Disqus - Friends of SouthernLawProf

Re: Introducing 'The Armchair Conservative'

Troy Keith — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:42:37 -0000

Hello Samantha,

Thank you for your response. It was not my intention to label you personally, but I do believe that the media in general is largely “liberal” and the bias that comes through in the majority of their coverage is seldom concealed. When not overtly evident, the bias is often revealed by what is left out of a particular story. In a rare instance of what I’ll call “poetic justice”, even the Clinton campaign has been complaining repeatedly of the media’s bias and concluded that Fox News had provided her with the most balanced coverage. There are certainly numerous examples of media bias, but I’ll have to save that for another post on topic.

In regards to the global warming issue, I have no reason to doubt that you’ve witnessed changes on the farms that you’ve worked on, but what evidence do you have that the changes are due to human activity and not natural factors? I don’t contest that climate change is happening – the weather is obviously different each day, but on a larger scale, I believe there is also solid scientific evidence that points to a natural, cyclical trend of warming and cooling that has been going on since the earth was formed some four and a half billion years ago. As with much of the media coverage I’ve witnessed lately, we’re often only presented with a portion of the information which can leave one with a very different impression.

I’m much more concerned with the sheer volume of global warming news items in conjunction with both the existing and proposed legislation intended to rectify a problem that has yet to be adequately explained or defined.

Re: Introducing 'The Armchair Conservative'

Troy Keith — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:17:29 -0000

Hi Andy,

I’ll have to admit that I’m using the term “conservative” loosely in the introduction as I’m finding it increasingly difficult to locate examples of conservatism within today’s leadership.

My basic premise equates more freedom with the principles of less government inherent within a truly conservative movement – ideally a libertarian approach. I’m sure many would point to the contradiction in reconciling some of the administration’s anti-terrorism legislation with the concept of increased freedoms and I’d have to agree in part, but I also think that much of the information has been skewed to give the impression of widespread government intrusion such as the “wire tapping” under the Patriot Act. In that particular case, specifically the monitoring of phone conversations between the Middle East and the United States which I would consider a reasonable sacrifice given the circumstances.

For consideration, I would offer the following quotes from Steve Kroft of CBS’s 60 Minutes:

'If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency.'

The mission of this program “is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, virtually every electronic conversation around the world”

The quote was aired in Feb. of 2000 and refers to the Echelon domestic spying program greatly expanded by the Clinton administration. Patrick Poole of Bannock Burn College had the following to say: “Echelon is also being used for purposes well outside its original mission. The regular discovery of domestic surveillance targeted at American civilians for reasons of 'unpopular' political affiliation or for no probable cause at all... What was once designed to target a select list of communist countries and terrorist states is now indiscriminately directed against virtually every citizen in the world.”

Interesting to note that when referring to Clinton’s Echelon expansion, the NY Times stated: 'Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists....'

Re: Introducing 'The Armchair Conservative'

Troy Keith — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:58:27 -0000

Agreed.. [to John Watkins] I am not an economist by any means, but it would seem to me that the only way to legitimately get out of this mess would be to allow the market to reset itself naturally. An unfortunate prospect for those that were seduced by the possibility of acquiring a home beyond their means, but artificial incentives and bail-outs will only prolong the inevitable. When left alone, Capitalism seems remarkably resilient and self regulating.

My prescription for the Michigan economy would be much the same – quit spending money we don’t have and learn to live within our means. Maybe then we could begin to reel in this confiscatory tax system and stop driving people and businesses out of the state.

Re: Introducing 'The Armchair Conservative'

Troy Keith — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:08:27 -0000

[Sine Rivali] Funny, I had just inquired about a thread option earlier this morning. In regards to your comments, given our Representative Republic, are we not all ultimately responsible for any government encroachment upon our freedom? Like the myth of the frog that allows itself to be boiled if the heat is increased gradually, my fear is that we’ll awaken one day to find that we’ve ceded our rights for any number of noble causes – most likely willingly and without notice until it’s too late.

While “oppression” can be found just about anywhere, I’d have to think that legislation (government) is the primary culprit in the vast majority of instances – certainly the controlling legal authority when it comes to resolution. If, as you state, a loss of freedom can come from a number of sources, does that mean that the erosion of our rights should not be contested whenever or wherever it's encountered?

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose free will."
Neil Peart (Rush)

Re: Introducing 'The Armchair Conservative'

Troy Keith — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:14:39 -0000

I appreciate the sentiment [Andy Spencer], but I must also confess to a certain amount of bias myself. While my hope is to elevate this to a level that fosters genuine political discourse, I do have very specific beliefs that would probably be perceived as uncompromising and grossly one-sided by many others (certainly most of my family) and I’m sure that my own bias will come through in future posts. I enjoy the debate and always try to get my news from a variety of sources. In addition to conservative radio, FOX news and numerous web sites, I also rely on NPR, CNN, mainstream network news and of course, the Record Eagle to give a complete picture of the day’s events.

Personally, I’m proud to consider myself a Libertarian with “conservative views”, but I realize the term “liberal” is often received with negative connotations. When used in the future, I’m simply referring to general political philosophies.

For the record, I see only the replies that are posted directly to the blog – all others are filtered by Record Eagle Editors. I’ve been asked to post no more than one or sometimes two pieces per week, but it’s interesting to see such animated responses to what I’d intended to be a very “generic introduction”.

In regards to Norm’s post, I’ve listened to him for years (10:00 am, AM-580) and tend to agree with nearly all of his political viewpoints expressed on the radio so I’m not offended by his statement although I can see how it may be misinterpreted without “knowing him” through the radio.

Thanks again for the contributions..

Re: Introducing 'The Armchair Conservative'

Troy Keith — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:15:19 -0000

Thank you for your comments and interest Bob.. I’m looking forward to hearing from others and learning more about their political thoughts and ideas. I’d have to say that my beliefs at this point in life are a hybrid of modern conservatism and libertarian principles although my teenage years were radically liberal. As far as political philosophy goes, I agree with about 95% of the libertarian fundamentals but their isolationist mentality in today’s world seems somewhat naïve.

While it is my opinion that we've crossed a threshold in our growth as a civilization
and we're now being inexorably pulled toward the event horizon of a one world government, I'd still like to think individual freedoms and liberty can be a part of this "new order”.

In regards to influences, I've included some of my favorite links and resources below. I hope others will contribute sites of interest they’ve found out there.

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep ~ Saul Bellow

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried ~ Winston Churchill

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries ~ Winston Churchill

I'm not going to link all of these, but they can be easily copied and pasted into a browser..

http://www.lp.org – Official Web Site of the Libertarian National Committee
http://www.cato.org – Cato Institute
http://www.libertarianism.com/ - Outline of the Libertarian Movement
http://www.nationalreview.com – National Review Online
http://www.tsowell.com/ - Thomas Sowell Web Site
http://www.theconservativev... - The Conservative Voice
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com – Rush Limbaugh Web Site
http://news.google.com/adva... - News Search
http://www.americanthinker.... - American Thinker
http://www.snopes.com – Urban Legends Reference Pages
http://www.numberwatch.co.u... - Everything Attributed to Global Warming
http://www.mediaresearch.org – Media Research Web Site
http://www.cmpa.com – Center for Media and Public Affairs Web Site
http://www.billoreilly.com – Bill Oreilly’s Web Site
http://www.humanevents.com - Human Events Web Site
http://www.junkscience.com - "All the junk that's fit to debunk"
http://scienceandpublicpoli... - Global Warming Science and Public Policy

Some great conservative columnists:
George Will
Thomas Sowell
William Buckley Jr.

Statement of Libertarian Principles from lp.org
full text: http://www.lp.org/issues/pl...

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Re: 'What Happened' to investigative journalism?

Troy Keith — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:19:27 -0000

Bruce, I'd be curious to hear what you found to be innacurate in either the piece or the sources?

Re: 'What Happened' to investigative journalism?

Troy Keith — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:01:05 -0000

Thanks for the explanation Bruce.. although it seems to me that you acknowledged yourself that WMD’s had been found. If they were not operational, then I guess we were all fortunate, but it certainly points to the intent.

The integrity of the U.N. is questionable at best, plagued with numerous scandals ranging from outright corruption, child slavery and the ongoing sex scandals recently in the news. The oil for food fiasco has been well documented and their general disdain for the United States is seldom concealed. A quick search for some documentation turned up the following (many from "mainstream" sources)

http://www.washingtonpost.c...
http://www.usatoday.com/new...
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/...
http://www.innercitypress.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.c...
http://wwwwakeupamericans-s...

The war in Iraq could be debated endlessly, but for the sake of clarification, I’d like to offer the following information regarding the state of pre-war Iraq under Saddam’s leadership:

Known Torture Methods of the Iraqi Gov't:

Medical experimentation
Beatings
Crucifixion
Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
Amputating sexual organs with an electric carving knife
Spraying insecticides into a victim’s eyes
Branding with a hot iron
Committing rape while the victim’s spouse is forced to watch
Pouring boiling water into a rectum
Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
Extracting teeth with pliers
Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents

According to an April 4 White House fact sheet, Saddam had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

The regime used allegations of prostitution used to intimidate opponents of the regime, to justify the barbaric beheading of women.

Documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.

The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. Two thousand Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

"In the last few days, I’ve seen the shocking and haunting pictures of mass graves which contain some of the thousands and thousands of Iraqis he murdered. I have heard from dozens of Iraqi citizens about their gratitude that the coalition has freed them from this horror. Saddam Hussein was a truly evil man who repressed, tortured and murdered his people. He didn’t go a day too soon."
Ambassador to Iraq L. Paul Bremer III
Director of the Coalition Provisional Authority
Baghdad, Iraq, May 15, 2003

Re: 'What Happened' to investigative journalism?

Troy Keith — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:34:28 -0000

Thanks Bruce, I appreciate the time it takes to reply.. As said before, the war itself could be debated all day, I think there are valid points to be made on both sides although now that we’re in it to this level, I think a clearly defined victory is the only way to resolve the issue.

I just have a problem with the tendency of “the left” to place the entire responsibility upon Bush, which like the rest of the world, was reacting to info from our CIA, Britain’s MI5, other governments from around the world and yes, even the United Nations. If Bush is shown to have knowingly misled the American people, then he should be charged just as all of the others listed above – they all had the same info and reached the same conclusion. The quotes were simply meant to exemplify the consensus at the time as well as the years leading up to the war, but we don’t hear “John Kerry lied, people died”. When Clinton says: “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program”, why isn’t he held to the same standards? The selective outrage we see all the time about this issue just seems hypocritical and very one sided.

Re: 'What Happened' to investigative journalism?

Troy Keith — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:13:58 -0000

I would have to agree [Bob] about the consequences of an Obama plan.. we’ve already crossed the line so it’s all or nothing at this point. Nobody wants to stay over there one day longer than necessary, but few seem to consider the consequences of leaving before it’s finished. The body bag count during Vietnam was always headline news, as are the totals for this conflict, but people quickly forget the 200,000+ massacred by the Khmer Rouge regime because of the inability/refusal of our congress to act, much less how our perceived failure emboldened Communist leaders and crackpot dictators for decades to come.

Party bickering and thousands of negative new stories only serve to demoralize our soldiers and weaken the already tarnished reputation of the United States throughout the world. For what it’s worth, I think that Bush genuinely believes in “the mission” and he has not wavered since day one – you can’t say the same for many others that have vacillated with the polls and I at least give him credit for that. If a democratic foothold is established in the Middle East, history may well have a different version of this tale to tell, but only if we handle the situation decisively.

In regards to monsters, wiser men than I will have to make those decisions.. Until we’re attacked, I don’t think we should be involved in the business of any nation unless specifically asked and the cause is just. For me, I guess that would have been a definite yes for Afghanistan and a no for Iraq, but that’s neither here nor there at this point.

Re: 'What Happened' to investigative journalism?

Troy Keith — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 05:54:00 -0000

This is a little off topic, but I thought it was important to acknowledge the sacrifice of so many on D-Day, 1944. I was a little concerned that our youngest son (6th grade) received no mention or recognition of this monumental event either at school or in his limited exposure through the radio and television.

More than 5,000 ships, 11,000 aircraft and 150,000+ service men undertook one of the most harrowing and noble ventures of WWII suffering nearly 10,000 casualties in one operation.

While many have written extensively on this topic, I’ve chosen the following words from a ceremony marking the 40th anniversary of D-Day:

We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved and the world prayed for its rescue. Here, in Normandy, the rescue began. Here, the Allies stood and fought against tyranny, in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but forty years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, two hundred and twenty-five Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs.

Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here, and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.

The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers at the edge of the cliffs, shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After two days of fighting, only ninety could still bear arms.

And behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there. These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. And these are the heroes who helped end a war. Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life and left the vivid air signed with your honor."

I think I know what you may be thinking right now -- thinking "we were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day." Well everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren't. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him.

Lord Lovat was with him -- Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, "Sorry, I'm a few minutes late," as if he'd been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he'd just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken.

There was the impossible valor of the Poles, who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold; and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back.

All of these men were part of a roll call of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore; The Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland's 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots' Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England's armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard's "Matchbox Fleet," and you, the American Rangers.

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief. It was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They fought -- or felt in their hearts, though they couldn't know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4:00 am. In Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying. And in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell.

Something else helped the men of D-day; their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer, he told them: "Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we're about to do." Also, that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee."

These are the things that impelled them; these are the things that shaped the unity of the Allies.

When the war was over, there were lives to be rebuilt and governments to be returned to the people. There were nations to be reborn. Above all, there was a new peace to be assured. These were huge and daunting tasks. But the Allies summoned strength from the faith, belief, loyalty, and love of those who fell here. They rebuilt a new Europe together. There was first a great reconciliation among those who had been enemies, all of whom had suffered so greatly. The United States did its part, creating the Marshall Plan to help rebuild our allies and our former enemies. The Marshall Plan led to the Atlantic alliance -- a great alliance that serves to this day as our shield for freedom, for prosperity, and for peace.

In spite of our great efforts and successes, not all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. The Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They're still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost forty years after the war. Because of this, allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union, so, together, we can lessen the risks of war, now and forever.

It's fitting to remember here the great losses also suffered by the Russian people during World War II. Twenty million perished, a terrible price that testifies to all the world the necessity of ending war. I tell you from my heart that we in the United States do not want war. We want to wipe from the face of the earth the terrible weapons that man now has in his hands. And I tell you, we are ready to seize that beachhead. We look for some sign from the Soviet Union that they are willing to move forward, that they share our desire and love for peace, and that they will give up the ways of conquest. There must be a changing there that will allow us to turn our hope into action.

We will pray forever that someday that changing will come. But for now, particularly today, it is good and fitting to renew our commitment to each other, to our freedom, and to the alliance that protects it.

We're bound today by what bound us 40 years ago, the same loyalties, traditions, and beliefs. We're bound by reality. The strength of America's allies is vital to the United States, and the American security guarantee is essential to the continued freedom of Europe's democracies. We were with you then; we're with you now. Your hopes are our hopes, and your destiny is our destiny.

Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee."

Strengthened by their courage and heartened by their value [valor] and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.

Thank you very much, and God bless you all.

Ronald Reagan

Re: Obias where art thou?

Troy Keith — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:49 -0000

Thanks for the feedback Mike.. the whole bias issue is obviously an important one for me. Once you have info from a story’s source or data that contradicts popular opinion, it’s amazing to skim the networks and see how each interjects their own spin to everything. You seem to already be already aware of this, but if I can convince even one person to watch the network news with a little skepticism I’ll feel like this has all been worth something.

I was recently talking to a family member about the subject and the gist of his response was that the networks DO show both sides of a story and that the American public expects their newscasters to provide the news from the standpoint of their opinions. He also suggested that “people who expect interpretations of the news to be neutral or ‘true’ to the facts, do not understand interpretation as a human activity.” I couldn't disagree more with either of those statements, but I’ll have to paraphrase my response below.

From what I’ve seen recently, I'd have to say that nearly all media coverage seems extremely biased and it’s getting more and more blatant. I'm sure that even the Clinton campaign would agree with me on that one given the network's pre Rev. Wright love affair with Obama. I’m sure they’d also agree that had Obama been given even a modicum of scrutiny during the early primary phase, Hillary Clinton would now be the uncontested nominee.

Yes, Fox has an obvious slant but I at least get the impression that they attempt to present both sides of the issues - more so than most networks anyway. From what I've seen, both sides are seldom shown in the mainstream news and certainly not with the same level of objectivity.

If we continue to accept this, the first thing that comes to mind is a comparison of our corporate media to that of the press in the former Soviet Union - disseminating the party line with the clarity of a one way mirror.

When President Johnson said, speaking of the Vietnam war, "if we've lost Cronkite, we've lost the country", I think it was indicative of the increased media influence after WWII and their self-elevated status as an unspoken (or outspoken?) 4th branch of the government. Was Cronkite's "opinion" so important that he could directly affect US policy? Apparently so.

As a ‘conservative’, I’m sure I’m out of step with many of my fellow citizens and I’m also pretty sure I’d feel differently if things were slanted the other way - kind of like telling the other team to get over it when the ref makes a call in favor of your side.

Personally, I think the role and responsibility of the media should be to accurately dispense the facts rather than function as an opinion or propaganda outlet. Maybe that's expecting too much of the American public, but shouldn't we be capable of "interpreting" the news in a raw format w/o the help of a talking head? When I check the forecast, I want to know what the temperature is and whether or not it will be sunny tomorrow - not whether the meteorologist thinks 70 degrees is too hot or that he or she doesn't think we need another day of rain.

When CBS legend Dan Rather is ousted for "fabricating" rather than reporting the story, alarm bells go off for me. When the press marvels at Bill Clinton's ability to “prevaricate with perfection” yet crucifies Scooter Libby’s “lie” unrelentingly for months, it seems like the bias has become out of control. If Chris Matthews states that he gets a "shiver up his leg" after an Obama speech, should I expect to get fair info on MSNBC regarding Hillary or John McCain? What about everyone watching his show that isn't aware of his goose bumps?

Opinions in the news should be relegated to the editorial page or the Sunday talk shows and clearly labeled as such. If I subscribe the National Review or American Spectator, I already know what to expect and make the choice freely because they proclaim their conservative viewpoints. Magazines like Time or Newsweek (in my opinion) attempt to portray themselves simply as "news magazines" representing the views of mainstream America. Certainly the primary networks do the same.. In a perfect world, it would be great if people sought out both sides and made their own conclusions, but my experience has been that most take the word of 60 minutes as the ultimate truth - if they even have the time or inclination to watch at all.

Try suggesting to the average Democrat that he or she watch FOX news or listen to Bill O’Reilly sometime and get ready for the fireworks. Then ask if they’ve ever watched or listened before forming their opinion and I would bet the answer more often than not is “no”.

There are greater questions in regards to what is deemed newsworthy by our society. Death almost always trumps life, tragedy reigns over triumph etc. Why are US military shortcomings worth more coverage than building schools or developing the infrastructure of Iraq? If unemployment is down or the market is up, what's the purpose of adding "but less than expected"? I'm sure that much could be said from a psychological standpoint regarding what makes the "news" of a given society and I wonder if our outlooks would all be different if the stuff of lead stories dealt with a family helping a homeless person or a mother's victory over cancer.

Re: Obias where art thou?

Troy Keith — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:15:51 -0000

Hi Bob – your point is well taken. Given the political climate around here, I’m often coming from a defensive stance and probably attempt to over-emphasize my position, but I’ve also found that it can take upwards of 20 references to counter one “Couric Colloquialism”.

The intro post to this blog was intended to be an invitation for others to get some topics started, but I suspect the readership simply isn’t that large. It would be interesting to see some stats comparing the circulation of the paper to their web site traffic and blog hits. Regardless, I’d hope that over time we can generate some good discussion on the issues.

To answer your question about media responsibility, I think a distinction should be made between a network’s agenda (corporate or otherwise) and the dissemination of what’s supposed to be “factual news”. Hopefully reliable, straight-forward news would translate into larger audiences. Given FOX’s numbers, you’d have to think that their advertising is at a premium compared to other networks. I have no problem with differing editorial stances, I just think they should be labeled as such. My opinion was not intended to advocate censorship, just honesty. Have to run right now, but I’ll definitely take a look at the Sailer info later this afternoon – or you can post the highlights here.

Re: 'What Happened' to investigative journalism?

Troy Keith — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:12:51 -0000

Hello Zack.. interesting comments. I was glad to see that you agreed about the concept of shared responsibility and I certainly have no problem with people being held accountable. I wasn't suggesting that Dem. actions should excuse those of Bush or Cheney, simply making a point that if charges such as those are to be made (and later proven to be legitimate), then all those participating in the "conspiracy" should be held to the same standards.

If it can be definitively shown that laws were broken and “evidence” was tampered with, then they should ALL be dealt with, but I’m not aware of anything even resembling a smoking gun (except maybe in Vince Foster’s right hand [the wrong one]). If it’s just an ideological crusade and more “sour grapes” then don’t you think people like Dennis Kucinich should also be reprimanded for wasting the country’s time?

I’d have to think that Kucinich is widely perceived to be a joke - both within the capital and his home state of Ohio (and probably throughout most of the country). The mainstream media certainly hasn't run heavily w/the story yet, but maybe that will be coming in the days ahead. Did you hear if any of his information came from the extraterrestrial contacts he’d mentioned during the presidential debates?

We took my son to a Rush concert in Detroit Tuesday so I had a much needed break from the news, but even so, I hadn't heard anything at all about it until this afternoon. Without digging in too deeply, it appears that we’ve got everything from the old domestic spying issues to charges of election tampering so it sounds more like a rant than a serious endeavor, but I guess we’ll see.

As far as Kucinich goes, he doesn't seem to wield much, if any political clout, but it should be interesting to see if this effort is any more successful than his previous attempt to impeach Cheney or Cynthia McKinney's 2007 attempt at a Bush Impeachment. Either way, the House leadership doesn’t seem very supportive of the idea at this point - I think they probably have access to much more credible information and probably realize there's nothing to the story but maybe they're concerned about their roles as well..

Apparently McClellan will also be called in to testify so we'll finally get to see if there's any truth to his allegations – if the answer turns out to be “no”, I wonder if his retractions will get the same amount of press as the book tour?

For what it’s worth, here a recent Fred Hiatt piece on the subject that readers might find interesting:

======================================

http://www.washingtonpost.c...

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A17

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

Re: Introducing 'The Armchair Conservative'

Troy Keith — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:45:07 -0000

Hi Zack,

Thanks for the questions. I’d have to say I’m a Libertarian first and foremost although I haven’t found any political party that seems to encompass all of my beliefs – I wonder if anyone has? From a practical standpoint, at least as far as actually participating in the election process, a conservative Republican is probably more accurate as far as my voting record goes, but I'm not sure we're going to be seeing many of those in the immediate future.

In the primaries, I really liked a lot of Thompson’s ideas, but he has about as much personality and charisma as a wet stump. Romney was my #2 man and I thought a Romney/Huckabee ticket would have been a good mix, but more often than not, I find that I’m voting against someone else rather than for my candidate. I'd bet that many people voting Republican lately would probably feel the same.

I was going to open up a new post soon, discussing some of the Libertarian principles and how they mix with today’s political climate. From my standpoint, many controversial topics and time honored political/societal taboos such as drug use and prostitution should be legalized in a “free society”, but I also don’t think we can survive in the modern world by sticking our heads in the sand when it comes to foreign policy so I've got some problems with the core Libertarian issues as well.

Re: Introducing 'The Armchair Conservative'

Troy Keith — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:40:51 -0000

Hello Zack,

I don’t think we’ll know the outcome of this endeavor in Iraq for quite awhile, but I would argue that sometimes wasps or hornets need to be dealt with - although I generally leave bees alone. For what it’s worth, many might say that we’ve “taken the fight to the terrorists” and their energies are now directed towards activity in the Middle East rather than here at our doorstep. Again, getting into the war can be debated endlessly; the question now is where do we go from this point?

It would be great to think that we lived in a world where isolationism was still a viable option, but I just don’t think that’s possible anymore. The old analogy of Hitler’s Germany shortly before WWII comes to mind, but many could make a case against the potential threats posed by Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran or a dozen other “nests” as well.

Let’s say (and this takes a leap of faith for many), Hussein did have WMD’s (pick your flavor) and that we knew he was intending to use them against innocent people as he had in the past. Does that justify some sort of action when diplomacy fails? Do we only respond to direct actions against us? How about Hitler gassing millions, or on a smaller scale, if you’re at a restaurant and witness someone abusing their wife? While I try to “live and let live”, I just think there are times when intervention is justified.

Someone else recently brought up the point of ‘where/when does that sort of mentality stop?’.. do we fight every injustice, pick and choose our battles or ignore them all? I don’t know.

There are obviously injustices all over the world and we can’t sustain a role as a global police force, but on the other hand, someone has to step up to the plate from time to time. Having a presence in places like Germany, Japan or Korea is certainly expensive, but doesn’t it also provide many political and strategic benefits that can’t be quantified in terms of dollars?

As for roads and infrastructure, I don’t accept the premise that we have potholes or rusty bridges because we’re in Iraq. There’s gov’t waste, pork and corruption at all levels – Michigan is a prime example of what’s wrong with the system and it’s crumbling all around us.

Re: 'What Happened' to investigative journalism?

Troy Keith — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:03:31 -0000

Well said Zack.. although I still doubt very much that anything will come from Kucinich's efforts. For that matter, without having access to more info, I'm not convinced there's much there to begin with, but it's certainly a possibility.

It's unfortunate that the election process in this country has deteriorated into what it has and it seems unlikely that we’ll ever get a chance to hear from anyone outside of the establishment – short of a true “candidate of the people” that may emerge at some point..

Re: Global Warming: Fact, fiction or fascism? [part I]

Troy Keith — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:26:45 -0000

Thanks Nancy.. and don't worry Bud - the media will always find new things for us to worry about. The Mayans said it's all going to end in 2012 anyway, or maybe that was Al Gore?

Re: Global Warming: Fact, fiction or fascism? [part I]

Troy Keith — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:32:14 -0000

Nicely put Sam.. and to Will, RE Truth: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg -Abraham Lincoln

Re: Obias where art thou?

Troy Keith — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:41:42 -0000

Hello Andy.. I hope that everyone will start to get their news from a variety of sources – ideally coming from both sides of the equation. The photo was meant to be more tongue-in-cheek than anything else, but I think it exemplifies the level to which Obama is out of step with the American public. I did read the various explanations, but it seemed to go well w/the Sesame Street theme nonetheless.

Once Barack is away from the teleprompter he seems to make repeated “gaffes” that exemplify his disdain for average citizens or simply show his ignorance (used in the literal sense, not to say that he’s “stupid”). If I remember correctly, his first explanation was that his father had taught him to hold his hands clasped in front during the national anthem and over the heart for the pledge, but regardless, shouldn’t someone his age (and in his position) know the difference? Whether it’s his foreign policy, “bitter people clinging to their guns & bibles” or Michelle never being proud of America – the statements keep coming followed by two weeks of explanations and revisions (and then a declaration that the subject is 'out of bounds' for the rest of the campaign).

I have no doubt that he makes the obligatory gesture at the appropriate times, but I can’t help feeling that he does so with insincerity – maybe that’s just my take on him, but there’s something about his persona that I haven’t trusted right from the start. Personally, I’d much rather have another Clinton in the office than Obama, but maybe that’s like saying I’d rather have the measles instead of the mumps?

Re: Global Warming: Fact, fiction or fascism? [part I]

Troy Keith — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:06:08 -0000

I agree Andy.. I think almost everyone would be in favor of conservation and developing alternative fuels/sources of energy, but we’re not even scratching the surface as far as the oil we currently have available.

Billions of barrels in the Dakotas alone:
http://dorgan.senate.gov/ne...

What are they saying now about ANWR – 10 billion?

If we double or triple our efforts to develop new technologies (private sector) while increasing domestic oil production and implementing reasonable conservation measures, we wouldn’t be in this situation ten years from now.

There was someone a couple of years ago that figured out how to burn seawater with radio waves (http://www.cbsnews.com/stor..., we’ve still got hydrogen and now there are even bacteria that eat waste and produce oil (http://www.timesonline.co.u... so who knows what the future holds..

Re: Global Warming: Fact, fiction or fascism? [part II]

Troy Keith — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:10:49 -0000

Hello Linnaea, thanks for the feedback. Given the conservative cornerstones of less government and lower taxes, I’d have to say that the global warming issue would definitely fit within the boundaries of this blog - Particularly given the regulations and restrictions soon to come.

If you have specific issues or points you’d like to see discussed here, I encourage you to post them.

The fact that “my numbers appear convincing” is precisely the reason for this post. It’s admittedly far too complex to be handled in such a limited capacity, but I was hoping to show the vast amount of conflicting data and opinions that exist out there – the “consensus of opinion” that we rarely hear about in today’s media.

I don’t seek to deny global warming – on the contrary, I think the earth has been warming and cooling for years – millions of them. I’d simply like to know the truth (inconvenient or otherwise) in regards to our ability to cause these changes before subscribing to the mass hysteria. The greater question for me is why do so many accept this idea without hesitation?

Re: Introducing 'The Armchair Conservative'

Troy Keith — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:01:48 -0000

Zack,

It’s obvious that you feel strongly about this and I think we could probably go back and forth indefinitely. While I appreciate the intensity of the anti-war sentiment, you’re making a lot of general statements, the validity of which may not be known for decades. For what it’s worth, I’d like to reiterate that, contrary to popular perception, I am not a spokesman for the Bush White House and I don’t want to be put into a position of defending policies that I have a number of issues with.

That being said, I think it’s important to keep things in perspective. “No blood for oil” is a very effective phrase, but it also seems very simplistic and naïve given all of the variables – not to mention that we received roughly 3% of our oil from pre-war Iraq.

Mistakes? Many, from the top down. Costly? Of course.

Regardless of how or why we’ve gotten to this point, I still think that pulling out now would have catastrophic consequences for the United States as well as the rest of the free world.

If you look at the history of the region and the rise of what I’ll call “radical fundamentalism”, it seems clear that this issue is not going to simply go away by itself. The stated objective of many in power over there is quite openly the complete destruction of the west and they’ve been getting increasingly more determined over the last several decades. Our “nukes” were not enough to prevent Hussein from using chemical weapons in the past to kill thousands and who can say what would have happened to those that were in development.

The majority of Democrats recently elected ran on a policy of getting us out of Iraq immediately. They have control of Congress and have for some time now, so why are we still over there? I think the issue is deeper than we’re led to believe - Not to mention the notable success of “the surge” and the measurable progress that’s being made at this time.

Obviously any death is tragic and the numbers will always be “too many” but for comparison I’d offer the following:

War / Casualties
Revolutionary War 10,623
War of 1812 6,765
Mexican-American War 17,435
Civil War 970,227
Spanish-American War 4,108
World War I 320,710
World War II 1,078,162
Korean War 136,935
Vietnam War 211,471
Gulf War 760
Iraq War 4,000?

Cost of War:
Congressional Research Service, courtesy of The Washington Post 2003

American Revolution: $3.2 billion.
War of 1812: $1 billion.
Mexican War: $1.8 billion.
Civil War: $50 billion Union, $21.8 billion Confederacy.
Spanish-American War: $6.5 billion.
World War I: $588 billion.
World War II: $4.8 trillion.
Korean War: $408 billion.
Vietnam War: $584 billion.
Persian Gulf War of 1991: $82 billion.
Operation Iraqi Freedom: $197 billion, as of March 2006.

Re: Introducing 'The Armchair Conservative'

Troy Keith — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:14:45 -0000

Nicely said Norm

Re: Global Warming: Fact, fiction or fascism? [part III]

Troy Keith — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:37:34 -0000

Samantha, no offense, but I think you’ve missed the entire point of this piece.

Floods have come and gone (see links below), temperatures have gone up and down as part of a larger cycle, droughts come and go as do instances of crop failures. When we have verifiable historical data about all of these events, how can you so easily attribute what’s happening today to “human-made global warming”?

The earth IS changing, that’s a fact.. what remains unclear is what role, if any, we play in all of this.

http://northernwebservices....
http://www.flooddamagedata....
http://www.drought.unl.edu/...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

* charts showing flood damage are deceptive due to population growth and increased development.

"On June 1,1889, Americans woke to the news that Johnstown, Pennsylvania had been devastated by the worst flood in the Nation's history."
Source: National Park Service - US Dept. of the Interior

"The biggest flood disaster of them all was The Great Flood of 1937. The descriptions and images of this event, called “the worst natural disaster in the history of the Ohio Valley” are taken from the publication 'The Great Flood of 1937'"published by the Cincinnati Museum

January 1937 was the wettest month in Ohio since 1866 with a state average of 9.57 inches.

And on and on..