Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mark silvers who wrote (4614)	8/29/1999 12:29:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Mark: You may philosophize if you wish. I am more practically oriented. I am worried about the world my children are growing up in AND the type of "morality" they are exposed to as they become adults. Its the only relevant "nanosecond" I care about. JLA

To: mark silvers who wrote (4614)	8/29/1999 2:10:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I thought this was a particularly good piece highlighting the media bias which is so vigorously denied by the media elite. Bush talks, Clinton walks Op-ed by Brent Baker, Vice President for Research and Publications at the MRC as printed in the August 23, 1999 edition of The Washington Times By Brent Baker No one has claimed to have witnessed George W. Bush use cocaine or any other illegal drug, but that didn't stop reporters over the past weeks from repeatedly pressing him for a definitive answer about his alleged history of drug abuse. That media interest in a rumor about possible criminal acts committed decades ago stands in stark contrast to the media's widespread refusal to pursue the charge by Juanita Broaddrick that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1978. The drug questions were fueled in late July by a week-long profile of Mr. Bush in the Washington Post. Reporters Lois Romano and George Lardner insisted, "We need to ask the cocaine question. We think you believe that a politician should not let stories fester. So why won't you just deny that you've used cocaine?" ABC invited Ms. Romano to be a guest on the July 27 edition of "Good Morning America" to dismiss Mr. Bush's answer: "He's basically declared that his life began at 40 and that we're supposed to not ask about that other fellow before 40 and I don't know if he can hold to that position." No such invitation to appear on a network news show materialized after Ms. Romano interviewed Mrs. Broaddrick back in late February for a Post story which ran four days before Mrs. Broaddrick recounted her charge on the Feb. 24 edition of "Dateline NBC." That long-delayed interview with Lisa Myers failed to spark network television coverage. Indeed, CBS's "This Morning" has yet to mention her name and ABC's "Good Morning America" has never aired a story or full interview segment, though the show briefly raised her name one day in a larger interview. The closest "NBC Nightly News" came was an end-of-the-show plug for that night's "Dateline" segment, but Tom Brokaw only referred to how the show would feature "controversial allegations" in "an exclusive interview with the woman known as Jane Doe No. 5, Juanita Broaddrick." The following weekend the ABC, CNN, Fox and NBC Sunday morning interview shows all discussed Mrs. Broaddrick but even that failed to generate any mention on the broadcast-network morning or evening shows. Three weeks later, at Mr. Clinton's first solo press conference in ten months, in 21 questions posed only ABC's Sam Donaldson asked about Mrs. Broaddrick, leading to "World News Tonight's" first mention of her name, but neither CBS or NBC uttered a syllable about her in their summaries of the March 19 press conference. At this point the "CBS Evening News" hadn't mentioned Mrs. Broaddrick since its only story on a Saturday in February, but instead of broaching her charge, anchor John Roberts highlighted how Mr. Clinton "said he and Mrs. Clinton love each other very much." In contrast to an eyewitness accusing Mr. Clinton of committing a felony, there is no one accusing Mr. Bush of drug use, but nonetheless last week reporters kept demanding he answer drug questions and then treated the very occurrence of the queries as justification for news stories. On Thursday night, Aug. 19, ABC anchor Charlie Gibson asserted "the question is dogging his otherwise smooth campaign." NBC anchor Brian Williams called it "the question that will not go away." (Mr. Bush's evolving answer during the week, in which he expanded his drug-free years from seven to 25, gave the networks a convenient story hook, but Mr. Clinton's evasive press conference answer about Mrs. Broaddrick -- "There's been a statement made by my attorney. He speaks for me, and I think he spoke quite clearly" -- did not motivate them to pursue her charge.) Viewers of Thursday's "NBC Nightly News" were treated to three minutes on the subject and ABC's "World News Tonight" gave it three and a half minutes -- which is exactly three minutes and three and a half minutes more time than the two shows devoted in February or early March to Mrs. Broaddrick's charge. The "CBS Evening News" aired a piece for the second consecutive night on Thursday on the drug issue, thus giving twice as much attention to Mr. Bush and drugs as to Mrs. Broaddrick. Thursday morning ABC's "Good Morning America" brought aboard former Clinton adviser George Stephanopoulos to analyze the controversy and NBC's "Today" ran a pre-taped interview with Mr. Bush during which the interviewer raised the drug question. "Today" returned Friday with a discussion about media coverage. Don't count on members of the media to realize their hypocrisy. Thursday afternoon on MSNBC, the Republican National Committee's Cliff May tried to point out the media's "double standard," since "we have right now a credible allegation by Juanita Broaddrick that while Attorney General Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her and he won't answer." Host David Gregory cut him off: "Now hold on. You know what Cliff, I'm not going to let you go there. We are not talking about this today. We're not going to turn that into this."

To: mark silvers who wrote (4614)	8/29/1999 2:24:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769670

How about these choices? A recent column by Cal Thomas. The good and the bad get ugly jewishworldreview.com -- THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT'S ruling that the Boy Scouts must admit homosexuals because scouting is a public entity, like police and fire departments, is flawed on legal and moral grounds. Chief Justice Deborah Poritz dismissed assertions by the Boy Scouts that words in the Scout Oath which speak of "morally straight'' and "clean'' constitute a statement against homosexuality and allow the organization to keep homosexuals out. Poritz said she doubts that young boys "ascribe any meaning to these terms other than a commitment to be good.'' The concept of what is good has undergone a transformation. Some years ago, then-New York Gov. Mario Cuomo spoke of a state supreme court judge friend of his as a "good man'' after the judge was convicted and sent to prison for threatening to kidnap his ex-lover's daughter. In the past few days, Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her philandering husband as a "good husband and father.'' Luciana Morad, the mother of rock singer Mick Jagger's latest illegitimate child, told Europe's Hello magazine that, even though Jagger has yet to meet his 4-month-old son, he is "a very loving father.'' If there is no standard for "good,'' then the word has only the meaning assigned to it at a given moment. How can the Boy Scouts of New Jersey be taught to perform good deeds and to have good behavior if "good'' has no definition? If good and non-good (or bad, as we used to call good's antithesis) are to be defined by judges, then their decisions become arbitrary and make a mockery of the law, which is supposed to be based on immutable standards, not cultural pressure and intimidation by special interests. Why is it good for the Boy Scouts to be forced into accepting people who behave in ways judged to be bad by the organization's leadership and by most Scout parents, and bad to reject applications for membership from practicing homosexuals? Why shouldn't it be bad to engage in same-sex behavior and good not to engage in it? All "lifestyles'' are now created equal by the courts, and if bad exists, it is in the mind of the beholder. If all fathers are good, then the behavior of Bill Clinton and Mick Jagger is no better or worse than those men who marry and forsake all others. In this relative view, the virtues represented by TV characters such as Bill Cosby and Ozzie Nelson are not to be preferred over characters modeling vice. The redefinition of good has been going on for at least four decades. This has led to the hiring at Princeton of Peter Singer, the eugenicist, who will teach this fall that life has only the meaning assigned to it and that anyone judged defective may be eliminated for the greater good, whatever that means, since good is in a constant state of flux. The god of materialism has done this to us. In our relentless pursuit of personal peace and affluence we have sacrificed whatever or whoever gets in the way. Cable TV covers business news more than ever because profit and things are what we worship. Atlanta's mayor wonders why so many are so angry that they go on shooting rampages. It is because of the false advertising that the stuff of life can give meaning to life. When some people realize the lie, they lash out in anger, even murder. For what do they have to live? A Jewish prophet once warned: "Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.'' We've called abortion "choice'' and marriage an inconvenience. We dispose of all that gets in the way of having our way. Institutions like the military, the Boy Scouts, marriage, Walt Disney, even some churches and religious leaders have been corrupted. The truth is that the Boy Scouts of America are not like the police and fire departments. Their organization has successfully helped turn several generations of young boys into men of character and self-control, supplemented by a God concept and a recognition that He makes life's rules for our protection. Because the New Jersey decision is the opposite of a March 1998 ruling by the California Supreme Court, the subject may be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Let's hope those justices haven't completely forgotten the difference between good and bad -- or things are going to get even more ugly.