• Right Place Photo Caption Contest Hall of Glory Top 25

    meister.jpeg About Me
    BlogmeisterUSA's Guidelines for Commenting
    My Blog at Newsbusters
    My Writings at Family Security Matters
    My Writings at The American Thinker
    I Also Blog at Lifelike Pundits
    National Summary Interviews Me
    Read "The Americans" by Gordon Sinclair
    PELOSI_DEMOCRAT_TREASON-1.jpg More About the Fighting 101st Keyboardists

August 12, 2010

A Simple Proposal

I have absolutely no problem with the Cordoba Mosque. If they wish to build this mosque for the sake of tolerance and to advance the cause of peace and harmony among all, then it should be built - but only if the following conditions are met.

A church, a synagogue, a buddhist temple, perhaps a wiccan grove must be built in Mecca to truly establish once and for all that Islam is a religion of peace and one secure enough to prove it's superiority through ideals only.

These religious establishments must be funded wholly by external financial sources. If Cordoba house can be funded by rich multibillionare oil sheiks, then American evangelists should be able to raise the funds without fear of harassment.

Any and all who wish to worship at these holy establishments should be free to do so without interference, whether instigated by the state or by individuals. This is to be expected in a tolerant society.

If any wish to convert, they should be free of the fear of death. Christians, Jews , Hindus and Buddhists don't threaten their lapsed, nor do they seek to kill those who've left their respective faiths.

We're waiting...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

July 14, 2010

al Quaeda is racist!

"What you've seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself. They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains." - Barack Obama

He doesn't get it, does he? Well, of course he doesn't - we all know he doesn't.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

October 29, 2008

Bow Down Unto Me (Photo ID Required)

The security of our elections is not important: Obama is among those who opposes photo ID at the polls.

But the security of The One is so important that photo ID is required to gain entrance to the coronation bash.

Ace has the scoop.

One word: hypocrite.

h/t: Michelle Malkin

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

July 29, 2008

Do As I Say: Example #1,2546

Oh, really?

Pelosi has told Politico that shes standing in the way on a drilling vote because shes determined to use the speakers gavel to save the planet.

She can start by giving up her big, private jet paid for by tax dollars.

And they wonder why their abyslmal ratings are even lower than our "failure" of a president...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:36 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

June 11, 2008

Should NBC's Andrea Mitchell Get the Chop?

Earlier this week, Andrea Mitchell of NBC had to apologize on-air for characterizing western Virginia as redneck, sort of bordering-on-Appalachia country.

During a report on the Obama campaign, she had been comparing that part of the state to northern Virginia, which she characterized as a "high-tech corridor." In other words, the classy area near Washington D.C. where she likes to hang out.

Clue to Andrea: western Virginia is part of Appalachia. Get an atlas.

Remember when Don Imus got fired for calling black girls on a basketball team "nappy headed hos?" A tasteless comment, yes, and he apologized too...but got canned by MSNBC anyway. Yet Andrea Mitchell, another NBC employee, makes an equally offensive remark characterizing an entire region, apologizes, and life goes on. But you see, since she made her comment about the "wrong kind" of people - in this instance white people who live in rural areas - it's okay. How does that grab you?

For the record: I don't think Andrea Mitchell should be fired for being an idiot. But Imus shouldn't have been fired either. It's the blatant double standard that ticks me off.


It's okay to make offensive remarks...just make sure they're about rednecks.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

January 10, 2008

Hypocritical Hate Mail of the Day

File this under "pot calling the kettle black."

Joe, you are a dunderhead.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

October 25, 2007

Katrina vs. California Wildfire: Double Standard Time

Last night on Bill O'Reilly, I saw a clip of Jamie Lee Curtis ranting that the fact that so many people live in the areas hit by the wildfires is part of the reason for those fires, and that they have themselves to blame. (Never mind the arson investigation.) And George Carlin is saying something similar.

But why is it okay to blame the residents of Southern California for the fact that their homes were destroyed just because they live there, when it wasn't okay to blame the destruction of homes in New Orleans on the residents for living there? New Orleans has been described as a soup bowl. It also sits behind huge levees that hold back the Mississippi River and Lake Ponchartrain, and on the other side there's the Gulf of Mexico. The city continues to sink, and some experts believe it will completely surrounded by the Gulf in less than 100 years.

But it wasn't nice to say "mean" things about New Orleans. Yet the same amount of homes have been affected by fires in California, and now it's time to blame the home owners?

I believe anyone who lives in an area prone to high risks such as wildfire, flooding, hurricanes and so on should be able to do so -- but don't come crying to the taxpayer to bail you out when *gasp* your home is destroyed in a disaster that was bound to happen eventually simply by the nature of the area you live in.

I'm sorry for those who lost their homes in California, just as I'm sorry for those who lost theirs in New Orleans. But lets keep the same standard when it comes time to apportion blame. And let's at least wait until the flames die down.

Oh, and when is Jamie Lee Curtis going to set an example and move away from the Southern California tinderbox? Or is that just another liberal example of "do as I say"?

On another note, it's refreshing to see competent local and state governments dealing with this disaster. No one was left stranded like in New Orleans, there was plenty of supplies and shelter for refugees, and while people like Barbara Boxer were ready to blame the war in Iraq for there not being enough National Guard personnel available, it turns out that 17,000 were ready and available, but aren't needed as of yet. And the feds were there too, ready to step up when needed. (If you watch the O'Reilly video linked above, you'll see Schwarzenegger giving it to a reporter from ABC for "looking" for bad news. Classic!)

One more question: where's the international outpouring of aid and support? Ooh, that's right...no one cares when it happens to us.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:18 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

October 04, 2007

Media Matters and the Faux Rush Controversy

Back in 2004, Byron York took a look at the origins of Media Matters for America. Since the group is currently creating a false controversy over something Rush Limbaugh supposedly said about our soldiers (one that Senate Dems have only been too happy to jump into), National Review is re-running the piece today. It's a must-read if you'd like to know more about this group and its agenda.

Oh, and you must read Ann Coulter's take on the whole thing...masterful and amusing as always.

Speaking of which, I'll be joining Andrea Shea-King on her Blogtalk Radio show tonight at 9pm Eastern to discuss it the attack on Limbaugh and its implications for free speech -- not just for conservatives, but everyone. Click here to listen, and click here to join the chat room. We hope you'll join us!

UPDATE: MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell cuts off Sgt. Mark Seavey from the American Legion when he tries to explain the plural "soldiers" that has everyone in a tizzy, and then gives the Vote Vets guy the "last word." She also seems to imply by the gravity of her tone that Clear Channel's CEO should have heeded the letter written by Harry Reid and his merry band of senators and forced Rush to apologize. Check it out:

h/t Ian Schwartz

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:33 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

July 26, 2007

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez is a sensitive guy. So sensitive, in fact, that he's decided to monitor the speech of foreign visitors to Venezuela...and if they say anything that hurts Hugo's feelings, they are to be deported.

The comments came after the President of Mexico's ruling conservative party criticized Chavez for seeking to do away with term limits at a recent pro-democracy conference in Caracas. "No foreigner, whoever it is, can come here to attack us," Chavez said. "How long are we going to allow a person, from any country in the world, to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the President is a tyrant, and no one does anything about it?"

Indeed! Of course, that standard doesn't apply to Hugo, as he felt free to call President Bush the "Devil" when he visted the U.N. last year which, for those of you who forget, is in New York City. He also made similarly derogatory remarks during a speech in Harlem on the same trip.

Leftwingers here should be taking note that the freedom they enjoy that allows them to compare President Bush to Hitler does not exist in that utopian paradise Venezuela. But I'm sure that irony is lost upon many.

A government that cannot stand up to criticism is not a government of free men, but a tyranny. Only those who know their power has not been bestowed upon them by the people, but snatched in a power grab, feel the need to shut anyone up who would dare to speak out against them -- lest others begin to question the legitimacy of said leaders.

We'll be hearing about re-education camps and gulags next in sunny Venezuela.

Sticks and stones may break bones, but your namecalling really hurts me!

h/t: Moonbattery

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:30 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

June 13, 2007

The Vanity of Vanity Fair Shines Through

Vanity Fair wants you to be concerned about the plight of the poor and sick in Africa. Their July "Africa" issue has 20 different covers, each with two famous and/or popular people (depending on your political views) on it. And if that's not enough to convince you to cough up the $4.50 cover price, it's been guest-edited by Bono. I'm sure he did it all by his lonesome, too, considering his vast expertise in editing and the magazine industry and all that. Ahem.

RadarOnline points out that while VF will magnanimously donate $5 from each online subscription during the month of June to the Global Fund, there are some facts about "doing all we can" for those poor folks in Africa that Hollywood and its sycophants would rather gloss over.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:28 PM | Comments (108) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

Cabbies Must Serve Everyone

UPDATE: LGF effectively picks apart the whitewashed Reuters article itself.

You know, this business about Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis getting into a snit because they're being told they cannot discriminate against passengers who are carrying alcohol really burns my toast. Here's why.

Here in America, if you choose a profession where you are obliged to serve the general public, you don't get to pick and choose who you serve and who you don't serve. According to the article linked above, the former commissioner of Minnesota's Department of Human Rights is in the corner with the Muslim cab drivers.

"Five or six times a month, somebody will get the second or third cab, rather than the first cab," [Stephen] Cooper said. "That seems pretty minor."

Sure it's a minor incovenience. But there are pharmacists who are getting fired because they refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill in accordance with their religious beliefs. Just as an alcohol-carrying passenger can catch another cab, surely a woman can go to a different pharmacy.

And can you imagine the uproar if an emergency room doctor refused to treat someone based on religious beliefs?

See what I mean? We can't have it both ways. In America, there are some people who claim that religous beliefs have no place in public life whatsoever. I don't necessarily believe that's true. But if we make concessions for one religion because it's the cause du jour, then we need to start making concessions for other religions. And see where opening that can of worms will get you.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:46 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

June 04, 2007

Okay for Me, but Not for Thee

Typifying the attitude of today's liberal, former hippies are not thrilled at the idea of their property values declining in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood of San Francisco due to loitering street punk drug addicts and panhandlers, as noted in this LA Times article from last week pointed out by Michelle Malkin.

I had to laugh at this bit:

John Grima, a program director at the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic, founded in the 1960s, says his agency provides "nonjudgmental" services for homeless youths. "Still, there's this assumption of a free ride," he said.

Grima said a teen asked him for change on Haight Street. Grima offered him slices of pepperoni pizza. The young man refused, saying he was vegetarian.

"I said, 'OK, then don't eat it,' then I got mad," Grima said. "I said, 'Wait a minute, I don't owe you anything. I'm happy to help you, but I don't owe you a thing.' "

"I don't owe you anything." Grima had better watch out...someone might confuse him with a conservative.

What a bunch of whiners. Former hippies who revolted against polite society and whose motto was "turn on, tune in and drop out" are now annoyed by the next generation of kids who want to "stick it to the man?" I have no sympathy.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

May 01, 2007

Frist Cleared of Insider Trading Charges

Ed Lasky reports over at American Thinker that Senator Bill Frist has been completely cleared of insider trading charges regarding the company his family founded, Hospital Corporation of America. The MSM was all over it at the time, as you can see by this, this and this.

That was then, this is now.

Now that Senator Frist has been completely cleared of the charges of insider trading, I have not seen this reported anywhere - not in the New York Times, for example. However, at least the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal takes note of Frist's innocence and also of the witch hunt that afflicted him and that seemingly drove him from public life.

Frist may well ponder the question first posed by former U.S. Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan-who, while serving in the Reagan Administration, was also slandered with charges later proved to be false: "Which office do I go to get my reputation back".

Meanwhile, the MSM also continues to ignore allegations that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had a conflict of interest while she was chair of a Senate subcommittee that oversees military construction. Several lucrative contracts went to the company her husband owns.

Just another day's work for our illustrious MSM.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:50 AM | Comments (27) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

March 31, 2007

The Democrats and Iraq: Then and Now

Mrs. Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, John Edwards, Howard Dean: all of these politicians who are now saying going into Iraq was a mistake didn't think so a few years back. Here they are in their own words. (This little film, sponsored by GOP.com, takes a few minutes to load, and is less than four minutes in length.)

Facts can sometimes be an inconvenient thing. Especially for a certain presidential candidate who now says things like, "If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war." Back then, she said, I can support the president, I can suport an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security." This piece is loaded with that and other tasty little tidbits.

h/t: Kitty

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:39 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

March 14, 2007

Gonzalez Flap: Double-Dealing Dems


If you haven't been questioning the Dems' attack on Alberto Gonzalez firing eight US attorneys yet, it's time to get your head out from under that rock. One of the most obvious "crock alert" soundings is that Janet Reno, of the Clinton administration, fired all 93 US attorneys in a "joint decision" with the White House. All 93? That's a whole lot of pink slips. If nothing else, environmentalists should have jumped on them for wasting paper on all the paperwork involved with such a huge sweep.

Then, there's the possibility that ongoing investigations will put Dems in a bad light (h/t Kitty).

But the clincher that screams "political expediency" is this: Hillary Clinton's campaign is sending out an e-mail asking supporters to "join" her in asking Gonzalez to resign. (Thanks to The Man for passing it on. If anyone else would like to see it, I'd be happy to forward it.) This passage jumped out at me:

Why should Gonzales resign? Because he is at the center of a widening scandal over the firing of several U.S. attorneys -- firings we now know to be political. These attacks on the impartiality of the federal government's prosecutors are a genuine threat to the foundations of our justice system.

It's so bad that one U.S. attorney in Arkansas was fired to make room for a former aide to Karl Rove.

One US attorney was fired to make room for a Rove crony? Does Hillary conveniently forget that the entire staff of the White House Travel Office was fired to make room for her political cronies Darnell Martens and Harry Thomason? Claiming that there was "misconduct" in the Travel Office, seven longtime employees were hustled out, forced to leave the White House grounds on the floor in the back of a van. The FBI was called in, and reputations were viciously and callously smeared in the quest to make the ouster look legitimate. (Billy Dale, the Travel Office head, was eventually tried for fraud but the jury acquitted him.) For a Travelgate refresher, click here.

Clinton supporters contend that the firings of the 93 US attorneys and the seven Travel Office employees were the right of the Clinton administration because anyone appointed to such positions serves at the pleasure of the president. This is true. It is also true that the eight US attorneys fired by Gonzalez served at the pleasure of the current president.

That the Democrats choose to start this obvious battle is very telling indeed.

*Gayle gives us her two cents.

UPDATE: Reverse_Vampyr lays it out for us:

News flash: the US attorney are "at will" employees who operate at the pleasure of the President. If they're not enacting administration policy, he is completely within the President's Constitutional powers to remove them. The Bush administration is doing the same thing the Clinton administration did, arguably however, in not such partisan fashion. But even if that were so, this so-called scandal is nothing more than more Democrat hypocrisy. And Hillary's demagoguing with the phrase "the politicization of our prosecutorial system" is about as pot-meet-kettle as it gets.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:45 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

March 07, 2007

Clarifying Coulter

I've avoided the Ann Coulter flap thus far because I've been thinking it over. I very often jump on a topic the moment it's hot because I want to get my two cents in along with the rest of the crowd, but this time, I've decided to mull it over longer than usual because there's more than just a slur involved.

Read More "Clarifying Coulter"

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:33 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

March 02, 2007

Al Gore Skips Airport Security

On a tip from Reverse_Vampyr:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. An airline employee led former Vice President Al Gore and two associates around airport security lines before police spotted the breach and required them to be screened, an airport spokeswoman said Thursday.

The American Airlines employee led the three down to the lower baggage level Wednesday and swiped each of them through a secure turnstile with her security badge, Nashville International Airport spokeswoman Lynne Lowrance said. She declined to identify the employee.

An airport officer assigned to escort Gore to his gate was to meet him at the security checkpoint, but Gore never came through, Lowrance said. The officer found Gore, his communications director Kalee Kreider and another staffer waiting at the gate for their flight.

The officer asked them if they went through security, and when they said they hadn't, they were taken back and fully screened. Gore did not complain and cooperated fully, Lowrance said.

"Everyone goes through security," she said of the employee's action. "It showed bad judgment. They were trying to be helpful, maybe too helpful."

Okay, bonus points for not complaining when getting caught receiving preferential treatment, but why didn't Gore insist on doing the right thing in the first place? The guy isn't a god (although his eco-followers think he is), nor is he VP any longer. He's a private citizen like the rest of us, and as such, has to follow the rules, as inconvenient as they may be.

Flashback to 2002:

Traveling to Wisconsin, the former vice president was pulled aside for random security screening at Reagan National Airport before boarding the 7:15 p.m. flight to Milwaukee on Friday.

Passengers sharing Flight 406 were startled to hear Gore being told, "Sorry, sir, you have to go through extra screening," and to witness security personnel rifling through his briefcase and suitcase, a witness said.

"You're looking out and seeing Al Gore's unmentionables in his big, carry-on suitcase," said Mark Graul of Green Bay. "You could tell he was thinking, 'This is not happening to me.'

"He did not have a happy look on his face. Basically the whole plane boarded before they got through looking through his stuff.

"He patiently went through it and then took a seat in the front row with, I assume, an aide," Graul said.

Perhaps any chance Gore can avoid having his organic cotton briefs and Tom's of Maine natural deodorant being flung about in front of the plebes, he'll take it.

And perhaps maybe he'll start a corporation that offers "airport security offsets" to people rich enough and important enough to pay for them?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:03 PM | Comments (41) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

Al Gore: Mr. Green Schemes

By now, many of you following the Al Gore Environmental Circus have heard that the "carbon offsets" Gore purchases from Generation Investment Management are really purchases from himself, as he is one of the founders and serves as chair. As blogger Bill Hobbs notes, he's buying stocks, not offsets. Saving the planet? The only green thing Al Gore seems interested in comes in tens, twenties and fifties. (Can you say "tax dodge" boys and girls?)

James Taranto sums it up nicely for us:

Here we have a major American politician who is calling for policies that would impose huge costs on society but appears to be profiting handsomely himself; who is leading an extravagant lifestyle while demanding sacrifices from ordinary people; and who is calling on the media to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees, while at the same time urging more government regulation in the name of "fairness" to his partisan and ideological allies.

Why is it left to think tanks and bloggers to investigate and expose all this? Why aren't the mainstream media all over the story? Could it be . . . bias?

Mr. Green Schemes strikes again!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:54 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

March 01, 2007

Soros Walks But Money Talks

George Soros is a Bush-hater extraordinaire and sugar daddy of many leftwing causes. He gave heavily to MoveOn.org and other "soft money" enterprises during the 2004 election in order to oust George Bush from the White House, and has been a harsh critic of the war in Iraq.

However, it turns out that Soros is businessman first, peacenik socialist second:

According to papers filed with the SEC, in the fourth quarter of 2006 Soros purchased nearly 2 million shares of ... hold your breath ... Halliburton. The Halliburton shares reportedly went for an average purchase price of $31.30 a share. That puts Soros' total investment in Halliburton at around $62.6 million, or about 2 percent of his total portfolio.

Only two percent of his portfolio? I wouldn't mind being able to spend $62.6 million...would you?

Halliburton? The evil corporation that survives much like a vampire does, by sucking the life out of victims (in this case soldiers)? Halliburton, once headed by Dick Cheney, who is only "out-evilled" by his boss Bush?

Don't expect principles to get in the way of accepting Soros' next big donation toward a leftwing cause, however. No matter how much they talk about the evils of money, they don't want to give up their share.

h/t: American Thinker

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 03:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

February 20, 2007

Hannity Hammers Gore on Hypocrisy

I've been complaining about the double standards of self-proclaimed ecologist and climate expert Al Gore for a while now, but Sean Hannity, on the most recent episode of his new Sunday show Hannity's America, really lets the bloated gas bag have it. Check it out. (h/t: Newsbusters) It won't stop Ol' Gassy's bloviating, but the more people who find out about the rules for him versus the rules for us, maybe they'll think twice about his eagerness to silence the critics of his theories.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:35 PM | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

January 31, 2007

NY Times Shows Video of Dying Soldier

From the Houston Chronicle (via Sweetness & Light, h/t learner):

WASHINGTON A photograph and videotape of a Texas soldier dying in Iraq published by the New York Times have triggered anger from his relatives and Army colleagues and revived a long-standing debate about which images of war are proper to show.

The journalists involved, Times reporter Damien Cave and Getty Images photographer Robert Nickelsberg, working for the Times, had their status as so-called embedded journalists suspended Tuesday by the Army corps in Baghdad, military officials said, because they violated a signed agreement not to publish photos or video of any wounded soldiers without official consent.


Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism in Washington, said the incident was typical of the dilemmas that face news organizations in war.

"The fact that a photograph upset people, even family members, is not always sufficient reason not to run it," Rosenstiel said. "Editors may decide that there is a compelling public interest in running a photograph precisely because it does upset an audience."

The agreement that journalists are asked to sign as a condition of embedding has 14 rules. Rule 11 covers military casualties: "Names, video, identifiable written/oral description or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without service member's prior written consent."

The ground rule goes on to say, "In respect for family members, names or images clearly identifying individuals 'killed in action' will not be released." The rule says names of soldiers killed can be released a day after family notification, but it does not address photographs or video images.

From what I gather, the video and photo that were released clearly identified the soldier, in violation of the ground rule.

As Steve from S&L notes,

If Sgt. Leija had been a POW, publishing photos of his dying would have violated the Geneva Conventions.

The legality of the photos/video can be decided by the powers that be. However, it's interesting to note who the media worries about offending, and who it doesn't.

The New York Times and many other news outlets would not post the Muhammed cartoons in order not to "offend" the sensibilities of Muslims. This, in spite of the fact that by the time the MSM had the opportunity to show them, they had become an important part of what was becoming a major international story, not just a gratuitous poke in the eye. The reason? Muslims are becoming a protected class Western society because of the fear of violent retribution they have managed to instill in the hearts and minds of many. (One Canadian town is taking a stand.) It's unlikely that Sgt. Leija's family will send a suicide bomber into the NYT's offices in order to get revenge for being offended.

In the aftermath of 9/11, news outlets stopped showing pictures of people jumping out of the windows of the Twin Towers because the images were "upsetting." Are the relatives of 9/11 victims more prone to being upset than by the relatives of slain soldiers?

Soldiers are not high on the list of respected people for leftwingers, and the MSM is highly populated with leftwingers. The MSM has been doing its level best to give us a negative picture of the war. To heighten that negative view, they chose to show Sgt. Leija's last tragic moments as a "lesson" in the brutalities of war and why we should pull out now: to avoid more such tragic ends to "children" whom are being "sent" into war. Therefore, his relatives are not worthy of the consideration due to the families of other people who meet a violent end.

Surely the memory of Sgt. Leija deserves better.

UPDATE (2/1/07, 3:05 pm): Here is Michelle Malkin's take on it.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 04:27 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

January 28, 2007

Wanna Make Lots of Money? Be a University President

Check this out:

January 28, 2007 -- COLUMBIA University President Lee Bollinger lives large. The educator, who pulls down an annual $685,930 in salary and benefits, had the largest expense account of any of the Ivy League school chiefs, racking up $93,743 for the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the student-run Columbia Spectator newspaper reports. The university declined to give Page Six a breakdown.

As Kitty says, "and they complain about CEOs." Where's the outrage? Aren't universities supposed to be above such petty things as (gasp) money? Aren't college-level educators worried about the wage gap between people who make as much as Bollinger and the rest of us? Ah, it's always different when you're the one making the big bucks, eh?

(BTW, Columbia is where the Minutemen were basically forced offstage by a bunch of student thugs. To my knowledge, Bollinger has yet to do something substantive about it.)

Think this guy will ever make the AFL-CIO's Executive Paywatch?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:40 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

January 13, 2007

Who Cares About Nebraska?

I don't get to listen to Rush, CPR or Sean Hannity at work anymore because the internet firewalls at my company don't allow for online streaming, and I can't get AM radio reception. So I miss my daily dose of live conservative commentary.

I wish I had been listening to Rush yesterday, but fortunately he posts a lot of good things that happen on his show on his website. A woman called yesterday from Nebraska to talk about how Nebraskans are dealing with the aftermath of back-to-back icestorms in late December, which she said had been likened to a class 5 hurricane. Here's part of the call transcript:

CALLER:...I realize that they are very serious ranching problems in Colorado but the fact that they are covering shoveling in Colorado and didn't mention that there were thousands of people in central Nebraska who were without power, just kind of floored me. But I do know why it wasn't coveted by the national media, and I kind of want to thank them, because we here are very independent, very self-sufficient, and extremely caring people. We are America's heartland.

RUSH: Flyover country.

CALLER: Mm-hmm. But --

RUSH: Well, that's what the liberals call it.

CALLER: Oh, flyover, that's right.

RUSH: You're just something they fly over on their way to their sophisticated hangouts on both coasts.

CALLER: That's true. But, you know, we're not newsworthy because our governor wasn't on television complaining that FEMA wasn't here at our door. What was going on here is what should happen in the midst of national disasters. People were looking out for everybody else. Everybody who had something was looking for how they could share it with their neighbor. People were looking out for old people who were without power. People were looking out for people with small children who were without power. People were driving out into the country to get people who were stranded in their homes. I know an electrician of mine who was hooking up generators for free. They had brought in power workers from all over the country, and I just want to say, "Thank you, thank you, thank you," to all the people who worked on this and were working 15 to 18 hour days in the cold and in the snow, working to get us back on our feet, and everybody here, there was no whining. There was no complaining. There was power that was out for weeks!

RUSH: Great, and there was no FEMA --

CALLER: Yeah, there was no FEMA.

RUSH: -- and there was no FEMA in Denver, and there was no media anywhere blaming Bush for causing the national disaster.

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: There was no media demanding that FEMA show up.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: And you know why? Because nobody in the media cares about you.

CALLER: Well, because we're not whiners and complainers. We're not exactly what make big news.

RUSH: Yeah, but it's not that.

CALLER: We're not busy cursing the darkness. We're too busy lighting our candle. We are trying to find our own way out of what is befalling us. I can tell you I am so grateful to live among the people that I live with, and I just cannot say enough how proud I am.

RUSH: Well, let me tell you something.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm?

RUSH: People would be tempted -- in listening to you, Ann, people would be tempted -- to think that your description of events is what's unique in this country. Sadly, that's not the case. Your description of how neighborhoods and states band together and help themselves in times of trouble like this is quite common in this country, because the people of this country are good people. What's unique and unfortunate is the kind of reaction we got after Hurricane Katrina. It's not all that unique, but there are people who have been raised to sit around and wait for the government to do whatever it is that they need done. They know nothing else. So you go to these very liberal enclaves and those attitudes exist. I've always found it fascinating that, in that big snowstorm, the ice storms that you're describing, there was more coverage of the cattle that were stranded than of the 44 people that they had to dig out of cars and so forth who had died.

That got reported, but all this media was showing helicopters dropping hay and other kind of things for wildlife that was stranded out there to eat. It's not hard to understand why that was not sexy to the media. For one thing, the skin color was wrong. It would be hard to make victims out of people like that. But New Orleans was made to order. New Orleans fits a template of American liberalism -- or the aftermath of Katrina, I should say, fits a template -- and that is, we still have a two-class society in this country: "Poor black people, and they are not cared for. "They are not liked. They are ignored, and if we could, we'd just find a way to be done with them," and that's what the media thinks a lot of people in this country have as a racist attitude. So here came this hurricane, and here came all this destruction, and here comes the government totally ill-equipped to deal with something this large. No bureaucracy anywhere could have, and you throw in the hatred of George W. Bush and the desire to do anything possible to ruin his administration, and it's like the Duke rape case.

That fits a template, a societal template that the left has. Look at the way the University administration there reacted! The minute the charges were made, the lacrosse team is shut down, the coach is fired and the kids are kicked out of school. One shred of evidence has not ever been produced to say these kids did it, and yet the faculty and everybody was demanding that they be run out of Durham, run out of town forever, because it fits a template that liberals and the media in this country have. What happened to you doesn't fit a template. It's ignored. It's not interesting to them -- and the success stories are not what they're about. They're not going to run around and do stories on how well you all banded together and people sacrificed and the electrician you're talking about was donating generators. That's not sexy. That's not news. They want victims. They want destruction. They want death and they want mayhem that they can show, so that they can then point fingers of blame at it! Plus, it'd be very hard for them to get there. It was an ice storm and it was snow. They'll stand out in the middle of the street in the cities where they live to report that it's snowing, but to actually go into that mess themselves -- and some of the airports were closed, it was a convenient excuse not to get there, just take local footage from the helicopters that were flying around shooting things. It's a great story. I'm glad you called, Ann. Thanks much.

Nebraskans going through hardships in the aftermath of a tremendous storm, and the media barely mentions it. But with Katrina and New Orleans, you had round the clock coverage for weeks. And they're still harping on it.

And the libs want to put fetters on programs like Rush's by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine because they don't like for their hypocrisy to be highlighted. This is why now, more than ever, we need these alternative voices to the pap being spoonfed to the American public by the MSM.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

December 12, 2006

Jim McDermott: Ethics, Schmethics

What if a congressman violated Congressional ethics standards and no one cared?

Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) was found to have violated Congressional ethics standards when he leaked an illegally taped phonecall between then-Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich and GOP leaders.

In a report released days after Congress adjourned, the ethics panel said that McDermott, a former ranking member of the panel, failed to meet his obligations as a committee leader.

"Representative McDermott's secretive disclosures to the news media ... risked undermining the ethics process regarding" former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the report said.

McDermott's actions "were not consistent with the spirit of the committee's rules," the panel added in a 25-page report.

The committee took no further action beyond release of the report.

Does anyone remember these words?

With their votes, the American people asked for change. They cast their ballots in favor of a New Direction.

They called for greater integrity in Washington, and Democrats pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.

Now some of you may be saying, "But it was almost ten years ago! Water under the bridge." I say baloney. It may have taken ten years to finally come to a conclusion on this fiasco, but McDermott needs to be taken to task.

How about this, from a speech by McDermott posted on his own website?

Freedom in America does not mean granting the government unlimited and unchecked powers to snoop into private lives without any counterbalance.

Last time I checked, individuals (Congressmen or no) weren't given that right either. At least the Bush administration is trying to stop another terrorist attack by Islamofascists on American soil. And the phone surveillance progam is kosher, by the way. What was McDermott trying to do? Sully the name of a fellow politician in the hopes of torpedoing him. Yet McDermott is given a pass by Nancy "Ethics Queen" Pelosi and her cronies.

"New Direction" indeed. Sounds like business as usual to me.

Another "victory" for Democratic "ethics"

h/t: Michelle Malkin

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:18 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

November 20, 2006

Who's a Privileged American?

Nancy Pelosi would have you believe it's just Republicans:

"We want to take the country in a new direction, not just for privileged America," Pelosi said in a jab at Bush and his fellow Republicans who had been in control of Congress.

Does Nancy live up to her rhetoric? Peter Schweizer, author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, thinks not. From an article he wrote for Front Page Magazine, based upon his book:

Read More "Who's a Privileged American?"

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 04:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

October 12, 2006

Harry Reid and the Democrat Double Standard

Democrats and their MSM cheerleaders have been pummeling Republicans with the Mark Foley e-mail/IM scandal. Despite the fact that House Speaker Dennis Hastert says he knew nothing about the IMs and what little he knew of the e-mails was not deemed worthy of investigation by the FBI, Democrats are demanding that he step down. They keep on asking, "Who knew what and when?"

Will they be asking the same questions of Minority Leader Harry Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership in the Senate?

Reid, it has been discovered, collected $1.1 million in a land sale in Las Vegas on land that he no longer owned privately, but had transferred it to an associate in exchange for a stake in that associate's company. Reid did not disclose any of this on his annual ethics report, which is in direct violation of Senate ethics.

According to Reid and his aids, he continued to pay all taxes on the land between its initial purchase in 1998 and eventual sale to developers who wanted to build a shopping center in 2004. The question is, if everything was on the up and up, why not include it on your ethics report, Senator Reid?

What's also interesting is that the land was part of a government land swap deal that Reid supported. It looks like a real conflict of interest. As a public servant, Reid is not supposed to profit from the public policies he supports and/or creates.

This is not a paltry sum we are talking about. Reid more than doubled his initial investment, bringing in more than a million smackers. And with the Democrats saying that Republicans are mired in a "culture of corruption," one would think that they would be the first to admit to an error in judgment, and ask Reid to either step down as Minority Leader at the very least.

Funny thing, though: Reid hung up on the AP reporter who called asking for comment on the story. As Mark Levin pointed out on his radio show last night, the story broke on the AP...not exactly a bastion of Republican support. He also pointed out that there were no anonymous sources, which so often accompanies these kinds of stories, so it doesn't sound like one of those conservative hit jobs we've been hearing so much about lately. And don't expect it to be on the front page of the New York Times. I took a quick glance at its home page today and saw no story (but Foley is still being talked about). It is on the Washington Post's home page, although you have to scroll down a bit.

Don't get your hopes up, though. Harry Reid will still be Minority Leader and Democrats will rally round him, saying he did nothing wrong. It won't be like Tom DeLay, who was hounded out of his leadership post (and isn't seeking reelection) because he was indicted for funnelling money into Texas legislative races and for having a connection to Jack Abramoff.

After all, being a Democrat has its privileges. One of them is never having to admit you're wrong.

More on this story: Captain's Quarters

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:04 AM | Comments (163) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

October 05, 2006

Final Words on Foley

However this turns out, this is the last time I'll be discussing it at length here.

First off, let me say that what Mark Foley did was wrong. Even though he never approached any of them or had physical contact (that we know of), it should be considered harassment by a man in a position of power over young volunteers. The only correct thing Foley has done in this sorry episode is to have stepped down as Congressman.

There is word that the IMs he sent were to a young man of legal age. While it does not excuse Foley for abusing his position, the Democrats now have one less thing to bleat about. ("It's about the children!")

What I cannot believe -- or rather, I should say I can believe -- is the way the Democrats are playing the old double standard card with absolutely no shame. This is the party:

-that continues to support a man who walked away from a serious accident, leaving a young woman to drown, because his reputation as a married man was obviously more important than her life.

-that gave us Congressman Gerry Studds, who was proven to have been in a physical relationship with a 17-year-old male page. Studds was merely censured, not forced to step down, and was re-elected five times.

-that told us then-fifty-something Bill Clinton's "indiscretions" with then-19-year-old Monica Lewinsky were private and that we should just "move on." (Catchy name, eh?)

-that would rather celebrate Jim McGreevey's "coming out" as a gay man than what prompted his sudden decision to make his personal life public: his extremely corrupt administration.

-that gave us Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA), who was found to have $90,000 in bribery money in his freezer. The same William Jefferson who used National Guard troops to bring personal property out of his home in the aftermath of Katrina. Jefferson was asked to step down from a lucrative committee assignment, but was not asked to step down from his Congressional seat.

-that excused Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) for his DUI incident in Washington DC earlier this year.

When a Democrat shows human flaws, we are supposed to forgive and understand. When a Republican shows the same human flaws, we are supposed to roast him over the proverbial coals until he smokes.


We need to hold all of our elected officials to higher standards, no matter what the party. And we need to apply the law to all of our elected officials in the same way it is held to ordinary citizens. Unlike the royalty we sought to escape back in 1776, we are all equal before the law. This includes those who make the laws.

Mark Foley abused his power, but those who knew about it and sat on the story until it was politically expedient are just as culpable in this mess. They too need to be held accountable.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:31 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

September 08, 2006

Urge ABC To Run 9/11 Miniseries

Yesterday it was Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger who were whining and whinging about the portrayal of the Clinton administration in the years leading up to 9/11, and asking for certain scene changes. Now Democrat leaders are actually warning ABC to pull the miniseries.

John Kerry said the following about Republicans earlier this year, but he may as well be talking about his own party today:

America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. Yes, in every war, there have been those who demand suppression and silencing. And although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.

Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America's leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion of the nation's direction, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate.

So I urge you to write to ABC and urge them to run the 9/11 miniseries as scheduled. Artistic license was not a problem for the Democrats when many prominent party members attended the premiere of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, a movie highly critical of the Bush administration. The hypocrisy demonstrated here is staggering, especially when one considers that Moore's movie was made while Bush was president, and the ABC miniseries is being aired 5 years after Clinton's term ended. And the Bush administration, as usual, took the high road and said nothing about Moore's film. (Nor did they say anything about the upcoming film Death of a President, which fictionalizes President Bush's assassination.)

As Rush Limbaugh said on his show yesterday, people usually start squawking when criticism hits close to home. We can't let the Democrats get away with what amounts to censorship and a denial of First Amendment rights because they are unhappy with a movie's portrayal of Bill Clinton. ABC has already altered some scenes. They shouldn't cave in any more.

More: Newsbusters, Michelle Malkin, Ex-Donkey Blog

Being censored by Democrats?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:28 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

August 16, 2006

More Double Standards From the Dems

It seems Barack Obama is not practicing what he preaches. After extolling the virtue of driving hybrids and exhorting others to shun SUVs, the good senator drove away in a GNC Envoy. His rep spun a yarn about the Envoy being a Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV), but according to Drudge, this particular car is not yet ready for the fuel blend.

I guess Obama is joining the "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" club, whose president is none other than Al "I Like Being Noticed" Gore.

Barack Obama rides in one of these, but doesn't want you to!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

May 02, 2006

Nazi No-No vs. Communist Chic

Being associated with any symbol that reminds one of Naziism in our society is taboo -- and for good reason. (Why do you think leftists love to call President Bush Hitler and his supporters Nazis? Nothing like comparing them to one of history's most evil villains and his henchmen.) But Jeff Jacoby has a few observations:

Nazi regalia may be strictly taboo, but communist emblems have never been trendier. Enter "hammer and sickle" into a shopping search engine, and up pop dozens of products adorned with the Marxist brand -- T-shirts and ski caps, bracelet charms and keychains, posters of Lenin and "Soviet Kremlin Stainless Steel Flasks."

The glamorization of communist imagery is widespread. On West 4th Street in Manhattan, the popular KGB Bar is known for its literary readings and Soviet propaganda posters. In Los Angeles, the La La Ling boutique sells baby clothing emblazoned with the face of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro's bloody henchman. At the House of Mao, a popular eatery in Singapore, waiters in Chinese army uniforms serve Long March Chicken, and a giant picture of Mao Zedong dominates one wall.

"A French government agency, the National Lottery, was crazy enough to use Stalin and Mao in one of its advertising campaigns," observed Stephane Courtois in his introduction to The Black Book of Communism, a scholarly survey of communist crimes. "Would anyone even dare to come up with the idea of featuring Hitler or Goebbels in its commercials?"

What explains such "communist chic?" How can people who would never dream of drinking in a pub called Gestapo cheerfully hang out at the KGB Bar? If the swastika is an undisputed symbol of unspeakable evil, can the hammer-and-sickle and other emblems of communism be anything less?

Read the rest here.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:29 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1) | Double Standards

April 21, 2006

T-Shirt Ruling Disturbing

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against a California student the right to wear a t-shirt to school that says the following:

"Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned'' (on the front) and "Homosexuality Is Shameful'' (on the back)

The ruling is as follows:

"We conclude that'' Poway High School student Tyler Harper's wearing of his T-shirt " 'collides with the rights of other students' in the most fundamental way,'' wrote 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, quoting a passage from Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a seminal U.S. Supreme Court decision on the free speech rights of students.

"Public school students who may be injured by verbal assaults on the basis of a core identifying characteristic such as race, religion, or sexual orientation have a right to be free from such attacks while on school campuses. As Tinker clearly states, students have the right to 'be secure and to be let alone,' '' Reinhardt said.

"Being secure involves not only the freedom from physical assaults but from psychological attacks that cause young people to question their self-worth and their rightful place in society. The 'right to be let alone' has been recognized by the Supreme Court … as the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men,'' Reinhardt said.

In other words, certain groups of people are being told that they are guaranteed the right not to have their feelings hurt.

Isn't that what this is all about?

One caveat: I believe that schools have the right to enforce dress codes. However, if they are going to enforce it against one group, they should be even-handed. Giving preference to one group over another isn't they way to go about it.

Here's a scenario: Anti-Bush t-shirts can be seen just about anywhere in this country. If President Bush took it into his head to sue the wearers and/or the manufacturers of such shirts because it was a "psychological attack that caused him to question his self-worth in our society," the suit would be tossed out faster than yesterday's newspaper. And I would agree: freedom of speech should not be trumped by hurt feelings. (In any case, the president has more to worry about than malicious malcontents wearing obnoxious t-shirts.)

That's not to say that a t-shirt saying "this (insert person/group) must die" or other such violent vitriol should be tolerated. It's one thing to criticize. It's another thing to threaten violence. This is where any civilized society should draw the line.

It's also not to say that people shouldn't think twice about what message they choose to broadcast to the general public. I don't think it's a good thing to go out of your way to offend someone else...but to demand such compliance is another matter entirely. Especially when, as an example, the student in question was offended by pro-gay issues being openly discussed at his school.

What about his being offended? What about his rightful place in society? What about his religious beliefs, which are what prompted him to wear the shirt? Are they not worth defending? No one seems to worry about the feelings of a Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin.

And therein lies the problem. By elevating the status of one special interest group over another, we are giving lie to the very foundations our country was built on. The First Amendment rights of a student who believes homosexuality to be sinful have been trampled in an effort to keep homosexual students from getting their feelings hurt.

No matter who you are or what you do, not everyone is going to like you and/or agree with your actions. This is a lesson that everyone needs to learn at an early age. By banning certain t-shirts at school, certain students are being told that their feelings are more important than someone else's rights.

That is an extremely disturbing trend.

hat tip: Memeorandum

Other views: Betsy's Page, Blue Crab Boulevard, Orrin Kerr, The Volokh Conspiracy

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

March 10, 2006

What's Sauce For the Goose...

Mona Charen has an interesting article on today's edition on Town Hall:

A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are calling "Roe v. Wade for Men." Here are the facts: A 25-year-old computer programmer named Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., was ordered by a judge to pay $500 per month in child support for a daughter he fathered with his ex-girlfriend. His contention -- and that of the National Center for Men -- is that this requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause.

Dubay does not dispute that he is the child's father. Rather, he claims that during the course of his relationship with the mother, he was given to understand that she could not become pregnant because of a physical condition. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with her. The courts, he and his advocates argue, are forcing parenthood upon him in a way that they cannot do to a woman. Here's the money quote from the NCM website:

More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy.

Charen points out:

The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is that sexuality requires responsibility -- and that doesn't just mean using birth control. It means that if you engage in sex you have an automatic obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have been vociferously rejecting this responsibility for decades. It should come as no surprise that men are inclined to do the same.

What is not being discussed here are men who have a relationship, have children, and then shirk their financial duties toward the kids (as in cases of divorce, abandonment, etc.). What is being discussed are men who unknowingly impregnate a woman (as in the case described above) and then are forced to support the child if the woman decides to have it.

Why is that fair? Don't they get to have reproductive choice too?

I am what's called an abortion moderate. I don't think it should be outlawed completely, but I believe in a first trimester limit (except in cases where the mother's life is endangered), and I also believe it should be a state legislative matter, not a national one. Oh, and birth control? More people should be utilizing it if they aren't planning on having children.

I also think that this whole "it only affects the woman thing" is a big bunch of marlarkey.

The problem here is the double standard. Men are expected to shut up both when the woman decides to abort and when she decides to keep a child. When does he get a say?

Sadly enough, the ones who are really affected are the children. If more people thought about them, perhaps we wouldn't be hearing so much about sexual and reproductive rights.

The feminist reaction? I can't wait to hear it.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

February 16, 2006

Cheney's Gun: The Final Word

And the final word (in my mind) over the hoo ha regarding Dick Cheney's shooting accident goes to one of my favorites, Thomas Sowell:

The media are so full of themselves -- among other things that they are full of -- that they act as if the government exists to provide them with something to publicize. The time is long overdue to put these people in their place. Where is Margaret Tutwiler when we need her?

Be sure to read it in its entirety.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

February 15, 2006

Dems' Response to Cheney Gun Affair

Democrats are having a field day with Dick Cheney's hunting accident. Hillary is among those who are asking why it took so long for the information to become public, and implying that a coverup was in the works.

I have two things to say to the Democrats:

Vince Foster and Mary Jo Kopechne.

UPDATE: It seems Ted Kennedy has gotten into the spirit of things. The Man at GOP and the City has details.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:12 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

January 12, 2006

Judging the Judges

Debra Saunders has a great column on Town Hall today regarding the senators' questioning of Samuel Alito during the SCOTUS hearings. In particular, she has some scathing criticism of Ted Kennedy:

I've never understood what senators were thinking in allowing Kennedy on the Judiciary Committee in the first place. While Kennedy seems to consider himself a champion for the little guy, he is a walking tribute to a system that, in its low moments, allows the rich and powerful to get away with crimes that would put others behind bars. He is a discredit to the system.

Read the whole thing. Kennedy lobs questions about Alito's past connections with "questionable" associations, while he himself was allowed to put a terrible incident behind him with a slap on the wrist -- all thanks to money and family connections. Yet bringing up Chappaquiddick is considered to be poor sportsmanship among Dems and other Kennedy supporters. Sorry, but belonging to a club that might have had discriminatory leanings and allowing a woman to die (because even being with her is a blot on a married man's reputation) are two completely different things.

If Kennedy wishes people would stop bringing up Chappaquiddick, perhaps he should stop trying to smear folks like Alito with past associations that probably didn't mean much at the time and mean even less now.

UPDATE: For more on the Alito hearings, check out The Noonzwire and Ex-Donkey.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

December 15, 2005

A Tale of Two Drug Addicts

Phil over at Camp Katrina noticed something strange with the following article excerpts regarding a couple of famous people and their drug problems. Excerpt number one:

Colin Farrell is being treated for exhaustion and dependency on prescription medication, his publicist said.

The medication was prescribed to the Irish actor after a back injury, publicist Danica Smith said in a written statement Monday.

I just got the warm fuzzies. Then, there's this story:

A judge on Monday ruled that prosecutors can subpoena Rush Limbaugh's doctors as part an investigation into whether the conservative talk show commentator illegally bought painkillers.

I just got nauseated. Both stories are sourced from AP (the Associated Press). It's good to know how unbiased our MSM is, isn't it? Poor Colin Farrell is suffering from exhaustion and is recovering from his "dependency" on painkillers after an injury, while Rush, a "conservative talk show commentator illegally bought painkillers." Of course, Rush also got addicted to the painkillers after having back surgery, and what the ruling really meant was that prosecutors couldn't question his doctors regarding his treatment.

Both stories factually true. Both stories the victim of spin. Who got the better end of the deal?

Thanks, Phil, for pointing it out!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:30 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

March 21, 2005

John Leo Tackles Double Standards

One of my pet peeves is double standards. In his column on Town Hall today, John Leo tackles this topic as it relates to politics today. A sample:

Planned Parenthood adopted a more comic double stance on abortion: Young girls are fully capable of choosing to abort without informing their parents, but they could not enter a Planned Parenthood pro-abortion poster contest without parental approval. The fine print on the contest said, "Children under age 18 must have a parent or legal guardian's permission to submit designs." No, you wouldn't want young teens making drastic poster decisions without input from Mom or Dad.

Conservatives don't get away scot-free, as Leo has a few zingers for them too. But definitely read it...he makes many good points.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Double Standards

    ENDORSEMENTS "Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
    "One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial