Glenn Beck was a harmless lil' fuzzball back then

This is a revealing exchange between Lefty James Cameron and Glenn Beck. It's hard not to laugh at the amazingly militant and intolerant sentiments of Cameron, but what so many in the MSM don't realize is that Beck used to be more of a humorous, shock jock-ish personality (the ACLU poster boy type of radio personality) than anything else.
Here's video background from Beck. Glenn Beck wears 3-D glasses, mocks James Cameron - USATODAY.com

And here's a peak behind Cameron's curtain. James Cameron: Glenn Beck is 'dangerous' - USATODAY.com:

"According to The Hollywood Reporter, when asked earlier this week at Avatar home-video release junket what he thought about Beck, Cameron said: 'Glenn Beck is a [bleeping][bleep]. I've met him. He called me the anti-Christ - and not about Avatar.' Cameron was apparently referring to Beck's reaction to his 2007 documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus which casts doubt on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

After blasting Beck, Cameron seemed to reconsider: 'I think, you know what, he may or may not be an a--hole, but he certainly is dangerous, and I'd love to have a dialogue with him.'"

No, Beck was making fun of Titanic, and not because of any social or cultural values angle. Beck was particularly affected by 9/11, like a lot of Americans.

"Quotes" etched in the public's memory

Yesterday I was thinking about the media's power to shape public perception--making myths into political "realities" . . . then I read how a non-quote from a Republican was the most "memorable" "quote" for the Yale Law faculty member who compiles an annual list of Most Memorable quotes. ("Palin tops list of memorable quotes"). From the report:

Sarah Palin lost the election, but she's a winner to a connoisseur of quotations.

The Republican vice presidential candidate and her comedic doppelganger, Tina Fey, took the top two spots in this year's list of most memorable quotes compiled by Fred R. Shapiro.

First place was "I can see Russia from my house!" spoken in satire of Palin's foreign policy credentials by Fey on "Saturday Night Live."

Palin actual quote was: "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

. . . .

President-elect Barack Obama didn't make the list, not even for his much-criticized remark in which he said some small-town Americans "cling to guns or religion."

"To me it didn't seem like a very remarkable or very foolish quote," said Shapiro, who describes himself as a liberal Democrat. "Ultimately I decided against it, but it was a close call."

Yeah, I'm sure it was.

What a game! What a commercial (series)!

Wasn't that Super Bowl great?!
But seriously . . . I failed to post on this immediately after the Super Bowl, but I was reminded today (over at Instapundit) of which commercial was the best in my eyes actually two commercials: the e-trade ads (candidly, "wheel suck!" was a nice one, too, but I have a bias against the "predictable/stupid beer ad" genre).

Some people are like, "Aren't you a little late to the party on "best SB commercials"? And I'm like, (a) don't worry about it, I just look like I'm late and (b) it's a free country . So, here for your viewing pleasure my favorite Super Bowl Ads:

MSM: Huckabee, we hardly knew ye . . .

This kind of thing will get you uninvited on "The Daily Show" . . . Huckabee slams Clinton on Petraeus vote. Oh well. Not many GOP primary voters tune in anyway.

Here's the money quote:

"'If you can't get your lips off the backside of George Soros long enough to use those lips to say it's wrong to declare a sitting general ... guilty of treason, how would you ever expect to have the support of the very military you might have to send into deadly battle?' Huckabee told the Times."

And speaking of Soros, I guess you've heard that he has been shoveling money to a NASA-employed, vocal scientist and global warming alarmist. What's that about BigOil financing faux science about global warming?

Rhymes with 'shmashmortion' - Politico.com

I'd say we're winning the debate on abortion. Here's an interesting movie review about the movie Knocked Up asserting that it has a pro-life slant . . . whatever. {"Rhymes with 'shmashmortion'" - Politico.com). For the record, it does seem to be poignant and it is somewhat refreshing to see (from the review and the trailer) that this movie might be somewhat accurate in its treatment of abortion. But the ironic thing about the review is how irritated the author seems to be that others aren't as comfortable with the tragic act of abortion as she is. And she seems to imply that all these uncomfortable people are somehow hypocritical.

Frankly, a majority of Americans are anti-abortion. But the tough thing about this reality is that candidates know this as well, and it is difficult for voters who are more than simply uncomfortable with the "procedure" to discern a candidate's views when most of said candidates claim to be "pro-life." I suppose many politicians of past generations were "uncomfortable" with racial apartheid in America. So what? We needed someone that would lead Americans to do what was right, not someone who wanted to tickle the ears of voters.

More on eCampaigning

Time Magazine's Joel Stein is sounding out the eCampaigns of the 08 Pres. Candidates ("Friends in High Places" | TIME). It's an enteresting (entertaining + interesting) read, but it demonstrates (by design I perceive) the potentially irrelevance/insignificance of eCampaigns. From the article:

"I'm sure picking a presidential candidate on the basis of what he's done or what he says is a great method--if you're 70 and have nothing but free time. I'm making my choice the more efficient way: MySpace. Whichever candidate is best at being my friend gets my vote. It worked for high school elections, and now it will work for the Leader of the Free world."

Simply corroboration on Clinton

It's interesting to see the way Hillary Clinton's people are responding to the soon-to-be-released Her Way--"this is old news."

This article ("Clinton 'planned to divorce Hillary to be with one of his many lovers'" | the Daily Mail), asserts that there are no "new" disclosures in the book, and that the book won't change anyone's mind about Hillary, but that's not good news for someone with higher negatives than positives among the electorate. According to sources in the book, Hillary is "self-righteous":

"In the 640-page book, Bob Boorstin, who worked for Mrs Clinton when she was trying to restructure the nation's healthcare system, blamed her for the collapse of her own plans.

'I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I've ever known,' he told Mr Bernstein. 'It's her great flaw.'

Mark Fabiani, who defended the Clintons as White House counsel, said Hillary was 'so tortured by the way she's been treated that she would do anything to get out of the situation.

'If that involved not being fully forthcoming, Mr Fabiani said she would say: 'I have a reason for not being forthcoming.''

Hillary is also cool and calculating in pursuing her objectives:

The second book, Her Way by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr, claims that Mrs Clinton hired a private detective to investigate one of her husband's mistresses.

According to the book, she ordered the detective to undermine Gennifer Flowers 'until she is destroyed'.
. . . .

Her Way looks in detail at Mrs Clinton's Senate vote in support of the Iraq war, suggesting she may have been motivated by a desire not to abandon her husband's toughon-Iraq policy and a need 'to prove that she was tough'.
. . . .
The Post said Mrs Clinton emerges as a "complicated, sometimes compromised figure who tolerated Bill Clinton's brazen infidelity, pursued her policy and political goals with methodical drive".

The New York Senator, it said, had "occasionally skirted along the edge of the truth along the way" to power.

Last night political analysts said the books would damage Mrs Clinton in the eyes of some voters. They added, however, that most would find little to surprise them in the allegations."

And this statement--talking about yawning, from one of her spokespersons makes me grin:

Mrs Clinton's Senate office dismissed the books as offering no new material.

Her spokesman Philippe Reines told the Washington Post: "Is it possible to be quoted yawning? If past books on Mrs Clinton were cash for trash, these books are nothing more than cash for rehash."

Her campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told the paper: "The news here is that it took three reporters nearly a decade to find no news.

"Two overwhelming Senate victories in the toughest media market in the country demonstrated that voters have put these issues behind them."

Uh, I don't think so. Hillary's not running for President of the MSM or of New York City. And the details brought out in Her Way will only solidify Hillary's "negatives."

Creationists not alone -- Concord (NH) Monitor

This is an interesting article on the whole Darwinism debate from the debate last week. I was somewhat out of pocket all week, so I wasn't able to post, but I did notice a lot of buzz about the Evolution question in the GOP '08 debate.

First, I have to say that I resent that this question may have been handled differently than the others. From what I've heard, it was presented like a question at a defensive driving course or a museum tour--since when do you have candidates for the most powerful job in the World (I acknowledge this rhetorical question loses some of its punch when Dennis Kucinich is factored in) respond to a question by raising their hand?

Second, while I think it was intended (based on the context and the format) to be a "gotcha" question, it merely helped all the secularist, hardcore Democrats to discern which candidate they really, really would never vote for.

I've been amused to observe the condescension and arrogance (and out-of-touch-ness) of those who've attempted to vilify and/or ridicule the three candidates who dared to answer differently than Dem leadership or the MSM faithful. As this story from the Washington Post shows, these candidates are not alone, and certainly not in the minority. "Eager to Be Reagan's Heir, but Not Bonzo's Cousin." The writers certainly understated the facts when they said, " . . . a look at public polling on the issue reveals that the three men aren't far from the mainstream in that belief." I wonder how they would define "mainstream" when--as they reported in the article, a 2004 ABC poll found that 61% of respondents viewed the Genesis account of creation as "literally true."

The Concord Monitor reprinted an excerpt of the article under the fitting title "Creationists are not alone"--indeed.

Does disagreement=bigotry?

Mary and Freddie at Nashville's Liberadio ("Raising the Bar Shouldn’t be Too Hard When It’s Dragging on the Ground") have linked to a virtual press release from David Brock's MediaMatters. Predictably, folks from the Left will seize on this opportunity to characterize disagreement as bigotry:

“I applaud CBS for listening to reason and canceling Imus in the Morning. Viewers and listeners sent the clear message that they would no longer tolerate bigotry on America’s airwaves. It is our hope that this incident will begin a broader conversation about the responsibility that news corporations, journalists, and media figures have to the American public. This is an opportunity for the media to truly raise the bar to a higher standard and return to the fundamentals of journalism.”

Let’s talk. You want examples of the “bigoted commentary rife on the cable networks and talk radio?” They’ve got examples - Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Savage, Boortz, Beck, Coulter, and Carlson."

Do Brock, Mary and Freddie think that everything broadcast in the Media is "journalism"? And though Mary and Freddie refer to the catalog of controversial statements from some non-Liberal media personalities, I suspect those are the worst/best examples they can assemble about these figures (with the exception of Michael Savage for whom they list a single statement).

But it's selective "rage," in my estimation. Even Al Gore has made a statement more "insensitive" than the Tucker Carlson comment highlighted by MediaMatters. And I don't see how any of the examples listed on the MediaMatters site amount to "journalism." Each example is, at most, from the op/ed genre.

Most importantly, it sounds like David Brock, et al would love to force every "controversial" (the boundaries for which are drawn/approved by America's Liberal Elite) Conservative public figure underground. I disagree that guess we should all be ashamed for criticizing Cindy Shriehan or daring to push back on the agenda of "the Jersey Girls."

Bull's Imus

I think Sarcastro (here) gives a perfect assessment of what happened with Don Imus.

Although Imus may make racially charged comments on the air, his personal and philanthropic life is a testament to Imus has fallen into the Tarantino/Wigger trap. He is pals with Harold Ford, Jr. Bishop G.E. Patterson and Suge Knight. His affinity for blacks and black culture led him to believe he could say the same things a black man could say. Dave Chapelle can get away with it. Don Imus can't. Hell, Imus should have called someone a "faggot". He could have picked up a NAACP Image Award.

I think Imus is a self-important blowhard, and what he said was rude, but the reaction to his "nappy-headed ho's" comment reflects the double-standard applied in issues of race.

Huckabee: Character issues apply to GOP, too

Here's another report (on MSNBC.com) re. the Huckabee conference call. ("Huckabee: Character issues apply to GOP, too" - MSNBC.com) Perhaps the writer needed to add some sizzle to the report or was trying too hard to be succinct, but having heard the exchange live, I can say this characterization of the question and answer about his book is off base.

"Huckabee denied that the book showed he was not taking his presidential campaign seriously, and said there was little work he did in updating the book."

There wasn't a contentious question or statement in the entire call (take that as you wish), and gee, when's the last time that a candidate wrote a book (much less re-released one) a year out from the first primary?

(NOTE: There are some excellent resources on this page for researching the 2008 field)

Pelosi's documentary on Evangelicals

This (here) is an insightful article, penned by Middle Tennessee's own Michael Linton for First Things Magazine, about Alexandra Pelosi's HBO documentary about Evangelicals.

Regardless of how flattering or not a documentary turns out to be, it is tempting to resent merely being put under a cinematic microscope, to bristle in the crosshairs of the documentarian's camera. But Linton accurately (I believe) reviews and draws the proper Evangelical conclusions from the movie: we should be thankful for this frank look at our culture.

Aside from potential disagreement with Linton about how "obedience and sacrifice" factors into a person's "friendship" with God, I heartily echo his thesis.

Chicks or the egg?

Amid reports (Dixie Chicks Album Sales Go Through Roof) that the Dixie Chicks' album sales jumped 714% in the week following the Grammy Awards, I'm wondering which came first: the note or the worthy? the Grammys or the success?

Well, Sister Toldjah provides the likely answer:

"The theme of the day in the MSM is “vindication for the Chicks”, as though the Grammy awards they won make up for the fact that their record sales have dropped considerably, as have their ticket sales, and radio stations don’t want to play their music because their listeners don’t want to hear it."

The deep, dark secret of politics: They’re all just people

Interesting op/ed from South Carolina's, The State (The deep, dark secret of politics: They’re all just people ) about Alexandra Pelosi's documentary, Journeys with George.

I can't quibble with the article's thesis . . . I think we all would benefit from remembering that politicians or elected officials aren't always as they seem in the Media.

But I do believe that most of the supporting arguments for arthen's thesis are media-centric, in the sense that everyone but them (the Media) "have an agenda." Bush--"the candidate," is simply trying to "charm the press" (disingenuously acting with kindness toward reporters, we are to conclude); Rove--"the creep," is nefariously distrusting of reporters; all the candidates are "postur[ing] for the extremists" (of course, in spite of the reasonable, even-handed coverage afforded them by the MSM). The reality is that all humans have the temptation to misuse power (however manifested); it's not a flaw unique to politicians.

Who's in charge of "tiers"?

This write up about the 2008 GOP field is getting some broad circulation--in part because it refers to the GOP pack as Lemons (as far as the GOP "right" is concerned). But it is an interesting piece because it is so "media-" and "registered voter-" centric. And I wonder why Rush Limbaugh (quoted at the beginning of the article) is so readily following suit. (here) Here's an excerpt:

"'Where do social conservatives go?' asked Dan Schnur, a California-based Republican consultant who worked for McCain in 2000 but is staying out of the 2008 contest. 'They've been the determining force in the nomination process for a generation and they've got no candidate in the top tier.'

Plenty of people are trying to prove Schnur wrong. McCain's advisers are betting that the disdain toward the Arizonan among many of the most vocal activists will not prove representative of primary voters. Running in a party that counts many Baptists, Romney may find a sympathetic audience for his story of conversion on social issues -- if he can convince people that he saw the light on the road to Damascus, not the White House."

My question is where's the home office or star chamber determining which "tier" a candidate belongs in? Uh, when did so-called Mainstream Media folks become reliable guides about who is or is not "credible," "electable" or even "likeable"? And since when is a poll of "registered voters" a reliable indicator for what primary voters are thinking?

Slim Libby pickings

This Roger Aronoff & Cliff Kincaid report (here) accurately describes the Libby trial for what it is: Chapter Umpteen in the Media's persistent campaign to discredit the Bush Administration.

Here's a sample quote from the article:

All of this ["sensational developments" like talk of "sacrificial lambs"] is interesting but largely beside the point. What Libby and Rove and others were doing was rebutting Wilson's false charges, while passing along information about his wife working at the CIA and being behind his trip to Africa on behalf of the Agency. Numerous conversations were held with various journalists, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. It happens all the time. The difference was that this was a conservative administration dealing with a hostile liberal press. Cheney and Libby knew full well that Wilson's accusations, published in the New York Times, could affect public opinion. They had to fight back.

I encourage you to read the whole thing for an overview of the case.

NY Times rally bias

While skimming some headlines today I noticed some bias in the NY Times, that is worth noting (surely FoxNews invented slanted news coverage!).

The underwhelming phrase "thousands . . . rally" caught my attention (here) in the NY Times article about the 34th annual March for Life in D.C. I hate to say it, but I've come to expect downplaying coverage of political events by Liberal journals, but "thousands" was too biased to be believed. As I dug a little, even the Washington Post reported that "tens of thousands" attended. (here)

Next was the phrase "marched . . . to show disapproval," and I like how the writer polished off her intro with a direct (but unnecessary) quote of Bush's comments that included a malapropism. Nice job, Sarah.

Curious, I looked at the Times' treatment of the Anti-Iraq War rally this past Saturday, "tens of thousands" gathered there, we're told. And they weren't "disapprov[ing]"--like the judgmental pro-lifers, they were "opposi[ng]."

A little digging turned up this survey (here) of most of the reporting on the 2007 March for Life--newsflash: there were 20,000 abortion opponents at the spin-off rally in San Francisco.

Here's a shot of the mere "thousands" at the DC rally.

Sectarian semantics

If you spend any time around here, you'll know that I am bothered by the impact that the so-called MSM and Democrat leaders have on the public's perception about our efforts in Iraq. Whether it is willful or not, they advance stories that fit with their view of the situation--in my humble opinion.

This morning I saw an example of this in a report about bombings Tuesday that killed Iraqi civilians at a Baghdad University. The Reuters report via the Washington Post states,

The latest attacks followed the hangings on Monday of two aides to Saddam Hussein, which angered minority Sunni Arabs and fueled sectarian tension.

The Shi'ite-led government plans a security crackdown backed by U.S. reinforcements and billed as a "last chance" for Iraq to pull back from a sectarian civil war between Sunni rebels and Shi'ite militias that would drag in millions of armed civilians.

(emphasis mine).

I know it has become common practice to make everything in the U.S. a partisan affair (except, perhaps, when commenting on popular legislation enacted when Clinton was in office) but isn't it sufficient to simply say "the Iraqi government." The government in Iraq was elected by majority vote in the last election, wasn't it? This Reuters statement may be accurate, but its relevance is rather subjective. I can pretty objectively state that its impact on the story fits the quagmire/civil war/insurgents/intractable/blahblahblah storyline.

Surprisingly super ad pitches

I have to admit that I pay attention to commercials. Now, that's not the reason I tune in to the Super Bowl, but I am fascinated with advertising. But I wasn't expecting much when I visited NFL.com's Super Ad contest site (here) (hat tip worldviews blog). Seriously, it is hard to pick a single favorite, but I like 5, 11 and 12--a mix of humorous and dramatic.

One thing that is interesting to me is how the best ads (in my humble opinion) are well-pitched--the person has "passion" as they make their pitch.

Politically-interested comedians take themselves too seriously

I read over at the NY Times (via Drudge) that Al Franken is contemplating a U.S. Senate run.

I believe that politically-inspired comedians take themselves too seriously (certainly more seriously than the average voter). Accordingly, the quality that makes them so "charming" to a live, studio audience of people (who get their knowledge of current events from late night talk shows) would wither and fade under the glare of political krieg lights.

So, I think Franken is kidding himself (pun intended) if he thinks he's cut out for elected office. I think the same thing applies to "Man of the Year" inspiration Jon Stewart.