With Liberals all that matters is Intent, Not reality or results. As long as you have good intent then they will over look the consequences of those decisions. It's like dealing with a bunch of Jr. High scholl kids.
80,000,000 dead is likely a conservative number.
Add the millions of Africans who have starved to death because of crop infestations that could have been prevented had not the West imposed a hysterical worldwide ban on the use of DDT.
The dead are at your feet, hippies. How does it feel to have been so wrong?
In this case there were no good intentions to fail. The intention all along was to kill as many people as possible under the cover of saving the environment. These jet-setting socialists live in luxury and go around the world telling everyone how to live. They consider it a failure if there is a child in a third-world country somewhere who is not starving to death.
- "Objective Journalism" is a singular noun. As Rush put it, if you miss ABC News, read The New York Times. If you dont see The New York Times, catch NBC News. If you don't catch NBC News, read The Washington Post. Whatever. It's all the same.
- And the "sameness" about the various organs of "objective journalism" lies in its central controling proposition: that cheap talk is superior to concrete action. In that artificial reality (one example of which was the "reality" of Baghdad Bob, in which Saddam's legions were invincible and no coalition troops were anywhere near Baghdad):
- police are always both brutal and unable to enforce the law
- the military spends too much money on weapons and the weapons are ineffective, and the military is brutal and always in a quagmire and unable to prevail
- corporations pollute too much and don't pay enough wages, they charge too much and don't produce safe products
- apple growers poison their apples to make them look better
- and so on and so forth and so on.
- anyone who participates in that incessant barrage of carping and second guessing gets favorable PR and favorable labelling from "objective journalism." Journalists are called objective, all others are called "progressive" or "moderate" or, less often now, "liberal." "Progressive" politicians can become "objective journalists" at the drop of a hat because they accept the basic priority of journalism that second guessing is superior to taking necessary action.
- naturally, the great PR journalists award "liberals" helps them tremendously on election day. Just as naturally, people whose forte is cheap second guessing are risk averse and unable to lead in substantial endeavors. But, in office, they still get the best possible PR the circumstances will allow. Thus, we are called upon to judge them by their intentions rather than their "results."