Wednesday, June 29, 2005

The morning smackdown

Lots of fun stuff today kids. Good day yesterday too. President Bush made a good speech last night. John Kerry and the rest of the face-time Dems reacted as I predicted.

First up, lifted from Boortz's Webpage, a bit about some more 'objective journalism'.


I heard a TV news anchor this morning questioning a Republican Congressman Robin Hayes about the president's speech and our efforts in Iraq. Here are some of the questions the anchor asked Hayes:

"One of our listeners wrote to say that Bush should really be making this speech at Arlington National Cemetery, Not at Fort Bragg. Was it appropriate for President Bush to speak there?"

What? Did a journalist actually ask a politician whether or not it was appropriate for the President of the United States to make a speech about a war before the very people who are fighting that war? The very people who are expected to put their lives on the line in that war? Did I really hear that?

"Isn't he in part using Ft. Bragg as an appropriate backdrop to cheerlead the war in Iraq?"

Oh ... Arlington National Cemetery wouldn't be a backdrop? And stating the reasons we're at war is "cheerleading?" "Gimme a W! Gimme an A! Gimme an R!" Gimme a break.

"President Bush in his speech said that we're there to fight terrorists, but he failed to explain how a war to remove a dictator who was bent on using nuclear weapons has turned into a fight against Muslim militants. Doesn't he owe us an explanation?"

It's been explained, over and over again. That dictator was, himself, a Muslim militant with access to massive destructive power. Doesn't a news anchor owe us a little more intellectual diligence?

"But there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to Al Qaeda."

Sorry ... factually wrong. That evidence does exist. The 911 Commission itself reported on efforts by Saddam Hussein to make contact with Al Qaeda for the purpose of providing support and training. At least Congressman Hayes had the guts to say "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken."

"I know of no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda, and also there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Wrong, Wrong. Wrong. How can she say that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What in the hell did Saddam use to gas hundreds of thousands of his own people? Cheese Whiz? What about those implements used in the creation of nuclear weapons that were found buried in the back yard of one of Saddam's nuclear scientists? That's not evidence found in Iraq? What about the artillery shells containing sarin gas? That's not evidence? What about the documents detailing Saddam's weapons program? Not evidence? What about the statements from Saddam's scientists that they were ready to reinstitute their weapons program the very moment that UN sanctions were lifted and the inspectors were gone. Not evidence?

It was an amazing segment. Both a Republican and Democratic congressman were interviewed in this segment, but the argumentative interview style was saved for the Republican. The Democrats was not challenged .. not once. Remember, though ... there is no bias in the media.

Not much else to say there kids, other than, yeah, that passes for 'journalism' these days...

Next, the beginning of the backlash against the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding Eminent Domain.

Folks, this is what this boils down to. The Supreme Court has basically handed your property rights over to your local government, to do with as they please. You no longer own your home, you're basically renting it until the government comes along and decides that your land is not generating enough tax revenue. Don't like it? Don't want to move/sell? Too bad. If the local government decides that they want your land to be sold at whatever price they decide to give you, so that a developer can place something more revenue-friendly there, it's going to happen.

Let's hope Justice Souter can find new digs. And let's hope that the rest of the Justices that voted for this travesty of a decision get their homes razed too.

Next, more home-related news, but this time it's good.

Unbelieveably, to this pundit at least, the City of Atlanta government has decided to evict tenants of public housing who are not working or in school.

Now, before you get your little liberal panties in a bunch, it only applies to those persons between the ages of 18 and 61, who are not disabled, who are not in a work training program, scholastic program, or actually employed. And yes, they've known about this since October of last year.

Not surprisingly, the housing/homeless advocates have come out of the woodwork:

"This is going to mean that you will have so many people on the streets homeless because the job market is so bad," said Louise Watley, 72, the former longtime president of the Carver Homes Tenant Association and a public housing advocate.


The job market is so bad, that the most recent unemployment figures have national unemployment at 5.1%. Historically, under 6% means 'full employment'. But don't let statistics get in the way of a good story by any means.

On the other side of this, we have one Verna Mobley:

But across town at University Homes, 76-year-old Verna Mobley has little sympathy.

"I think it is the greatest thing that ever happened," Mobley said of the CATALYST program. "This new generation can wear hairdos and walk around smoking dope, but can't pay their rent. I am glad, and all the older people think it is great."

Mobley has lived in Atlanta public housing for 45 years and in University Homes since 1965.

Although she is well above the targeted age that CATALYST requires for working, she still works regularly and on her off days, patrols University Homes' laundry room, keeping outsiders away.

"I still get up everyday and go to work. I like to work. Why should I not work?" Mobley said. "But it is quite a few up there who are not working. Sure, they can go to work. If you are the head of your household, you should be working."

Ahhh...old people...cranky ones at that...I love em. We need more people like Mrs. Mobley around.


Hotel Lost Liberty
Eminent Domain Ruling
Evictions NOTE: you will need login info to see the AJC stuff. If you don't feel like registering, go to and get a fake login.
Bureau of Labor Statistics


Patrick Armstrong said...

As far as Boortz is concerned:

1. What, exactly, was the "journalist's" name, and what publication or media did he work for. I find it interesting that your quote does not mention that slightly important fact.

2. Al Queda links with Hussein. What can one say, with so much speculation, and doubletalk on both sides, who can be for sure? The last thing I heard was that it was low level officials and in years past, and that bin Laden hated Hussien's guts. I'm sure there's a lot of information on that in the 9/11 Commission Report. Kevin read it. What say you, Kevin?

3. The WMD in Iraq. Yes, Hussien bombed his own folks with mustard gas and nerve toxin. In the '80s. We've been in a shooting war with Iraq since 1991, and even Rumsfeld got up on TV and said "We know where [WMD]'s are." I saw the broadcast myself. Where is that smoking gun? Where is that justification for war? I want to know. Maybe Boortz knows, he should tell us. Soon. We're waiting.

I totally agree with the state of Journalism today, especially if Boortz is considered one.

As far as emminent domain is considered, I can't believe that it was Rhenquist, Thomas, & Scalia on the side of the angels as far as that one is concerned. I guess there is something to being a Constitutional Constructionist after all. (There's a few of us out here...)

As far as Atlanta public housing: something does have to be done and I can't believe that it is Atlanta doing the deeds. Strangely enough, I haven't heard word one about that anywhere.

S.A.W.B. said...

regarding point 1 - i'm quoting from his site. if i had to hazzard a guess, it was CNN he was watching post interview.

regarding point 3 - my guess is Syria...

patsbrother said...

To answer paT's question regarding the 9/11 Commission Report:

If the 9/11 Commission identified connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq, it did not include them in their report (unless I am mistaken; I read the Report a year ago and I don't have it with me to check). There is one very good reason for this: Iraq falls outside of the scope of the Report.

The Report deals specifically with background; how the hijackers and their benefactors circumvented American defenses; failures within the intelligence community; a clear timeline of events on September 11, 2001 for each of the four airplanes and select and pertinent locations; the American response on the ground (First Responders) and a timeline of their actions and of the collapse of both towers; the response of the American executive; the identification of lapses in American defenses both physical and procedural; and recommendations, both broad and specific, to prepare for and prevent further terrorist attacks upon the nation.

If the Report did mention the possibility of even a fleeting Iraq-al-Qaeda connection, it was within the framework of discussing al-Qaeda's history and practices in a broad sense; if the 9/11 Commission saw evidence that Iraq had a hand in any part of 9/11, the Commission did not deem it credible enough to include in its reports.