Liberal talk radio host Randi Rhodes was injured Sunday night in what was at first alleged as a mugging. Apparently, Randi Rhodes hosts a show on Air America (I thought they went out of business, but apparently they're still around). Initially, there was no news other than that Rhodes had "experienced an unfortunate incident." However, John Elliot (another Air America host) apparently stated on his show that Rhodes had been mugged, and leapt to the conclusion that it must have been "an attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own."
Talk about paranoia...and Elliot effectively spread the paranoia
Now it's being reported that Randi Rhodes was not mugged, she fell while walking her dog, injuring herself.
It's really interesting reading the Democratic Underground forum on this..."an unfortunate incident" soon turned into "a mugging," on untrue news from John Elliot...and soon after that it became "an attack" with accusations flying at everyone from Rush Limbaugh to the Bush administration. Some posters sounded like they were preparing to attack conservative talk show hosts in retaliation.
How about this: instead of trying to censor Rush Limbaugh for comments that he didn't make, why don't the leftist in our government do something about radio hosts on their own side (John Elliot) who seem to be all too willing to foment hatred by making baseless accusations?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Sounding Off on Limbaugh
It's a little late in the game, but I decided that it was time for me to finally sound off on my support for Rush Limbaugh.
Like waves against a cliff, liberals have tried to beat up on Rush Limbaugh over and over and over throughout his history in talk radio. Every time some left-wing media watchdog takes a Rush quote out of context, they jump all over it, and this is no exception.
When it became known that Rush was addicted to prescription painkillers (following a painful back surgery), Democrat leaders and leftist wackos called him a pothead. But, as one bumper sticker I saw said, "Even on drugs, Rush is still right." Even when addicted to painkillers, Rush continued his tradition of excellence in broadcasting. He managed to shake his addiction, and despite losing his hearing, he is going on, stronger than ever.
When Rush made comments about the possibility of Michael J. Fox foregoing medication for his Parkinson's in order to appear symptomatic in a Democrat's campaign commercial (as supported by the fact that Fox had admitted to doing this before), Left-wing media (aka "the drive-by media") jumped all over Limbaugh for weeks. They somehow forgot to mention that Rush had been corrected by a listener via email, and apologized to Fox at the beginning of the very next segment.
The current controversy is over the "phony soldiers" comment. The truth is this: leftist anti-war groups do put forward phony soldiers to preach against the war. The soldier in question (Jesse Macbeth) was a phony soldier - and he is currently serving out a jail sentence for falsifying DOD records.
This controversy came about because Media Matters (a liberal "media watchdog" organization with ties to George Soros and Hilary Clinton) took Limbaugh's discussion out of context. They say that Rush couldn't have been referring to Jesse Macbeth because Macbeth's name doesn't enter the conversation until a minute or two after Rush used the words "phony soldiers."
The truth (if anyone had actually listened to Rush, instead of getting all of their information through the Media Matters filter) is that Rush was talking about Jesse Macbeth. Any regular Rush listener knows that Rush does a "morning update" every morning - a segment about 2 minutes long that is aired before the start of Rush's program. In the morning update, Rush talked about Jesse Macbeth being an anti-war activist and a phony soldier. Any regular listener would be able to tell this very easily, having heard the morning update that morning (as I did), but the truth is that liberals out to smear Limbaugh rarely, if ever, care about the whole story (especially when the whole story shows that Rush is right).
More recently, there have been rumors floating around about how this smear campaign is just another step liberals are taking to try and revive the Fairness Doctrine - a law aimed at killing conservative talk radio. I haven't seen any real evidence of this, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
The truth on this issue is that Media Matters is a liberal smear organization fronting as a media watchdog. They've shown that they're not truly interested in presenting facts - they believe in the stereotypes that conservatives are racists, bigots, homophobes, and hate-mongers, and their entire organization revolves around taking conservatives out of context to try and "prove" that. The truth is that Rush Limbaugh has been a supporter of the US military for even longer than I've been a listener, and this controversy amounts to nothing more than yet another wave pounding against the cliff.
Like waves against a cliff, liberals have tried to beat up on Rush Limbaugh over and over and over throughout his history in talk radio. Every time some left-wing media watchdog takes a Rush quote out of context, they jump all over it, and this is no exception.
When it became known that Rush was addicted to prescription painkillers (following a painful back surgery), Democrat leaders and leftist wackos called him a pothead. But, as one bumper sticker I saw said, "Even on drugs, Rush is still right." Even when addicted to painkillers, Rush continued his tradition of excellence in broadcasting. He managed to shake his addiction, and despite losing his hearing, he is going on, stronger than ever.
When Rush made comments about the possibility of Michael J. Fox foregoing medication for his Parkinson's in order to appear symptomatic in a Democrat's campaign commercial (as supported by the fact that Fox had admitted to doing this before), Left-wing media (aka "the drive-by media") jumped all over Limbaugh for weeks. They somehow forgot to mention that Rush had been corrected by a listener via email, and apologized to Fox at the beginning of the very next segment.
The current controversy is over the "phony soldiers" comment. The truth is this: leftist anti-war groups do put forward phony soldiers to preach against the war. The soldier in question (Jesse Macbeth) was a phony soldier - and he is currently serving out a jail sentence for falsifying DOD records.
This controversy came about because Media Matters (a liberal "media watchdog" organization with ties to George Soros and Hilary Clinton) took Limbaugh's discussion out of context. They say that Rush couldn't have been referring to Jesse Macbeth because Macbeth's name doesn't enter the conversation until a minute or two after Rush used the words "phony soldiers."
The truth (if anyone had actually listened to Rush, instead of getting all of their information through the Media Matters filter) is that Rush was talking about Jesse Macbeth. Any regular Rush listener knows that Rush does a "morning update" every morning - a segment about 2 minutes long that is aired before the start of Rush's program. In the morning update, Rush talked about Jesse Macbeth being an anti-war activist and a phony soldier. Any regular listener would be able to tell this very easily, having heard the morning update that morning (as I did), but the truth is that liberals out to smear Limbaugh rarely, if ever, care about the whole story (especially when the whole story shows that Rush is right).
More recently, there have been rumors floating around about how this smear campaign is just another step liberals are taking to try and revive the Fairness Doctrine - a law aimed at killing conservative talk radio. I haven't seen any real evidence of this, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
The truth on this issue is that Media Matters is a liberal smear organization fronting as a media watchdog. They've shown that they're not truly interested in presenting facts - they believe in the stereotypes that conservatives are racists, bigots, homophobes, and hate-mongers, and their entire organization revolves around taking conservatives out of context to try and "prove" that. The truth is that Rush Limbaugh has been a supporter of the US military for even longer than I've been a listener, and this controversy amounts to nothing more than yet another wave pounding against the cliff.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
What's Happened to American Politics?
The '08 presidential campaign started earlier than any other presidential campaign in US history. Recently, it's been losing some steam, probably because most people are just plain tired of the political sniping and mud-slinging...and there's another year to go before the actual election.
But looking at the platitudes being put forward by today's candidates, it's a wonder just how far US politics has come.
As America began, debate was fierce, and the political process was heated. However, the debate was over which policies would be better for the nation, the assumption being that the candidate with the best ideas would win the most votes.
Today, US politics has been reduced to candidates offering bribes to the people in an attempt to buy votes: welfare, nationalized health care, social security entitlements, amnesty for illegal aliens - all designed to bribe people for votes. And the politicians who speak out against these measures are automatically villanized, depending on the issue: politicians who are against socialized health care "hate the poor." Those who are against social security "hate the elderly." Those who are against amnesty for illegals are "racists."
America's political process used to be about which candidate's ideas would most benefit the nation as a whole, but over time, it has become nothing more than a contest to see which politician can offer each American a larger bribe. The truly sad thing is that all too many Americans have bought into the entitlement mentality, believing that they truly are entitled to welfare, social security, and "free" health care, and that Mexican poor are entitled to come to America illegally and enjoy all of the rights and freedoms of US citizens. It isn't about what's right anymore, it's about what individuals can get from the government. And if this trend continues, the US will end up like the former Soviet Union: bankrupt, with citizens living in poverty because the government has to take so much of their money in taxes to pay for social programs.
But looking at the platitudes being put forward by today's candidates, it's a wonder just how far US politics has come.
As America began, debate was fierce, and the political process was heated. However, the debate was over which policies would be better for the nation, the assumption being that the candidate with the best ideas would win the most votes.
Today, US politics has been reduced to candidates offering bribes to the people in an attempt to buy votes: welfare, nationalized health care, social security entitlements, amnesty for illegal aliens - all designed to bribe people for votes. And the politicians who speak out against these measures are automatically villanized, depending on the issue: politicians who are against socialized health care "hate the poor." Those who are against social security "hate the elderly." Those who are against amnesty for illegals are "racists."
America's political process used to be about which candidate's ideas would most benefit the nation as a whole, but over time, it has become nothing more than a contest to see which politician can offer each American a larger bribe. The truly sad thing is that all too many Americans have bought into the entitlement mentality, believing that they truly are entitled to welfare, social security, and "free" health care, and that Mexican poor are entitled to come to America illegally and enjoy all of the rights and freedoms of US citizens. It isn't about what's right anymore, it's about what individuals can get from the government. And if this trend continues, the US will end up like the former Soviet Union: bankrupt, with citizens living in poverty because the government has to take so much of their money in taxes to pay for social programs.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Al Gore wins Peace Prize
Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to raise awareness on the issue of climate change. The argument from conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, is that with this move, the Nobel committee has lost all credibility. I would agree with Rush, except for one thing: the Nobel committee lost its credibility long ago: between Yasir Arafat and Jimmy Carter, the Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke for years now. In fact, Al Gore is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for the same reason he was given an Oscar: he's a liberal who is unafraid to bloviate endlessly about global warming.
The primary flaw behind Al Gore's awards are that his film was a sham, full of misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies about the nature of global warming. The news that Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is not as important as the news that an English court recently ruled that teachers showing Gore's movie to school children must give a disclaimer, explaining that the film contains inacuracies and partisan political views.
True conservatives can only hope that this English court's decision will introduce some logic into the global warming debate (which Gore refuses to engage in, citing "scientific consensus"), though that seems unlikely, as the mainstream TV and print media largely ignored the story coming out of England, yet have been praising Gore almost constantly since the Nobel Peace Prize announcement.
The primary flaw behind Al Gore's awards are that his film was a sham, full of misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies about the nature of global warming. The news that Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is not as important as the news that an English court recently ruled that teachers showing Gore's movie to school children must give a disclaimer, explaining that the film contains inacuracies and partisan political views.
True conservatives can only hope that this English court's decision will introduce some logic into the global warming debate (which Gore refuses to engage in, citing "scientific consensus"), though that seems unlikely, as the mainstream TV and print media largely ignored the story coming out of England, yet have been praising Gore almost constantly since the Nobel Peace Prize announcement.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Leave NCLB Behind
President Bush today voiced his intention to renew the No Child Left Behind Act, stating that
The problem with NCLB is that it tries to fix the education system through more testing...but our education system doesn't need more testing; what it needs is less regulation. Using standardized testing to reform the public education system is a grand case of failing to see the trees for the forest. If you stand back at a distance and look at the education system, NCLB looks great...but the truth is, NCLB is wreaking havoc at the classroom level, tying teachers' hands, forcing them to teach to the test, but preventing them from truly teaching their students. The further failing of NCLB is that it puts the responsibility for students' education squarely on the shoulders of public school teachers. The truth is, the most effective venue for a child's education is in the home: teachers introduce the concepts, but without reinforcement at home, it doesn't matter how hard teacher try, they will be ineffective. With this kind of legislation, it's no wonder that music and PE are being cut out of our schools: teachers not only have to introduce the concepts during school time, but they're forced to have students do what should be homework in class.
And all of that doesn't even include the amount of bureaucracy that NCLB adds to the public education system...at all levels. The federal government now gets more bureaucrats to impose further standards on teachers. The state governments now get more bureaucrats to impose even more standards and standardized tests on teachers. The local governments and school districts have to hire more bureaucrats to ensure that teachers are incorporating all of the district, state, and federal standards into their classroom teaching. The truth is, NCLB is leaving teachers behind: instead of doing whatever is necessary to teach students, they are regulated into teaching to the test.
President Bush is out there touting a narrowing in "the achievement gap." My question is this: is the achievement gap narrowing because low students are improving, or because high students aren't being educated properly? My suspicion, based on what I've seen happening in our public schools, is that it's the latter.
"No Child Left Behind is helping replace a culture of low expectations... As a result, the achievement gap is beginning to narrow.... There is more work to be done. So long as there is an achievement gap, we have more to do."The truth is, about all No Child Left Behind has done is to institute a culture of increased bureaucracy - something our already bloated public education system definitely doesn't need any more of.
The problem with NCLB is that it tries to fix the education system through more testing...but our education system doesn't need more testing; what it needs is less regulation. Using standardized testing to reform the public education system is a grand case of failing to see the trees for the forest. If you stand back at a distance and look at the education system, NCLB looks great...but the truth is, NCLB is wreaking havoc at the classroom level, tying teachers' hands, forcing them to teach to the test, but preventing them from truly teaching their students. The further failing of NCLB is that it puts the responsibility for students' education squarely on the shoulders of public school teachers. The truth is, the most effective venue for a child's education is in the home: teachers introduce the concepts, but without reinforcement at home, it doesn't matter how hard teacher try, they will be ineffective. With this kind of legislation, it's no wonder that music and PE are being cut out of our schools: teachers not only have to introduce the concepts during school time, but they're forced to have students do what should be homework in class.
And all of that doesn't even include the amount of bureaucracy that NCLB adds to the public education system...at all levels. The federal government now gets more bureaucrats to impose further standards on teachers. The state governments now get more bureaucrats to impose even more standards and standardized tests on teachers. The local governments and school districts have to hire more bureaucrats to ensure that teachers are incorporating all of the district, state, and federal standards into their classroom teaching. The truth is, NCLB is leaving teachers behind: instead of doing whatever is necessary to teach students, they are regulated into teaching to the test.
President Bush is out there touting a narrowing in "the achievement gap." My question is this: is the achievement gap narrowing because low students are improving, or because high students aren't being educated properly? My suspicion, based on what I've seen happening in our public schools, is that it's the latter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)