Sunday, 02 June 2013

TRAYVON TRAVESTY (CONT.): TRAYVONIZING REALITY

Ken Berwitz

Are you into biased reporting?  I mean really biased reporting?

If so, you will love Tina Susman's article about the upcoming trial of George Zimmerman, accused of murdering Trayvon Martin, which appeared in yesterday's Los Angeles Times.  Because she has gone out of her way to Trayvonize her report - i.e. make it entirely sympathetic to the Trayvon Martin side of things.  And, I have to say, she has done a bang-up job.

Want examples?  Ok.  Here are a number of excerpts from Ms Susman's article, in rust....with my comments in blue:

The father of Trayvon Martin, the teenager shot dead by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in a case that sparked nationwide protests over racial profiling and police inaction, said Saturday the family is bracing for a "rough road" as Zimmerman's trial nears.  Nice start.  Right from the git-go we "know" that there was racial profiling, police inaction, and our sympathy should go out to Trayvon Martin's poor, beleaguered family.  What a convincing show of neutrality.

Last week, the judge in the case ruled that O'Mara would not be allowed to mention in opening statements evidence that the defense says would point to drug use and aggressive tendencies by the teenager. But some of the evidence could come into play during the trial if O'Mara can convince Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson that it is germane to the case.  Poor Tracy Martin.  The judge won't let the defense use evidence against Tray...oh, wait, that's good for Tracy and the Martin family, and inhibits the defense, doesn't it?  Never mind.

O'Mara has tried to portray Martin as a troublemaker who had problems in school, smoked dope, and whose behavior had prompted his mother, Sybrina Fulton, to send him to stay with his father in Sanford. Fulton lives in Miami.  Er, Ms. Susman, Martin WAS a troublemaker.  School wasn't out that day:  the reason he was able to be with his father and the father's girl-friend, was that Trayvon Martin had been suspended from school - for the third time in six months.  And the women's jewelry and burglar's tool found among his belonging which he could not account for?  What about them?  Maybe it's just me, but I don't think George Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, had to try that hard to portray Martin as a trouble-maker.

Benjamin Crump, the attorney for the Martin family... accused the defense of resorting to "a desperate attempt to try to play on people's prejudices" by releasing texts and photographs taken from Martin's cellphone that O'Mara said showed him as a fan of weapons, fighting and marijuana.  Got that?  It is playing on people's prejudices to show the actual material which Martin himself put on his own phone: i.e. what he self-defined himself as. 

"It's bad enough they had to lose their child. It's tragic they had to assassinate his character," Crump said.  WHAT character? 

O'Mara, though, has argued that such evidence shows that Martin might have been on drugs, paranoid and prone to violence the night Zimmerman encountered him in his father's Sanford gated complex. The teenager, who was black, was on his way back to his father's home after going to a nearby store to buy candy and was unarmed. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, spotted Martin, began following him, and then pulled his 9-millimeter.  What does his being Black have to do with this, other than Tina Susman trying to convince us the shooting had a racist component to it?  How come there is no mention of George Zimmerman's history of mentoring Black children, or the protests he was involved with over mistreatment of Sherman Ware, a Black homeless man?  Evidently in the "journalistic" world of Tina susman only one side is worth mentioning.

Zimmerman said he shot Martin after the teen attacked him. The defense says Zimmerman, who is white and Latino, jumped to conclusions about Martin because of his race.  White and Latino?  There's the racial component again.  Actually Zimmerman is half Peruvian and his color is closer to light-skinned Black than anything else.  But why bother with facts.  Toss out "White" and see the racial pot boil.  What fun!

The case led to nationwide protests over Zimmerman's behavior and the Sanford Police Department's failure to arrest him that night or test him for drugs or alcohol even as they conducted toxicology tests on the slain teenager.  Zimmerman's behavior has yet to be evaluated in court.  But Trayvon Martin's family appreciates your "neutral" mention of protests, based entirely on hearsay, I am sure.

Crump and Martin's parents said they were confident no matter how long the trial lasts, Zimmerman would be found guilty. 

"Not on emotion, not on innuendo," Crump roared into the microphone as the crowd shouted back in approval. "Just on the evidence. The evidence is clear as day."  Terrific ending, Tina.  The Martin family's lawyer being cheered to the heavens for saying a guilty verdict is beyond any doubt.  Do you have anything to say about the people who believe the evidence clearly shows George Zimmerman to be innocent?  Oh, I guess there wasn't enough space.

Now that's Travonizing reality.

Tina Susman should be ashamed of herself for writing this propaganda piece.  And the Los Angeles Times should be ashamed to have published it.

But, at least it might have some impact.  Heck, if George Zimmerman is acquitted, maybe this article, along with other similarly "journalistic" efforts, will incite a few riots. 

What a proud accomplishment for Tina Susman and the Los Angeles Times.


THE LIE-RS SCANDAL: STILL GROWING....

Ken Berwitz

This new information, in the form of a Q and A between Rep. Darrell Issa and a Cincinnati IRS agent, is for anyone naive, or Obamaniacal, enough to actually believe the IRS scandal emanated from a couple of rogue agents in that one city.

As transcribed by Kerry Picket of breitbart.com , here is just part of what Mr. Issa provided on this morning's CNN "State Of The Union" program (use the link to read it all):

Q: In early 2010, was there a time when you became aware of applications that referenced Tea Party or other conservative groups?

A: In March of 2010, I was made aware.

Q: Okay.  Now, was there a point around this time period when [your supervisor] asked you to do a search for similar applications? 

A: Yes.

Q: To the best of your recollection, when was this request made?

A: Sometime in early March of 2010.

Q: Did [your supervisor] give you any indication of the need for the search, any more context? 

A: He told me that Washington, D.C., wanted some cases.

Q: So as of April 2010, these 40 cases were held at that moment in your group; is that right?

A: Some were.

Q:  How many were held there?

A: Less than 40.  Some went to Washington, D.C.

Q: Okay.  How many went to Washington, D.C.?

A: I sent seven.

Q: So you prepared seven hard copy versions of the applications to go to Washington, D.C.?

A:  Correct.

Q: Did he give you any sort of indication as to why he requested you to do that?

A: He said Washington, D.C. wanted seven.  Because at one point I believe I heard they were thinking 10, but it came down to seven.  I said okay, seven.

Q: How did you decide which seven were sent? 

A: Just the first seven.

Q: The first seven to come into the system?

A: Yes.

Q: Did anyone else ever make a request that you send any cases to Washington?

A:  [Different IRS employee] wanted to have two cases that she couldn't -- Washington, D.C. wanted them, but she couldn't find the paper.  So she requested me, through an email, to find these cases for her and to send them to Washington, D.C.

Q: When was this, what time frame?

A: I don't recall the time frame, maybe May of 2010.

Q: But just to be clear, she told you the specific names of these applicants. 

A: Yes.

Q: And she told you that Washington, D.C. had requested these two specific applications be sent to D.C. 

A: Yes, or parts of them. 

Q: Okay.  So she asked you to send particular parts of these applications. 

A: Mm-hmm.

Q: And that was unusual.  Did you say that? 

A: Yes.

Q: And she indicated that Washington had requested these specific parts of these specific applications; is that right?

A: Correct. 

Q: So what do you think about this, that allegation has been made, I think as you have seen in lots of press reports, that there were two rogue agents in Cincinnati that are sort of responsible for all of the issues that we have been talking about today.  What do you think about those allegations?

A:  It's impossible.  As an agent we are controlled by many, many people.  We have to submit many, many reports.  So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen.

Can anyone still seriously believe the Lie-RS scandal goes no further than a couple of oompa-loompas taking matters into their own hands? 

This scandal is huge.  

Every day it gets worse.

And the worst is yet to come.  Bank on it.


THE JERSEY SHORE: COMEBACK OF THE YEAR Ken Berwitz


Just last week, I was lamenting the rotten luck Jersey shore businesses had, as most of the Memorial Day weekend was cold, wet and windy.   Hadn't they been through enough already?

Well this week, the gods up above decided to average things out.  As I type this, we are completing An entire weekend of 90 degree-plus, sunny weather, just as if it had been plucked straight from mid-July.

Yesterday, my wife and I drove to one of our favorite places "down the shore", Avon-by-the Sea (that's AH-von, not AY-von, you pedestrian non-Jerseyites).  Admittedly, we were not sure of what we would find - but heard that the boardwalk was at least partially rebuilt. So we took a chance. 

Well, not only was the boardwalk pretty much completely rebuilt, but they had even started to rebuild the retail establishments which were Hurricane Sandied to oblivion last October.

And the crowd?  Enormous.  More people than we are used to seeing even during the height of the summer.

My point?  Jersey is BACK!!!  That slogan some PR guy came up with, "Stronger than Sandy", is actually true.

Here's hoping for a stellar summer season, and for every business that was destroyed by the hurricane to come roaring back - bigger and better than ever.

See you on the beach!!!


ACCOMPLICE MEDIA BY MARRIAGE?

Ken Berwitz

For years, I have made reference to Barack Obama's "Accomplice Media" - i.e. media which seems determined to put him in a good light no matter what he does. 

Deficit sky high?  Triple the number of troops in Afghanistan, with a huge increase in casualties?  The green scandal?  The Fast and Furious Scandal?  The Cash for Clunkers fiasco?  Now the Benghazi, IRS and AP/Rosen scandals?  No problem.  Where there's a will there's a way.

There are many explanations for this ridiculous-bordering-on-pathological support of this incompetent President and his woeful administration.  Among them, generic partisanship in favor of Democrats/the left, deference to Mr. Obama because he is Black, and dislike/outright hatred of Republicans. 

But here's one that only recently has become evident:  Accomplice Media By Marriage.

What does that mean?  Well let's see:

-Ben Sherwood is the President of ABC News.  His sister, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, was appointed "special assistant" to President Obama.

Ok, you might say.  That's one.  It happens.  Big deal. 

Except, here's another:

-David Rose is the President of CBS News.  His brother, Ben Rhodes, is President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication, and - what do you know - the guy who wrote those revisions upon revisions upon revisions of the Benghazi talking points.

Well, you might say, that's two.  I admit it looks funny.  But you're still making a leap to suggest there's any pattern here.  To which I would reply, oh yeah, well, how about this one?:

-Virginia Moseley is CNN's Deputy Bureau Chief.  Her husband, Tom Nides, is Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

At which point you might say: hmmm, three of them?  You may just have a point there.  To which I would reply, wait:  there's more:

-Mark Murray is NBC's Senior Political Editor.  His wife is Sasha Johnson, Assistant to the Secretary of Aviation, which a special involvement in the FAA (aren't they the folks who oversee the TSA, which the administration tried to furlough so many workers from, but suddenly, when it looked bad politically, magically found the funds to reinstate most of them?).

Now, I would hope, you are saying something like "Holy excrement" (probably the shorter-form version).  I had no idea.

Well, neither did I until I read about it from Richard Grenell, a long-time political consultant who briefly worked for the Romney campaign, and Noel Sheppard of newsbusters.org, who has reported on Grenell's findings.

My thanks to Mr. Grenell for bringing this information to our attention.  And may he continue to research this fascinating connection between the Obama White House and the media which report on it.

But, tell you what:  Don't expect to see too many features about it on ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN.  We don't want any family fights, do we?


ACCOMPLICE MEDIA BY MARRIAGE?

Ken Berwitz

For years, I have made reference to Barack Obama's "Accomplice Media" - i.e. media which seems determined to put him in a good light no matter what he does. 

Deficit sky high?  Triple the number of troops in Afghanistan, with a huge increase in casualties?  The green scandal?  The Fast and Furious Scandal?  The Cash for Clunkers fiasco?  Now the Benghazi, IRS and AP/Rosen scandals?  No problem.  Where there's a will there's a way.

There are many explanations for this ridiculous-bordering-on-pathological support of this incompetent President and his woeful administration.  Among them, generic partisanship in favor of Democrats/the left, deference to Mr. Obama because he is Black, and dislike/outright hatred of Republicans. 

But here's one that only recently has become evident:  Accomplice Media By Marriage.

What does that mean?  Well let's see:

-Ben Sherwood is the President of ABC News.  His sister, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, was appointed "special assistant" to President Obama.

Ok, you might say.  That's one.  It happens.  Big deal. 

Except, here's another:

-David Rose is the President of CBS News.  His brother, Ben Rhodes, is President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication, and - what do you know - the guy who wrote those revisions upon revisions upon revisions of the Benghazi talking points.

Well, you might say, that's two.  I admit it looks funny.  But you're still making a leap to suggest there's any pattern here.  To which I would reply, oh yeah, well, how about this one?:

-Virginia Moseley is CNN's Deputy Bureau Chief.  Her husband, Tom Nides, is Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

At which point you might say: hmmm, three of them?  You may just have a point there.  To which I would reply, wait:  there's more:

-Mark Murray is NBC's Senior Political Editor.  His wife is Sasha Johnson, Assistant to the Secretary of Aviation, which a special involvement in the FAA (aren't they the folks who oversee the TSA, which the administration tried to furlough so many workers from, but suddenly, when it looked bad politically, magically found the funds to reinstate most of them?).

Now, I would hope, you are saying something like "Holy excrement" (probably the shorter-form version).  I had no idea.

Well, neither did I until I read about it from Richard Grenell, a long-time political consultant who briefly worked for the Romney campaign, and Noel Sheppard of newsbusters.org, who has reported on Grenell's findings.

My thanks to Mr. Grenell for bringing this information to our attention.  And may he continue to research this fascinating connection between the Obama White House and the media which report on it.

But, tell you what:  Don't expect to see too many features about it on ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN.  We don't want any family fights, do we?


A CONTROVERSIAL STAND ON WELFARE

Ken Berwitz

Let's start with the words themselves.  Here is how someone has dared to characterize welfare:

A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.

I am not willing that the vitality of our people be further sapped by the giving of cash, of market baskets...We must preserve not only the bodies of the unemployed from destitution but also their self-respect, their self-reliance and courage and determination.

Pretty controversial, wouldn't you say? 

Can you hear the gang at MSNBC jumping all over it, calling it an outrage, an insult to the people, probably racist, etc. etc. etc. etc.  The invective from Chris Matthews alone, aimed at the man who voiced those sentiments,  would probably fill a slop bucket. 

Over at HBO, bill maher would bust a gut altogether.

So who was the inhumane, hate-filled SOB who mouthed those words?

Er....Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  That's right.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

What you just read was straight from FDR's Annual Address to Congress (these days we call it the State of the Union Address), January 4, 1935:  the year he pushed through the Social Security act, among other things.  Click here to read his entire address...the part I've referenced is about halfway through.

What does it tell you, that the architect of much of so much of our welfare and social safety net legislation had that to say?  And what does it tell you about where we have gone from the FDR days?

Does it make you want to cry?  Throw something?  Demand a reordering of priorities?

If so, I don't blame you at all.


JEAN STAPLETON, R.I.P.

Ken Berwitz

The wonderful Jean Stapleton, whose long, successful stage career was overshadowed by her amazing 9 year run as Edith Bunker, the sweet, good-natured, perpetually confused wife of  Carroll O'Connor's Archie Bunker, died peacefully, of natural causes, at her New York City home on Friday.  

Can you picture anyone else but Jean Stapleton in that role?  I know I can't.  She was perfect.  

Ms. Stapleton (who, despite what many people think, was not related to Maureen Stapleton), is survived by two children from her first, and only husband, William Putch (Mr. Putch died in 1983).

Archie may have called her a "dingbat" and told her to "stifle" herself, but Edith Bunker was the kind of lady you would love as a next-door neighbor...provided she didn't go into one of her Gracie Allenesque family stories, that is.  In any case, she could not have been more lovable - and, from what I have read, neither could the lady who played her so perfectly.

May Jean Stapleton rest in peace.


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!!