Too often, when we talk about media bias we think about the way a reporter presents a story. What words are used? What ideas are emphasized? What we forget is that media bias also manifests itself as story selection. Sure, we can report casualties in Iraq, but we could also have lots of media report a village getting electricity or the changed fates of various families who were at odds with Saddam's regime. Dr. Sowell points out we could learn more about the military heroes.
Sowell thinks the press is hardly altruistic or patriotic in its attempt to focus on fallen soldiers. They aren't honored as heroes, but as martyrs to a flawed foreign policy. There's a big difference. Jay Nordlinger over at NRO said he hoped Sowell's latest piece would receive wide circulation. I'm happy to oblige. Here's a link and I'm quoting a large piece of the column below:
People have every right to be for or against this war or any other war. That is what editorial pages, newspaper columns, and radio and TV talk shows are all about. But pretending to be reporting news and "honoring" the troops is dirty business.
While our troops were willing to put their lives on the line to carry out their missions, they did not go overseas for the purpose of dying. Nor have they died without taking a lot more of the enemy with them. Every terrorist killed in Iraq is one that will never come over here to commit another 9/11.
Anyone who was serious about honoring the fallen troops would honor what they accomplished, not just the price they paid. More than 5,000 Marines died taking the one little island of Iwo Jima but they were honored for taking Iwo Jima - a wretched little island in itself, but a crucial forward base for supporting the air attacks on Japan that ended World War II.
Those who are busy "honoring" the deaths of American troops in Iraq seldom have much to say about what those troops accomplished. The restoration of electricity, the re-opening of hospitals and schools, and all the other things being done to try to restore a war-devastated country get little attention, and everything that has gone wrong makes the front pages and TV news for weeks on end.
This is the approach that gave the media their biggest triumph and ego boost - the discrediting of the war in Vietnam.
More than 50,000 Americans died trying to save that country from Communist attacks. Their achievements included victories on the battlefield that were negated politically by the way the American press reported the war.
In recent years, Vietnam's Communist leaders themselves have admitted that they lost that war on the ground but hung on because the American anti-war movement gave them hope that they could win it politically. It was a well-founded hope that the American media helped make come true when we withdrew both our troops and our financial and political backing for the Vietnamese under attack.
At that time, the media had not yet come up with the gimmick of "honoring" American war dead but they nevertheless were able to throw away the victory for which those men sacrificed their lives.
Will they repeat that heady achievement a second time in Iraq? They certainly seem to be trying. And it is no honor.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Homnick and Tyrell's Zine
Mr. Homnick has a piece up at the Spectator today. He’s spending less time on language games, so you can tell he’s irritated. It’s about politics in Palestine.
News With Migraine Assault
My earlier piece about product warning labels is gaining traction. This reinforcing headline was posted this morning on Yahoo: Mom Uses Hammer On Son Over Homework.
Perhaps we need a new tag on hammers: "This product is not intended as an implement for corporal punishment of recalcitrant children, particularly in states with capital punishment." On the other hand, maybe we'll just stick with the old label: "Battery not included."
Perhaps we need a new tag on hammers: "This product is not intended as an implement for corporal punishment of recalcitrant children, particularly in states with capital punishment." On the other hand, maybe we'll just stick with the old label: "Battery not included."
Persecution of Iraqi Christians
Today's issue of National Review Online includes an eye-opening article on persecution of the Christian minority in Iraq, cowritten by Nina Shea, director of Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom. The insurgents have chosen the ChaldoAssyrians as a special target, attacking them "with particular ferocity" because they associate these natives of Iraq with the West. That is to say, the insurgents hate them intensely because the ChaldoAssyrians are Christians.
Subjected to bombings, kidnappings, murders, and other such violence by the insurgents, tens of thousands of the nearly one million Iraqi ChaldoAssyrians have fled into exile in the past few months, and unless the United States does something to ensure that they are protected under the new government, they may all leave before it takes over. It is ironic that they were safer under Saddam Hussein than they are today. The U.S. government should be ashamed, morally, if they allow these people to be forced from the country, and it is utterly stupid and insane for us to let potential future allies be thus pushed out.
Among the dozens of stories the New York Times has written about the War in Iraq, this one seems to have slipped through the cracks. It is a big story that has received little to no attention from the major American news media. They, too, should be ashamed.
Subjected to bombings, kidnappings, murders, and other such violence by the insurgents, tens of thousands of the nearly one million Iraqi ChaldoAssyrians have fled into exile in the past few months, and unless the United States does something to ensure that they are protected under the new government, they may all leave before it takes over. It is ironic that they were safer under Saddam Hussein than they are today. The U.S. government should be ashamed, morally, if they allow these people to be forced from the country, and it is utterly stupid and insane for us to let potential future allies be thus pushed out.
Among the dozens of stories the New York Times has written about the War in Iraq, this one seems to have slipped through the cracks. It is a big story that has received little to no attention from the major American news media. They, too, should be ashamed.
Award Of The State (Of Affairs)
Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch has announced the winners for the best consumer labels of the year. First Prize went to this warning on a toilet brush: "Do not use for personal hygiene." Second Prize for a tag on a child's toy scooter: "This product moves when used." And coming in at Number Three, printed on a digital thermometer: "Once used rectally, this product should not be used orally."
It's time to put labels on life: "Getting out of bed in the morning involves substantial risk."
It's time to put labels on life: "Getting out of bed in the morning involves substantial risk."
Won't Leave Her Art For San Francisco
San Francisco Mayor and famous punchline (of the joke, "what do you get when you cross nuisance and noisome?") Gavin Newsom, has announced that he will be divorcing his wife of three years, Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom, due to the stresses of their "bicoastal" lifestyle. [She works out of New York as a talking-head attorney for Court TV.]
Apparently, being openly heterosexual was hurting him too much with San Francisco voters. Perhaps if he nicknamed her "Gil"....
Apparently, being openly heterosexual was hurting him too much with San Francisco voters. Perhaps if he nicknamed her "Gil"....
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Watch Out For The Thai That Binds
There are a lot of reports over the radio of orphaned children being pushed into the Thailand sex trade in the aftermath of the tsunami, although I am not finding corroboration for this in the print media. One hopes that this is not the case, although misery often finds a way to attach itself to misery - a sort of twist on "misery loves company". It is frightening to contemplate that people could be so unscrupulously predatory at such a time, but the human soul is capable of great heights and, sadly, corresponding depths.
This is not a moment to make a joke but a sort of grim play on words suggests itself: too many crooks despoil to the brothel. Let's do what we can to save the children's dignity along with their lives.
This is not a moment to make a joke but a sort of grim play on words suggests itself: too many crooks despoil to the brothel. Let's do what we can to save the children's dignity along with their lives.
Harry Reid Must Go . . .
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid opened up a can of worms when he targeted Justice Clarence Thomas as an incompetent member of the court during his interview with Tim Russert. Many bemoaned the fact that Russert failed to ask a follow-up offering Reid the chance to give specific opinions. In a new interview, he has done so and the result is not impressive. Here's James Taranto's take on it (worth quoting at length):
An alert reader points out that on the Dec. 26 episode of "Inside Politics," a little-watched CNN show, Reid actually did name such an opinion, at the request of host Ed Henry (we've corrected several obvious transcription errors here):
Henry: When you were asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether or not you could support Justice Thomas to be chief justice you said quote, "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written." Could you name one of those opinions that you think is poorly written?
Reid: Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard. Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good.
It's interesting to learn that in Nevada eighth-graders write dissertations; we guess that explains how Harry Reid got to be as erudite as he is. He must immerse himself deeply in legal scholarship to be familiar with a case like Hillside Dairy v. Lyons, which doesn't exactly rank up there with Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade among famous Supreme court rulings.
To be honest, we'd never even heard of Hillside Dairy until we read the CNN transcript, so we went and looked it up. It turns out to be a 2003 case about California milk regulation. Here is Thomas's opinion in full:
I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.
Is that written at an eighth-grade level? We report, you decide.
What about that Scalia dissent Reid found so impressive that he thought it worthy of a recent Harvard undergrad (rather a backhanded compliment, since Scalia actually graduated from Harvard Law School 45 years ago)? Here it is, quoted also in its entirety: ""
That's right, there was no Scalia dissent. Scalia joined the court's majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, as did every other justice except Thomas, and he dissented only from Part II.
Reid's substantive criticism of Thomas--if it can be dignified with such a description--turns out to be equally empty. According to Reid, Scalia "doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head," while Thomas does. Presumably this refers to Thomas's rejection of the court's "negative Commerce Clause" jurisprudence. In his Hillside Dairy opinion, as we've seen, Thomas does not elaborate on this, instead pointing the reader to his lengthy dissent in the earlier Newfound/Owatonna case--a dissent Scalia joined. In other words, Thomas and Scalia both would overturn Supreme Court precedent in this area; the only point of disagreement in Hillside Dairy was whether to address the question in this particular case.
We suppose Reid will find some staff knucklehead to take the fall for this appallingly shoddy research, but the question remains: Why is the Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate so intent on insulting the intelligence of Clarence Thomas, the only black member of the Supreme Court?
Newsmax.com reports that "the Congressional Black Caucus has told Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that he crossed the line earlier this month when he called Justice Clarence Thomas 'an embarrassment to the Supreme Court' ":
"We wrote a letter to Sen. Reid cautioning him about his comments," incoming CBC Chairman Mel Watt, D-N.C., told radio host Steve Malzberg, who was filling in Wednesday on Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" show.
"I think all of us ought to focus more on substance and less on stereotypes and caricatures," Watt said.
When Trent Lott crossed the line two years ago, Republicans, after some hesitation, did the right thing and ousted him as their leader. If the Democrats retain Reid, it will tell us something about the party's commitment to racial equality.
An alert reader points out that on the Dec. 26 episode of "Inside Politics," a little-watched CNN show, Reid actually did name such an opinion, at the request of host Ed Henry (we've corrected several obvious transcription errors here):
Henry: When you were asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether or not you could support Justice Thomas to be chief justice you said quote, "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written." Could you name one of those opinions that you think is poorly written?
Reid: Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard. Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good.
It's interesting to learn that in Nevada eighth-graders write dissertations; we guess that explains how Harry Reid got to be as erudite as he is. He must immerse himself deeply in legal scholarship to be familiar with a case like Hillside Dairy v. Lyons, which doesn't exactly rank up there with Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade among famous Supreme court rulings.
To be honest, we'd never even heard of Hillside Dairy until we read the CNN transcript, so we went and looked it up. It turns out to be a 2003 case about California milk regulation. Here is Thomas's opinion in full:
I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.
Is that written at an eighth-grade level? We report, you decide.
What about that Scalia dissent Reid found so impressive that he thought it worthy of a recent Harvard undergrad (rather a backhanded compliment, since Scalia actually graduated from Harvard Law School 45 years ago)? Here it is, quoted also in its entirety: ""
That's right, there was no Scalia dissent. Scalia joined the court's majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, as did every other justice except Thomas, and he dissented only from Part II.
Reid's substantive criticism of Thomas--if it can be dignified with such a description--turns out to be equally empty. According to Reid, Scalia "doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head," while Thomas does. Presumably this refers to Thomas's rejection of the court's "negative Commerce Clause" jurisprudence. In his Hillside Dairy opinion, as we've seen, Thomas does not elaborate on this, instead pointing the reader to his lengthy dissent in the earlier Newfound/Owatonna case--a dissent Scalia joined. In other words, Thomas and Scalia both would overturn Supreme Court precedent in this area; the only point of disagreement in Hillside Dairy was whether to address the question in this particular case.
We suppose Reid will find some staff knucklehead to take the fall for this appallingly shoddy research, but the question remains: Why is the Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate so intent on insulting the intelligence of Clarence Thomas, the only black member of the Supreme Court?
Newsmax.com reports that "the Congressional Black Caucus has told Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that he crossed the line earlier this month when he called Justice Clarence Thomas 'an embarrassment to the Supreme Court' ":
"We wrote a letter to Sen. Reid cautioning him about his comments," incoming CBC Chairman Mel Watt, D-N.C., told radio host Steve Malzberg, who was filling in Wednesday on Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" show.
"I think all of us ought to focus more on substance and less on stereotypes and caricatures," Watt said.
When Trent Lott crossed the line two years ago, Republicans, after some hesitation, did the right thing and ousted him as their leader. If the Democrats retain Reid, it will tell us something about the party's commitment to racial equality.
Class In NV
So many heart-warming stories of adoption are emerging from the areas stricken by the tsunami. Have you heard the one about the Untouchable boy from India who broke his leg when the wave hit but survived and then was adopted by a Nevada couple?
He is on the way to the U.S. to have his caste removed. (OK, OK, I made it up, but I am making a point, am I not?)
He is on the way to the U.S. to have his caste removed. (OK, OK, I made it up, but I am making a point, am I not?)
Wit Occurs, But Whittaker Endures
May I second the motion by the great Hunter Baker that we should all take the time to read Witness by Whittaker Chambers? Hunter's spotlight has caught the magnificence of soul; may I append my humble flashlight? I note as well that Mr. Chambers was one of the master prose stylists of the 20th Century, resembling in some ways my hero Mr. Ben Hecht, and serving as a precursor for such contemporary wordsmiths as Peggy Noonan.
I also appeal to all Jewish and Christian parochial high schools to make this book part of their syllabus, both for its literary and historical quality.
I also appeal to all Jewish and Christian parochial high schools to make this book part of their syllabus, both for its literary and historical quality.
See No Evel, Hear No Evel
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided in favor ESPN Magazine, who was being sued by Evel Knievel. They had captioned a picture showing Mr. Knievel with two women by noting that he looked like a "pimp". He sued but the court said they were not libel. Or liable. This because they deemed the word "pimp" in contemporary parlance to have become a compliment. That's what happens when you give laches to leches.
Mr. Knievel, of course, is a famous stuntman noted for jumping two or more Harleys at a time laid horizontally across his path.
In a related story, a kangaroo has been caught wandering around Iowa. No one is sure how it might have traveled there from Australia; perhaps by diplomatic pouch.
Mr. Knievel, of course, is a famous stuntman noted for jumping two or more Harleys at a time laid horizontally across his path.
In a related story, a kangaroo has been caught wandering around Iowa. No one is sure how it might have traveled there from Australia; perhaps by diplomatic pouch.
Why Legal Reform is the Top Domestic Priorty
Writing for American Spectator, William Tucker lays out the standard case for tort reform in compelling fashion. Upon finishing the piece, readers will understand why the trial bar has become so interested in national politics and has long been active in local races. Although I have good friends practicing law (even personal injury law) and I have a J.D. of my own, I feel little more than contempt for the profession when I read remarks like these from tobacco lawyer Dickie Scruggs:
"[W]hat I call the "magic jurisdiction,…[is] where the judiciary is elected with verdict money. The trial lawyers have established relationships with the judges that are elected; they're State Court judges; they're popul[ists]. They've got large populations of voters who are in on the deal, they're getting their [piece] in many cases. And so, it's a political force in their jurisdiction, and it's almost impossible to get a fair trial if you're a defendant in some of these places. The plaintiff lawyer walks in there and writes the number on the blackboard, and the first juror meets the last one coming out the door with that amount of money.… The cases are not won in the courtroom. They're won on the back roads long before the case goes to trial. Any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win the case, so it doesn't matter what the evidence or the law is."
The legal profession has yielded a portion of itself to simple extortion. It's time for action at the federal level. Regulating lawsuits in this way is not an exercise in big government because it is only the coercive force of government that allows this sort of injustice to continue.
"[W]hat I call the "magic jurisdiction,…[is] where the judiciary is elected with verdict money. The trial lawyers have established relationships with the judges that are elected; they're State Court judges; they're popul[ists]. They've got large populations of voters who are in on the deal, they're getting their [piece] in many cases. And so, it's a political force in their jurisdiction, and it's almost impossible to get a fair trial if you're a defendant in some of these places. The plaintiff lawyer walks in there and writes the number on the blackboard, and the first juror meets the last one coming out the door with that amount of money.… The cases are not won in the courtroom. They're won on the back roads long before the case goes to trial. Any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win the case, so it doesn't matter what the evidence or the law is."
The legal profession has yielded a portion of itself to simple extortion. It's time for action at the federal level. Regulating lawsuits in this way is not an exercise in big government because it is only the coercive force of government that allows this sort of injustice to continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)