Monday, 10 January 2011


Ken Berwitz

MSNBC's Chris Matthews has a three-person panel discussing the Giffords shooting on his Hardball show.  Far left congressperson Raul Grijalva, far left congressperson Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and far left congressperson Chellie Pingree.

Matthews doesn't even qualify as a bad joke anymore.


Ken Berwitz

It seems that Iran has a mortality problem with its nuclear scientists - the ones Iran's terrorist-supporting government assures us are feverishly working to create a nuclear capability for energy purposes only (must be a shortage of oil over there).

Excerpted from an article by Reza Derakhshi of Reuters:

TEHRAN (Reuters) Iran has arrested a "network of spies" linked to Israel's Mossad intelligence service which it blames for the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist in 2010, Iran's state television reported on Monday.


Tensions are running high between Iran and Israel, which has not ruled out military strikes on the Islamic Republic if diplomatic efforts fail to resolve a row over Tehran's nuclear programme.


Iran has vowed to retaliate for any strikes with missile salvoes on Israel and U.S. targets in the Gulf.


"The Intelligence Ministry ... has identified and arrested members of a spy and terrorist network linked to the Zionist regime," state television quoted a statement issued by the ministry as saying.


"The network of spies and terrorists linked to ... Mossad was destroyed. The network was behind the assassination of Masoud Ali-Mohammadi."


A remote-controlled bomb killed the Tehran University scientist in Tehran on January 12 last year. Iran blamed the United States and Israel for the killing. Washington has denied charges of involvement as "absurd".


Under Iran's penal code, imposed since its 1979 Islamic revolution, espionage can carry the death penalty. In December Iran hanged an Iranian man convicted of spying for Israel.


Another Iranian nuclear scientist was killed on November 29 by a car bomb in Tehran and Iranian officials called it an Israeli or U.S.-sponsored attack on its atomic programme.

I do not know if Israel had a hand in the assassination of these nuclear scientists.  But I damn well hope so. 

Iran is committed to annihilating Israel.  Its head of state, mahmoud ahmadinejad, has continually stated as much in the most direct, overt terms.  And it is clear to just about everyone that Iran is intensely involved in developing the nuclear capability for that purpose.

Obviously, Israel has to do something to protect itself.  One thing it can do is assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.  Or, alternatively, it can bomb the sites involved in nuclear development.  That would result in far more deaths, possibly including a lot of innocent people who, I suspect, wish for nothing other than peaceful coexistence.

So if Israel is behind the assassinations, I applaud the effort.  If not, Israel - and the people of Iran - should be thanking whoever is. 


Ken Berwitz

This blog is to express my appreciation for the service my wife and I have gotten over the past week from Verizon Wireless.

We have been customers for many years, and never had a problem with phones.  But - I will spare you the details - this time around, both of our phones had issues which necessitated replacement units.

In the course of facilitating the exchanges - which happened at different times and required different calls, I spoke with a total of four Verizon people.  The first was a young man named Moncef (I don't know his last name, but he assured me that he probably was the only Moncef at the company).  The last was Kyle, who I spoke to just a short time ago.  The other two, both female, have names starting with "K" and "J".  I apologize to them for not remembering the entire names but "J" (maybe Jennifer - again, I don't remember for sure) has a 2 year old border collie/labrador mix.  I figure that should narrow it down a bit.

In any event, all four were pleasant, knowledgable and accommodating.  Individually and collectively, they did Verizon Wireless proud.  So I thought I would acknowledge them here. 

Now:  back to politics!


Ken Berwitz

Why do I attack the New York Times' journalistic integrity so often?  Read these excerpts from two Times editorials and you'll understand:

-November 8, 2009, after the Fort Hood Shootings:

In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East.

President Obama was right when he told Americans, we dont know all the answers yet and cautioned everyone against jumping to conclusions.


-January 10, 2011, after the Arizona shootings:

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madmans act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

Any questions?


Ken Berwitz

Sarah Palin put a "crosshairs" symbol on Gabrielle Gifford as a target to defeat her in the last election.  That is true, and our wonderful "neutral" media have relentlessly reminded us of it for three days now.

But here's a "bullseye" for Gabrielle Giffords (and a bunch of other congresspeople) from - which I believe to be the largest left wing blog site there is.  And it is from 2 years ago:

Have you seen anything about this from that same wonderful "neutral" media? 
Me neither.  Evidently the rules change 180 depending on whether the web site is to the left or right.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


Ken Berwitz

Paralepsis.  Sounds like some kind of physical condition, doesn't it? 

Well, it isn't.  Paralepsis is a rhetorical device, in which someone makes a point by pretending not to make the point.  Here's a good example:

"My opponent's history of alcoholism should not be part of this campaign.  He says he has kicked his dependency, and I feel we should all give him the benefit of the doubt.  Therefore, I pledge not to raise it as an issue"

That textbook example of saying something by not saying it should give you the idea.

Now let's talk about The Today Show's classic paralepsis when covering the Arizona shooting (which you can see by clicking here.) 

First we have Meredith Viera saying that "rightly or wrongly, fingers are being pointed today" - and immediately follows up by noting that one of the people being pointed at is Sarah Palin. 

She then turns it over to Andrea Mitchell.  Mitchell starts out by noting that Sarah Palin offered her condolences to the victims, and that "there is no indication at all that this suspect was inspired in any way by political speech".

(Hey, wait a minute.  If that's so, why is she doing this report?  Based on Mitchell's own disclaimer, she might as well be doing a segment on whether Pee Wee Herman was the shooter.  If neither Viera nor Mitchell has any basis for implicating Sarah Palin, how come a feature on whether she is involved is being aired?)

Continuing:  Mitchell's next words, after saying there was no connection, are "the attack has reopened criticism of the way Palin targeted Gabby Giffords and 19 other Democrats in last year's campaign". 

(Hey, wait another minute.  Didn't Mitchell just tell us there was no connection?   And if a total of 20 Democrats were "targeted", but just 1 was shot at, isn't it clear that Sarah Palin's targeting of 20 Democrats is incidental?  Unrelated to the individual shooting of Ms. Giffords?  So why is a feature on whether she is involved being aired?) 

Continuing:  Mitchell puts up footage of Palin telling her followers that "We know violence isn't the answer.  When we talk about taking up arms we're talking about our vote".  But then Mitchell shows a map of targeted congressional seats from the Palin Web Site, which, in Mitchell's words, are "illustrated with the iconic crosshairs of a gunsite". 

(Hey, wait another minute:  Don't politicians regularly talk about having opponents in their sites, taking aim at opponents, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.?   Didn't Barack Obama do it repeatedly when running for President?  If every politician who used this kind of rhetoric during a campaign were implicated in the Giffords shooting, Today would be doing hundreds and hundreds of these stories after Sarah Palin's.   So why is a feature on whether she is involved being aired?)

Continuing:  Mitchell shows additional footage of Sarah Palin referring to claims that her web site encouraged violence as "BS from the lamestream media".  But then notes that Ms. Giffords' office had been vandalized that same week, and put up footage of Giffords who "raised the issue of Palin's map". 

(Hey wait even another minute.  Is Mitchell accusing Sarah Palin of having something to do with Giffords' office being vandalized?  Nope.   So why is a feature on whether she is involved being aired?)

Continuing:  Mitchell puts up a tweet by Ms. Palin in which she says "don't retreat, reload".  But then she puts up video footage of Sarah Palin repeating those words and adding "that is not a call to violence". 

(Hey, wait another one of these increasing numbers of minutes.  If Mitchell says there is no indication at all that the shooting was inspired by political speech, how come she keeps coming back to Sarah Palin's political speech?  If it has nothing to do with the shooting, why is a feature on whether she is involved being aired?)

I could go on, but I think you just might get the idea. 

Maybe they should rename Meredith Viera and Andrea Mitchell the paraplepsis twins.  Or just The  "Pair'a'lepses".  They've certainly earned the title.

Finally, just a couple more points: 

-In the entire segment - and other Today segments about the shooting this morning - there was not one word about the shooter's left wing background. 

Isn't that amazing?  Andrea Mitchell does a feature of almost 3 minutes on Sarah Palin, who - by their own admission - has nothing to do with the shooting.  But there is complete silence on the political mindset of the shooter.  Do you think they'd have handled it this way if jared lee loughner had a right wing background?

-And, amid all the outrage over heated political rhetoric, not one word about two of the most overheated, hate-generating TV personalities currently hosting cable shows:  Ed Schultz and keith olbermann. 

Not one word about Schultz's segment, called "Psycho Talk" (how's that for stirring up the crazies), and not one word about the fact that olbermann dispenses an overdose of hateful vitriol on virtually every one of his shows. 

Watch a few of olbermann's "worst person in the world" segments, then listen to a few of his "special comments", and you will hear a level of hate speech that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party crowd never even dreamed of. 

Oh, wait:  Aren't Schultz and olbermann on MSNBC?   And isn't NBC the parent company of MSNBC?  And doesn't NBC air The Today Show.

Ok, now I understand perfectly.

Zeke .... ..... MSNBC - Morons Screaming Nothing But Crap ..... ...... ...... ...... ..... However, this horror was caused by Global Warming .... ..... CO2 is the villain ...... Stop breathing, and don't open champagne bottles, or there will be more such incidents. .... .... .... Incredible how such a heart-wrenching tragedy immediately is seized upon to grind the axe of political agendas. .... .... .... (01/10/11)


Ken Berwitz

Michelle Malkin has put together a demo-blog of the hatred, very much including violent hatred, perpetrated by the left against anyone they disagree with politically, with a special, enhanced level of hatred for people with conservative views.

It is way too long to post here.  So I will give you THIS LINK to see it for yourself.

Here is a tiny little taste - just a few examples of Sarah Palin hatred - to, make that lose..your appetite:


Flashback pointing a fake gun at the head of a Sarah Palin likeness sitting next to a cardboard cutout of her daughter in a museum display:

Getty has since yanked the photo, but as one commenter who saw the photo at Gettys site before it was yanked noted: To see that image presented as if it were completely normal and purchasable was shocking.

Flashback trendy ABORT Sarah Palin stickers:

Flashback Palin-hating artwork designating her an M.I.L.P. (Mother Id Like to Punch). Hat tip: Edge of Forever:

That hateful enough for you?  Believe me, it is barely the tip of the iceberg.

Now tell me:  how many of these have you ever seen in mainstream media? 

Well, based on the answer you just gave, don't count on Meredith, Andrea, Matt and the gang doing a feature on this reality any time soon. Or the network news, or MSNBC, or CNN, or the NY Times, or the Washington Post, or the LA Times or the......enough, my fingers hurt. 

And, yes, these are the people who squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


Ken Berwitz

Too bad that Pima County, Arizona, has a pathetic dupe for a sheriff.

Clarence Dupnik seems to think that being sheriff gives him license to mix his legal responsibilities with his political views. 

Here is his latest wit and wisdom, via an interview with (who else?) keith olbermann:

DUPNIK:  And its my feeling that the anger that is being purveyed by people in radio and some people on TV is done deliberately because it benefits one particular party.


OLBERMANN:  As a sheriff, is it part of your job and part of your responsibility to assess a cultural environment that might increase the chances of injury and danger to your citizens?


DUPNIK:  I think that I have a legal responsibility to do that


OLBERMANN:  Perfectly said..

Would it surprise you to know that Clarence Dupnik is a Democrat?  Would it surprise you to know that he against Arizona's new laws securing the state's border and has vowed not to enforce them?   Would it surprise you to know that he called the laws "racist", "disgusting" and "stupid"?  Would it surprise you to know that he accuses the Tea Party of being a bunch of bigots?  You can read all this and more about Dupnik on

Little wonder that olbermann couldn't wait to have him on, and little wonder that he couldn't wait to be there.

Maybe it's about time someone told Dupnik that the sheriff's job entails being a law enforcement official, not a soapbox-quality "orator". 

Frankly, after hearing his politically partisan mouthings - with no mention at all of jared lee loughner's left wing "credentials" - I would have more confidence in the Clarence from "It's A Wonderful Life". 

Even before he got his wings.

free` From what I have read this sheriff might be the one who is most to blame for this shooting. He knew this guy was unstable and had made threats before. But because the shooters sister works for the county nothing was ever done about it. here is a link to the report I am referring to. --- (01/11/11)


Ken Berwitz

So help me, the following interplay actually took place, between CNN anchor Don Lemon and Talk show host Neil Boortz, after Lemon tried to attach overheated rhetoric to the Arizona shootings:

NEIL BOORTZ:  Do you remember who uttered these words?  Republican victory would mean hand to hand combat, They bring a knife, we bring a gun, Hit back twice as hard, Punish your enemies, Im itching for a fight, I dont want to quell anger, I think people are right to be angry.  Im angry.  Don, do you know who said all of those things?


DON LEMON:  No I dont.


NEIL BOORTZ:  The President of our country, Barack Obama.  Those are all his words.

Don Lemon is a CNN anchor.  Every one of those comments has been stated by the President of the United States over the past two years; several within just the past few months.  And he doesn't even know about them. 

Just how much time do you figure Mr. Lemon (and other "journalists" at CNN) spend considering two sides of the story?

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


Ken Berwitz

Glen Harlan Reynolds is, among other things, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, and a contributor to the Wall Street Journal.  He has written an excellent piece for the Journal about how Democrats and the left seized on the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in an effort to tie it to everyone on the right they could think of, most notably Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement.

Please click in this link to read Mr. Reynolds' entire piece.  Every word.  But in the meantime, here is what I consider the key excerpt.  See if you agree:

To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

Where is the decency in that?

Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. 

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!!