Lies About Limbaugh

Lies About Limbaugh

There are a bunch of "quotes" from Rush Limbaugh floating around. Some of them are believable: offensive, but not spectacularly those. Some are offensive, but perhaps the full context would make them obviously satirical. And some of them are so false, and completely made up, that even the hard left is beginning to back down and admit that they are not true. The Weekly Standard is reporting that Rachel Maddow has now admitted that the quote about giving the Medal of Honor to Martin Luther King's assassin is "apparently" not true. Even leftists trying hard to justify jettisoning Limbaugh from the purchase of a football team are admitting that some of the "quotes" are probably false:

Two of the racist quotes recently attributed to Limbaugh, which praised slavery and Martin Luther King Jr. assassin James Earl Ray, may have been falsified and then magnified in the media echo chamber.

The quotes were published in a 2006 book by Jack Huberman, “101 People Who Are Really Screwing America.” Asked Thursday for the source of the quotes, Huberman said he had no comment. His publisher, Nation Books, also declined to comment.

The originator of two incredibly inflammatory quotes refuses to identify where they came from--and no one has them on audio? And they "may" have been falsified? CNN now admits that they can't source the quotes:

News anchor Rick Sanchez used the purported quote on CNN, but has now issued a retraction.

"Earlier this week we provided quotes attributed to Limbaugh to illustrate why some people and players felt that Rush Limbaugh was too divisive to be an NFL owner. One of these quotes, which was in a column in the St. Louis Post Dispatch and in a book largely about conservatives, was refuted by Limbaugh. We have been unable to independently confirm that quote. We should not have reported it and for that I apologize. I feel it is important to hold folks accountable when they make mistakes, and that should include myself and my team," said Sanchez.

And MSNBC has admitted likewise:

During the 3:00PM ET hour of live coverage on MSNBC Friday, co-host David Shuster admitted that racially charged quotes he and other hosts attributed to Rush Limbaugh had not been verified: “MSNBC attributed that quote to a football player who was opposed to Limbaugh’s NFL bid. However, we have been unable to verify that quote independently. So, just to clarify.” Shuster did not formally retract the quote or apologize.

What just amazes me is how completely and utterly disconnected from honesty the left has become. Of course, if you don't believe in right and wrong, then what's wrong with lying?

What If?

What If?

This has been floating around for a while, but really captures the absurd way in which the news media simply stopped criticizing the President--as soon as that President wasn't George W. Bush:

What if ? If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as “proof” of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had sent his wife and daughters on a shopping trip to London on Air Force One, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.

No common sense, naïve, incompetent, uninformed voters did this to themselves. Insanity is widespread. Real Americans are waking up.

One last question.... Are you stimulated yet?

Dear Mr. Hannity:

Dear Mr. Hannity:

I've watched your show on Fox News channel for several years, first when you were teamed up with Alan Colmes, and now, by yourself. I have appreciated your efforts to inform Americans about the important issues and challenges confronting our nation--but I do not appreciate the direction that your show seems to be headed.

For most of the Bush Administration, before 9/11 and after the invasion of Iraq, one of the defining aspects of the left was the deeply personal insults that it directed against anyone with whom they disagreed. They turned everything into a personal attack. Instead of arguing that the Iraq War was perhaps a bridge too far, they insisted that it was an attempt to enrich Haliburton for the benefit of puppet master Dick Cheney. The attacks on Governor Palin were even more outrageously in this same vein.

In the last few weeks, I've noticed that your show seems to be relying increasingly on personal ridicule rather than serious policy questioning. The "Liberal Translation" segment is especially offensive. There are also times that going for the cheap laugh is causing you to overlook far more substantive criticisms. For example, last night you spotlighted the profoundly embarrassing interview on 60 Minutes in which President Obama's responses to Kroft involved a lot of giggling and laughs about the economy. Kroft realized that something was wrong, and asked, "Are you punch-drunk?"

Pretty obviously, Obama wasn't. The use of that movie clip got a few laughs, but a little thought would have revealed that Obama's behavior was indicative of someone who is profoundly embarrassed, and not quite sure how to handle an interview involving a crisis that he feels unequipped to solve. Obama is in over his head, because he lacks executive experience--and that is the real story. We can feel sorry for Obama, who was promoted by the mainstream media to a job for which he is clearly unqualified. We can feel sorry for America, which is suffering from a crisis that demands the best possible President right now--and we don't have it. But this is a serious problem--and going for the laughs isn't helping.

I've written before about how Ann Coulter's sometimes cruel personal statements get a cheap laugh--and distract from serious and important points that she makes. Over the last several years, I have become increasingly disappointed by Bill O'Reilly's increasingly confrontational manner of dealing with guests. There's a difference between challenging someone to defend their position, and just talking over them, more loudly and more belligerently. Glenn Beck is a breath of fresh air; he either is a very humble person, or he at least knows how to fake one on the air. When Michelle Malkin or Laura Ingraham substitutes for O'Reilly, I come away with that same positive reaction: here is someone with strongly held conservative views, but who is focused on policy, not personal insults.

I am especially irritated by the cheap personal insult approach from people that purport to be following Jesus. Christians aren't obligated to be milquetoast. We can strongly disagree with our opponents, but the personal insults are outside the pale.

Very Truly Yours,

Clayton E. Cramer

UPDATE: Let me emphasize that questions of personal corruption (exchanging governmental favors for money, gifts, etc.) are legitimate concerns. Hypocrisy as it impinges on public policy is also a legitimate concern. Raising these issues in a dignified and honest manner doesn't qualify as personal insult.

Media Bias? What Media Bias?

Media Bias? What Media Bias?

The July 23, 2008 Investors Business Daily reports on contributions by journalists to political campaigns:

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .
Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

Of course, we know that as soon as these journalists get to work, they drop all biases and assumptions about politics, and are just completely fair and evenhanded in how they cover the election. Right?

Global Warming Increasing Skin Cancers--But Only Among Women

Global Warming Increasing Skin Cancers--But Only Among Women

A reader pointed me to this July 11, 2008 CBS News report where Katie Couric interviews an "expert" about skin cancer:

New research shows there's been a disturbing increase in melanoma among young women. In 1973, there were five-and-a-half cases per 100,000 women, ages 15-39. But by 1980, the rate had nearly doubled. And it went up another 50 percent by 2004. During that same time, the melanoma rate for young men leveled off. Melanoma is the most serious form of skin cancer.

Okay, that's a real worry. Skin cancer rates rose dramatically from 1973 to 1980--and then rose dramatically again (but just for women) to 2004. And the explanation for this, from their expert?

Couric: Dr. Downie, when I heard these numbers I thought "Has the sun gotten stronger? Are young women spending more time outdoors?" What's behind this disturbing trend?

Downie: It's really worrisome. The ozone level is thinning so because of that, the greenhouse gas emission, the sun is stronger. This is not our grandmother's sun.

Look, ozone level thinning as a cause of increased skin cancer? Plausible. Ozone reduces UV exposure. Greenhouse gases? What? This the first that I have heard that they are changing the amount of UV reaching the surface. But here's the big problem: skin cancer rates for women increased 50% from 1980 to 2004--but didn't increase for men. What's with this? Is the ozone hole only present over women? Do greenhouse gases only let in UV light that causes skin cancer in women?

Come on. When something global affects men and women differently, it's usually not global. Yes, there has been some measurable increase in solar output (about .05% per decade since the 1970s--which is not much). But those of us who grew up in the 1960s remember when suntans went from something that identified a person who worked outside to something fashionable. One of my sisters spent as much time as possible on Santa Monica Beach trying to get that cool bronzed look--and in winter, she used a sunlamp. And unsurprisingly, a few years ago, she ended up with melanoma. She was not alone in her worship of UV.

One of the saddest aspects to the ignorance that passes for television journalists is that the general population doesn't seem to be any smarter--and so stupid people on TV can panic stupid people watching TV.

Hero Is Such a Devalued Word in the News Media

Like the way that people with AIDS become not "sufferers" to a lot of reporters but "victims." People who did nothing all that remarkable become "heroes" to many reporters. But something happens that really does identify someone as a hero--knowingly putting your own life on the line for others--and much of the rabidly liberal news media ignores it. From the October 23, 2007 Houston Chronicle:

WASHINGTON — Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy, nicknamed "Murph" and known as an intense and empathetic young man, was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor on Monday "for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life" while outnumbered by Taliban fighters in a June 2005 battle high in the mountains of Afghanistan.

The 29-year-old SEAL team leader and former lifeguard from Patchogue, N.Y., is the first service member to receive the Medal of Honor for heroism in the Afghanistan war and the first sailor since Vietnam to be awarded the medal, the nation's highest military decoration.
At a ceremony in the White House's East Room, President Bush presented the medal to Murphy's parents, Daniel and Maureen Murphy. "This brave officer gave his life in defense of his fellow Navy SEALs," Bush said, adding that Murphy acted "with complete disregard for his own life."

I saw another SEAL who survived this battle interviewed, and he described what Murphy did, and it really reminds you of the enormous gap between the professional whiners and those who hand a check to the U.S. government that says, "Whatever I need to do to defend America, even if it gets me killed."

The Jena 6 Falsehoods

The Christian Science Monitor is one of America's most respected national newspapers and while it definitely leans left (they are journalists, after all), I can't recall ever seeing anything obviously dishonest or misleading in it. So this article that they carried October 24, 2007 by a newspaper report in Jena, Louisiana, is really quite startling. Worth reading in full, especially if you think you know the story of the Jena 6. What he has to say matches what I have been able to find in just about every source that isn't trying to play the race card.

Who Are The Jena 6?

Who Are The Jena 6?

I haven't looked carefully into this case, which I was led to believe reflected some sort of To Kill a Mockingbird expression of Southern racism. The few news accounts that I have seen showed a bunch of nooses hung in a tree--with the implication that these were part of how the white power structure was terrorizing blacks in this little town. But now I see this summary of the case by a black columnist with the Kansas City Star, and I am disappointed (but not surprised) at how the mainstream news media have played this one:

Reed Walters, the Jena district attorney, is being accused of racism because he didn’t show Bell compassion when the teenager was brought before the court for the third time on assault charges in a two-year span.

Where was our compassion long before Bell got into this kind of trouble?

That’s the question that needed to be asked in Jena and across the country on Thursday. But it wasn’t asked because everyone has been lied to about what really transpired in the small southern town.

There was no “schoolyard fight” as a result of nooses being hung on a whites-only tree.

Justin Barker, the white victim, was cold-cocked from behind, knocked unconscious and stomped by six black athletes. Barker, luckily, sustained no life-threatening injuries and was released from the hospital three hours after the attack.

A black U.S. attorney, Don Washington, investigated the “Jena Six” case and concluded that the attack on Barker had absolutely nothing to do with the noose-hanging incident three months before. The nooses and two off-campus incidents were tied to Barker’s assault by people wanting to gain sympathy for the “Jena Six” in reaction to Walters’ extreme charges of attempted murder.

Much has been written about Bell’s trial, the six-person all-white jury that convicted him of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery and the clueless public defender who called no witnesses and offered no defense. It is rarely mentioned that no black people responded to the jury summonses and that Bell’s public defender was black.

It seemed to occupy most of the 5:30 to 6:00 half hour of Wolf Blitzer. I'm sorry, but it isn't important. Not like the Iraq War, or the prospect of nuclear war with Iran, the global warming scam, or any of a number of real issues.

As Classical Values points out, there's a member of the House who has been charged with assault and battery against an airline employee--and that's not getting anywhere near the press. Is it because he's a Democrat? The usual suspects are saying that it is because the Craig scandal exposes the hypocrisy of conservatives for being against gay marriage while in the closet. There are some problems with that explanation:

1. I suspect there aren't that many closeted gay Republicans who are social conservatives. The two gay Republican House members--Kolbe and Mark Foley--weren't social conservatives at all.

2. If Craig's scandal is newsworthy because he did one thing in private and voted the opposite direction, then why is Filner's assault and battery charge not news? Is it because he's acting privately in accordance with Democratic Party soft on crime policies? Similarly, is the near absence of national coverage of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) scandal involving $90,000 in cash in the freezer because corruption is in accordance with Democratic Party policies?

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Others have pointed it out, but it says something about either the honesty or intelligence of the at AFP reporter, photographer, and editor involved that they don't realize that this news story:

An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City.

doesn't go with the picture:



For those of you who don't shoot rifles--she isn't holding bullets, but entire unfired cartridges. It also appears that these aren't even U.S. military issue ammo.

UPDATE: The QandO Blog has pictures of current U.S. military ammo. It is possible that other NATO forces in the theater are using these older 5.56mm rounds--but unless they are throwing unfired ammunition at her house, this story and picture are, at best, wrong.

Homophobia & The Left

Interesting article about how when The New Republic's Scott Thomas Beauchamp articles turned out to be fraud--and a member of the The New Republic's staff named McGee anonymously informed people investigating the fraud that Beauchamp's wife was a fact-checker for the magazine (and apparently a fact-checker on her husband's article)--they fired him. And then, the left started to engage in smears of McGee because he was gay!

Shortly after 7 AM on Thursday, July 26, McGee got a short phone call from The New Republic’spublisher. The magazine staff had tracked his anonymous web postings to his work station near the publisher’s office. Her message was short: “Your services were no longer needed.”
The magazine was at least as consumed by finding the whistle-blower (McGee) than in presenting a full accounting to its readers.
McGee’s says his leaks were not motivated by ideology. He told me he “didn’t feel an ideological distance when I worked there. I felt pretty comfortable.”
He said he felt frustrated that the magazine could not do the simplest thing: admit they’d made a mistake, that their fair-minded critics had raised some good points and that they would address it as best they could.
It is odd that McGee has been the only one fired over the Beauchamp scandal. Wouldn’t Foer be a likely candidate? Or the fact-checkers who failed to do their duty? Or Elspeth for knowingly bringing Beauchamp into its respected pages?
Instead, the left-o-sphere turned on its attack machine and pointed it at… McGee.
An attack on McGee in the Huffington Post outed the former publisher’s assistant as gay.

Journalist Campaign Contributions

Mainstream journalists like to pretend that they are completely unbiased in their reporting. But when you look at how journalists lean on their campaign contributions, it does suggest that they see the world considerably to the left of the average American:

Whether you sample your news feed from ABC or CBS (or, yes, even NBC and MSNBC), whether you prefer Fox News Channel or National Public Radio, The Wall Street Journal or The New Yorker, some of the journalists feeding you are also feeding cash to politicians, parties or political action committees.

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

As the sidebar article points out, this is a very incomplete list, because of what data is required in the federal campaign records.

There's a longstanding tradition that journalists don't cheer in the press box. They have opinions, like anyone else, but they are expected to keep those opinions out of their work. Because appearing to be fair is part of being fair, most mainstream news organizations discourage marching for causes, displaying political bumper stickers or giving cash to candidates.

Traditionally, many news organizations have applied the rules to only political reporters and editors. The ethic was summed up by Abe Rosenthal, the former New York Times editor, who is reported to have said, "I don't care if you sleep with elephants as long as you don't cover the circus."

But with polls showing the public losing faith in the ability of journalists to give the news straight up, some major newspapers and TV networks are clamping down. They now prohibit all political activity — aside from voting — no matter whether the journalist covers baseball or proofreads the obituaries. The Times in 2003 banned all donations, with editors scouring the FEC records regularly to watch for in-house donors. In 2005, The Chicago Tribune made its policy absolute. CBS did the same last fall. And The Atlantic Monthly, where a senior editor gave $500 to the Democratic Party in 2004, says it is considering banning all donations. After MSNBC.com contacted Salon.com about donations by a reporter and a former executive editor, this week Salon banned donations for all its staff.

I actually would prefer that journalists be allowed to make political donations; it at least puts it all out in the open where he stands. Preventing them from contributing to political causes doesn't make them unbiased; it just lets them pretends that they don't have any political preferences. Which does more good for a Democratic presidential candidate? A $2000 contribution from a reporter? Or a series of liberal leaning articles about global warming, minimum wage laws, and same-sex marriage?

When O'Reilly Goes Off The Rails...

It is pretty sad. I watched him interview an acquaintance, Dave Kopel, this evening about a controversy involving Boulder, Colorado High School. Apparently a couple of the local radio talk show hosts have taken some remarks from speakers at an event at the school out of context as implying that kids should be sexually promiscuous and experimenting with illegal drugs. You can read the transcripts here.

I confess that I share O'Reilly's revulsion at the way that these speakers approached the topics. However, it appears to me that the objective was to appear sufficiently hip to be taken seriously--and in a very, very liberal place like Boulder, I would expect that approaching these topics in a manner that would not offend Bill O'Reilly would be mean that the important part of the messages these speakers were giving, would be lost.

What were the messages? One of the speakers who O'Reilly castigated for mentioning that some therapists have used the drug Ecstasy as part of therapy, also pointed out:

And there's no question that people's worlds are changed after their consciousness is changed. Well, you have to really sort of think, am I ready to have my world changed? I’m 14 years old. Maybe I'm not ready to see what one sees on LSD. Maybe I'm not ready to have the feelings that mescaline provides in my body, or ecstasy, because a lot of those feelings have to do with feelings of being out of control, and they can be very scary to a person who doesn't have a strong enough sense of themselves, and that’s why people end up having bad trips at young ages. They're just not ready.

...

I'm a member of that generation, so you know, LSD was my drug of choice in college, and I lost a lot of friends. I had one friend who jumped out of a third story window. He thought he could fly. That's just one example. So, with non-responsible use, I think what Sanho says, some of you just won't be there.

There's a playwright that O'Reilly is angry about for saying that condoms aren't good. But you read the transcript, and you can see that he's making a couple of points about how 15 year olds think about condoms (if they think of them at all)--while making a couple of points that, if Dr. James Dobson made them in front of a public school audience, would have the ACLU filing suit to stop:

And you at 15, little Antonio, should have waited to have sex. Because I know now, and I know you weren't ready for what you felt. And when you got older and you were ready, it was transcending, and beautiful, and amazing, and like God, but you didn't wait, and you should have at least known that when Carla, super hot junior, invited you over to her house for the first time for you to have sex, when you were a sophomore, and she tells you, "It's okay, you’ll like it," she's telling you the truth. But when she tells you don’t worry, her mom never comes home this early, she's lying. (laughter from audience) Because by the time she tells you that, when you’re naked on her bed with her, her mom is already in the house, coming up the stairs. And when you hide, don't hide in her mom's shower, because for some reason, that's the first place she looks. (laughter from audience)

...

And she says, "Don’t worry, my mom won’t be back," that’s true. And you say something about a condom and she says, "Don’t worry, I'm clean, and I can’t get pregnant," and I swear to God she said, "because the moon is full." (laughter from audience) And when she says that, don't believe her. Because a few weeks later she says she's late getting her period, and those four days waiting until she finally gets her period are the longest of your short life. (laughter from audience) And from that day on, you swear you will always use condoms.

...

So its no surprise that me at 15 stopped using condoms when she said she was going on the pill, and the next thing you know, something is leaking out of your penis, and it hurts when you pee. So then you find yourself in a clinic across town, hands around your ankles. Dr. Walters pulls out a huge q-tip meant for a horse or something, (laughter from audience) and sticks it right there and says, “This might hurt for a moment.” (laughter from audience) And he puts it in where things should only come out, and you say "Doc, that kind of hurts," and he says, "Yeah? Well, you should have thought about that if you weren’t using condoms." (laughter and applause from audience)

And even that experience won't teach you about condoms. And when you finally fall in love, when you're a senior and old enough to know, with that beautiful, amazing, angelic girl that makes you laugh, and you trust her with your heart, with all of these stories, and more, and making love with her is literally that, an act of creation, that creates more love in the world, and fills you full of light and hope and joy, and you hold her and she holds you and it is as close to heaven as you can get. And you would move mountains for her if you could. And she goes on the pill and she is clean, and you believe her. And you should, because she really loves you, little Antonio, 16 years old. And she forgets to take her pill one day because she's 17, and amazing, but she's not perfect. I know women in their 30s who forget to take their pill. And a little while later, you both make a decision that you'll regret for the rest of your lives—every year, marking how old it would have been. And how it would have been to have been a 17 year-old father. And you're glad that you’ve had that choice, and it makes sense, but why do you have a hole in your heart, all these years later? And you can't go back in time and tell myself that.

Was it crudely put in places? Sure. But I'm not sure what else approach would work with a Boulder High School audience. I accepted a job in Boulder a few years back, and my wife and I flew out to look at housing. The more time we spent talking to the locals, the more apparent it became that it was Sonoma County with a view of the Rockies--a place with far more money than parents, and not a good place to raise kids.

UPDATE: A reader points out that Dr. Becker also made this statement:

Joel Becker: I would also vote for the legalization of most drugs. I think that we’re missing a real opportunity here to regulate something in a way that will work a lot better. I happen to live in the state of California in the city of Los Angeles, which has been described as America’s Amsterdam. We have legalized medical marijuana in the state of California. There are 110 marijuana clubs in the city of Los Angeles. There was an article on the cover of the Los Angeles Magazine that said “When Did LA Become, Like, the Capitol of Marijuana, Like, in the US?” And it is. If you want to get marijuana in the city of Los Angeles, all you’ve got to do is go to a doctor who will write you a ‘script. You go to a club. You go and you buy somewhat regulated production marijuana so you know you’re not getting stuff with chemicals in it. They not only sell marijuana, they sell hash, they sell baked goods. We have brownies, we have cookies, all the things you might want, so come on over. (laughter from audience)

I'm afraid that while Becker did acknowledge the hazards of drug abuse, this is certainly a statement of active support for marijuana use.

More Signs of the Vigorous Racism of the Mainstream Media

I had heard about this case a couple of years ago, floating around the blogosphere, but of course, it received no mainstream media attention. Read the description of this case, and ask yourself: if victims had been black, and the rapists/torturers/murderers had been white, do you think you would have heard for weeks on end about the Wichita Massacre?

The Carr brothers, 22-year-old Reginald and 20-year-old Jonathan, already had serious criminal records when they began their spree. On December 8, 2000, having recently arrived in Wichita, they committed armed robbery against 23-year-old assistant baseball coach Andrew Schreiber. Three days later, they shot and mortally wounded 55-year-old cellist and librarian Ann Walenta as she tried to escape from them in her car.

Their crime spree culminated on December 14, when they invaded a home and subjected five young men and women to robbery, sexual abuse, and murder. The brothers broke into a house chosen nearly at random where Brad Heyka, Heather Muller, Aaron Sander, Jason Befort and a young woman identified as "H.G.", all in their twenties, were spending the night. Initially scouring the house for valuables, they forced their hostages to strip naked, bound and detained them, and subjected them to various forms of sexual humiliation, including rape and sodomy. They also forced the men to engage in sexual acts with the women, and the women with each other. They then drove the victims to ATMs to empty their bank accounts, before finally bringing them to a snowy deserted football field and shooting them execution-style in the backs of their heads, leaving them for dead. The Carr brothers then drove Befort's truck over the bodies.

They returned to the house to ransack it for more valuables. It was then they claimed their final victim, Nikki, H.G.'s muzzled dog who was beaten and stabbed to death.

Only H.G. survived (thanks to her metal hairpin having deflected the bullet), after running naked for more than a mile in freezing weather to report the attack and seek medical attention. In a much-remarked point of tragedy, she had seen her boyfriend Befort shot, after having learned of his intention to propose marriage when the Carrs, by chance, discovered the engagement ring hidden in a can of coffee beans.

The Carr brothers, who took few precautions, were captured by the police the next day, and Reginald was identified by Schreiber and the dying Walenta. Law enforcement officials ultimately decided that the Carrs' motive was robbery, despite the other aspects of the crime.

At trial, the Carrs' attorney argued that they had tough childhoods. Apparently, not tough enough to kill them, and not tough enough to put even a tiny bit of empathy with the suffering of others.

The national news media in America serve no useful function. They make no serious effort to portray the complexity of questions such as global warming; focus on sensational crimes of relatively little importance--unless the killers are black, in which case the crimes are generally ignored or excused.

If they covered no sensational crimes of little national importance only at a very low level--for example, giving coverage on the day the Duke rape case was first reported, and perhaps coverage when the case was dropped--it would not much matter if they were selective about reporting black on white crime. But to spend the time covering the Duke case--an allegation of rape--while ignoring the Wichita Massacre and these horrifying murders in Knoxville--well, just imagine if the national news media reported in lurid detail, for days on end, every rape committed by a black man against a white woman, and ignored all other rapes. You would correctly recognize that the objective was to demonize black men and foment lynching.

There's a quote often attributed to Thomas Jefferson which sounds just a bit too modern to me:

Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

I rather doubt that the quote is accurate, but if it is, Jefferson must have said it before the "flowering" of partisan newspapers in the early Republic. (Flowers grow well in manure, and a lot of the early Republic's newspapers aren't even as polite as manure.) I'm afraid that this other quote attributed to Jefferson--which may also be incorrect--is more accurate:

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.

UPDATE: To my surprise, both quotes are accurate. See here. The first quote is from 1787, and the second from 1807. A lot of experience in that period with a free press seems to have lowered his estimation of them.