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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (57987)	4/17/2007 4:41:22 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I had a good laugh along those lines yesterday. A colleague was telling me about a certain credit card company that was trying to get him to pay a time-barred debt incurred by his former firm after he'd left and given up his credit card. The company rep insisted to him that he had signed a personal guarantee. My friend therefore asked to see a copy of it. The rep said that they couldn't find it, but would gave him a copy of what he would have signed. So, said my buddy, you think you're going to win in court with an argument that if we had the evidence, this is what it would be. LOL

To: Sully- who wrote (57987)	4/17/2007 4:44:32 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

The Pulitzer Racket by L. Brent Bozell III Media Research Center April 17, 2007 Conservatives often ponder why more young conservatives don’t go into journalism. Here’s one easy reason: the path to prizes and prestige doesn’t come from fierce investigative probing into liberal sacred cows or sharp-eyed conservative commentary. It comes from pleasing liberals with stories which advance their agenda. The 2007 Pulitzer Prizes must have been a sad affair, what with no major prize for exposing and ruining an anti-terrorism program, and no major natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina to blame on President Bush. But that doesn’t mean the Pulitzers weren’t typically political. After all, the panels of judges are stuffed with long-standing figures in the liberal media establishment. Let’s start with the Commentary prize, which was awarded to Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The official Pulitzer Prize Board’s press release hailed Tucker’s “courageous, clear-headed columns that evince a strong sense of morality and persuasive knowledge of the community.” Translation: she’s liberal, and she hates George Bush. Stephen Spruiell of National Review quickly found one recent column complained that “There are plenty of unindicted liars walking the halls of the Bush White House...The Bush team knew they could never have sold American voters on an invasion of Iraq just because Saddam had illicit weapons. So they decided to distort, dissemble and lie.” What precisely is noteworthy in that? Hasn’t that been said by every radical left-wing blogger with a modem? What is noteworthy, perhaps, is the Pulitzer Prize committee standards. As with every other radical left-winger, Tucker can’t deliver a shred of evidence to support the accusation of a presidential “lie.” Any conservative student who aspires to be a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist should really try another line of work. Here’s the list since George Will won in 1977 and William Safire won in 1978: Charles Krauthammer in 1987, Paul Gigot in 2000, and Dorothy Rabinowitz in 2001. That’s five conservatives in 30 years. Three of the last five winners – Tucker, Leonard Pitts, and Colbert King – were leftist black columnists. William Raspberry and E.R. Shipp have also won. But the Pulitzer Prize glorifiers have never honored Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams or other black conservatives. Since 1992, eight of the sixteen Commentary prize winners have been women. Rabinowitz is the only conservative. Anna Quindlen, Maureen Dowd, Eileen McNamara and Shipp are on the liberal list. Mary McGrory (1975) and Ellen Goodman (1980) also won that prize. But there’s been no Pulitzer for Mona Charen or Michelle Malkin or Linda Chavez or – the Pulitzer people will faint -- Ann Coulter. There’s never been a Pulitzer for Bill Buckley or Pat Buchanan or Cal Thomas or Robert Novak. Need we say more? Perhaps the strangest award, the one revealing the typical liberal attraction to the edgy and anti-American, is the Feature Reporting award given to Andrea Elliott of the New York Times for a three-part series lauding the Brooklyn-based imam Reda Shata. Let’s once again consult the gooey Pulitzer press release: they hailed Elliott “for her intimate, richly textured portrait of an immigrant imam striving to find his way and serve his faithful in America.” Even though Elliott glossed over and made excuses for how the imam and “his faithful” support the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas as a “powerful symbol of resistance.” The press release kept underlining the judges’ liberal agenda. The National Reporting Prize was handed to Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe, “for his revelations that President Bush often used ‘signing statements’ to assert his controversial right to bypass provisions of new laws.” This underlines that heavy usage of a story on left-wing publicity machines like Air America and the Huffington Post apparently wins you major Pulitzer considerations. The International Reporting Prize was awarded to The Wall Street Journal “for its sharply edged reports on the adverse impact of China’s booming capitalism on conditions, ranging from inequality to pollution.” It might seem odd that this seemingly capitalist newspaper, “the daily diary of the American dream,” is winning prizes for muckraking through the social evils of “booming capitalism,” but it is certainly some flashy Pulitzer bait. So when you hear a liberal-media person crow about someone’s excellent journalistic qualifications, such as their Pulitzer Prize, it’s fairly safe to assume that hallowed journalist wrote something that would make a Hillary Clinton smile from ear to ear, and would make a Rush Limbaugh grimace. mrc.org

To: Sully- who wrote (57987)	4/17/2007 8:21:12 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

[M]ost had "positive" job reviews. What a crock! In the Federal gov't a potted plant could out-perform you & you'd still get a "positive" job review. Senate Dems & the MSM know this too. ** Gonzales hearing postponed Power Line The Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the Alberto Gonzales hearing due to the tragic events at Virginia Tech. The hearing will take place on Thursday instead of tomorrow. This means I probably won't be able to cover the proceedings, as I'll be traveling for much of that day. Meanwhile, Senate Dems and the Washington Post continue to obfuscate on this matter.** Chuck Schumer has "relayed to reporters" that new statements by the former Justice Department official who carried out the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys contradict statements by Attorney General Gonzales. And the Washington Post duly obliges Schumer with a headline repeating the claim. But the main alleged contradiction, one that's been tossed around for some time, is more apparent than real. Michael Battle, former director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, reportedly told House and Senate investigators that he was not aware of performance problems with respect to most of the fired U.S. attorneys until just before they were fired. Moreover, most had "positive" job reviews. Yet, says the Post, "Gonzales and his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, initially told Congress that the firings were due to 'performance-related' problems." The claim that this constitutes a contradiction appears to be based on the willful refusal of Senate Democrats and their MSM boosters to distinguish between two kinds of performance problems a U.S. attorney might have. A U.S. attorney might be a poor performer because he or she is inept in terms of legal judgment or managerial ability. Few of the fired eight appear to fall in this category. But a competent or even strong U.S. attorney might have performance-related problems because he or she refuses to prosecute or vigorously pursue certain types of cases that the Justice Department wants vigorously to prosecute -- e.g., pornography cases, illegal immigration cases, or voting fraud cases. That appears to be situation with several of the eight. It's not wrong to say that such prosecutors were fired for performance-related reasons even though they might have been quite capable when it came to managing the office and prosecuting those cases they were interested in bringing. To comment on this post, go here. plnewsforum.com powerlineblog.com washingtonpost.com washingtonpost.com