Wednesday, 03 October 2007


Ken Berwitz

This new requirement for schools in the UK is so logical and so obvious that ..... I understand perfectly why "educators" throughout the USA do not do it.  Take a look:.

Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias

Al Gore

Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been called unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.

Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.

The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.

Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.

He wants the video banned after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February.

Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore's Oscar-winning film does promote 'partisan political views'.

This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.

He said: 'The result is I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown.'

The outcome marks a partial victory for Mr Dimmock, who had accused the 'New Labour Thought Police' of indoctrinating youngsters by handing out thousands of Climate Change Packs to schools.

Mr Dimmock, a lorry driver from Dover with children aged 11 and 14, said at the outset of the hearing: 'I wish my children to have the best education possible, free from bias and political spin, and Mr Gore's film falls far short of the standard required.'

His solicitor John Day, said yesterday that the Government had been forced to make 'a U-turn', but said it did not go far enough.

He said 'no amount of turgid guidance' could change the fact that the film is unfit for consumption in the classroom.

The case arises from a decision in February by the then Education Secretary Alan Johnson that DVDs of the film would be sent to all secondary schools in England, along with a multimedia CD produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs containing two short films about climate change and an animation about the carbon cycle.

David Miliband, who was Environment-Secretary when the school packs were announced, said at the time: 'The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over.'

But during the three-day hearing, the court heard that the critically-acclaimed film contains a number of inaccuracies, exaggerations and statements about global warming for which there is currently insufficient scientific evidence.

The Climate Change Resource Pack has now been sent to more than 3,500 schools and is aimed at key stage 3 pupils - those aged 11 to

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan said last night: 'The judge's decision is clear that schools can continue to use An Inconvenient Truth as part of their teaching on climate change in accordance with the amended guidance, which will be available online today.

'We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position on a number of scientific points raised in the film.'  .

So in the UK, when schoolchildren are shown An Inconvient Truth, they must be advised that it contains theories on the environment and not indisputable facts. 

In other words it comes from Al Gore, not the Holy Grail. 

When do you suppose teachers in the states get around to telling their students that Gore's opinion didn't come down from the firmament on a chariot of fire?  Ever?


Ken Berwitz

Here, from Reuters, is a story that speaks for itself.  The bold print is mine:.

Three Palestinians killed in Gaza car blast

Reuters - Tuesday, October 2 10:23 pm

GAZA (Reuters) - Three Palestinians were killed on Tuesday when their car exploded outside a Hamas security office in Gaza and the Islamist militant group which runs the territory accused Fatah rivals of trying to plant a bomb near its outpost.

The incident could stoke internal tensions between Hamas and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction nearly four months after the Islamist group seized the coastal territory by force.

Hospital officials said another Palestinian was wounded in the blast in Gaza City.

A Hamas security official said the three Palestinians who died in the blast belonged to Fatah and accused the secular group of attempting to plant a bomb near one of its security post when their vehicle exploded.

The official said at least one of the men was a "senior Fatah militant," though he declined to provide any of their names.

No Fatah officials were immediately available to comment on the charges.

Hamas officials had earlier identified the four men as members of one of Hamas's security forces and said an Israeli warship fired a shell that destroyed the vehicle.

Israel said it was not involved in any attack.

Hamas's account would make it the deadliest incident of internal violence since Hamas took over in June.

Earlier on Tuesday, Israel sent 29 prisoners home to the territory as part of an attempt to bolster Abbas ahead of a U.S.-sponsored conference on Palestinian statehood. .

These are Israel's would-be "peace partners".  Sort of gives you the warm fuzzies, doesn't it?


Ken Berwitz

Brent Bozell has written a very important column, that every USA voter should see.  In it, he has compiled example after example of media toadying up to hillary clinton.

First, let me show you his column.  Then we'll discuss:.

Honoring Hillary For Media Manipulation

by L. Brent Bozell III
October 2, 2007

The other day, CNNs Reliable Sources show sought to explore Hillarys Sunday morning interview blitz of September 23. Why do the media pine for her so? Michelle Cottle of the New Republic gave the typical liberal answer: She's a celebrity. She and Bill have passed some point where they're no longer just politicians. They're rock stars."

There is absolutely no doubt that liberals really do think of the Clintons in rock-star terms, and the objective media have not merely treated them that way with a long-running assembly line of dazzled profiles and shoe-polishing interviews. Their royal treatment of the Clintons sends a signal to the rest of the political world: you cannot hope to contain these deeply impressive world leaders.

National Public Radio threw a temper tantrum and refused to air an interview with the President of the United States because the president sat down with NPRs Juan Williams instead of another NPR-approved interviewer. But Hillary is allowed to be as choosy as she wants to be. On CNN, Washington Post reporter Anne Kornblut explained that Hillary always picks her targets in the media in a very calculating way. When she decided to talk to the Washington Post, she picked columnists that she wanted to speak to, and...hasn't done interviews with the beat reporters, for example. And this is not just true of the Washington Post. It's true everywhere. And it's worked to her benefit so far, but it's a very specific strategy.

Her choosy strategy has worked to her benefit because the media want it to work to her benefit. Its like her cozy book tour for her ridiculous history-mangling memoir in 2003. At that time, NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell sang from that same Anne Kornblut song sheet, frankly recounting that Hillary was smart to avoid lowering herself to tough interviews with Tim Russert. This is a way of her getting out her version, so that people, book buyers, people who read it, people who will read about it will hear it more in her voice, and that is politically very advantageous.

In this last Sunday round, the hosts did ask a few questions that Hillary wouldnt like. Foxs Chris Wallace pressed her on her right-wing-trashing hyper-partisan view of politics. Tim Russert, among others, pressed about her Norman Hsu campaign-finance scandal. Some asked about her refusal to condemn as it branded generals as traitors in newspaper ads. But who recalls Hillarys answers? The medias echo chamber didnt exactly register her calculated responses as memorable, especially on scandals. Instead, they covered the fact that she mounted the merry-go-round as more relevant than what she actually said. The headlines in the papers referred to her media blitz, not her answers.

Fluff and spin are all that matters.

APs Hope Yen wrote Hillary sought to portray herself as a more humble, wiser leader who has learned from her mistakes and who would work to shed her image as a polarizing figure who would mire Washington in gridlock. CBSs Joie Chen oozed: Perched in a catbird seat at her suburban New York home, Hillary Clinton made a rare royal flush of appearances on all five Sunday talk shows....Sounding more than ever like a Democrat holding all the good cards.

In the New York Times, political writer Adam Nagourney graded the TV rounds highly. That is the campaign equivalent of a home run. He also noted the front-runner did the interviews from her house on her terms and sought to wring another day of what has been mostly positive coverage from the [health] plan she announced last Monday.

So Hillary is being given great credit for her skill in controlling the media by the media. Isnt that just a bit scary?

Saturday Night Live is doing skits with Amy Poehlers Hillary announcing the seating arrangements at her inaugurations in 2009 and 2013. It is small wonder Hillary looks like a juggernaut when we have a media that are constantly telling us her campaigns a juggernaut, a juggernaut driven by two rock stars. No one should deny that if our political press decided to drop the syrup bottle and press the Clintons on their scandals, or their politics of personal destruction, or their leftist policy prescriptions, they would look like a lot less impressive and a lot less inevitable. .

Why do media melt before the Clintons?  What does Hillary Clinton do to make them her sycophants?  

It can't be her accomplishments in the senate because, frankly, she doesn't have any.  It can't be her winning personality because she doesn't have one.  It can't be her positions on issues because she has been on enough sides of enough issues - especially Iraq - for that to be impossible.

Whatever the reason, Sen. Clinton is a protected species among the people who are supposed to objectively report on her. That means you will not get objectivity from them, you will get Hillary's side of things.....just like her campaign literature.

Please remember that when you read the next glowing chapter in the hagiography media are constructing for Ms.Clinton, even as we watch. 

Al Hi Ken The MSM is going to everything it can to get Hillary elected. When you discover that over 80% of reporters in this country declare themselves to be Democrats,it is no wonder. Let's go Yanks (10/04/07)


Ken Berwitz

It isn't often that you find a party - the majority party, no less - involved in two PR disasters within a couple of weeks of each other.  But the Democratic party, under the "guidance" of senate malaise leader harry reid, has done just that.

First we had the despicable full-page ad from calling General David Petraeus the commander of forces in Iraq, a liar and, by implication, a traitor as well.  The resulting firestorm made look like lying leftwing jerks, which is fair enough because that's what they are. 

But Democrats took a huge hit too, because treats the Democratic party as their wholly owned subsidiary.  Even media that follow the Democratic party's lead like dogs on leashes, were forced to acknowledge this association. 

Even worse, when a senate resolution was floated which condemned the ad and defended General Patraeus, 25 Democrats (that's half the total number) did not vote for it. And since both hillary clinton and barack obama are in bed with, among other members of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade, they were among those 25.

Thus the two leading Democratic presidential candidates, in order to keep a looney-tune left group happy, were put in the position of calling our commanding general a betrayer and liar during a war.  How's that for a Republican campaign issue?

It doesn't take an advanced degree in political science to see that this was a PR disaster. 

Now, fast-forward to the Rush Limbaugh incident, in which he used the term "phony soldiers" (and, in the same segment, made specific reference to jesse macbeth, who WAS a phony soldier).

You had Democrats licking their wounds over's "General Betray Us" fiasco now licking their chops instead.  This was going to be their ticket to make people forget it happened. 

So how did they try to do it? 

-First they claimed that Limbaugh was talking about all soldiers with doubts about the war in Iraq, not just people like macbeth -- which they immediately projected to an accusation that he was anti-military; 

-Next they held a marathon of speeches and public statements attacking Limbaugh for being anti-troops and unpatriotic, as if anyone was buying it;

-And then they concocted a "condemnation letter", designed to show voters that, as patriotic supporters of the troops, senate Democrats were pulling out all stops to defend our armed forces from that hater of the military, Rush Limbaugh.

Could they possibly have thought, even in their wildest fantasies, that this would work?  I sit here shaking my head in amazement that these people could be so divorced from reality.

Let's start with the fact that Rush Limbaugh has been a steadfast, aggressively proactive supporter of our military throughout his 20 year career on radio.  Anyone who listens to him on any given day would know that.  Democrats have ATTACKED him for it. 

Trying to portray Rush Limbaugh as being against our troops is like trying to convince an ice cream lover that chocolate and vanilla don't exist.

If that were the end of this misbegotten, ridiculous ploy it would be bad enough, because it made Democrats look like a bunch of circus clowns.  But there's more. 

When they put out the "condemnation letter", only 41 of the 50 Democratic senators signed it.  Nine would not do so.  That exposed how weak reid is as his party's majority leader.

Far more problematically, three of the senators who did sign were:

-Dick durbin, who compared our troops to nazis and gulag guards;

-Tom harkin, who won a senate seat by falsifying his service during the Vietnam war.  Harkin claimed he had flown combat missions in Vietnam, but it turned out he was never even stationed there, so he had to admit he was lying;

-John kerry, who accused our troops in Iraq of terrorizing children and women in the middle of the night. 

Kerry, it should also be noted was the guy who supported and defended a lying fraud named al hubbard when both were in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). 

Hubbard made a series of claims about his military service in Vietnam that were exposed as complete lies.  He never was stationed there and never fought there.  Ironically, therefore, kerry's pal hubbard is exactly the kind of "phony soldier" Limbaugh was talking about.

Now you may or may not have known these things about durbin, harkin and kerry.  But because all three signed the letter of condemnation against Limbaugh, their attacks and lies -  real ones, not concocted ones - are again on the news wires.   

In other words, because of the ridiculous, guaranteed-to-backfire assault on Rush Limbaugh's patriotism, voters have been reminded of this trio's sorry records, not to mention reinforcing the (well earned) perception that Democrats are anti-military and weak on defense. 

I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt they're happy about that.

Put another way, here are some words I don't think you'll be hearing from Senator reid's fellow Democrats "Nice going, harry.  You're quite a politico.  You did great.  Really. Everyone is very impressed." 

Maybe reid should go back to what he does best:  getting rich on selling land he doesn't own. 

I wonder when the media decide THAT is important enough to talk about.



Ken Berwitz

Here is another installment in the series that explores how your world will be if radical islam wins the global war it is fighting against western civilization.  It comes to us from the Italian news source, Adnkronos international..

Iran: Mother sentenced to death by stoning

Tehran, 28 Sept.(AKI) - A court in the Iran's second largest city, Mashad, has sentenced to death by stoning a mother-of-three for having an extra-marital affair, an Iranian newspaper reported Friday.

The daily Quds said the married woman's lover had confessed to having had sex with her and that the court sentenced him to 100 lashes.

There are currently eight women in Iranian prisons waiting to be executed by stoning, a practice usually reserved for those found guilty of adultery according to the Islamic republic's laws.

Earlier this year it was reported that a man had been put to death by stoning, the first person to be executed in this way for several years.

Capital punishment in Iran - after China, the country to carry out the highest number of executions - usually involves death by hanging. 

Take a good look.  Because this is what will replace western civilization if we allow it to.  And it will be the way YOU live.

If we fight against radical islam we may win and we may lose.  If we do not, we will most assuredly lose because, either way, they will continue fighting.  And if they win, our culture and our civilization is over, to be replaced by what?  A society that treats extramarital sex as capital punishment - for the woman, that is - and lashes for the man:  a daily double of unspeakable brutality and mysogyny.

God help the people who want to live this way.  I know I'm not one of them.  Are you?

We play political games with this lunacy at our own peril..

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!