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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (3027)	7/5/2003 1:11:39 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 10965

Rove Spends the Fourth Rousing Support for Dean Bush political strategist, Karl Rove rallied Howard Dean supporters at the Palisades Citizens' Association Fourth of July Parade. By Juliet Eilperin Saturday, July 5, 2003; Page A05 Talk about lining up the competition. President Bush's chief political adviser has seen the possible presidential candidates among the Democrats and has found one he apparently thinks his man can beat: former Vermont governor Howard Dean. Karl Rove tried to stir up enthusiasm for Dean marchers yesterday at the 37th annual Palisades Citizens' Association Fourth of July parade along the District's MacArthur Boulevard, which always attracts plenty of politicians. As a dozen people marched toward Dana Place wearing Dean for President T-shirts and carrying Dean for America signs, Rove told a companion, " 'Heh, heh, heh. Yeah, that's the one we want,' " according to Daniel J. Weiss, an environmental consultant, who was standing nearby. " 'How come no one is cheering for Dean?' " Then, Weiss said, Rove exhorted the marchers and the parade audience: " 'Come on, everybody! Go, Howard Dean!' "

To: calgal who wrote (3027)	7/5/2003 6:05:30 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 10965

Presidential candidate Howard Dean may be the Democrats' best-financed lefty, but progressive Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) had his own victory to announce last week: the endorsement of country-western icon Willie Nelson. "I am endorsing Dennis Kucinich for president, because he stands up for heartland Americans who are too often overlooked and unheard," Nelson said. "A Kucinich administration will put the interests of America's family farmers, consumers and environment above the greed of industrial agribusiness." Nelson said he planned concerts to help fill Kucinich's campaign coffers. Kucinich was thrilled. "It's an honor to earn the support of a man who has come to symbolize the best values of America," he said. washingtonpost.com

To: calgal who wrote (3027)	7/5/2003 9:47:52 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

Military myths By Mona Charen Have you heard of Army Sgt. Casaundra Grant? Probably not, because her story has been largely ignored by the press. She's a 25-year-old single mother who lost both of her legs during the Iraq war when she was accidentally pinned under a tank. Her 2-year-old son "prayed for her legs" the first time he saw her stumps. Sgt. Grant is upbeat and grateful to be alive, reports the San Antonio Express-News, but is this really the way we want to fight our wars, with young mothers coming home in wheelchairs? (By the way, has anyone noticed how many of our women warriors seem to be single mothers?) In the Middle East, cultural attitudes have remained unchanged for millennia. In the United States, they change dramatically in a decade. Whereas 17 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled it was fine for Georgia to outlaw sodomy, today, the court practically throws open the door to gay marriage. So, too, with women in combat. Democrats swim out past the buoys, but Republicans, too, are pulled by the cultural undertow. Notice how we're all so careful to refer to the "men and women" in the armed forces (and we can hardly not, since they represent a big percentage) and the "men and women" who give their lives. Yet when we mention the women who give their lives, there is, for some of us, protest lodged with the gratitude. You want to add "But women ought not be asked to give their lives." And, in fact, it is not official U.S. policy to put women in combat. Still, there is a vocal constituency of feminists (both male and female) who do want to end the military's prohibition on women in combat, and they've been making steady progress. "Reforms" instituted during the Clinton administration permitted women to serve closer to the front lines with the altogether predictable result that more women were injured and killed in Iraq than in the previous Gulf war. One of those was Jessica Lynch, whose story has become more opaque with every passing day. We first learned of her when the U.S. military announced she had been rescued from an Iraqi hospital. The Washington Post ran a gripping front-page story, citing unnamed Pentagon sources, who described Pfc. Lynch as the Sgt. York of 2003. The plucky gal had emptied her rifle into the enemy, we were told. She had been stabbed and shot, and had other injuries but kept on fighting. "She didn't want to be taken alive." It wasn't true. The story began to unravel as soon as Pfc. Lynch was taken to West Germany for medical treatment. Doctors said there were no signs of gunshots or stab wounds, but she did have injuries consistent with a truck accident, and a terrible one at that. Everyone else in her vehicle was killed. Meaning no disrespect to Pfc. Lynch, who deserves every care her country can offer, why was The Post so eager to paint her as a Rambo-style hero? And why did it take weeks for The Post to acknowledge that the original story was false? Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness says she has seen it all before. "Remember Capt. Linda Bray? She was the military police officer in Panama who took enemy fire and handled herself with coolness under fire. Later we found out that she had been sent to secure a Panamanian dog kennel. Still, that was enough for the feminists to declare that the argument over women in combat should be over." Then there was Kara Hultgren, the Navy pilot who was killed trying to land on an aircraft carrier. Mrs. Donnelly recalls how the Navy spun the story to suggest it was mechanical error in order to conceal its double standard on male vs. female aviators. But the Navy's own internal investigation revealed that Lt. Hultgren had been responsible for the accident, and more damning for the Navy, that she had been certified to fly, though she had twice before made the same mistake that ultimately killed her. The Post's own ombudsman, Michael Getler (and The Post deserves praise for maintaining an ombudsman; the New York Times doesn't deign to) asked: "What were the motivations (and even the identities) of the leakers and sustainers of this myth, and why didn't reporters dig deeper into it more quickly?" Yet he answered his own question, "This was the single most memorable story of the war, and it had a unique propaganda value. It was false, but it didn't get knocked down until it didn't matter quite so much." Just so. Every American knows the name of Jessica Lynch, which suits those who like the image of the fighting Amazon. Very few know that Pfc. Lynch's story is mostly myth, and that suits them, too. Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.

To: calgal who wrote (3027)	7/5/2003 9:55:13 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10965

No press bias? By Thomas Sowell Denials of media bias seem to have become more frequent or more vehement lately. Some in the media try to dismiss the accusation as old stuff. But the only real question is whether it is true, because the truth doesn't wear out with the passage of time. Media bias does not consist simply in the often-cited fact that 9 out of 10 journalists voted for Democrats, in a country that is very closely divided between the two political parties. If, as many journalists claim, they do their job in a professional way, what they do in the voting booth is their own business. What really matters is how they report the news. The remarkable success of Fox News, with its motto of "We report, you decide," suggests that many people suspect much of the mainstream media of filtering and slanting the news. Unfortunately, such suspicions are all too well founded. Whether the issue is abortion, gun control, affirmative action or a whole range of other controversies, too many in the media seem less concerned with letting their readers and viewers know what the arguments are on both sides than with promoting the liberals' views. One particularly bitter controversy within the overall abortion issue is over a medical procedure known as a "partial-birth abortion." Even some people who favor a right to abortions in general balk at this particular procedure. Yet you could read some leading newspapers and watch some television news programs for years on end without having the faintest idea what a partial-birth abortion is — which is the killing of a newborn baby as he emerges from his mother's body. The very phrase is banned in some places, where "late-term abortion" is substituted, as if the controversy is about the time when this act occurs, rather than the act itself. How are you supposed to make up your own mind about this or any other issue when large parts of the mainstream media seem determined that you not hear one side? It is not — or should not be — a question of which side the reporter is on. The question is whether the reporter is there to report or to filter, conceal or spin. When the issue is gun control, you may have heard innumerable times that murder rates are much lower in countries like Britain or Germany, which have more restrictive gun-control laws than ours. But how often — if ever — have you heard that murder rates are much higher than ours in some other countries like Russia or Brazil that also have more restrictive gun control laws than ours? How often have you heard that murder rates are lower in some countries, such as Switzerland and Israel, where gun ownership is more widespread than in the United States? Not very often, if at all, because liberals in the media leave the impression that gun control is a key to the murder rate. They have every right to believe that. But that does not include the right to filter out facts that go against their theory. One widespread example of media bias is reporting the arguments of one side and the emotions of the other side. Usually both sides have both arguments and emotions, but the liberal media often report only the liberal arguments. In the recent Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action at the University of Michigan Law School, a front-page news story in the New York Times reported the arguments used in Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's majority opinion but simply dismissed the dissenting arguments of Justice Clarence Thomas by saying that he "took as his text not the briefs but his own life story." Those who doubt the existence of media bias should go on the Internet to find Justice Thomas' opinion (www.supremecourtus.gov) and read it for themselves to see if there is anything anywhere in it that bears any resemblance whatever to the characterization used by the New York Times to keep its readers from knowing what his arguments were. The New York Times has every right to be in favor of affirmative action. But that is very different from preventing its readers from knowing what the arguments are against it — especially in what is presented as a "news" story, rather than a front-page editorial. Media bias is still alive and well at the New York Times, and so apparently is the spirit of Jayson Blair. Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.