| EdDriscoll.com |
|
Saturday, December 07, 2002
Posted
12/7/2002 11:49:18 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/7/2002 11:40:55 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Friday, December 06, 2002
Posted
12/6/2002 09:18:09 PM
by Edward Driscoll
The real embarrassment, of course, is for those who claim there is No Such Thing As Liberal Media Bias. Could the Times campaign against Augusta National be a tacit conspiracy to derail Al Gore's renomination campaign? Just as Gore is trying to make headlines claiming that conservatives dominate the U.S. media, this story--in which Pulitzer-winning columnists at the Paper of Record are getting their work rammed onto the spike for arguing in favour of old-fashioned American freedom of association--rears its head. You've got to wonder if they're deliberately trying to make him look like a fool. In a weird way I can understand what Raines is trying to do. He presumably believes, as I do, that there is no sense in newspapers contorting themselves into a stance of serene evenhandedness. This is something they've only recently felt the necessity to do, and with alternative news sources sparking up on all sides, American newspapers are perhaps best advised to return to their older tradition of populist partisanship. (When they had a monopoly on the raw feed of news, and broadcast bandwidth was limited, they had to appear to function as a public trust; but now we all have modems and cable TV.) But, of course, you have to be a blinkered New York liberal to believe that this Augusta crusade is going to work on a "populist" level. As American newspapers reacquire the old instincts, they will perhaps see that they have to give their own columnists back some freedom of action if they expect to reclaim it for themselves.For our round-up of Gore's grassy knoll claims, start here, then click here, and follow the links.
Posted
12/6/2002 04:51:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Here's what happens when you don't have a First Amendment. You not only get hauled into jail for insulting someone's religion, you can't even run TV commercials making fun of George Bush! An ad which portrayed the allegedly dumb president trying to put a video-cassette into a toaster was ruled too cruel. You could broadcast it on a regular, approved show - but not in an ad. Go figure.Scroll up for some thoughts on what comes next with regards to Iraq, as well.
Posted
12/6/2002 03:22:57 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/6/2002 03:16:20 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/6/2002 03:06:16 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Feminists demanded that "something" be done about the Taliban's treatment of women for years. Conservatives scoffed. But when the Bush administration saw fit to liberate the women of Afghanistan — for reasons larger than merely their freedom — feminists drew circles in the floor with their open-toed shoes and grumbled about how they didn't like war. But I guarantee you if Bill Clinton had unleashed the 10th Mountain Division on Kabul to ensure reproductive choice for Afghan women, Gloria Steinem would have done cartwheels. Amnesty International couldn't dispute the facts of the British dossier because the British dossier was, in fact, largely a reprint of information gathered by Amnesty International. So, it attacked the motives of the British government. "There's no question that the regime has an appalling human rights record," Kamal Samari, a spokesman for Amnesty International, told the Washington Post. He admitted, for example, that the group had collected the names of as many as 170,000 Iraqis who had "disappeared." "But what we don't want to see for Iraq or any other country is that the human rights record is used selectively in order to achieve political goals." What? . . . What!? I could have sworn the whole reason Amnesty International existed was to make fixing human-rights problems a "political goal." When Amnesty talks of using the record "selectively," it means that the U.S. and its allies are being hypocritical by not taking a uniform line around the world on human rights. Ms. Khan complains, "Let us not forget that these same governments turned a blind eye to reports of widespread violations in Iraq before the Gulf War."Jonah adds, "A reasonable and mature human-rights advocate would shout "Finally! You people are going to do something about Iraq! I hope you don't stop there!" She would say, "At long last, you are going to fix the problem you helped create!" She would ask, "What can we do to help?"" But instead, we get whining, because the "wrong people" (i.e. conservatives) are finally doing what liberals long thought was the right thing to do. Or, to paraphrase Blaine Nye, it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, but who gets the credit. It's very much along the lines of this, this, and this.
Posted
12/6/2002 01:52:32 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said in a speech this week the effect of Bush's tax policies will "not be borne by any of us here today — it will be paid for by our children. We're borrowing from Social Security and Medicare to put money in our pockets today — and sticking our children with the bill."Wouldn't privatization of Social Security eliminate that concern? By the way, where is Bluto when you need him, anyhow?
Posted
12/6/2002 01:36:44 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/6/2002 12:41:38 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Under current tax law, for every dollar of profits earned by a company, Uncle Sam keeps 60 cents and the private sector gets only 40 cents. Yet if the White House reduces the dividend tax rate for individuals to 20% from today's 39%, leaving the corporate tax rate on dividends untouched, the private sector will keep 52 cents for each corporate dollar of profit. Rather than the bulk of the money going to Uncle Sam, the risk-taking investor class will be rewarded with the larger share. The Bush economic team has been largely divided since its formation almost two years back. Last September, the team's supply-siders — Larry Lindsey and Glenn Hubbard — lost out to deficit-mongers Paul O'Neill and Mitch Daniels in the debate over the double taxation of dividends. But as the saying goes, what a difference a year makes. Today, Lindsey and Hubbard — Bush's pro-growth economic advisors — are poised to win out with the strong support of Vice President Dick Cheney. Their victory represents the beginning of the battle to completely end the double taxation of dividends. And that battle will appropriately start with the investor class.How will Lindsey and O'Neill's resignations impact that plan? UPDATE: Kudlow has some thoughts.
Posted
12/6/2002 11:23:54 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/6/2002 11:05:40 AM
by Edward Driscoll
![]()
Posted
12/6/2002 12:14:20 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Thursday, December 05, 2002
Posted
12/5/2002 11:56:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/5/2002 08:36:43 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/5/2002 07:19:48 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/5/2002 04:37:53 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/5/2002 03:28:03 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/5/2002 03:03:39 PM
by Edward Driscoll
![]()
Posted
12/5/2002 02:33:20 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Prior to his appointment as president of the news division, Arledge was president of ABC Sports from 1968 until 1986. During his tenure, he introduced virtually all state-of-the-art technologies to sports programming, including instant replays, slow motion, advanced graphics, as well as the introduction of journalistic values and personalization of athletes to sports broadcasting. "Before Roone Arledge there were no replays. There were no slow-mo machines," said Dick Ebersol, Arledge's protégé who later became the president of NBC Sports. "There was absolutely no prime time sports on any network." Arledge created Monday Night Football. Without him, there would be no Howard Cosell or Wide World of Sports with its "thrill of victory."Arledge also produced what ABC calls "the first live coverage of a terror attack": At the Munich Olympics in 1972, he produced for a world audience the first live coverage of a terror attack, when the Palestinian Black September Movement murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Games.ESPN has more on Arledge, who has a memoir scheduled to be published in January. ![]()
Posted
12/5/2002 01:21:56 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/5/2002 12:40:49 PM
by Edward Driscoll
If Raines wanted to launch a big crusade, worthy of the Times -- and one that would even hurt Republicans -- he could devote the New York Times' vast reportorial resources to unravelling the web of Saudi financial influence in Washington. Instead, he's worried about golf.Hey, this would be a great opportunity for Al Gore to do a "Sistah Souljah" on the Times--he could attack them for dropping the ball on terrorism, and score bonus points among centrist voters. Won't happen, though.
Posted
12/5/2002 12:00:05 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Wednesday, December 04, 2002
Posted
12/4/2002 11:16:26 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/4/2002 11:00:41 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/4/2002 09:47:15 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/4/2002 09:15:05 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/4/2002 08:59:35 PM
by Edward Driscoll
So perhaps the best parallel, in a looking-glass way, is between Gore at his goring-est and one of his rhetorically overkilling-est predecessors in the vice presidency, Spiro "nattering nabobs of negativism" Agnew. Agnew, who was Richard Nixon's #2 from 1969 to 1973, made himself polarizingly famous with his snappy-nasty references to "effete snobs" who "have a masochistic compulsion to destroy their country's strength." Not surprisingly, the left half of the country mostly hated him, but the right half mostly loved him—"Spiro our Hero." That intense support from the faithful was a change for Agnew, since he had been a liberal Republican from Maryland in the '60s. But his polemical pummeling, however opportunistic, annealed him to the right-wing fire-eaters, and so he was the strong favorite for the 1976 Republican presidential nomination until he was felled by a corruption scandal in the fall of '73. To be sure, Agnew's exuberant exhalations might have come to haunt him in the '76 general election, but the general rule for White House hopefuls is this: you have to get nominated before you can get elected. Accomplish the first mission, by any means necessary, and then worry about the second.I wonder if Saturday Night Live will be doing a "Gore After Dark" sketch in 2004?
Posted
12/4/2002 07:43:31 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/4/2002 07:15:52 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/4/2002 04:34:38 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/4/2002 01:19:25 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/4/2002 12:50:32 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Imagine what would have been the media’s reaction were Richard Nixon to talk about the conspiracy of media forces slanted against him? At the very least, it would have been seen as bad manners (the rantings of a sore loser who never accepts blame for his own flaws) and bad politics (antagonizing major media outlets is never seen as smart, and is often portrayed in menacing undertones as thinly disguised hatred of a free press). More likely, the press would declare him a paranoid nutcase.Sadly (or perhaps fortunately), Al does a pretty good job of that on his own.
Posted
12/4/2002 12:13:40 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/4/2002 11:41:47 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Time magazine's Joel Stein reported on July 29 his experience at a fund-raising dance party for former Attorney General Janet Reno, who was trying to become governor of Florida. He wrote, "I leave my friends behind and rush the stage to try to dance with Reno, only to find myself in a small group of men living the same fantasy." Sorry, guys, I've never had that fantasy.Me neither!! I don't know about Martin Sheen, though. (Link found via the Brothers Judd, of whom it's an extremely safe bet that they've never...God, I can't even type it.)
Posted
12/4/2002 10:58:51 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Full disclosure: I write a biweekly column for FoxNews.Com. I also worked for Gore's 1988 Presidential campaign. I disclose - you decide.
Posted
12/4/2002 10:23:38 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/4/2002 10:02:09 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Tuesday, December 03, 2002
Posted
12/3/2002 11:51:19 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/3/2002 06:15:23 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/3/2002 01:47:11 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/3/2002 11:46:45 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Monday, December 02, 2002
Posted
12/2/2002 04:08:44 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/2/2002 03:29:24 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/2/2002 03:24:42 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/2/2002 02:40:13 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/2/2002 02:10:24 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/2/2002 01:09:55 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/2/2002 11:02:14 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/2/2002 10:35:59 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
12/2/2002 12:02:24 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Sunday, December 01, 2002
Posted
12/1/2002 11:59:25 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Daschle's real aim was to win the support and admiration of the people who already agree with him. The Democratic Party has made the collective decision to become an aggressively liberal party. This is in part because the moderates got their heads handed to them in the last election. But it's also because the Democratic Party is dominated, and will remain dominated, by presidential hopefuls. As is always the case, Democrats run far to the left up to and through the presidential primaries in order to win the party's base. Well, the base of the Democratic Party loathes Rush Limbaugh and believes that he's the devil's harbinger of religious intolerance. For Daschle to be seen as the chief victim and critic of Rush Limbaugh is a political boon. And if uttering such idiotic prattle is the price for winning the Dems' allegiance, it's a tiny price to pay. What this says about the people who nodded when Daschle made his comments is a subject for another day.In the meantime, read the whole thing.
Posted
12/1/2002 11:36:40 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Home |