Front And Center: The Latest Skewed AP Poll

Every one in the media and the Democratic Party is going completely gaga over the latest AP poll, showing Obama's approval rating at 60%. Yahoo puts the story out front and center.

The same poll shows 53% think he deserves re-election. Again, Yahoo wants to make sure you know this right here.

The first story doesn't mention it, the second story buries deep in the last third of the text. But to those who are willing to use their brains for a split second, all it takes is a look at the entire poll to see how heavily this poll was skewed. On page #37, you will see the respondents were 46% Democrat, 29% Republican, and 4% Independent. 20% are too stupid to know what they are.

This is significant for several reasons. The most obvious is a 17% differential between the Dems and the GOP. But the real skewing comes in the shorting of the Independents.

In reality, the Dems and Republicans represent about 30% of the electorate each. The other 30% or so is made up of Independents and other smaller parties. We always expect the Dems and the GOP to vote accordingly, but it's the Indies that win elections. And right now they are not happy with the state of the nation, as it applies to their lives.

In the second linked story, the AP makes an attempt at an explanation:

Some conservatives criticized the AP-GfK poll as heavy with responses from Democrats. AP-GfK polls use a consistent technique that starts with a random sample of the population and lets respondents identify their own political leanings. In this poll, 46 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrats or leaning that way, while 29 percent said they were Republicans or leaning to the GOP. How people identify their leanings fluctuates in polls along with their other political opinions. The change in party identification in the current AP-GfK current poll is not a statistically significant shift from the previous poll in March, and does not by itself explain the poll findings.

Not very scientific, is it? Why not just scrap the poll, when they learn how lopsided the sample is? Answer: they don't care because they figure there are enough stupid people to accept what it says, with no scrutiny at all.

So, here we are. Once again we are going to be forced to endure the cramming of this propaganda down our throats for the next month, while more accurate polls are disregarded and ignored. Such is life when socialist statists are in charge. The state media is hard at work selling the delusion that Obama is a leader, just because he did one thing right.

He's still behind a stopped clock by a 2:1 margin.

Meet MSNBC's Minor Leaguer Lawrence O'Donnell

First let me say that once again, I shamelessly pilfered this from IHTM, once of the fastest growing blogs on the internet. If you aren't reading them, seek professional help somewhere before it's too late.

This is a great interview that demonstrates just what happens when idiots are allowed an audience. Take a few minutes and watch Condoleeza Rice thoroughly dismantle a clearly outclassed and under-qualified Lawrence O'Donnell. If you want to see what obtuseness coupled with sheer idiocy looks like when it is contrasted with class and intellectual brilliance, it is worth the time.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rarely do I do this here, but this is very important to understand. So I will make an exception and post my comment I left on IHTM:

The golden statement of that entire exchange was made by Dr. Rice:

“You have to act on the intelligence you have.”

Lawrence has no intelligence, so he has been relegated to the mere recitals of leftist propaganda that is fed to him by those who are as equally ignorant as he is.

I looked online at Mr. O’Donnell’s bio(s) to see his educational resume, and I have to tell you that most sites I checked say he only”attended” Harvard, if they mentioned it at all. Only Wikipedia states that he graduated, but it gives no area of study and we all know how unreliable Wiki can be sometimes. If he were truly a grad of Harvard, I would think somewhere in one of these bios it would say Bachelors Degree in _______. But this is not the case with Larry.

But let’s just say for argument’s sake, he did.

By contrast, Dr. Rice was Phi Beta Kappa and earned a B.A. (cum laude) from the University of Denver. She earned a Masters Degree in political science at Notre Dame, and a PhD from the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the U. of Denver.

We all know of her government service. She is also an accomplished pianist who has played with Yo Yo Ma. She is now a professor at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Larry is a Dem hack at MSNBC and a former shitty actor.

So, yes. You have to act on the intelligence you have. Condi did just that in this interview and Larry O acted on the intelligence he didn’t/doesn’t have.

And it showed…..greatly.

I think this pretty much sums up this block of instruction, quite well. Lawrence O'Donnell, irrelevance personified. Dr. Rice, rational thought and reasoning in human form.

Couric vs. Rice: Condi Wins In A Blowout

From the opening question, it was never close:



Many years ago, I thought Katie Couric was one of the smartest, freshest, and cutest faces to hit the news scene. Now she is so embittered, it has definitely affected her ability to even do a simple interview without looking like she still belongs on MSNBC, with the likes of Herr Olbermann, Sgt. Schultz, and Chris "Mr. Tingle" Matthews.

How DID they ever let her get away?


HT for video: IHTM

Helen Thomas - Charlatan, Bigot

I have always thought Helen Thomas of the WH Press Corps was impersonating a fair and unbiased journalist. Now we have the proof that she is not and is a bigot, to boot. If you have been in a news vacuum over the weekend, you may have missed these comments from her own mouth:



Looking at facial expressions and body languages can tell us much about a person and what they are telling us, but in this case the "eyes" have it. Note the sinister look in her eyes as she says these despicable things. They are clear and tell us that these are not the words of someone suffering from dementia. She knows what she is saying and really means it.

Then, let's analyze this further and see what the reaction would be if we modified her statements a little bit:

- Suppose she had said this about Mexicans: They should go back home to Mexico, this is American land and they are invading it.

- Suppose she had said this about Blacks: Time for them to go back to Africa where they came from, they should not be here now that slavery is over.

Once this hit the airwaves and the internet, she would be banned from the WH Press Corps. I guarantee you, she would not have a place there - anymore.

Secondly, Hearst would retire her immediately. If she went quietly, she could get her benefits and move on with her life for however long she has left on this earth. If not, she'd be fired outright.

Neither of these things will happen, of course. For many people in this world, Jews are the scourge of society--much like they were in Hitler's day. They are the lowest form of life and are not considered to be human beings, worthy of any rights... whatsoever. Back in Nazi Germany and the European lands it conquered, many turned their backs because they weren't Jewish and it didn't directly affect them. They were cowards.

I suspect this is also the case today, as the MSM has been anti-Israel for some time now and this has planted seeds of anti-semitism in young minds that will now grow up hating Jews. An entire generation has been educated by anti-semitists and liberal apologists -- who oppose Israel's existence. It actually seems to be cool to hate Israel on most university campuses, these days.

Let's be clear about something here at PYY:

If Helen Thomas had said either of those two things I just mentioned (in any form or modification), PYY would vehemently condemn her statement or staements. No questions, no excuses. Such is the case with the statements she did make in this video. They are vile and worthy of all condemnation and should qualify her for immediate termination. There is no excuse, no taking out of context, no explanation that is credible enough that will change my mind.

And....for anyone who makes the argument that she is merely condemning Zionism, you are welcome to respond to this post. But if I were you, I would take a moment and think about something before you look foolish. Her words reflect nothing short of religious cleansing, which was taking place in Kosovo in the late 90s. Nothing....not one damn thing is different and I challenge anyone to try and prove otherwise.

It's time for people to stand up to this kind of blatant hatred and stop coddling people who are a threat to peace and stability in the world, even if they are old people who should know better. It's time to start understanding that eradicating and/or dispersing 7.5 million people from a tiny strip of land in the Middle East is not worth another world war. It's time to let worthless haters know that this is not okay.

Israel has been a nation for 60 years now, they are not going away without a fight. And I don't blame them one bit for protecting their homeland from their sworn enemies. They will be there for a long time. So Helen, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terror-loving entities need to deal with it, and get used to it.


Addenda:

1. It doesn't happen very often that Lanny Davis and I are on the same page, but evidently he is with me on this.

2. Want to give Hearst Corporation a piece of your mind? Here is the e-mail of the PR contact from their website: lbagley@hearst.com

I told them I would unsubscribe to the four magazines they publish that come to my house on a regular basis, if they did not fire her. I doubt they will go under because they lose my business. But if enough people did it, who knows?

3. The ball may be beginning to roll, here is the statement released by Helen's publicity agent:

"It is with a heavy heart that Nine Speakers, Inc. announces its resignation as the agent for Helen Thomas, Dean of the White House Press Corps. Ms. Thomas has had an esteemed career as a journalist, and she has been a trailblazer for women, helping others in her profession, and beyond. However, in light of recent events, Nine Speakers is no longer able to represent Ms. Thomas, nor can we condone her comments on the Middle East. Nine Speakers will continue to enthusiastically represent all of our other current and future clients." -- Diane Nine

Bravo!!!

If you know anyone needs an agent, send them to Diane. Her e-mail is ninespeakers@usa.net

More Skewed Polling Courtesy Of The AP

Here is the story and the poll that inspired it. It was prominently displayed at the top of the Yahoo home page this morning, but is now buried in the deep recesses where they keep old stories. Z at Golly Geez saw it, and posted on it here.

Basically here's what it wants the ignorant reader or the one who has no time to do his/her own research to know:

An Associated Press-GfK poll says 56 percent of those surveyed in the past week approve of Obama's job performance, up from 50 percent in September. It's the first time since he took office in January that his rating has gone up.

Going to the AP poll site, we see some irregularities in the sample. On page 27, we see that 43% of those surveyed were Democrats, 32% Republicans, 5% Independents, and 21% said they didn't know. This isn't a good cross-section of the country.

It comes as no surprise to this writer that the poll was skewed and that Yahoo prominently displayed the story. The AP and Yahoo have a relationship and naturally, it shows in the reporting.

Another thing many people are not aware of is, Rasmussen uses samples of likely voters. The AP, CBS, and other Obama hack media outlets tend to sample adults, regardless of whether they are a likely voter or not. This gives them the opportunity to use people who may not even have an effect on an election, because not all of them are likely to vote. It also allows for the use of age groups that are less likely to vote, but may be enamored with Obama.

During the skid south that the President's ratings took over the summer, I didn't notice many outlets getting too involved, with the dwindling poll results. But now that a skewed poll has taken a turn up, they are ready to call it a marked improvement.

That's okay, let them. The only poll that will count will be the ones that will be taken on Election Day 2010 and the one in 2012. That's where we will see the results of the one that counts, the one that hopefully sends some bastards into the private sector.

Buried Polls

Remember polls? We were saturated with them for an entire year and part of another.

In fact we had so many of them the entire time GWB was in office, they came out of our noses. The media used them as an effort to embarrass him and his administration, skewing the results in any way they could to do it. Even if they were slightly favorable towards him, they were cast in the worst possible light..

Well, believe it or not, Gallup is still taking polls. It's what they do best, and they have a new one out about the proposed stimulus package.

Here are the results they report:

38% Pass it, as is.

37% Pass it, with major changes.

17% Reject it.

8% No opinion.

This means 54% of the respondents were against it, as it is currently proposed. If this had been a GWB proposal with a GOP Congress, we'd be hearing this from the media ad nauseum. But, it's not GWB. It's BHO and he is still in a honeymoon phase with his loving and supportive bride, the media.

No folks, we still have polls. The media just isn't receptive to featuring them as a lead-in right now. I wonder how they will react, when they turn south against the Obama administration.

"Race" For The Presidency - Part III

In our ongoing series (Part I is here, Part II is here) of how race is playing a major role in this election, we discover that someone at the Kansas City Star has discovered a "new" code word.

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Shame on McCain and Palin.

The dictionary definition from dictionary.com:

"so·cial·ist (sō'shə-lĭst)
n. An advocate of socialism."

"so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm)
n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."

Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Gore, Barney Frank and pretty much most of the Democratic Party are all called socialists at one time or another, based on their redistribution of wealth policies. Most of them are not black.

Sometimes a socialist really is just a socialist, Lewis. Stop being so paranoid.

Obama Still Can't Close The Deal

After a week of hammering John McCain on the economy, Obama still cannot pull away from his rival. The dice has rolled his way with the banking crisis and the bailouts, but he has not been able to capitalize on an issue that experts say leans in his favor.

In some instances, he is not drawing the crowds that were once used by the liberal media as a sign that he was going to walk away with this election.

“You all know that you hold this election in your hands,” Sen. Russ Feingold, a Democrat who said he worked on ethics legislation with Obama, told a crowd of about 6,000 cheering Obama fans in the arena next to Lambeau Field. “We just barely won this state for Al Gore in 2000 and we just barely won this state for John Kerry in 2004.”

The numbers in Wisconsin and Minnesota are getting close enough that the Obama campaign closed its 11 campaign offices in North Dakota and moved the 50 staffers there to these two states.

Just a week ago, John McCain and his vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin — who can bring out crowds the way Obama can — appeared in this same stadium, Resch Center, to a crowd of 10,000 fans. There were an uncharacteristic amount of empty orange seats for Obama’s rally.

In their defense, Obama's backers note their rally was held on Monday at noon, compared to a Thursday night rally for McCain and Palin.

I think there is some truth to that excuse because many of Obama's supporters are seldom up out of bed at noon. Some of them are staying up late removing smear videos, which they posted on You Tube to destroy Sarah Palin. Others stay up late playing video games in their parents' basements, with no other meaning or purpose in life.

I'll tell you folks, the dreams of many are dissipating before their very eyes, so no dirty deed is deemed to be too callous or underhanded. No amount of lies and deceits have been able to sway decent people from realizing that Obama is just another corrupt Chicago politician that has duped the naive masses into believing he is the only agent of change, worth considering.

I submit that he is an agent of change, but not the kind of change he claims to promote. The only change he is successfully selling is "changing his positions".

Take a look at this list of flip-flops Obama has performed during this campaign. See what you think about this and wonder with me in amazement, how anyone can truly believe the MSM is objective in this Presidential race. If they were, they'd be looking long and hard at this list and pressuring him for some answers.

Even more amazingly, after all of this positive coverage from elitist media organizations, all of this demonization of the McCain-Palin ticket, and all of the Obama campaign's dirty tricks, he is still in danger of losing this election. Can we imagine how far behind he would be, if only the deck was stacked fairly?

Questioning The Credibility Of ABC's Charles Gibson

I do not have a complaint when news journalists conduct hard interviews with candidates, not least of when the stakes are for the highest office in the nation. I want to see how these people handle tough situations. I want tough questions answered. And above all, I want to know that this person has the ability to think quick on their feet and defend their stances, while providing me cogent and concrete explanations for how they arrived at their conclusions.

I just want it to the same for both sides. I want no favorites, no overtly visible differences in approach, and no deficits in objectivity.

Unless someone has been totally absorbed into video games, on a drunken binder, or has been pulling a Rip Van Winkle, most people by now know about the first real sit-down interview with VP candidate Sarah Palin. Some have said it wasn't nearly hard enough and Gibson should have cropped her off at the knees, while others say he was too hard on her, portraying himself as a condescending liberal elitist media-type.

Charles Gibson is a unique news anchor, although he is still developing his style. The death of Peter Jennings was an opportunity for him. In the Palin interview he reminded me of a government teacher that wanted to test his student. At first, in the interview with Gov. Palin, she willingly assumed the role of his student and one who has really been cramming to get up to speed. He has that way about him, he draws a younger person into that kind of relationship.

Some may not like Mr. Gibson (both sometimes or anytime), public figures attract a lot of disdain. If you are one that tends to espouse liberal beliefs and your man/woman is taking the full force of a pointed interview from him, you aren't going to like him very much. But you can usually and safely bet the conservatives (no doubt) will. The same thing holds true in reverse, with conservatives. There are those that are mad at him when he grills a conservative, like some think he did with Palin.

But I think he is an equal opportunity griller and to all that have criticized Gibson, consider that Gibson was the first network anchor got a chance to interview Obama (without playing slow-pitch softball with him). As evidence to support my opinionated claim, let me re-call attention to this interview, while Obama was on his recent world tour (that netted him somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 votes). Note how he puts it on Obama, much in the same manner he did Palin:



There is one subtle difference to note in the way Gibson handled each interview. With Obama he treated him more like a tenured professor conducting oral exams on a grad student or a prospective employer, scrutinizing the applicant. He seemed to expect more from Obama. But as we can see from the interview, Barack didn't deliver nearly as well as one could reasonably expect after three years of hardcore preparation. And Charlie didn't let up either. He sensed it and stepped up the pressure, when it became evident Obama was not prepared.

One stark criticism I have of the Palin interview was, the way it was spliced up. It may be nothing, but it always makes me wonder what may have been left out. I am not sure if Gibson has enough power to call that play, but someone did.

I do think Gibson has some aspirations to be the next Tim Russert. Maybe not openly or even consciously, but you can be sure that some are feeling (like Jennings' death) Tim's passing has opened another door for Charlie. I would say he has a chance, but not splicing interviews like this and not by micromanaging the interview.

Russert didn't do these things nearly as rigidly. He was on live. If he made a mistake, it was seen and heard almost in real time on the east coast (tape delay on the west coast). If there a good touché back at him, it was seen instantly. It was less calculated and driven, but Tim was always prepared.

The major difference I see in Gibson's approach is, Russert allowed the conversation to flow and was ready to pounce if there was the slightest slip. He didn't try to control it with relentless paternal pressure, but he liked to mix it up in a good bantering scrap, as competitive equals.

Even more than all of this, if we are going to challenge Charles Gibson on anything, it cannot be with partisanship. He just isn't. But to do it honestly, objectively, and effectively, it must be done by disputing the quality of the questions, as Charles Krauthammer has done in this essay.

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

I had a professor in college that never complained if you made the claim that a statement he made was BS or wasn't fair. But it had to be followed up with proof as to why it was either. And if you did, you could rest assured that it would not affect your grade. When Charlie asked this question, I wasn't sure what the hell he was talking about either. And as many regulars here know, I eat and drink politics far more than most people.

The "Bush Doctrine" is not an official document that can be viewed and referred to, like say the Constitution, Declaration Of Independence, or the Emancipation Proclamation. When someone invokes the "Bush Doctrine", most of the time, it comes in a derisive and critical tone used by those that don't like him.

So, as we critique Gibson on this particular question, we know that this was one attempt at a "gotcha" moment that failed. The person that seems to have been "gotten" was Charlie. And if he wants to ever aspire to be the toughest interview in town (as Russert was), he has little further to go.

(Note: The Palin interview was scattered, but you can feel free to search it out on ABC's 20/20 website.)



UPDATE: Well folks, it looks like things went like I suspected. Mark Levin has the entire interview and underlines the parts that were canned for the airing. It's enough to qualify as bias, under the heading known as " an act of omission". I am not sure how much Gibson's input has to do with it, but someone with an office, desk, and pen, signed off on the edited version and probably had discussed some specific rationales other than time constraints.

New York Times Shows Bias (Again)

There are a lot of people crying "foul" after revelations of the NYT rejecting an Op-Ed piece from John McCain, one week after publishing one from rival Barack Obama.

Like most I have heard and read, my thoughts were instant.

Let's think about this a second. Can anyone say they are truly surprised by this? This is the same publication that accepted payment for and printed the now famous "General Betray Us" ad. And if that was not enough, they refused to allow an ad for rebuttal at the same rate charged to the MoveOn.Org cult, who was behind the ad that attacked the integrity of the general.

The Times claimed it had given a bulk rate to Move On, for more than one ad. If those wanting a rebuttal ad to be placed for the same rate, they would have to buy the same package. Shrewd business practices, yes. Fair and balanced journalism, no.

So here, we have Obama's essay out in the open and the Times refuses to allow McCain the opportunity to publish his own in the same forum. Likewise, we have another weak excuse from the Times for not allowing an opposing viewpoint to be articulated on its pages. Meanwhile, the Times continues to show their partisan colors and clearly demonstrates one of the major reasons their circulation is declining at a faster rate, than other publications in the industry.

Newspaper bias is nothing new. Traditionally, papers have had a liberal or conservative slant in their editorials and other writings. But those that exercise journalistic integrity have no problems giving those with opposing viewpoints, an opportunity to communicate their disagreements. Whereas once the NYT was one of those publications, they are no longer a member of that club.

Speaking Blogs To Power

A U.S. blogger has been charged in Singapore for insulting a judge.

A US citizen was charged Monday with insulting a Singapore judge in his blog by saying she was "prostituting herself", a court document said.

In the blog, Gopalan Nair criticised a recent legal hearing at which Singapore founding father Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, testified in a defamation case they filed against an opposition party.

Nair, 58, is charged with insulting Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean by saying she was "prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders," a court document said.

Mr. Nair is charged with being insulting, for saying the kinds of things that are said about politicians everyday here. This goes to show that pols in Singapore must be thin-skinned, which is not a quality that would I would recommend for anyone who is thinking about being a public figure, here or in any other country with a democratic process. Thankfully, as a U.S.-based blogger I have a certain freedom to express my opinions open, freely, and without fear of retribution - as long as they are done in a responsible manner and are not libelous.

But, wait a minute. Is this about to change?

The Associated Press, following criticism from bloggers over an AP assertion of copyright, plans to meet this week with a bloggers' group to help form guidelines under which AP news stories could be quoted online.

Read the rest of the story for the details. This isn't the first time news agencies and main-stream journalists have wanted to tighten the ropes around the blogging community. It is well-known how many mainstream journalists feel about the "average joe" blogger.

Journalists have called bloggers:
-- "Jumped-up dunces with PCs"
-- "Barroom loudmouths"
-- "Salivating morons"
-- And "the headless mob"

Interesting, when you consider how many mainstream journalists now have their own blogs. This indicates to me, many of these name-callers feel threatened and resent being held accountable by the citizens' media.

The issue at hand is freedom of speech. I may detest everything said on sites like the Daily Kos and others, but in the grand scheme of things I support their right to exist. If I do not like what a blogger has to say (about anything), I have the right to criticize the contents or just not visit that blog. Journalists and big media have those same rights.

If Joe Blow's blog says something about the NY Times that he feels is true, the NYT has the right to ignore it or take the accusations on publicly. With much greater readership and influence than Joe Blow has, they can get their message out with less effort. Of course once they choose to do this, Joe Blow's blog will get free publicity and he will have a greater audience than ever before. Therefore, many times a news outlet such as this will ignore a posting by Joe Blow, knowing that it will only be read by a hundred or so people.

The point I am making here is not that bloggers have free reign to slander, libel, or use copyrighted material unlawfully whenever they want. They must remain ever mindful of the laws and post their criticisms in a responsible manner. Satire and humor aside, PYY has tried to accomplish this in a meaningful way and it is my hope that I can continue to do this in the future. In fact, I hope all of us can.

Thanks to all that read PYY.

Inconsistency And Common Sense: The Battle Of Basra

While analyzing the recent Basra confrontation in which the Iraqi Army confronted al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, the usual assessments are flowing from those associated with the anti-war movement. Take Juan Cole's recent essay that appeared in Salon Magazine (which is considered one of the more liberal publications) for instance.

Negativity permeates this article, much as we would expect from anyone that is critical of the Iraq War. I think this is mainly because Mr. Cole has made his name by communicating his belief that the current Iraq is a failed state. His commentary is well-known and respected in the circles that are against the war and to backtrack now would embarrass him greatly, in his academic circles. So, he continues to march, in the hope that he can influence perceptions of the outcome (if not the outcomes, themselves).

In his essay and speaking of the cease-fire, Mr. Cole expostulates:

By the time the cease-fire was called, al-Maliki had been bloodied after days of ineffective fighting and welcomed a way back from the precipice. Both Iran, which brokered the agreement, and al-Sadr, whose forces acquitted themselves well against the government, were strengthened.

As any person that is predisposed to certain biases, Mr. Cole communicates his assessment without regards to the analysis that directly contradicts his own. Take this recent column by Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette into consideration, and you'll see what I mean.

Speaking of the cease fire called for by al-Sadr, he both poses and answers this question:

Why might Mr. al Sadr have sought a cease fire? "Sources in Basra tell TIME that there has been a large scale retreat in the oil-rich port city because of low morale and because ammunition is low due to the closure of the Iranian border," TIME reported Sunday.

"They were running short of ammunition, food and water," a U.S. military officer told Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal. "In short, (the Mahdi army) had no ability to sustain the effort."

That sure doesn't sound like al Sadr's forces were winning.

It doesn't sound that way to me, either.

How hard was the Mahdi Army getting hit? Mr. Kelly goes on to say (citing Mr Roggio):

His sources in the U.S. military tell him the Mahdi army was getting pounded, Bill Roggio said. "According to an unofficial tally... 571 Mahdi army fighters have been killed, 881 have been wounded, 490 have been captured, and 30 have surrendered over the course of seven days of fighting." "The U.S. and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties at such a high rate during the height of major combat operations against al Qaida in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007," he said. The Mahdi army has won by surviving, media analysts say. But it seems apparent the Mahdi army survived by quitting.

By lumping the number of casualties into one number (hoping the reader will not ask the pertinent questions that most critical thinkers would in this case), or by making a biased and inaccurate assessment (as Mr. Cole does in his essay), one thing rings true. Who you believe may be dependent on who you want to believe. If you want the Iraqi state to fail so you can blame George Bush, you will subscribe to typical media accounts and those essays put forth by people like Mr. Cole. if you want the truth, you will wait and read all accounts, before jumping to conclusions.

And just to take it a step further, I will pose another question for consideration in your pondering calculations: Why would al-Sadr offer a cease fire if the Mahdis were winning?

Common sense would dictate that the one that offers the cease fire is usually the one getting hit, the hardest. Wouldn't it?

UK Independent Photo Misleading

Take a good look at this photo that was published with the story about the "so-called" depression, taking place right now in the United States.





PYY has effectively debunked the contents of the story, here. Now, we can consider the photo used by the publication, debunked.

Fox News has just reported (on the air) that this picture is three years old and was taken in 2005, during a coat give-away. It is not a current picture of people lined up for food stamps, as the Independent would have us all believe.

It just further demonstrates how far the media will go to sell the notion that the country is in a depression. People that buy into this notion are certainly some of the most gullible individuals. But we can excuse them, because they may not be high functioning enough to use analytical skills to think their way through it.

What we cannot excuse? The ones that are advancing this myth know fully well what they are doing and why they are doing it.



Addendum:

Some others following this farce are Maggie's Farm, Gateway Pundit, and NRO.

The picture belongs to Getty Images.

Latest Clinton Flap Discussed

From the video here at the Seattle PI, it appears that the Clinton machine is not too pleased with Tim Russert's recent debate question on the release of some National Archive records, from the Clinton administration.

I didn't watch the debate, so I am not well-informed of the specifics of the question, asked by Russert. Nor am I inclined to research it, because I don't care.

But the crux of this post involves posing a thought about the former First Lady's once perceived "love affair" with the news media. A few months ago, she was the darling of media. But now, it seems that is over. Maybe she isn't articulating views that are far enough to the left, for their liking. Maybe they are trying to stir up more stories in what is quickly becoming a boring story. Who knows?

Whatever the case, the video is worth watching. It is vintage Clinton and his attorney-like approach to answering questions. The last statement he makes in the video is a fair assessment, from what I have both read and heard about the debate.

Putting Mind Over "Matters"

Last week, a firestorm arose as a result of a distorted picture being painted, about some remarks made by Bill O'Reilly. The NYT fronted it and got the story out into the mainstream.

Their source? None other than Media Matters (MM), a political cult funded by George Soros.

Bill has weathered it well, so far. And he should, he said nothing offensive. I am sure he has the tape and will produce it to anyone that wants it, but I am sure they have already heard it. I would be quite surprised if they hadn't. How else would they have been able to find the part that was supposedly so offensive?

I normally listen to Neal Boortz on my lunch hour, but on this day I went late and I just happened to be listening to him. I tell you, this whole thing is being blown up by MM in order to generate more tensions (as if actual tensions aren't enough). With Jena 6 dying down a bit, they can kill two birds with one stone. They can incite the Sharpton and Jackson organizations into more bogus "outrage" and smear O'Reilly, in one article.

No folks, I heard an entirely different conversation than just the snippets, they want us all to hear. In fact, my version pretty much matches Juan Williams' version of the conversation, because he heard the entire conversation also. You have to hear the entire conversation and it would be plain to anyone with any sense.

Now, I know Bill O'Reilly isn't liked by all. Just the mention of his name will bring horrible consternations and condemnations, by many. He's the kind of guy that you either love or you hate. I would say that an overwhelming majority of people in the US, know who he is, and their opinions are usually based on two things: 1) Agree or disagree with his political and personal principles. 2) Love or hate his personality.

Personally, I think he gets it right much of the time But sometimes, he gets it wrong. I also think he can be a stubborn and arrogant man, at times. But sometimes, he can be a pretty understanding and compassionate guy. One thing you have not seen a lot of here at PYY is very many posts linking to or about, Mr. O'Reilly. A sycophant, I am not. He is what he is.

But no matter what you may think about him, I know what I heard. And let me say, they've really skewed this for their own character assassination agenda. Why? They don't like his politics. They don't like his swagger. And mostly, they just do not like him.

And from the looks of things, neither does the NYT.

We must all understand something here. MM has put this kind of stuff out before. Just browse their website, they go after the conservative hosts almost exclusively and with a vengeance. And quite frankly, most people expect this from a George Soros enterprise.

But, should the NYT with their record of incompetence make a habit of running with a story that comes from a group, which aligns itself with MoveOn.Org and the likes? If so, then I think it already cheapens what is practically already shot down the tubes.

So I guess the bottomline here is simple. Media Matters really doesn't matter much, when you know the whos and whys of their doings. And if the MSM starts taking misinformation being fed to them by Leftist Cults (on a regular basis) and if they refuse to do their homework, they will see a real drop in credibility.

So, if I were to arrive at some kind of moral to this story, it would be:

It's all about putting mind over matter. I don't mind, and MM doesn't matter.

A Change Of Opinion?

The NY Times has a way of featuring op-ed pieces that are critically scathing towards the administration's policies on Iraq. But now, if you read this piece, it seems there's more optimism about the surge.

No time to comment right now, but do give this a read.

UPDATE:

This report seems to lend some support to the thoughts expressed in the NYT piece.

Granted, a lower death toll does not necessarily indicate success. It could be that there is somewhat of a lull, because many of the insurgents are laying low due to the increased presence. It could be that there is a new strategy by the terrorists that has yet to be fully implemented. But regardless of the reasons behind it, it is lower. And for that, we can be thankful.

NY Times Propaganda Debunked

I think Victor Davis Hanson is one of the more intelligent essayists around right now. His latest picks apart the usual Left-Wing robotic rhetoric form of editorial that has become common in the writings of Leftists, everywhere. It gets old. The reason it does is, they seldom come up with anything new.

The reasons we went to war are always a favorite of the irrational Left. If we were debating on whether or not to go to war, this would be fair game. But, the authorization has already been given. In spite of the fact that many now want to re-write history for political purposes by changing their vote, that argument is over.

I could make a list of irrational claims made by this bunch, but if you peruse the PYY archives, they will all be there, somewhere, in some form of fashion. So just give Mr. Hanson's piece a look and see what you think.

Coulter-Edwards Battle Continues

Before I say what I want to say, I have already stated that I have little use for Ann Coulter's style in an earlier post. That same post was the result of some inappropriate comments made by the commentator, directed at John Edwards. I condemned them then, and still do now.

That was in March. But here in June, we see that the Edwards campaign is refusing to allow the feud to drop. Why? Because her comment was effectively used as a fund raising tool, for a campaign that has little chance to walk on its own. In short the campaign is in trouble without the controversy.

After the initial installment of this political soap opera, the Edwards campaign attempted to cash in on the whole sordid affair, and did. But one must now wonder if that cash flow has dried up, based on the latest incident where Elizabeth Edwards called into a Hardball segment and attempted to fuel a new flow of campaign dollars, by attacking Coulter for something else she said recently.

Mrs. Edwards called on Coulter to stop personally attacking her husband. Here is an article that reports this, but let's highlight something, shall we?

From the article:

On ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday, Coulter was asked about a March speech in which she used a gay slur to refer to Edwards.

"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," Coulter said Monday, picking up on remarks made by HBO's Bill Maher. Maher suggested in March that "people wouldn't be dying needlessly" if Vice President Dick Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan.

Most people that are getting up in arms about this latest Coulter statement are not going to tell you about the context in which her statement was made. And from the Edwards campaign site we see just that. Note the statement made by Coulter has not been assigned the slightest amount of context (please note that the emphasis is placed by the Edwards staff):

This Monday, Ann Coulter took her pattern of personal attacks to a new level. On national television she said that rather than hurling more homophobic slurs, "If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

On the very same web page this is highlighted, you will note a plea for donations based on this deliberate deception (emphasis is by the Edwards staff here, as well):

It's up to us to raise the dialogue by taking our message straight to voters. Let's show that Ann Coulter style politics will never carry the day. We have 4 days to reach $9 million. Please donate today

Now, if you hate Republicans and think that the end justifies the means, you will see nothing particularly wrong with this. You might even think this is a brilliant strategy. You may even want to invoke the names of Bush, Cheney, and Rove in your critique, and maybe even Halliburton just for good measure. But if you are guilty of this kind of thing, you may also want to listen this.

But left-wing talking points aside, what we see here is a campaign that has no chance, trying to keep the Coulter feud going for the sole purpose of raising money. Ann isn't helping herself, mind you. In fact, she should stop giving them ammunition by opening her big mouth. But Edwards (being the former ambulance chasing lawyer that he once was) knows a marketing ploy when he sees it. And of course his wife does too, which is why she called the show.

The Edwards campaign is not the only one guilty here, because we know the call was planned. Matthews had prior knowledge of it. John Edwards said that this was his wife's idea, she did on her own. But, I don't buy it. It has all the makings of a calculated strategy.

Matthews has the lowest rated of all the cable news shows, because most objective people see his bias for what it truly is. He is a partisan hack that has very little journalistic talent. (Here is one clip that you won't see in an MSNBC promo, the man in it illustrates my point quite well.) In fact if you notice the ratings week after week, you will see the majority of the MSNBC line-up consistently at the bottom.

NBC, in general, has a credibility problem (as is evidenced by their plummeting ratings on the evening newscast). Brian Williams continues to lose more viewers than Katie Couric. But Matthews never had many viewers to begin with, so his base viewership of Democratic attack dogs is remaining constant at a level we can term, very damned few. MSNBC is a loss leader for NBC's news division, but that is now starting to carry over to the nightly news. How long will it be before we see some changes, is anyone's guess. But if you own stock in GE, never fear. I hear Days Of Our Lives is still pretty popular.

Must Read Essay

Folks, you simply must give this piece a read. It is a scathing indictment on the MSM, written by a non-Islamist Muslim that has served in the the U.S. Military and actively works to draw a marked distinction between radical elements and moderates. His name is M. Zuhdi Jasser and here are a couple of the more pointed remarks, he makes in this essay:

The PBS/CPB censorship of Islam vs. Islamists exemplifies the dire need to begin to educate many in the MSM of the ideological realities of the Islamists. They may protect Islamists blindly out of ignorance, fear, infiltration, or minority politics. But, at the end of the day, if the MSM editors understood the type of society the protected Islamists would create if they became a majority, their support would vanish. Feminists, social liberals, and those that would separate religion from government would be entirely ignored under Islamist control. Just ask the feminists what type of equality they have in many Islamist controlled mosques around the country.

And

Borrowing on the old cliché of a tree falling in a forest, if Muslims speak out against Islamists but remain unheard (in the PBS forest), did they speak out at all? Without regular opportunities in the media and government for anti-Islamist Muslims to speak out, America will never know that they ever did. Without being heard the moderate voices will be as if they never existed. Without hearing the moderate voice, it is so much the easier for Islamists to continue toward their goal of political domination and demagoguery of the Muslim community and, ultimately, of America itself.

Pretty poignant, if you ask me. I recommend reading the entire piece.