart for 50 odd years, and is as devout a Christian as he is a constitutionalist. His actions alone make him the man his detractors can never aspire to be.
Disclaimer: “Pimples” appears to believe that advocating secession, which is no more than a peaceful political divorce, is racist and hateful. So in the interest of full disclosure, here is a piece I wrote. It appeared in Canada’s National Newspaper, the left-leaning Globe And Mail. It celebrates Canadian secessionism. But then the title is self-explanatory: “Raise a Toast to Western Separatism and Canada’s Good Health.”
Paul has issued a statement addressing The New Republic smears. Here it is.

Update: I imagined Andrew Sullivan, having endorsed Rep. Paul, would act like a man, for once, and stand up for Dr. Paul. But no: Sullivan became hysterical over the allegations against Paul. A sulking Sullivan has announced he no longer feels the same about the candidate he once praised so highly. Shame.

ABC A-OKAY

Elections 2008, Journalism, Media

My first observation with respect to the Republican Debate in New Hampshire concerns the anchors. Charles Gibson of ABC especially, but also Scott Spradling, the WMUR-TV news anchor, looked awfully good when compared to the cable clowns.

I was reminded how a veteran newsman (Gibson) ought to conduct himself, as opposed to a seasoned entertainer (Anderson Cooper).

The first (Gibson), is formal and neutral. For all we know, he’s probably a flaming liberal but we are none the wiser because of an intelligent, detached delivery and demeanor. The last (Cooper), has substituted journalism with advocacy, so that poignant inquires about issues (Gibson) are replaced with whiny demands whiny demands (Cooper) such as, “What are you going to do about making taxpayers pay for my health care?” Or, “When will you join Gore in admitting there’s a global-warming crisis?”

Fox Noise anchors are as “intelligent” CNN’s noise-makers, except they have a different impetus, if as transparent.

Andrew Sullivan Endorses Ron Paul (But Still Loves McCain)

Elections 2008, Media, Neoconservatism, Republicans

Before doing the right thing and endorsing Rep. Ron Paul, Andrew Sullivan gives us a glimpse as to why he’s been so misguided over the years (he’d never admit to learning by following those of us who’ve gotten it right). Sullivan first slobbers over McCain:
“I admire McCain in so many ways. He is the adult in the field, he is attuned to the issue of climate change in a way no other Republican is, he is a genuine war hero and a patriot, and he bravely and rightly opposed the disastrous occupation policies of the Bush administration in Iraq. The surge is no panacea for Iraq; but it has enabled the United States to lose the war without losing face. And that, in the end, is why I admire McCain but nonetheless have to favor Paul over McCain. Because on the critical issue of our time – the great question of the last six years – Paul has been proven right and McCain wrong. And I say that as someone who once passionately supported McCain’s position on the war but who cannot pretend any longer that it makes sense.”
Andrew has always done proud to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club combined. And since when has the mummified McCain’s opposition to Iraq been anything but tactical? At least Sullivan doesn’t pretend he wasn’t once firmly in the McCain camp with respect to Iraq. Why would he need to pretend? When the American punditocracy is wrong, which is almost always, it doesn’t incur adverse effects. Being a party to the neoconservative-Centre-Left coalition means never having to say you’re sorry (or being dismissed).
Another indictment of McCain came today in the form of an endorsement from Joe Lieberman. Ideologically, very little distinguishes neoconservatives such as McCain, or other big government, open-borders Republicans from the center-Left.
Sullivan doesn’t make much more sense when he gets to Dr. Paul, although the overall endorsement is a good thing:
“The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration,” he salivates.
The current Republican Party is based in freedom and toleration? It has not stood for these principles in many decades, and, as some argue, never, since this is the party of Lincoln.
Andrew improves when he praises “Paul’s federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government…”

Update # II: ‘Redacted’: De Palma Tells The Truth

Film, Hollywood, Media

“There’s one pesky problem with all the indignant huffing and puffing” over the film “Redacted”; it’s “based on a true story. It’s a docudrama. Moral grandstanding notwithstanding, our mighty mediacrats have failed to mention that minor detail.”

“De Palma has, at least, bothered to commemorate the vanquished young victim at the center of ‘Redacted.’ To Rupert Murdoch’s protégés in Mainstream Media, Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi is redundant, a castaway. The same broadcasters who won’t quit braying when an American youngster is harmed pan De Palma for widening his lens to include an Iraqi girl’s ghastly demise at the hands of American soldiers…”

The complete column is “Redacted: De Palma Tells The Truth,” now on WorldNetDaily.com.

Update #I: I’m pro-truth, not anti-troops. For those who can’t Google–or rely on Michelle Malkin to verify facts for them–this case is well-documented. The culprits are sitting in jail, one for 90 years. The idea that individuals should shut up to serve what the mediacrats and their masters in Washington declare to be best for the fictitious collective is … fascistic.

Update #II: Americans don’t want to see a miserable film about a war most don’t support and aren’t able to bring to an end, thanks in no part to the lapdogs that lap up the propaganda perpetrated by what I’ve dubbed the Media-Military-Congressional-Industrial-Complex.
Said offenders have surmised Americans won’t see the film because they want the army to continue mucking about in Iraq. Who’s to say Americans are not simply avoiding a miserable film, about a miserable reality they can do nothing about? Wake up lapdogs! The likes of Ann Coulter are getting rich off the war; you ordinary suckers are paying for it—some with their lives, and all with a devalued dollar and depreciated assets.

As for those who would like to decide what narrative will power a De Palma film: Why can’t De Palma tell any sorry story he likes? Why must he do what these collectivists think he should do? Since when must a director be directed in the choice of his subject matter? So much for our dwindling freedoms. Live and let live.

Asking “what is De Palma’s motive or justification” for producing his film is like asking me why I inveigh against injustices as I see them. I’m a political and cultural commentator. If you want to read non-controversial nonsense, then read Cosmopolitan. Similarly, filmmakers are like novelists; the one writes about things he thinks are important and have touched him; the other depicts them on celluloid. (Personally, I like films like “Dressed to Kill”—thrillers. As I say in the column, Hollywood no longer entertains me.) This reminds me of the foul attacks I got when, starting in 2002, I protested the unjust, illegal, unconstitutional Iraq war. It’s no different.