Archive for March, 2010

…will not be as restrained or as nuanced as the American Response to 9/11.

I don’t expect to see soul searching or worries about the niceties. Putin is KGB and they certainly are not going to worry about keeping the US or international press happy, and the Russian Press certainly isn’t going to call for kid gloves.

And lets not pretend it is not Islamic:

While the Chechnyan conflict started off as a political rebellion, it has been an Islamist affair for most of the last several years. The “Black Widows” took part in the infamously botched seizure of a Moscow theater in 2002, when Russian authorities gassed the hostages and terrorists in an attempt to disable them, but wound up killing many of them instead.

This will not be pretty. Nor should we expect it to be.

…on what to do to fight big government if you live in an uncompetitive district. My two favorites:

“Campaign against your local Congress critter regardless. Donate to his opponents. Even if he wins in spite of your efforts the strength of the opposition may worry him and affect his votes. And you might beat him. Who expected us to win Kennedy’s seat (sic) in Mass.?”

I like that suggestion a lot, it was lonely holding that McCain/Palin sign but it made people know someone else was there.

Another reader emails: “I live within 100 miles of a Dem congressman’s district in my state. He voted against the bill. BUT…before the vote I called his office and informed them I will contribute to his opponent if the Democrats pass this. AND I told them I will drive the 1 1/2 hours to help his opponent knock on doors, stuff envelopes, answer phones, get out the vote….whatever it takes to defeat him. As a clincher, I told them I am unemployed thanks to his party’s policies. I’ll have plenty of time to devote to his opponent.”

…if I had any more to add I would suggest some publicity perhaps hiring a fellow with a fedora to cover your candidate for a week.

…not in terms of entertainment, Willie and Savannah are entertaining, (I really think the show is a good influence on younger journalists in the sense that it keep them from taking themselves too seriously, that will pay dividends, both personal and professional, for decades) but in terms of balance.

Item: The Wet sloppy kiss stuff continues, Pat was outnumbered 3-1 and discussing the poll without not pointing to the skew of the poll sample. It’s not hard to get a 53% approval when you have a 10 point democratic vs republican sample.

Item: They have talked about Sarah Palin only 4-1, O’Donnell gets props for pointing out that without Palin there would not be a strong counter point. Unfortunately for some reason although they’ve talked about her appearing for McCain (calling it uncomfortable). Not a word about the “dozens” in Searchlight.

Item: We are about to have our second hit on the Pope with Pat outnumbered 3-1 this time (Norah O’Donnell has joined the table along with Mark Penn), they are quoting Maureen Dowd, always an unbiased source on the church. O’Donnell is of course talking about “bringing down the church”. Pat brings up yet again that the liberal Milwaukee diocese role and the fact that the case came to the then Cardinal Ratzinger two months before the priest in question died. It was also very dishonest to suggest that the Pope reference to “gossip” was about the abuse in Milwaukee rather than the allegations people are trying to make against him.

It is not quite 8 a.m. yet EST so maybe we will see something different but it would be nice to see at least one more Conservative sitting at that table. I think it can be done without too many MSNBC viewers going Kryten.

Oh boy 8 a.m. and the Kelly O’Donnell joins the table creating as Savannah put it an “O’Donnell sandwich”, (I shudder to think what Stacy & Ace will do with that image.) that will add to the media balance, I do give Kelly full marks for pointed out how the Democrats managed to avoid recess to keep President Bush from doing recess appointments during his last term.

Update: Did I just hear Norah O’Donnell call the tea party people “good hard working Americans”? Did she point out the number of women as leaders? And then she goes and spoils it by repeating the Pope BS. Oh well. You take what I can get.

…concerning the Milwaukee Diocese. Specifically Buchanan brought up how the particular issue that the media is trying to hit the pope with originated from a very liberal diocese that doesn’t have much of a history of being in “lockstep” with the Vatican.

If you want, you know actual information rather than the tripe that we’ve seen even in papers like the Herald the best spot is of course here. For example lets meet the primary source of these stories:

The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his clandestine lover. He is prima facie not a reliable source.

That’s just a glimpse, believe it or not it gets better (or worse if you are a foe of the Vatican). When Pat brought up Milwaukee, Savannah and Willie started hemming and hawing.

The British press have been on full attack mode too, aided by Richard Dawkins, Damion Thompson described his article best.

The article conjures up the image of a nasty old man who’s losing his marbles. It’s not very nice about the Pope, either.

I like Dawkins wife but can’t write about her till Lent is over. Meanwhile surprise surprise guess who pushed for a full investigation of this stuff a decade ago?

Don’t expect much traction for that story after all it doesn’t fit the narrative.

Pope Benedict one said that if the media starts treating him nice he would worry about what he was doing, from what I can see he must be doing very well.

As for the times and co, I’d tell you what I think of them but I’d have to go to confession afterward.