Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nicmarlo
The Dirty (Near) Dozen
By Brian Maher
FrontPageMagazine.com
April 7, 2003

* * *

The non-binding House resolution [House Resolution 104] passed easily - 392 in favor, 11 against -- and the Senate passed a similar resolution with a resounding 99-0 vote. Just who are the 11 congressmen who voted against the resolution? They are: John Conyers (D-MI); Mike Honda (D-CA); Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Jim McDermott (D-WA); Bobby Scott (D-VA); Pete Stark (D-CA); Edolphus Towns (D-NY); Diane Watson (D-CA); Maxine Waters (D-CA); and Charles Rangel (D-NY). What do they have in common? To the shock of no one, they're all members of the Democratic Party; not one Republican voted against the resolution. In addition, most are members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

One name in particular stands out among the dissenters. Jim McDermott was one of three "useful idiots" in the House, including fellow Democratic Representatives Mike Thompson and David Bonior, to visit Iraq last October. In an act perilously approaching treason, McDermott served up a series of propaganda softballs for Saddam to knock out of the park, claiming that President Bush "would mislead the American people," and was "trying to provoke a war." In addition, he averred that, "you have to take the Iraqis on their face value." The Potemkin village tour that the three received apparently did not reveal the banned Scud and al-Fatah missiles that Iraq lobbed into Kuwait, one of which landed within a football field's distance of U.S. troops. Nor did it reveal the witch's brew of chemical and biological toxins that will surely be unearthed by victorious coalition forces, if they are not used against them first.

Another twenty-one Democrats voted "present" for the resolution - a non-vote essentially; an act of political cowardice. These fence sitters were apparently unable to decide whether they stood behind the American troops now risking their lives on distant battlefields. Profiles in courage they are not. Among those voting "present" was Dennis Kucinich, the leftist Democrat who hopes to secure the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. His vote calls into serious question his ability to function as a future Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces. Other representatives opting to vote "Present" include Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), son of the discredited racial huckster; Major Owens (D-NY), member of the Democratic Socialists of America; and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), a Castro apologist who is among the most partisan of leftist Democrats.

All told, twenty-three of thirty-seven members of the Congressional Black Caucus - a decided majority - refused to show nominal support for the troops, voting either "nay" or "present." Clearly, artificially drawn districts produced by racial gerrymandering have sent several black candidates to Washington who slant so far leftward that they cannot even offer their basic support for American troops in harm's way.

[snip]


175 posted on 04/26/2003 11:00:56 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies ]


To: nicmarlo
Book Review
Oregon Magazine
by Peggy Whitcomb
April 1, 2003

"Our Media Not Theirs"
(by Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols)

....In their book Our Media Not Theirs, McChesney and Nichols propose to solve our dissatisfactions with the media, television and newspapers, too, by placing them under the ownership and management of the government, funded entirely by taxes. They attempt to frame this government take-over of the media as essential to the survival of our democracy, but the attempts are weak and unconvincing.

Though they insist that every citizen should have a voice in what is offered on TV (and newspapers and magazines), they present no method by which this could be accomplished other than to suggest that most programming would focus on narrow local issues and interests. Decisions about the presentation and content of national and international news presumably would be made by government bureaucrats.

* * *

There's a thread of resentment hinted at throughout the book, resentment that the authors' opinions and desires are being ignored, and they consider it their best bet to be heard if the government has control and forces the rest of us to listen, to not be distracted by our own, to them, petty interests. Consider who wrote forewords to the book: Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich and Ralph Nader. Outside of academia and those who believe in massive government control of everything, who listens to them?

* * *

The book is a not very coherent diatribe against all private property ownership -- including copyright and patents -- which is in fact the very basis of American liberties and prosperity. The authors suggest that in our efforts to reform the media we should connect with other organizations and movements such as the unions, minorities, the feminists, and other special interest groups...The authors are confident of success in ridding the media of commercialism, citing the opening doors in Congress from such representatives as Ernest Hollings, Jesse Jackson Jr. and John Conyers, very liberal Democrats all.

McChesney and Nichols want the media to become the new "issue" for us, as the environment and civil rights have been before, and then to leave it to them to guide the way....

[snip]


176 posted on 04/26/2003 11:13:57 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson