Tuesday, 22 July 2008

ESTELLE GETTY R.I.P.

Ken Berwitz

Estelle Getty, who (though two years younger than her) played Bea Arthur's mother, Sophia Petrillo, in The Golden Girls, died today in Los Angeles.  She was 84 years old.

Ms. Getty, very sad to say, was afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease and had been for years.

I hope there is a place in heaven where Ms. Getty can again remember the great role she played and the howls of laughter she provided for so many millions of people.

May she rest in peace.


BARACK OBAMA ON THE TROOP SURGE: THEN, NOT NOW

Ken Berwitz

Here, from the invaluable site www.sweetness-light.com, is Barack Obama, in his own words, talking about the troop surge.

This is the same troop surge, it should be noted, that would enable us to bring home more and more of our soldiers.

See if you can discern a slight difference between what he said then and what he says now:

.

Obama On The Surge - Some Video Clips

July 22nd, 2008

Watch them before they are scrubbed from YouTube:

Sure, everyone admits Mr. Obama has no real world experience.

But we should elect him President anyway, on the strength of his unfailing judgment.

.


AL SHARPTON OFF THE HOOK, FOR A PROMISE TO PAY UP. (yeah, right)

Ken Berwitz

To follow al sharpton's career (if you can call it that) is to follow a neverending succession of frauds and defaults, then promises to pay up followed by protracted periods of not doing so.

You may have read my blogs about the fraud perpetrated by the "National Action Network", which appears to be a semi-functioning concoction created by sharpton to "convince" (you can use your own word) sponsors to shell money out to him -- with virtually none of it going to any charitable endeavor.  Read about it here and here.

Well, sharpton was on TV defending himself against these charges just within the past month, assuring us that it is all baloney, they're out to get him, he will be vindicated, blah blah blah. 

So that, of course, means he is fighting these outrageous allegations tooth and nail, right? 

Ummmmmm, not exactly.

Here is the relevant excerpt from today's Associated Press article:

Sharpton's lawyers say feds have dropped tax probe

NEW YORK (AP) Federal prosecutors have disbanded their criminal investigation into the financial dealings of the Rev. Al Sharpton and his Harlem civil rights group, the minister and his lawyers said Tuesday.

Prosecutors concluded that Sharpton's substantial tax problems were better handled as a civil matter by the Internal Revenue Service rather than in criminal court, his lawyers said.

The IRS and New York state and city tax agencies claim that Sharpton owes well more than $1 million in back taxes and penalties. His organization, the National Action Network, also faces a hefty tax bill.

Sharpton said that both he and the civil rights group would pay off their debts, clean up their books and complete a reorganization intended to ensure the group's long-term fiscal stability.

Nice of the AP to give sharpton that headline which, if you don't read the article, seems to say he beat the rap entirely.

What hold does this sorry fraud have on media?  How can he do these things over and over again and not be dismissed as a patheric, dishonest buffoon?

What hold does he have on federal prosecutors, who always seem to find a way not to prosecute him?

And when in the world do media ever talk about the fact that sharpton is a valued, sought-after kingmaker in the Democratic party?

Do you think they'd ignore this fact if he were a Republican?


THE NEW YORK TIMES AND LIES OF OMISSION

Ken Berwitz

There are two kinds of lies.  Lies of commission and lies of omission.

A lie of comission is when you say something that is not true.  A lie of omission is when what you say is true, but you omit things so that it will lead to a different conclusion.

The New York Times, not content with demonstrating its consummate bias regarding the op-ed pieces about Iraq written by Barack Obama and John McCain, has now parlayed that bias into a lie about why this was done.

Let me explain.

As you know, the New York Times published Barack Obama's op-ed commentary on Iraq - without, so far as I am aware, any demand for revisions.  It then rejected John McCain's commentary on Iraq and, incredibly, demanded that it be revised to be more like Mr. Obama's - i.e. to frame the war in Iraq more like his opponent frames it.  The key quote from op-ed editor David Shipley is....

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece.

I'll bet it would.  David Shipley is a Democrat.  He has been a Democratic operative.  And he is refusing to extend the same opportunity to the Republican candidate for President as he did the Democratic candidate, because the Republican didn't frame his position the way the Democrat did. 

This story broke on The Drudge Report yesterday.  And a firestorm immediately erupted.  The Times was busted and then some.  Embarrassed.  Humiliated.  So it had to say something.

Well, this morning it said something.  On page A14, safely hidden in the middle of the news section on the bottem of the left-side page, where it would have as little exposure as possible.  Here, in part, is what it said:

David Shipley, editor of the Op-Ed page, requested that Mr. McCain revise the article if he wanted it published, advising in an e-mail message that the campaign "articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.  It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory - with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate,", as well as details of  "the senator's Afghanistan strategy".

Interesting. 

Do you see any demand that Senator McCain has to mirror Senator Obama's piece?  I don't either.  That comment, which is the rawest example of the Times' bias, is omitted. 

In fairness I have to admit that, even without it, an astute reader might realize how unbelievably one-sided Shipley's demand is, because it does mention that McCain was told to write his commentary just like Obama's and to feature the criteria that Obama featured.

But the reader would have to be interpretive enough to understand this.  The Times, you see, declined to provide Shipley's specific demand that McCain's piece had to  "mirror" Obama's commentary or it would not be published.  What a convenient omission.

What happened to the New York Times?  How could a paper this great sink this low this fast? 

Some things in this word are retrievable.  But a reputation is not one of them.  A reputation destroyed is a reputation gone forever.

That is the sad legacy of "Pinch" Sulzberger's New York Times.

-------------------------------------------

P.S.   I watched the first 45 minutes or so of this morning's Today Show.  And unless I missed it (I'm pretty certain I didn't) this disgraceful episode was not reported.  Not even in passing.  THis means that every person who looks to the Today show to get his/her news does not even know it happened. 

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


PROOF THAT STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES

Ken Berwitz

So what do you do if you have environmental demands, an invitation to be where the Prime Minister of your country is....and a few globs of superglue?

Here, courtesy of the London Daily Mail, is what one genius came up with.  The stupidity is from Glass.  The bold print is from me:

Activist tries to superglue himself to Gordon Brown

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:35 PM on 22nd July 2008

During these turbulent economic times, Gordon Brown is keen for the country to stick by him.

However, this probably wasn't quite what he had in mind.

Dan Glass, of the climate change pressure group Plane Stupid, today tried to superglue himself to the Prime Minister at a Downing Street reception.

The Prime Minister and Dan Glass

Stuck on you: Mr Brown with Dan Glass

As Mr Glass, 24, was introduced to the Premier, he laid a glue-covered hand on his sleeve.

He also took the opportunity to urge Mr Brown to change his mind on the Heathrow airport expansion.

Mr Glass told the assembled guests: 'Do not worry  -  this is a non-violent protest. We cannot shake away climate change like you can just shake away my arm.'

Mr Glass, who had smuggled pouches of glue into the event in his underwear, added later that Mr Brown laughed off the protest.

'He was just grinning about it,' he said. 'He didn't seem to take me seriously.'

Mr Glass, an invited guest, was allowed to stay at the reception for 40 minutes after the stunt. When he left, he tried to glue himself to the gates of Downing Street  -  but had his hand detached by a police officer.

'I didn't have much glue left by that point,' he said.

You want stupid?  There is a planeload of it.  Plane stupid. 


OLBERMANN AND MADDOW: SMUG, SELF-RIGHTEOUS LIARS

Ken Berwitz

Speaking of liars, let's talk about keith olbermann and rachel maddow.

If you can find two more smug, self-righteous liars than this, point them out to me. 

Yesterday, on olbermann's show, "Countdown", the two did a Heckle and Jeckle routine against the Bush administration and John McCain -- no surprise there.  But this time it was based on the presumption that Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki had stated more than once that he wants a timetable for US troops to leave his country.  

That, folks, is an out and out lie. 

If olbermann and maddow had left it at the fact that Maliki said, in general terms, that he would like a timetable for our withdrawal, but he very heavily qualified his statements, maybe they would have been on solid ground.  But this is olbermann and maddow we're talking about.

Let me show you:

-maddow:  "It was just a few weeks ago that Maliki announced he wanted a definite timetable...."

Did he say that?  Well, what about this: 

Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie was quick to add that the call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal was "conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security," according to the Associated Press. In other words, Mr. Maliki is not endorsing the Barack Obama agenda of immediate U.S. withdrawal starting on January 20.

- olbermann:  "How did (the Bush administration) think they would get away with saying it was bad translation by the magazine when the translater didn't work for the magazine, he worked for Prime Minister Maliki..."?

Is that what happened?  Then what about this, from Reuters?:

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government's spokesman said on Sunday.

Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were translated incorrectly.

Is Ali-al-Dabbagh working for President Maliki or President Bush?

The plain fact is that olbermann and maddow cherry-pick the parts that coincide with their agenda and pretend the rest doesn't exist.  Then they call OTHER people liars.

MSNBC disgraces itself by having these two on.  But it appears the network has decided that shameless dishonesty is ok, so maybe that doesn't matter anymore.

----------------------------------------------------

P.S. - This is a little off topic, but I have to add it in.  At one point in their pro-Obama lovefest, rachel maddow actually commended Barack Obama for "humility" because he said that there is only one President and he is only going to Iraq as a Senator. 

That's HUMILITY?  Acknowledging that he doesn't supersede the President of the United States is HUMILITY?

You have to laugh...........

 


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, 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!!