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: ManyMoose who wrote (262775)	6/11/2002 12:29:18 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Brent Bozell June 11, 2002 Bush pleases anchors? Uh-oh At almost this time in his presidency -- in June of his second year -- President George H.W. Bush announced he would put tax increases on the table in budget negotiations with House and Senate Democrats. His conservative supporters were shocked, but the TV news anchormen were well pleased. On the night of June 26, 1990, NBC anchor Tom Brokaw reported: "President Bush today conceded that new taxes will be necessary to get the federal budget deficit under control." The key word in that sentence is "conceded," a verb that packed a wallop. It said that the president's conservative position was admittedly wrong; the liberal position was right. For two years after "read my lips," the media had hammered the anvil of conventional wisdom: Raising taxes was the only solution to rising deficits. Now the president had shifted, and the press could subtly declare victory. This verb came to mind again on the night of June 3, 2002, after the New York Times gleefully placed on its front page the news that the Environmental Protection Agency was sending the United Nations a report on global warming that socialist bureaucrats everywhere would enjoy. The report echoed the U.N. gospel that blames the pestilence of people (and all their producing and driving and exhaling) for grave environmental damage to come. Suddenly, a GOP administration was echoing the media, with dire weather forecasts of vanishing coastal islands and ruined mountain meadows. Once again, it looked like a President Bush was sliding toward another cherished consensus of the liberal media. What verb would Brokaw use? "This White House acknowledges" -- which is to say, concedes -- "human activity is responsible for greenhouse gases, and the problem poses some threats to this country's future." The networks all reported this in the same tone: Bush "acknowledges" that liberals were right, after that foolish period where he said the science was incomplete. Over on ABC, Peter Jennings asked White House reporter Terry Moran: "This is not the first time that the Bush administration has recognized man's contribution to global warming, is it?" Now Bush needed to "recognize" the truth. The media have spent more than a decade manufacturing a conventional wisdom: Everyone knows that human industry threatens to turn the planet into a blast furnace. They've ignored thousands of scientists who insist there is no scientific basis for all of the dire warming scenarios. They painted a world in which everyone but George W. Bush supported drastic measures, especially the UN's Kyoto treaty, even though the Senate roundly rejected it years ago, and virtually every nation on earth has failed to sign it. If the media lived up to their own ridiculous claims that they apply an adversarial tilt toward every president, they would have interviewed or at least cited scientists who insist the doom-and-gloom consensus is politically motivated junk science. But to no one's surprise, they refused. The Bush team had located the correct position, and the incorrect position didn't deserve any publicity, especially now. But opposition to this EPA-trumpeted concession did emerge -- from the alternative conservative media. Rush Limbaugh asked, "George W. Algore, anyone?" Matt Drudge highlighted the happy New York Times reporter's story and then linked up to Rush. So the next day, the White House went into its usual mode, with aides singing that old tune "What Changed Position?" When he was asked about it, President Bush said, "I read the report put out by ... the bureaucracy," and said he opposed the Kyoto treaty, since it would ruin the economy. NBC's David Gregory cited the Limbaugh criticism as a reason for the flip, and then so did ABC's "Good Morning America." ABC's Claire Shipman laid out an entire story documenting conservative displeasure with Bush positions on the pork-laden farm bill, the steel tariffs and the policy allowing tax-funded stem-cell research on already-destroyed embryos. But on every issue cited by Shipman, the media have concentrated almost totally on liberal complaints in recent months while ignoring conservative viewpoints. Worse, when the conservative viewpoint is cited, it's reduced to the political, never given consideration as serious policy. There was not one syllable about the substantive conservative case against the EPA policies from those who have devoted years to discussing the liberal one. This isn't just the media's fault. The Bush administration hasn't found the courage to make the substantive conservative case. It put Christie Whitman at the EPA, and its environmental positions have been muddled at best. The Bush administration ought to know that in the final analysis, you can't please everybody -- conservatives and liberals, Limbaugh and Brokaw, free-market purists and SUV-banning wackos. Like Bush I, you might end up "conceding" defeat -- at the polls. Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a TownHall.com member group. ©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc. townhall.com

To: ManyMoose who wrote (262775)	6/11/2002 1:12:58 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

So we don't dissolve into a lovefest of self-congratulatory agreement, here are the things I don't like about the various religions: 1) Belief that their church is infallible. Something that led me to retire from the Catholic Church. When the Pope came out with his church-doctrine-is-not-cafeteria-style proclamation, he lost me. And many others, I suspect, because I've heard the same from others about that particular edict. Religions ARE fallible, and much as they'd like to believe they have a direct channel to God's voicemail, history shows that they do not. Does anyone really think God ordered up the Crusades? The recent shame of the Catholic church is not an isolated event. Other religions can be found to be fallible. Christian churches have their Swaggarts, Bakkers, Joneses, and Falwells; Judaism has its ultraorthodox nuts; Islam has its Talibans and Kohmeinis; secular churches have their suicide space travelers. Point #1: When Churches admit their earthly fallibility, they will go a long way to establishing credibility. 2) Mixture of religion and politics Ever since the Moral Majority, I believe that Christianity, especially fundamentalism, has suffered a black eye. I'm not even counting the obvious hypocritical scum like Swaggart and Bakker. I'm talking about the Jerry Falwells. As I previously agree with Karen, I think it is a good idea to watch a variety of programs to get a feel for what other people are watching. I've had occasion to watch a number of shows with Rev Falwell, and I believe he is severely damaging the Christian cause. I could certainly ignore his radical fundamentalist views, like the time I saw one of his sermons that featured the evils of women wearing shorts (he did not emphasis specific, revealing shorts; he meant ANY shorts). There are other religions, like the Amish, that profess to a very strange (to my viewpoint) set of principles. That's ok; more freedom to 'em. It is the hypocracy and lies that I cannot let slip. I've seen his programs where he will make up the most outrageous garbage, such as a conspiracy involving the entire US Postal Service to intercept and change absentee ballots in all 50 states (remember, the USPS is run by evil labor unions). But then he has the gall to come onto more conventional news programs and show a completely different, more moderate face. He doesn't even have the balls to espouse his factless garbage to anyone outside of his minion. And believe me, they soak it up as the Gospel itself. Point #2: Fundamental Christians will forever be viewed as crackpots and extremists unless they get out of the business of politics and back to the business of God, and back into the footsteps of Jesus Christ. 3) The contention amongst some (too many) that Islam is an evil religion. To associate the deeds of the terrorists with Islam is a grave error, IMO. Post Sept 11th, I did a little studying up on Islam, and found that, as Falwell is corrupting Christianity, so are some of the fundamentalist Muslims. Islam teaches many of the same principles of Christianity and Judaism; devotion to God, self respect, moral rules, etc. I understand the outrage against the terrorists and the scum like bin Laden. But to tar everyone of the Islamic faith with the lunatic fundamentalist brush is not going to allow us live peacefully in this world. Point #3: Don't start from the assumption that Islam is an evil religion, or that Muslims all hate us. Whew, that pooped me out.